HL2 Traptown Vid

[CMOS]

Anyone noticed that CS:CZ includes exclusive HL2 footage on the disc?

[Gameshot911]

Pharlap wrote..

i remember first seeing a game at 60fps, some flight sim, i almost creamed in my boxers! (so to speak..)

The human eye can only see around 60 fp/s. Everything after that is just buffer for lags spikes and such (and for bragging rights).

[ShoNuff]

Yeah i love the look of hl2, But i LOVE Counter-Strike.

Enless cs2 which i think we all know is surely [no not shirley] in development has similar if not most of the weapon as cs1.[insert cz.? wishuwere here] it wont be counter-strike.



I think they should keep the 1.6-1.7-[motolov, gas nades, law ]

and all the existing weapons coz to me otherwise it will not be cs.

.

[Pharlap]

Edited by [user="3256"] @ [time="1059449384"]

Gameshot911 wrote..

The human eye can only see around 60 fp/s. Everything after that is just buffer for lags spikes and such (and for bragging rights).

sigh....every time i hear someone say that, i reply with this:



eyes dont work like monitors/cameras do. that should be obvious enough.

the human brain doesnt use discrete sampling like digital cameras etc use, ie one sample per time interval. the human brain (and the eyes too) sample the world continuously, therefore the eyes are capable in theory of 'seeing' infinite frames per second.

even more so, different parts of the eye are more sensitive than others, ie the 'fovea' (pls correct me if this is the wrong name for it), and some parts are not sensitive to light at all.

comparing eyes to discrete sampling equipment is not a step in the right direction. eyes are continuous sampling 'equipment'.



also theres a thing called motion blur, which does not exist on monitors running at x fps. but definitely exists within the eyes. motion blur is caused by the delayed reaction for the chemical transmitters within the photoreceptor cells (those that are stimulated by light) to break down into different forms etc.



hope that clears that up.

[Gameshot911]

Pharlap wrote..

eyes dont work like monitors/cameras do. that should be obvious enough.

the human brain doesnt use discrete sampling like digital cameras etc use, ie one sample per time interval. the human brain (and the eyes too) sample the world continuously, therefore the eyes are capable in theory of 'seeing' infinite frames per second.

even more so, different parts of the eye are more sensitive than others, ie the 'fovea' (pls correct me if this is the wrong name for it), and some parts are not sensitive to light at all.

comaring eyes to discrete sampling equipment is not a step in the right direction. eyes are continuous sampling 'equipment'.



hope that clears that up.

it seems to me that you believe that the eyes are contantly taking in information (true) and that the brain is constantly processing it (?).



Now im not a brain specialist, and i really dont know: does the brain continuously process eye information, or can it only process a set amount of info per second, which would prove my case that the BRAIN can only process 60 fp/s

[Pharlap]

right,

implying that the brain is a continuous sampling system, implies that over any time period the brain performs an infinite amount of samples. so if u want to equate our lovely brain to that of a computer, u must make it take an infinite amount of samples per second. works in theory, but not in the real world since obviously the brain isnt doing anything to the degree of infinity.



well we should move away from the brain and l(.)(.)k at the eyes first. when a light particle (photon) hits a certain molecule within a photoreceptor cell (and there are millions of these molecules), this sets off a chain reaction, causing that molecule to break down into yet another element which causes an electric pulse along the optic nerve to da brain. now because the photons from an object, say a car moving along a road for example, arrive at the eyes in a completely random way (and i mean random in that it follows a typical gaussian distribution and theres no way of telling which photon will arrive where at any given time), the chemical reactions going on inside the photoreceptor cells are all happening at random times, and in random locations within the eye etc. in short, there are other factors which contribute to this randomness: the penetration depth of the photons into the photo cells, reflections from inside the eye, spectrum dispersion etc....



there are so many random variables to take into account, and this is just at the eye, reaching the brain adds even more complexity. randomness implies probablility, and it is in this way that human vision should be modelled, in terms of probablility (using gaussian models).



i mentioned that different parts of the eyes react to light in different ways, some parts more sensitive, some less so. this again adds randomness to the way the information is sent down the optic nerve to the brain. so to illustrate ur eye might still be 'processing' a part of an image that youre no longer seeing, because of the differences in speed of chemical reactions within the photo cells, again caused by temperature fluctuations, magnetic field, etc etc....lots of variables...



digital devices take snapshots at set intervals with predictable results, the only randomness comes when the photons hit the CCD, electrons bouncing around everywhere...beyond the scope of this.



nice to write something like this for a change. rather that the usual: "stfu noob llolololol"

[Helkite]

Just wondering, (sorry for this VERY off-topic comment, this can be deleted if deemed fit by a mod) what happened to Nighthawk? I rarely see him posting comments nowadays... I loved to read his opinions...



Also, what exactly is trolling?

[Pharlap]

suppose trolling is when u continuously pick on a member to either flame or take the piss out of.

nighthawk......hmmmm..........i think maybe his 56 gay slowdem blew up?

[Steve_81]

Spoonman wrote..

Most systems out there now can't run the original Half-Life at a reasonable rate with FSAA on as it is. You're going to need one hell of a system to run Half-Life 2 with 4x FSAA on. In that sense, this problem isn't very big. However I'd like to see the "bleeding textures" problem fixed with FSAA on just because it is technically a bug and bugs are, as we all know, the devil.

? wtf I can play Half-Life wit 6xAA and 16xAF and get a constant 100 fps. Even before I upgraded my cpu and mobo/RAM to what it is now I would get 70+ with it on. Half-life doesn't require a super computer to play with AA on. It just needs an ok video card and you'll most likely be able to play with it on.



Also someone said something about releasing DoD on Steam. you can do it yourself by copying the dod folder out of you Half-Life folder and pasting it into the Steamcache/ Half-Life folder. I'm not sure if people can see your server using the server browser using the dod filter though. If you do make a server make sure to set sv_lan to 0. People may need to know the IP address to connect. I haven't messed around with it much.

[gobd]

The human eye can see at least 200fps, the U.S. military did some testing on it and discovered that their best pilots could see and identify enemy fighter jets that were flashed on a screen for 1/200th of a second.



Is the argument over yet? Eyes can very obviously see over 60fps, because when my monitor displays 60fps i get insane flickering that makes me get a headache in under five minutes. Infact, anything under 100 frames per second will give me a headache fairly fast on my 19 inch viewable monitor.



Now the argument should surely be over.

[Spoonman]

Steve_81 wrote..

? wtf I can play Half-Life wit 6xAA and 16xAF and get a constant 100 fps. Even before I upgraded my cpu and mobo/RAM to what it is now I would get 70+ with it on. Half-life doesn't require a super computer to play with AA on. It just needs an ok video card and you'll most likely be able to play with it on.

Yes, but most people don't have a 2GHZ, 1 gig ram, GeForce 4 Ti 4600 128 MB system. My old computer was a 900MHz GeForce 2. The point is that most people have a mid-ranged system and most people will not play HL2 with FSAA enabled.

[abel]

the game looked weird, i do realize a lot of the footage is 9 months old but the graphics didn't really impress me to a point where i was "busting a nut." I did like that gravity gun though.. seems quite useful, physics of the game was realistic and I laughed in that one video where he runs into the computer and the monitor falls off, but to be honest.. some of the photos are just peculiar.



Take this for instance:old black scientist man

the man's eyes look so realistic.. but then you zoom out and look at his face, its so.. fuzzy, sort like an unfocused camera. just doesn't look right at all. oh well, i doubt i'll get close enough to him (or at least i hope) to see that ingame, but it just upset me a bit

Spoonman wrote..

Yes, but most people don't have a 2GHZ, 1 gig ram, GeForce 4 Ti 4600 128 MB system. My old computer was a 900MHz GeForce 2. The point is that most people have a mid-ranged system and most people will not play HL2 with FSAA enabled.

so true! amen to that, *cries as he looks at his POS 700mhz p3*

[G Prime]

I got a demo of Doom 3 and if your computer can handle it the the game will rock along with Half Life 2! I want both of them! Well just hafta see. Later



- G Prime

What does Half Life 2 take to run mail me at Neo993@aol.com

[abysmal]

Yes, and doom 3 will take a PC 3x more powerful than HL2 will to run. HL2 could have been much prettier, but after viewing the masses of computer specs submitted through that speakeasy/valve thing in the Half-Life patch installer, they decided that they would lose too much of an audience if they made the system that nice.



AA isn't an issue, your forgetting that its a video and that no matter if YOUR card can do it or not, it will still be jaggy. And btw, theres nothing wrong with AA in ATI cards, its the platform the game was made on. Nvidia cards can't do the AA shaders properly, its simply a hardware issue on Nvidia systems, and even new drivers won't fix that, only a reprogrammed shader system on source would fix it (Which isn't going to happen this close to the release of HL2). Fact is, Nvidia users see this masses of times anyway, small little white artifacts in wall corners and stuff, it isn't the first time its happened, it pretty much happens in at least 3/4 of games out there.



Its no big deal at the end of the day.



And gameshot don't give this whole 60fps eye thing a blast, Pharlap is totally right on this. It isn't even 60fps anyway :)



What it is, is more or less how smooth the game runs, now if you can't notice a difference between 60fps and 100fps, you need your eyes/head fixed.

[Gameshot911]

gobd wrote..

The human eye can see at least 200fps, the U.S. military did some testing on it and discovered that their best pilots could see and identify enemy fighter jets that were flashed on a screen for 1/200th of a second.



Is the argument over yet? Eyes can very obviously see over 60fps, because when my monitor displays 60fps i get insane flickering that makes me get a headache in under five minutes. Infact, anything under 100 frames per second will give me a headache fairly fast on my 19 inch viewable monitor.



Now the argument should surely be over.

Why dont you go roll around in some more dirty, dirty money.