mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) (01/03/90)
OK, here's a question I would imagine has been asked before, but I have only recently discovered this group. I want to write a 3D game, similar to the arcade game BattleZone. I have some code which produces very nice wire- frame models with perspective. The only problem is speed: Even on my 386 IBM clone (no fp coprocessor) I can only get about a 1-2 frame per second animation rate. The same program running on a 386 IBM clone WITH a math coprocessor does significantly better, on the order of 5-6. Clearly, the floating point math is bogging things down. Then there are games like Flight Simulator, Atari's BattleZone for the IBM, and Arctic Fox which are all able to perform reasonable 3D perspective views and are VERY FAST (e.g. Atari's BattleZone runs well on a 4 MHz 8088-based IBM PC). I would very much like to learn the techniques used to produce fast 3D animation of wireframe objects. I assume it is done using only integer math, with optimization techniques such as multiplication/division replaced by shifts, lookup tables for trig/transcendental functions, etc. Can anyone point me toward a good source of information on these and similar topics? Any information (book titles, anon. ftp sources for code, etc.) would be greatly appreciated. (In case it's important, I'm using Turbo C 2.0 on an IBM clone with a VGA adapter). Thanks!
lipo@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Patrick Lipo) (01/03/90)
In article <1990Jan2.224220.4136@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) writes... >I would very much like to learn the techniques used to produce fast 3D >animation of wireframe objects. I assume it is done using only integer >math, with optimization techniques such as multiplication/division replaced >by shifts, lookup tables for trig/transcendental functions, etc. Can anyone >point me toward a good source of information on these and similar topics? >Any information (book titles, anon. ftp sources for code, etc.) would be >greatly appreciated. > I'd appreciate it if anyone could give me help with the same problem. I'm afraid I'm not quite experienced with 3-d displays. Info or sources for either wire-frame or filled polygon (or both!) intrest me. >Thanks! Ditto. --- "Now that you have pulled the pin out of Mr. Grenade, ! ! he is no longer your friend." --- --Sgt. Servo ! at (Spam?)
fayne@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Jeffrey Fayne) (01/03/90)
In article <1990Jan2.224220.4136@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) writes: > [misc deleted] > >I would very much like to learn the techniques used to produce fast 3D >animation of wireframe objects. I assume it is done using only integer >math, with optimization techniques such as multiplication/division replaced >by shifts, lookup tables for trig/transcendental functions, etc. Can anyone >point me toward a good source of information on these and similar topics? >Any information (book titles, anon. ftp sources for code, etc.) would be >greatly appreciated. > I also would like more information. I've already skimmed thru the books recommended on the weekly posting, while of great help, they are a little heavy on theory and very light on application. The biggest problem I'm having is that all the rotation texts I've seen assume that the rotations are based on the viewers viewpoint and not the objects (ie. I can rotate an object (say an airplane with the nose pointing away from the viewer) and apply rotations (yaw, roll and pitch) that look correct only from this perspective. As soon as the object is rotated (say 90 degrees with the nose pointing to the positive X axis) the rotations are incorrect for the object but still correct from the viewer's perspective(plane: pitch rotations look like rolls, roll rotations look like pitch, while from the viewer's perspective the object is still rotated the same). The question I have is should another sort of rotation sequence be applied to the object (or the viewer) or should I take the 'brute-force' approach (if yaw == 90 and roll is desired then pitch instead) ? Any pointers to info would be appreciated. Jeff to organise my thoughts, I'm going to post -- _____________________________________________________________________________ F-14 \ _ / | Jeffrey M. Fayne Tomcat \ /^ ^\ / | Tellabs, Inc. ____________\_( . )_/____________ | Lisle, IL (708)-512-7726 --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- | fayne@tellab5.UUCP * O O * | Standard Disclaimer Applies _____________________________________________________________________________
gavin@krypton.sgi.com (Gavin A. Bell) (01/04/90)
fayne@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Jeffrey Fayne) writes: >The biggest problem I'm having is that all the rotation texts I've seen >assume that the rotations are based on the viewers viewpoint and not the >objects (ie. I can rotate an object (say an airplane with the nose >pointing away from the viewer) and apply rotations (yaw, roll and pitch) >... Yaw, roll, pitch isn't a very good way of representing rotations; it has been likened to representing points on the surface of the earth in a cartesian coordinate system, instead of the natural spherical coordinate system (you can do it, it just makes the math big and hairy and hard to deal with). A much better way is to use what are variously called 'Quaternions' or 'Euler paramaters' (yaw/pitch/roll is a set of 'Euler angles'; not the same as Euler paramaters). They are easy to put into a rotation matrix and are fairly easy to keep numerically stable (important if you will go through several thousand or million incremental rotations). See these references for more info: Shoemake, Ken, "Animating Rotation with Quaternion Curves," _Computer Graphics_, 19(3), 245-254, SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings, July 1985. -- has a very nice bibliography. Kane, Thomas R., Likins, Peter W. and Levinson, David A., _Spacecraft Dynamics_, McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1983). -- quite straightforward, it is easy to adapt the formulas given to working code. --gavin
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (01/04/90)
Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a million requests for info. The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order to post to comp.graphics. There is a group that I think would be far better suited for this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the talk on xtank seems to go on in there. Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (01/04/90)
In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) writes: >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a >million requests for info. > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order >to post to comp.graphics. > > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. > Comp.graphics has traditionally been the home of egregiously obnoxious postings such as the above. In fact, it is the ONLY group to which I subscribe where I have ever noticed such things. The above posting is indeed offensive. To the poster of it: maybe you should start an exclusive mailing list of which you are the moderator. You can then discuss ONLY the topics you want to, rather than "graphics". Doug McDonald
gilmore@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Neil Gilmore) (01/04/90)
In article <1920@tellab5.TELLABS.COM>, fayne@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Jeffrey Fayne) writes... (request for rotations from object's POV deleted) The simple way to do this is to translate the center of the object to the origin first, effectively making it the viewer, then translate it back to its original position afterward. This is fast, as it requires only addition/subtraction only on that object. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kitakaze Tatsu Raito Neil Gilmore internet:gilmore@macc.wisc.edu | | Jararvellir, MACC, UW-Madison bitnet: gilmore@wiscmac3 | | Middle Kingdom Madison, Wi | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi (01/04/90)
In article <1990Jan2.224220.4136@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mary J Winters) writes: > I would very much like to learn the techniques used to produce fast 3D > animation of wireframe objects. I assume it is done using only integer > math, with optimization techniques such as multiplication/division replaced > by shifts, lookup tables for trig/transcendental functions, etc. Can anyone > point me toward a good source of information on these and similar topics? How about calculating the possible views of the objects beforehand and storing results in large lookup tables? First you must think that such a table is mindbogglingly big, but when you think of it, you can leave out e.g. mirror-images (cuts the table in half). And most of the PC's have 640 kB of memory anyway :-) In fact some of the commercial animated 3d-games look like they are done this way (I don't know for sure, but the objects don't always grow or turn smoothly). So calculate the object in different angles, store the images in a table (I guess scaling can be done while drawing), and draw the images on screen. That should be fast enough. -- E-Mail: teittinen@finuh.bitnet ! "Studying is the only way teittinen@cc.helsinki.fi ! to do nothing without Marko Teittinen, student of computer science ! anyone blaming you" -me
fayne@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Jeffrey Fayne) (01/04/90)
In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) writes: >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a >million requests for info. > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order >to post to comp.graphics. > >There is a group that I think would be far better suited for >this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll >find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the >talk on xtank seems to go on in there. > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. > IMHO, I don't believe the premise behind this or any other newgroup is to take an elitist platform such as you have done. I'm sure I am not alone in saying that newsgroups should be used to LEARN, no matter what knowledge level the reader is at. I don't claim to understand a fraction of what is being posted here, but I can tell you I've learned more about 3D graphics just reading the postings (and there pointers to sources) than anywhere else. Also, I don't know how many postings you receive on this newsgroup, but I don't think we're talking more than 30 or so postings to read. Hardly " a million requests for info". I don't mean to flame, but I have taken offense. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ F-14 \ _ / | Jeffrey M. Fayne Tomcat \ /^ ^\ / | Tellabs, Inc. ____________\_( . )_/____________ | Lisle, IL (708)-512-7726 --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- | fayne@tellab5.UUCP * O O * | Standard Disclaimer Applies _____________________________________________________________________________
spencer@eecs.umich.edu (Spencer W. Thomas) (01/04/90)
In article <1920@tellab5.TELLABS.COM> fayne@tellab5.TELLABS.COM (Jeffrey Fayne) writes:
The biggest problem I'm having is that all the rotation texts I've seen
assume that the rotations are based on the viewers viewpoint and not the
objects (ie. I can rotate an object (say an airplane with the nose
pointing away from the viewer) and apply rotations (yaw, roll and pitch)
that look correct only from this perspective. As soon as the object is
rotated (say 90 degrees with the nose pointing to the positive X axis)
the rotations are incorrect for the object but still correct from the viewer's
perspective(plane: pitch rotations look like rolls, roll rotations
look like pitch, while from the viewer's perspective the object is still
rotated the same).
This really should be covered in the "standard" references, but may
not be obvious from their presentations. The "usual" way that many
people set up rotations is to have a fixed sequence of three
rotations: one about each coordinate axis. Notationally:
[object] [Rx] [Ry] [Rz] => [rotated object]
The problem, as you point out, is that as soon as Rx is a non-zero
rotation, that the Y and Z axes for the following rotations are no
longer aligned with the Y and Z axes of the object. This is a problem
inherent in this representation.
In order to always rotate about object axes, you must maintain a
combined transformation matrix (CTM) corresponding to the sequence of
rotations up to "now", and pre-concatenate a matrix representing the
current rotation. For example, if you rotated 20deg about X, then
30deg about Y, then -10deg about Z, then another 20deg about X, the
CTM would be
[CTM] = [Rx(20)] [Rz(-10)] [Ry(30)] [Rx(20)]
Note: since rotations do not commute, this is NOT the same as
[Rx(40)] [Ry(30)] [Rz(-10)]
To apply a further rotation about Z by 10 deg, the new CTM is computed as
[CTM'] = [Rz(10)] [CTM]
(To rotate about the screen axes, you postconcatenate the rotation
matrix to the CTM.)
The problem with this technique is that the CTM will gradually become
non-orthornormal due to round-off error. That is, it will begin to
contain some skew/scaling components as well as rotations. This
distorts the resulting image (e.g., a square would start to look like
a parallelogram). There are renormalization procedures that you can
apply (e.g., Gram-Schmidt), or you can use a different representation
for your rotation, and convert that representation to a matrix when
needed. The best alternative representation is probably the
quaternion formulation. For details, see the paper by Shoemake in
SIGGRAPH 85: "Animating Rotation with Quaternion Curves", Ken
Shoemake, Computer Graphics, Vol 19, No 3, July, 1985, pp 245-254. In
particular, the appendix describes the conversion from a quaternion to
a rotation matrix.
--
=Spencer (spencer@eecs.umich.edu)frank@laczko.lonestar.org (Frank L. Laczko) (01/05/90)
> In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi > (Juri Munkki) writes: > >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex > >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed > >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a > >million requests for info. > > > > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be > >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order > >to post to comp.graphics. > > > >There is a group that I think would be far better suited for > >this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll > >find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the > >talk on xtank seems to go on in there. > > > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. > > Jeffrey M. Fayne added the comment: > > IMHO, I don't believe the premise behind this or any other newgroup is > to take an elitist platform such as you have done. I'm sure I am not > alone in saying that newsgroups should be used to LEARN, no matter > what knowledge level the reader is at. I don't claim to understand > a fraction of what is being posted here, but I can tell you I've > learned more about 3D graphics just reading the postings (and there > pointers to sources) than anywhere else. Also, I don't know how > many postings you receive on this newsgroup, but I don't think > we're talking more than 30 or so postings to read. Hardly " a million > requests for info". I don't mean to flame, but I have taken offense. > Having spent more years than I care to count in dealing with computers and graphics systems, I find the idea of being bored by "simple" questions about wire frames - or anything else, for that matter - quite inconceivable. The day you stop learning from the "simple" questions is the day to consider an occupational change. After all - what is the point in continuing if you know all the answers ? or, all the questions ? Jeffrey, I agree with you a 100%. Frank L. Laczko Plano, TX UUCP: (attctc,texbell,ti-csl)!laczko!frank INTERNET: frank@laczko.lonestar.org frank@laczko.ti.com
phorgan@cup.portal.com (Patrick John Horgan) (01/05/90)
"Microcomputer Displays, Graphics, and Animation" by Bruce A. Artwick the author of Flight Simulator. Published by Prentice-Hall in 1984/85. ISBN: 0-13-039322-3 ISBN: 0-13-580226-1 01 Previously published under the title, "Applied Concepts in Microcomputer Graphics" Emphasis is on speed and practicality. :) Patrick Horgan phorgan@cup.portal.com
dds3769@ultb.isc.rit.edu (D.D. Simmons) (01/05/90)
To who ever posted the rather offensive note. I don't put myself so far above other people that I can not stop to help them. Back before I bought an Amiga 2000, I began doing some graphics animation on Apple II. At the heart of those simple programs was two elements. The first was a double buffered screen. The second was a set of equations that translated 3-d points to 2-d coordinates for the screen. I don't recall if you mentioned what computer you were using or if did, but setting up a double buffered screen shouldn't be too difficult. The two equations that I used are as follows: h = X cos Ax + Y cos Ay + Z cos Az v = X sin Ax + Y sin Ay + Z cos Az h and v are your screens horizontal and vertical coordinates X, Y, and Z are the 3-d space coordinate Ax, Ay, and Az is the angle of view to the 3-d coordinate system Hope this helps. Your note brings back memories of rotating a cube on a monochrome screen. Send me mail if you need more detailed information or help.
charles@cs.strath.ac.uk (Charles X. Chen) (01/05/90)
I have the same interest in this topic and would be very appreciated if anybody there could forward any information about this topic via email to me. Thanks a lot in advance. Charles E-mail charles@uk.ac.strath.cs | / --------- Charles X. Chen | / /| Dept. of Computer Science | \ / | University of Strathclyde | \ ------- 26 Richmond Street |---- | Glasgow G1 1XH,U.K. Tel. 041 552 4400 Ext 3384
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (01/07/90)
In article <19.UUL1.3#5526@laczko.lonestar.org>, frank@laczko.lonestar.org (Frank L. Laczko) writes: > > In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi > > (Juri Munkki) writes: > > >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex > > >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed > > >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a > > >million requests for info. > > > > > > > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be > > >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order > > >to post to comp.graphics. > > > > > >There is a group that I think would be far better suited for > > >this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll > > >find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the > > >talk on xtank seems to go on in there. > > > > > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. > > > > > Jeffrey M. Fayne added the comment: > > > > > > IMHO, I don't believe the premise behind this or any other newgroup is > > to take an elitist platform such as you have done. I'm sure I am not > > alone in saying that newsgroups should be used to LEARN, no matter > > what knowledge level the reader is at. I don't claim to understand > > a fraction of what is being posted here, but I can tell you I've > > learned more about 3D graphics just reading the postings (and there > > pointers to sources) than anywhere else. Also, I don't know how > > many postings you receive on this newsgroup, but I don't think > > we're talking more than 30 or so postings to read. Hardly " a million > > requests for info". I don't mean to flame, but I have taken offense. > > > > Having spent more years than I care to count in dealing with > computers and graphics systems, I find the idea of being bored > by "simple" questions about wire frames - or anything else, for > that matter - quite inconceivable. The day you stop learning from > the "simple" questions is the day to consider an occupational change. > After all - what is the point in continuing if you know all the > answers ? or, all the questions ? > > Jeffrey, I agree with you a 100%. AMEN!. The unix wizards group is a prime example of an eliteist attitude toward simple questions. There is no such thing a a stupid question. Always remember that. Cheers Woody e >
markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (01/08/90)
In article <17591@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >AMEN!. The unix wizards group is a prime example of an eliteist attitude >toward simple questions. There is no such thing a a stupid question. Always >remember that. My problem with comp.graphics is not the nature of the questions, but rather the frequency they are asked. How much of net traffic in comp.graphics has concerned itself with the latest GIF/TIFF/WHIF/*IFF format? Color mapping? conversion of 3-d coordinates into 2-d? This forum is NOT appropriate to serve as a tutorial on computer graphics. It used to be that there were no good or accessible graphics text books available, but several very good ones are out there now, and can relay information about many questions that appear here. Jef P.'s automated posting lists several of these references, and ftp archive sites where source code to many image utilities may be found. It would be at least pleasant if users consulted standard references before posting questions. The answers found in published material are by and large more clearly presented than the often hastily drawn outlines in comp.graphics. Mark VandeWettering
peter@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Peter Schroeder) (01/09/90)
>In article <17591@rpp386.cactus.org> >woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >Jef P.'s automated posting lists several of these references, and ftp >archive sites where source code to many image utilities may be found. It >would be at least pleasant if users consulted standard references before >posting questions. The answers found in published material are by and large >more clearly presented than the often hastily drawn outlines in comp.graphics. YES! Please consult you local library first. How do you feel if a coworker or classmate constantly walks up to you and asks you questions that can be read up in a manual or a standard text? I get bothered pretty quick. On the other hand if someone approaches me with a challenging and open question I am typically very interested. Just some random thoughts from the trenches... Peter peter@media-lab.media.mit.edu
rotberg@dms.UUCP (Ed Rotberg) (01/09/90)
From article <12781@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering): > > My problem with comp.graphics is not the nature of the questions, but rather > the frequency they are asked. How much of net traffic in comp.graphics has > concerned itself with the latest GIF/TIFF/WHIF/*IFF format? Color mapping? > conversion of 3-d coordinates into 2-d? > > This forum is NOT appropriate to serve as a tutorial on computer graphics. > It used to be that there were no good or accessible graphics text books > available, but several very good ones are out there now, and can relay > information about many questions that appear here. > > Jef P.'s automated posting lists several of these references, and ftp > archive sites where source code to many image utilities may be found. It > would be at least pleasant if users consulted standard references before > posting questions. The answers found in published material are by and large > more clearly presented than the often hastily drawn outlines in comp.graphics. > Mark, If you would only recall the original post that started this off, it was not asking for 3D to 2D transformations (in fact the poster had stated that she had already had working algorithms), but for optimization techniques. She specificall addressed the issue of using integer math. None of your vaunted standard references really go into any depth on real-time performance on low-end type processors. Her questions were not only perceptive, but very valid. There are also many other optimizations and "cheats" that can be used to speed up 3D rendering to approach real-time. These are NOT commonly published, and I have little doubt that I could point out a few that even you probably had not considered in your precious standard reference wisdom. I do not think that there was any attempt made to provide a "tutorial", nor one asked for! I would hearitly agree with those opinions expressed already that there are no questions that this forum is "too good" to deal with. To put it plainly, I think your attitude stinks! - Ed Rotberg - - Game Designer for BattleZone & S.T.U.N. Runner -
brothers@jetsun.WEITEK.COM (bill brothers) (01/09/90)
In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) writes: >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a >million requests for info. > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order >to post to comp.graphics. > >There is a group that I think would be far better suited for >this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll >find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the >talk on xtank seems to go on in there. > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. > >_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ >| Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | >| Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | >^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ -flame on- Frankly, I am offended. I have read the aformentioned books. I have done some graphics programming. I don't consider myself a game programmer. (In fact I don't program or play them). I thought that the poster wrote a very reasonable question. He had done some research and then did the right thing... He asked the experts in the business. In reply he got "Go away kid, you bother me." Where would you be if somebody in the know hadn't helped you somewhere along the way. If you can't be bothered by bright people asking questions, go start your own newsgroup called comp.graphics.wizards or something. A newsgroup is supposed to be for all of us isn't it? -flame off- Bill Brothers ISV Support Specialist brothers@weitek.COM {sun, pyramid}!weitek.COM!brothers
mjw06513@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Ultra Vixen) (01/09/90)
In article <12781@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) writes: > >Jef P.'s automated posting lists several of these references, and ftp >archive sites where source code to many image utilities may be found. It >would be at least pleasant if users consulted standard references before >posting questions. When you say "standard refernces," are you referring to those given in the automated posting? Unfortunately, the automated posting contains nothing specific WRT the topic of this thread (I know, I checked it before posting). If my question was so common and so basic as to cause people to complain, perhaps it's time to add some new references? If we all agree, I'd like to recommend "Microcomputer Displays, Graphics, and Animation" by Bruce Artwick. This book was recommended to me by one of the people who responded via email to my posting, and I found it extremely interesting, informative and helpful.
jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (01/09/90)
In article <17591@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >In article <19.UUL1.3#5526@laczko.lonestar.org>, frank@laczko.lonestar.org (Frank L. Laczko) writes: >> > In article <1990Jan3.190304.1326@santra.uucp> jmunkki@kampi.hut.fi >> > (Juri Munkki) writes: >> > >Comp.graphics has traditionally been used for slightly more complex >> > >problems than wireframe animation. Most of the readers have progressed >> > >far beyond these areas and are probably not too pleased to read a >> > >million requests for info. >> > > >> > >The books mentioned in the automated posting should probably be >> > >considered the minimum you need to know and understand in order >> > >to post to comp.graphics. >> > > >> > >There is a group that I think would be far better suited for >> > >this kind of talk. Try asking in rec.games.programmer and you'll >> > >find a lot of friendly people wanting to help you. Most of the >> > >talk on xtank seems to go on in there. >> > > >> > >Disclaimer: This is not a flame. Please don't be offended. Well, I got flamed for this one. Just about everybody misunderstood what I was trying to do. I probably shouldn't have written the article when I was tired, since the message didn't get through. I never said it's a stupid question. I just said that it was simple. I never said that it was uninteresting to me (although you might have gotten that impression). I replied (with mail) to the original poster and we exchanged a few letters on the subject. After that the questions started popping up in comp.graphics. Since I knew that xtank had been discussed in rec.games.programmer, I tried to move the discussion there. Why did I mention the monthly posting? It's because I read the discussion that led to starting the monthly postings and got the impression that most people agreed that some groups should have a "minimum information for posting". I guess some people disagree quite strongly. I read my article and noticed that it might seem offensive, so I added the disclaimer. Everybody seemed to react just the way I told them not to. Feel free to flame me now. I'll just throw your flames to /dev/null. _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ | Juri Munkki jmunkki@hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet I Want Ne | | Helsinki University of Technology Computing Centre My Own XT | ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^