Ice Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Ever since simulations have been out the wheel has not been a wheel. Its been an accumilation of triangles. I know that starting this discussion whee wheel get hundreds of reason why it cant be done. (The nature of forums) However. maybe it is possible that we could spark a positive side and have a "round" table on what could be done Maybe look at this from a different angle. Could someone reinvent this wheel? Come up with a formula, theory, brilliance to design a 3d wheel that wheely works in Lock-On and is perfectly round.??? Pythagoras did it. Some Cave man did it. Why cant we?? Anyway. If we pass this idea "round" long enough we might spark an idea or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 . . . . . . . . Grrooooaaaannn . . . . . . Trust a bloody Aussie! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunanera Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 we could maybe start off with bio-chips that produce analog electric signals rather than digital ones, then have these signals fed directly into our brains. Perfect circle. And a smelly and material one too!! :icon_supe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 That's the spirit!! Some scientists like to talk about time travel and travelling faster than the speed of light. I am guessing most dont believe its possible in their lifetime but im sure they still enjoy coming up with possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 There's something about a wheel which is more simple than any other shape. Its edge is EXACTLY the same distance from the centre on any angle. I try to think outside the box. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfsierra2 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 There's something about a wheel which is more simple than any other shape. Its edge is EXACTLY the same distance from the centre on any angle. I try to think outside the box. :rolleyes: Well, what makes a wheel so interesting is it's ability to roll with almost no resistance. But that is relative. Imagine a gear wheel instead, which's tooth exactly fit to the shape of a triangle rows shaped surface... >>Thinking outside the box II<< kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfsierra2 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Concerning a wheel being "an accumilation of triangles": How about adopting vector grafix ? A wheel then is described exactly like this: "Its edge is EXACTLY the same distance from the centre on any angle" which is using a formula instead of using 4x4, 16x16, 256x256 pixel skins etc... It then increases and decreases it's size by changing just one parameter (radius), the rest stays as before... kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaelu Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Sometime people were experimenting with "voxels" in exchange of "vertexes" to build 3d Objects... I don't know exatly how they worked but... is different aprouch isn't it? :P I think The developer of F22 and Deltaforce did somethink about it... not shure. And this guy did someting with them... very cool actualy. click the image... wich is rendered actualy... and there you find a movie too. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A, Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophet_169th Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 It takes more processing power I believe to include Pi. Where as with a a triangle, it is 3 lines. I could be way off though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trident Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 AFAIK the problem is not the mathematics of round geometry, the issue is that current graphics accelerators are designed to handle polygonal shapes only. This means that if ED were to use actual curved surfaces they would be forced to run their engine in software mode (everything handeled by the CPU). Is this correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suntrace1 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Someone needs to invent a round triangle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Someone needs to invent a round triangle. Or a triangle with rounded outer edges, but how do you draw an elliptical shape from two points? (computer logic wise) Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 That's actually not very hard .... how do you draw a circle on the screen? ;) It's been done before. Your only limitation is resolution. (Hint: Splines) Trident hit the nail on the head pretty much. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunanera Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 another way: draw a pixel and then spin the screen really fast. I mean the actual CRT or LCD display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
169th_Dredd Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Im wheely confused now... ---= 169th Panthers -Flt Lt.- =--- http://www.169thpanthers.com.au AMD64 S939 3700 | 2GB Corsair DDR500 | 21" CRT ATI Radeon X800Pro | 2x36GB WD Raptors | SB Audigy TIR3 | TM-868 | X52 | CH Pedals | Creative 5.1 Spkrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Or, spin the user abou thte monitor real fast! Now THAT's simulation. Not only do you SEE the wheel, you FEEL the wheel! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunanera Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 nice one GG! tat's thinking out of the box! Another way would be to convince the viewer that a square is really a circle. Very much like 2+2=5. If anyone disagrees they'll be taken to room 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfsierra2 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Imagine instead of the traditional shader models and DirectX-interface a new simulation grafix engine would use VG.net (Vector Graphics) instead: "Hugh Robinson, a lead developer for industrial simulation software, recently created a simulation designer using VG.net. He constructed a library of animated components, and an editor using these components. According to Robinson, "VG.net is a great tool. It's well thought out, well implemented and the support has been excellent." http://www.xmlmania.com/files_article_59-Vector-Graphics-in-Visual-Studio-.NET-VG.net.php This for sure still is a very crude technology, however, the games only 10 years ago had a very crude pixel graphic, too. It is just the question, how much money would be spent on this new technology and if hardware producer (graphics card developer) and software producer (Microsoft) will risk their time and money at all.... kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 it would always, be distorted, as monitors have square pixels thus you end up with a wheel that from a distance will look round, but close up it will have jagged edges. I think ed did a good job of the 25t wheels. but as for implmenting exactly circular wheels onto games or whatever, well i suppose it could be done but the monitor would then be the limiting factor. I think the vid card/s could handle such a request but how much power it would use is anyones guess. also, if you check sisoft sandra for your graphics card abilities, it has a shitlong list of what the card is capable of, like outputting arches circles etc. Most are greyed out, But they are there and i suspect that only the huge cards that are used solely for 3d design could handle it. In the pic below, it shows the card is capable of drawing a circle, now, if it wasnt an accurate circle then it wouldnt be allowed to call it a circle. How all this translates into 3d games and how much power it would take to have an exacting standard of circleness:) as say the wheel of a mig or whatever, me isnt the one to be able to answer that. but i do think the limiting factor would be the monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlight Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 the problem is that you should rebuild mathematics and computer science from scratch. In mathematics we can calculate rounded shapes with some precision, but not in a 100% perfect fashion. When we step from simbolic mathematics to numerical mathematics, there is always an error, which depends on our degree of precision. The integrals, which are used to calculate areas or volumes, and are largely used in 3D mathematics (like also matrices), are not 10000% precise methods. They use finite-calculated shapes, in a number going to infinite so they actually appear to approximate every shape. The same thing applies when passing from analogic to digital form. There is always an error, an approximation. So back to the sim (3D) environment, we can have a 100,000,000 polygon shape, but that would never be a rounded shape. It will still have polygons. much more polygons, so that to the humans appears as a rounded object. What you're talking about "thinking outside the box" it's not that easy. some have already tried to kill axioms of computer science. there are studies about quantum electronics, nano-technologies, organic-based processors.... but we're still here with binary tech and other things like that. so i don't think this forum is the right place for such discussions... :) ps: sorry for my english, especially when talking about mathematics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 Intersting replies from everyone thankyou What I would consider a succussful solution is not a %10000 perfect wheel but maybe a %360 perfect wheel. Im sure it would look better than a %24 perfect wheel. And what might be possible is an efficient way to create it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman G Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 One solution already exists - it is called subdivision surfaces and as far I know it is already one of most frequently used techniques in 3D modelling. The idea is to subdivide polygons in low-polygon-count model into smaller ones. Now, for realtime rendering - you don't want to subdivide all polygons for all objects - only those close to the "camera eye". If your wheel is so far away that it takes one pixel on monitor - it really does not matter whether renderer renders it as triangle or circle - so no subdivision happens there. If your circle is so close that it takes quarter of screen - then you can start subdividing it's polygons until you hit your desired precision limit (BTW, as far I remember Pixar also uses subdivision surfaces and they stop subdividing when triangle size is less than size of screen pixel). Here is how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivision_surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catmull-clark http://www.holmes3d.net/graphics/subdivision/ http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/courses/2004/Intro.Fall.04/handouts/18-subdivision.pdf Regarding hardware support - as far I remember XBox 360 supports dynamic surface subdivision based on polygon's distance to camera (or supports something similar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bflagg Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 and like the wheel.. we end up where we started.... Thanks, Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VVanks Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 I can reinvent the wheel. Then I'd have to reinvent the ground. And so forth. I'd make a 50 pointed shape, and make the ground zigzaged so that each point rests neatly on the ground. Homepage: http://www.worldwynd.net Coming Soon: http://www.simplywyn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 One solution already exists - it is called subdivision surfaces and as far I know it is already one of most frequently used techniques in 3D modelling. The idea is to subdivide polygons in low-polygon-count model into smaller ones. Now, for realtime rendering - you don't want to subdivide all polygons for all objects - only those close to the "camera eye". If your wheel is so far away that it takes one pixel on monitor - it really does not matter whether renderer renders it as triangle or circle - so no subdivision happens there. If your circle is so close that it takes quarter of screen - then you can start subdividing it's polygons until you hit your desired precision limit (BTW, as far I remember Pixar also uses subdivision surfaces and they stop subdividing when triangle size is less than size of screen pixel). Here is how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivision_surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catmull-clark http://www.holmes3d.net/graphics/subdivision/ http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/courses/2004/Intro.Fall.04/handouts/18-subdivision.pdf Regarding hardware support - as far I remember XBox 360 supports dynamic surface subdivision based on polygon's distance to camera (or supports something similar). :icon_syda your post Roman. Now i can see the wheels turning. It just goes to show if you think you can or you think you can't you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts