Too trippy not to post:
Too trippy not to post:
Thanks to Dominic for sending me this link…these guys are building an airship^H^H^H^H^Hhover^H^H^H^H, well, it’s weird looking. Hrm…that airport they’re landing at in the simulator looks strangely familiar.
I’m not sure anyone cares about this kind of thing, but…
These are pictures of a test of the rasterizer. The rasterizer is code in both the DSF creator* and X-Plane that converts polygons into lines or boxes. What good is that? We use it to:
Etc., etc. These were from a performance test rasterizing the Mississippi delta at 1201 x 1201; because the vector data is insanely detailed (something like 2 million line segments I think) it’s a good test of performance. The blue lines represent a line fit, but the white lines are a “box fit” – that is, they ensure that not only are they “inside” the water, but the area above and below them are too.
* Programming geeks can use this code – it’s in PolyRasterUtils.
With X-Plane 10 on the way, it seems that the various X-Plane forums are just filled with users listing off their favorite feature requests. If there is one uniting theme for these requests, it is this: they are pretty much all requests for X-Plane to more accurately model some neglected aspect of reality.
I would like this relationship to be two-way, with give-and-take. It doesn’t seem fair that in every case, we should have to change X-Plane to model reality. So I humbly submit to the X-Plane user community: my requests for changes to reality to ease X-Plane development.
No Wind Near Water
My first request is a simple one: can we simply not have any more wind over the ocean? Ocean waves are hard to model. They are non-sinusoidal, they don’t repeat, they’re refractive, and they go for miles. If we could simply eliminate the wind, then we could model the ocean as a nice calm glassy lake, which would be quite a bit simpler to get right.
Only One Building
My second request is a modest one: from now on, I would like everyone to live in the same type of uniform house. It can be a nice house (several stories, with a pool in the house), but everyone’s house should be the same. We have some new instancing technology for version 10; it reaches peak efficiency when a single building is repeated ad infinitum. So if you could all agree on a single house type, it would be good for everyone framerate wise.
(I realize that some of you in subdivisions in the US that already do this; hopefully the rest of the world can take a hint.)
No More Intersecting Roads
Alex and I have spent just a crazy amount of time trying to cope with what to do when two roads intersect. So my third request is: no more intersecting roads. I would like all roads to cross each other by some kind of overpass. This will eliminate a lot of artifacts.
In fact, for extra credit, if all roads could be aligned to be precisely north-south or east-west in a grid, that would be good for RAM use.
No Variation in Climate
This one isn’t so important for me, but I think the art team might appreciate it. It turns out that different parts of the world have different temperature variations and rainfall, and that in turns makes the local color of grass, trees, etc. a bit different. This just makes work for our artists – they have to draw everything several times for the different climates. It would help us out a lot if you could all live in places with the same annual rainfall and temperature variation.
(Just in case this climate thing turns out to be true, I suggest everyone settle on the “hot dry” climate pattern – we have pretty good textures for that.)
Pave the Bay
Finally, when in doubt, use asphalt. We have some new shaders in version 10 that will make asphalt look pretty good.
Anyway, this is my list – I am sure the other X-Plane developers will have other requests. (I suspect Austin’s life would be made easier if weather was always CAVOK, and Chris’s life would be greatly simplified if there weren’t any other airplanes in the sky.)
Do you have any hints as to when this new version of reality might be released, or what its minimum system requirements are?
From one of the podcasts I listen to I just discovered Edward Burtynsky. He takes these amazing photographs of industrial landscapes – really scary post-apocalyptic images of oil refineries, chopped up cargo ships, etc. Take a few minutes to look through some of the images.
One of the side effects of working on X-Plane scenery for the last few years is that it has made me look a lot more closely at the world. Once you try to recreate the world on a computer (and watch your digital creation fall way, way short) you realize how much intricacy and detail every-day phenomena have.
So when I saw Burtynsky’s photos I immediately thought “he sees the complexity and beauty* and sadness of industrial landscapes the same way we do!”
* Beauty? I am not suggesting that the SOCAR oil fields are beautiful, a particularly good idea, or something I want more of. But I think that there can be a poetry in the image – perhaps a poetry of despair.
…and it always will be!
Seriously, first, let’s be clear: my opinions do not matter! X-Plane is a small program in a large market (game/graphics hardware) and as I’ve said before, flight simulators are not the early adopters of new tech. So (and this is a huge relief to me) I can do my job without correctly predicting the future of computer graphics.
Keep that in mind as I mouth off regarding ray tracing – I’m just some guy throwing tomatoes from the balcony. X-Plane doesn’t have skin in the game, and if I prove to be totally wrong, we’ll write a ray tracer when the tech scales to be flight simulator ready, and you can point to this post and have a good laugh.
With that in mind, I don’t see ray tracing as being particularly interesting for games. I could make arguments that rasterization* is significantly more effecient, and will keep moving the bar each time ray tracing catches up. I could argue that “tricks” like environment mapping, shadow mapping, deferred rendering, and SSAO have continued to move effects into the rasterization space that we would have thought to be ray-tracing-only. (Heck, ray tracing doesn’t even do ambient occlusion particularly well unless you are willing to burn truly insane amounts of computing power.) I could argue that there is a networking effect: GPU vendors make rasterization faster because games use it, and games use it because the GPU makers have made it fast. That’s a hard cycle to break with a totally different technology.
I don’t really have the stature in the world of computer graphics to say such things. Fortunately John Carmack does. Read what he has to say. I think he’s spot on in pointing out that rasterization has fundamental efficiencies over ray tracing, and ray tracing doesn’t offer enough real usefulness to overcome the efficiency gap and the established media pipe-line.
The interview is from 2008; a few months ago Intel announced that first-generation Larrabee hardware wouldn’t be video cards at all. For all effective purposes from a game/flight simulator perspective, they basically never shipped. So as you read Carmack’s contents re: Intel, you can have a good chuckle that Intels claims have proven hollow due to the lack of actual hardware to run on.
I will be happy to be proven wrong by ray tracing, or any other awesome new technology. But I am by disposition skeptical until I see it running “for real”, e.g. in a real game that competes with modern games written via rasterization. Recoding old games or showing tech demos doesn’t convince me, because you can recode an old game even if your throughput is 1/20th of rasterization, and you can hide a lot of sins in a tech demo.
Heck, while I’m putting my foot in my mouth, here’s another one: unlimited detail. Any time someone announces the death of the triangle, I become skeptical. And their claim of processing “unlimited point cloud data in real time” strikes me as an over-simplification. Perhaps they can create a smooth level of detail experience with excellent paging characteristics (which is great!) but the detail isn’t unlimited. The data is limited by your input data source, your production system, the limits of your hardware, etc. Those are the same limits that a mesh LOD system has now. In other words, what they are doing may be significantly more efficient, but they haven’t made the impossible possible.
That is my general complaint with most of the “anti-rasterization” claims – they assume that mesh/rasterization systems are coded by stupid people – and yet most of the interesting algorithms for rasterization, like shadow mapping and SSAO, are quite clever. Consider these images: saying that rasterization doesn’t produce nice images while showing Half Life 2 (2004, for the X-Box 360) is like saying that cars are not fuel efficient because a 1963 Cadillac got 8 mpg. The infinite detail sample images show a lot of repeated geometry, something that renderers today already do very well, if that’s what was desirable (which it isn’t).
Finally, is in favor of sparse voxel octrees (SVOs). SVOs strike me as the most probable of the various non-mesh-rasterization ideas floating around, and an idea that might be useful for flight simulators in some cases. To me what makes SVOs practical (and in defense of the unlimited detail folks, their algorithm potentially does this too) is that it can be mix-and-matched with existing rasterization technology, so that you only pay for the new tech where it does you some good.
* Rasterization is the process of drawing on the screen by filling in the pixels covered by a triangle with some shading.
This is my 500th post. I put off posting it all week because I wanted to post something lofty and clever. But in the end, the great is the enemy of the good – if I wait until I have a really good post, it could be weeks before I have time to write a 6000 word treatise on the relationship between quantum physics, shaders, and the price of crude oil.
The decision to publish less now or more later always comes up in software release planning – once the resource budget for a project is fixed* the only choice is ship sooner with less features or later with more features.
With both X-Plane and WorldEditor we often choose “ship now with less” for a simple reason: we are going to ship with more later, but if we ship now with less as well, people get some benefit in the meantime. WED is a perfect example: the first version could only edit airports, and shipped almost 18 months ago. Had we waited until we had overlay editing and airports, we would have had a more impressive release, but authors would have had no editing at all for 18 months. Why force the people who want to edit airports to wait 18 months for overlay features?
(An assumption in this is that the cost of actually doing a release is fairly low. Obviously we don’t want to do a new release every single week!)
There is a contrary force that might argue against frequent releases: once we change a feature to make it better, users are surprised if we don’t make it perfect. Users assume that if we fix some bugs in a feature but not all bugs, that it’s because we didn’t know about the bugs we didn’t fix. (The truth is usually that we had limited resources.) This produces a very strange situation where users are sometimes happier with a product that is less featureful/more deficient/more buggy because a small improvement in real functionality introduces an expectation of a large improvement.
A second behavioral phenomenon amplifies this: in my experience users consider new bugs to be significantly “buggier” (for lack of a term) than bugs that have been around for a while. This is perfectly understandable: humans are very adaptable and we get used to a bug over time to the point where we may not consider it as “bad” as when we first saw it. Trade the old bug for a new one, and we have to become re-acclimated.
These two behaviors argue (particularly when bugs and limited functionality are involved) to make a small number of large changes that move an aspect of the program from one ‘stable’ configuration to the next.
* If you think that more resources can break this trade-off between features and a quick release date, I strongly recommend “The Mythical Man Month“. The short version: 9 women can’t have a baby in 1 month – if you want a quicker release you have to do less.
With a new year and CES upon us, it’s go time for pundits to predict the future of the technology industry. Lori considered the question of how technology might affect X-Plane and pronounced:
Pixel shaders will get shadier.
I think she is right. It is only a question of how long until they are so shady that they are basically pitch black. (At that point, I expect a significant boost in framerates!)
Happy New Year! This entire post is going to be off topic, but hopefully worth it; I will resume the usual ranting about how video cards are slowly turning our brain into string cheese later.
I think my favorite part of working for Laminar Research and being part of the X-Plane community is the friends I have made in the X-Plane community – X-Plane really does bring a great group of people together. While I lived in California, I met Jay Oliver, and actually lived not too far from him while I was in ATC school.
Here’s the thing about Jay: he is a fabulous musician. In an age where music is “produced” and so much of what we hear is digitally manipulated, there’s a lot to be said for listening to a human being who is simply astoundingly good with his or her instrument. It’s an experience that can’t be synthesized. It was always enjoyable to get a few drinks into Jay and put him down in front of the Piano and then just listen.
I’ve been listening to Jay’s new album for a few days now, but Austin beat me to the punch, putting it on the X-Plane announce list. Jay set up his new website here, and his album is available for sale in CD or DRM-free mp3 format. You can also listen online right on the site.
Austin’s usual diet is highly electronic, usually runs at about 180 beats per minute, and is the musical equivalent of shooting Jolt cola directly into your brain. What Jay does is completely different, and it’s really something special.
In my contact with users, on X-Plane forums, in discussions of computer graphics, video drivers are an easy punching bad. When an app doesn’t work, blame the video driver. The guys at NV and ATI don’t have time to respond to every ridiculous allegation that is posted. Sometimes drivers are borked, but when it turns out to be X-Plane I try to set the record straight.
Driver writers have what might be the hardest combination of programming circumstances:
That’s not an easy set of goals to meet. Today’s video cards are basically computers on a PCIe board, and they do amazing things, but they do it thanks to a fairly complex piece of software.
Applications writers like myself get to outsource the lower level aspects of our rendering engine to driver writers. When a driver doesn’t work right, it’s frustrating, but when a driver does work right, it’s doing some amazing things.