Could there be hope for the SU shadow bug?
-
@lewiswadsworth said:
I saw that article earlier...Google would lose patents as well, and not just in "search." "Push-Pull" is covered by a software patent, although extrusion seems so basic and evident in prior art (older programs) I've always wondered how that was possible.
Hmm... Microsoft's modelling tool to their Virtual Earth felt very similar to SU.
Didn't realise that push-pull was patented. Hard to grasp that it even could. -
Hmmm.... Looks like a mapping concept. It's not assigned to Google though.
-
yeah, this is push/pull's patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6628279
Interestingly, Google lists patents that refernce this patent, or something like that. So check out the bottom left of the page. There are some patents filed since SU v6 came out. Any cahnce they offer insight to waht v7 might be?
How about this one, I haven't read it yet but it is a "Structure Preserving Clone Brush"
I like the sound of that at least.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7327374
Chris
EDIT: Ha, I see now that it was not Google that applied for the structure clone brush thing. So it is not exactly their direct work, however it might hint at something they are working, and I think it looked like it had to do with photomatch maybe?
-
Yeah, I saw that after I posted my comment, so I went back and added an edit, but you indeed beat me to it. Still its interesting digging around the patents.
Chris
-
Looks like one of the inventors of the "structure preserving clone brush" is "our" Fredo.
-
@bellwells said:
Looks like one of the inventors of the "structure preserving clone brush" is "our" Fredo.
that would be great. cause then we know, that it is something truely amazing!
-
Hi,
I am not a tech guy with regards to software so please bear this in mind.
I have noticed that when using 3DS MAX you can choose which graphics driver you wish to use: Software/OpenGL/DirectX.
They all obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses and the user can opt for what suits him best.I have tried dabbling with each to see which would be best to use.
These are my conclusions.
I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this subject-
Software - this only seems to be of use if OpenGL or DirectX does not work correctly. I think this is a bit of a legacy option going back to the days when OpenGL and DirectX were either not available or were very "flaky" in their behaviour. Basically, the "Software" option allowed you to get up and running if all else failed.
-
OpenGL - this seems to be the driver of choice. At least, it was going back a few years. It provided stable use, added the ability to see better previews of what you were doing and simulated on-screen an impression of any effects giving you an idea of what the finished rendered result would look like. I believe, and I could be wrong, that OpenGL is open source, and many software houses like to use this because it is free of any restrictions or "royalty" payments.
-
DirectX - This is quite simply Microsofts alternative to OpenGL. A lot of people don't like it simply because its a Microsoft product. They see Microsoft as a big nasty capitalist organisation that seems to want to crush all competition in all fields. In some ways I agree with them. But, and this is the big but, DirectX is so much better than OpenGL. It seems faster, more reliable and provides you with far better results when simulating effects in real-time.
Now the questions I really wanted answered is:
Why can't SketchUp provide us with the same graphic driver choices?
Would using DirectX eliminate the shadowbug that has plagued SketchUp for so long?
I assume this wouldn't be of any help to Mac users, but thats no excuse to deny PC users a solution. Every graphic intensive piece of software on the PC makes the most of DirectX, why not SketchUp?
If carmack's reverse became freely usable wouldn't that just be a solution for curing the OpenGL problem. Why waste time praying and hoping for this. Why not just use DirectX if it is a solution available now?
Am I correct in the assumptions I am making here?
Regards
Mr S -
-
Again, i dont know a lot about this, but im guessing there would have to be some pretty major additions/changes to SU to be able to implement directx, although the advantages you mention do sound very tempting.
On a slightly different note, im not really sure whats stopping google form licensing out the solution form the people who own the IP, i would have thought that would have been a pretty sensible solution
-
Same disclaimer here, I really don't know much about this either.
Does DirectX have something in it for shadows, essentially its own built in legal version of Carmacks reverse? I was under the impression that the carmack's reverse was independent of graphic types, but more like an overall methodology for representing shadows, regardless of openGl, directx, or whatever.
Yeah and Remus, I've often wondered why they don't just pay for the licensing to Creative/3d Labs for the right to use the technology. Even Carmack himself didn't want to use their version, but this is what he said about it:
"It was tempting to take a stand and say that our products (id Software) were never going to use any advanced Creative/3dlabs products because of their position on patenting gaming software algorithms, but that would only have hurt the users."
See Google? It only hurts the users
Chris
-
I remember this coming up years ago and the problem was the heavy cost of licensing for the use of caramel's raspberry!
Advertisement