pouët.net

hyde : i agree on that (sadly)

nytrik: not true. Halfsome, probably one of the coolest demos in 2007, had much meshwork and is far from a flyby in my eyes.

It means what it means: you tend to categorize a demo by it's most prominent quality. If the visuals are static and all motion is caused by the camera, then you more or less you have a flyby.

@rainmaker: what about a camera rotating around some retarded noisy tentacles stomping around?
flyby or instant artsy coolness?

Hyde : i mean i agree on that fact that screens more or less kill the wow factor ... teh fly by debate... is a bit more complicated

No, i call that shit.

yeah, the need for classification is an illness in the human mind, but it's a very effective way to waste time :)

I never quite understood why flybys are considered a bad thing.

Figures.

the red scarves will be back too... (hopefully)

I also realized that it is getting progressively more difficult to tell some of the cocoon and portal process demo scenes apart. The colours and models look very similar.

seems like it will be a very crowded compo indeed. Can't wait to see that stuff.

and I second Kusma. If done right, both types can rule.

navis : I love PP demos ... that's maybe a reason

me too !

Navis : don't wake the "uberdemo" beast up please, he might be reading the thread ;)

Navis : here is a tip : PP 3d objects are quite often flat shaded
(for exemple :http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=20209). I guess it would be a nightmare to apply UV maps .
Anyway I would really love to chat with Snarling one day

autoUV through wings3d ? ;-)

I heard snarling uses max ( like me )... and auto uv suck ( at least in max )

i think debris redefined the "flyby" genre into "walkby" :)

nytrik: I've never seen an auto-unwrapper that doesn't suck. It's a shame, a good one would really really help. Pelt mapping etc makes it easier (esp. for high-poly stuff), but still far from perfect.

kusma : so true...I spend 70% of my time to do uv maps.
Pelt map is difficult to use and is far from being perfect as you said.
That's why i Think objects used in PP demo are not mapped. In a way it's quite clever. If the engine is fast enougth you could add many details and make the map useless (coz details are already modeled).
I think using that technique only give urealistic results. In PP demo simple objects have uv's and complex one are flat : it s a good compromize

I've always understood flyby as demos with:
-- more or less static scenes
-- cameras that follow mathematically defined paths with no connection to "physicallity"
-- "plan-sequence/long-take based structure or a similarly "undirected" mise en scene.

The most defining characteristic of the camera appears to be it's slowness and focus on objects during inappropriately long durations, in order to slowly let the spectator admit that what he's seeing is not actually a dull scene, rather something worthy of admiration.

knos: yea, i thought it meant "demos where the camera provides almost all the movement".
ironically in regard to the previous comment about cubes, the recent still demos+64k seem to be pretty close to the definition flybys _and_ seem to be mainly made of flat shaded boxes. go figure.

guys, you forgot to mention "still" in your top list...