pouët.net

same point as any other demo, see what they can do with the machine.

Your question is weird, the answer is obvious. But I'll play along anyway.

Compared to videos: full frame rate and resolution with no compression. Compared to emulators: assurance that it's running like it was supposed to.

And it just feels... right. Everything can't be explained with reason.

Also the sweet sweet taste of forbidden fruit when you have to mod your system to do it.

Some people might want to "check" that it can really be rendered in real-time. Is what you really wanted to ask what's the point of real-time rendering if there's no interaction? I don't know, the frustration and fun of speed optimization and trickery? Tradition? Who cares it's just done.

Sigh. Okay. "Interactivity in demos is a misaligned gimmick that actively hinders the experience for the audience and only provides extra work for the artist/director." How's that then?

That is not to say it can't be a momentary fun toy to mess around shiny colors and shapes and things like that (everything is more fun with a physics engine, Half Life 2 has proven that), but as soon as you start considering actual artistic values in a demo like pacing, editing, frame use, narrative, then providing the user with the means to mess with those will not only force the audience to interrupt their own experience rather jarringly, it also removes the focus on whatever you as an artist were trying to say or show in that specific moment and instead will cause them to shift their attention from the narrative to figuring out how the interactivity works, or from the artistic content to the production values. And neither is particularly fun as a viewer either - yes, it's nice you can rotate the camera around, but is it really worth interrupting the show for?

One of my "favorite" interactive art experiences was that whole RO.ME web thingy where when it started I reflexively moved out the cursor from the middle of the screen, which it then registered as "look down" and I kept staring at the floor for those 4 minutes not realizing I could've moved the camera because it never told me so. But even so, I don't see how my experience would've been made richer by the ability to mess around with any of it.

I don't want the responsibility of any of those artistic things I mentioned above shifted to the audience - I want things to happen on screen when and how I planned it. That's what direction is about. If you give up that control, sooner or later you're going to watch someone try it and succumb to the same syndrome as watching your grandmother try to play Quake 3.

Note that I'm not against video games as an artform (see e.g. Dear Esther or Proteus or even stuff like World of Goo), or the occasional fun little interactive parts in demos, but in general there's a reason the most popular artforms aren't interactive.

whats the point of watching demos on pc or any other unreal hw if it's not interactive in any way? what's the point if it is interactive?

my programming experience? concerning profiling fixed platform? perhaps profiling shaders? in depth?

null.

usually i just throw my code into the machine and it spews out something cool in a matter of time. i know some constraints and costly things to avoid. but that's about it.

i still have to release something tho. :D

Gargaj: eh, I didn't ask for your thoughts on if interactivity is better or not. I just wanted to ask what's the point on watching a non interactive demo on real hardware. You could answer: "to hear that my cooler is starting to rotate with much higher velocity", and I would understand that but it wouldn't work for me as a reason to run it in this traditional form. As interactivity I meant any other input than time. So for example: camera input, internet packets for randomization, custom audio track for sync any other inputs. Without it's just a movie made with different tools. So what's the point in that? I'm quite tired of describing what is realtime if it's not interactive. It's the same story as with this guy who used a toy digger to dig a 4m^3 hole. But he just could use shovel for that. When you put interactive factor to the equation, then immediately realtime, programming, etc. not only makes sense, but it's the only option. And describing it to any other person is just trivial. That's why I'm currently involved in notgames initiative, since it's just closer to what we actually like to do.

Personally I enjoy making movies using mathematics. Lately I've shifted quite a bit of my creative efforts towards other things like writing and music, but there are still things I only know how to do this way and I enjoy that a lot. If it wasn't for the demoscene and my job, I wouldn't probably be programming at all.

"What's the point of running non interactive demo on real hardware?"

As someone growing up loving demos on C64 and Amiga systems, that is a very strange question. You must be younger than me ;)

Preacher: Of course I understand. Iq is also using maths for making offline movies and a lot of people do, but I just wanted to say that this formula is getting older and older and people are not understanding it because in fact it's odd.

In the old days, a video capture wasn't viable. And demos often WERE interactive, you could play around with camera angles, bob animation curves and such, to show that it's realtime.

Now, a video capture is a lot less hassle than running it realtime, and with good video quality there's not much downside. The executable is pretty much pointless...

But then we're doing this for fun, and because we can, and to prove that we can. Demo = demonstration of skill. It doesn't need any more point than that. And if you want to demonstrate your skills with something interactive, why not?

+1 psonice

What hornet said.

I'm not a scene guy, but I really want to see demos on my own hardware. It's only then that I know shit is for real. If hardware demos are video captured, isn't the next step to just render stuff Pixar style?

Well... some of us have been saying that for a while now... :)

Really? I feel like I'm being trolled here '_'

Nah, it's just that there's a trend to Youtubify demos immediately as they're released and very few people bother watching realtime versions anymore, which upsets some of us.

You know, pixar have a lot of very, very talented coders. Their films are the work of coders as well as gfx people - only difference from a demo is that they have actors too, and it's not realtime, and it's commercial.

And yes, a coded animation has been suggested before (basically a non-realtime demo, that writes out a video file). Gargaj's just finished converting such a thing to realtime even :D

Aha :) Sorry for being stupid. I totally agree. And sure, great animators today certainly deserve respect.

Btw: A cool dude on GAF (FeiRR) linked to Apocalypse When by Fairlight. Seems like the recommended PC specs are about the same as a PS4. Makes me want to see more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJfceF0syK8

point proven.

What point is that?

Please tell us about this video site you are using which supports 60fps captures.

Not to mention 50. :-p

render to video/animation can be faked, real hardware doesn't lie. to some extent anyways.

i don't see why we wouldn't keep having both.

i do however remember how frustating it was to never get the binaries for some dreamcast, ps2 and nokia 6600 demos that were floating around in video format only when i had the hardware around me.

so what i'm saying is: if animation or "wild demos" are your thing, a capture would be cool enough to get, but if you're doing something for a specific platform please try to supply binaries and a way for us to run them on the real hardware (legal or not).

i see casual interactivity in similar light as generative content generation, it's a nice touch to have if it brings something new to the piece, but it shouldn't be distracting you (the creator) from how you want to transmit the real message behind the work. it can easily grow into a clusterfuck of distracting variations, which might or might not be part of the concept, i'm assuming in most cases it's not. hence why most demos aren't interactive or generative.

blueberry: youtube, 60 fps in 2 frame :P

I know, there's a ton 'worse' when watching a capture. Lower framerate, loss of detail, horrible artefacts in dark scenes and fractals, no 50 (or 70 ;) fps support at all... But it's still good enough in most cases.

uh.
http://capped.tv