Hozzászólások

https://hvg.hu/elet/20201009_Lazar_Ervin_az_uj_celpont_a_Meseorszag_mind...
Ez is túl van már a full retardon

Ezen a hvgs külföldi orvosfizetéses cikken most kiégtem.... 2-3 mikula havonta, a háziorvos ráadásul 2 hetet dolgozik ezért csak!
Hogy száradt volna le a kezem, amikor jogra jelentkeztem, ráadásul kifogtam a legunalmasabb szakterületet is az egészből... Egészből annyit élveztem, hogy Zaxx-ot mindig helyre tudtam tenni :D Annyira rühellem a munkám, hogy nem tudom elmondani, a szar fizu mellé meg maszekolni se akarok így, mert még az hiányozna, hogy 8 órán túl is ilyen szarral foglalkozzak. Pályát váltani meg már késő, 33 éves vagyok 1 elhunyt szülő, egy 72 éves. Amúgy se volt elég 4 kibaszott diploma (+ egy otthagyott programtervező-informatikus képzés), hogy rátaláljak arra, amit szeretek csinálni. Komolyan mondom egész életemben volt 3-4 év idő, amikor motivált voltam valamiben és tényleg azt csináltam, amit szerettem (e-sport), de mivel akkoriban semmi lehetőség nem volt benne, így a végére már abból is elegem lett. Azóta csak keresem a helyem, de nem találom, valszeg nem is fogom soha. Pedig ettől rázott ki a hideg mindig, hogy csak ilyen, átlagos szar életet ne kelljen élnem. Ez kb. felér egy vegetálással.

Ahogy mész felbontásban felfelé, úgy csökken a jelentősége a procinak. 1440p-ben már gyakorlatilag mindegy, amíg el nem fogy a proci, azaz van elég mag/szál.

Íme egy relatív teljesítmény grafikon WQHD és 4K esetén:

(Függ a játékfelhozataltól is, van ahol 5%-ot sem számít, hogy 3600x vagy húzott 10900k WQHD-ben, 4K-ban méginkább.)

rwurl=https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/images/relative-performan...

rwurl=https://tpucdn.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/images/relative-performan...

De ugye itt a következő VGA gen, kérdés mennyit tolódik a procilimit.. És rebesgetik, hogy vannak olyan engineek ahol egy 3080 alig megy többet FHD-ben, mint WQHD-ban egy húzott 10900k-val, szóval enginee is válogatja. Ja és ugye ezek a tesztek 2080Ti-al készültek még, szóval ha gyengébb a VGA, akkor valamivel még kisebb a különbség.

wtf, humble blizzard könyv bundle... ennyire nem mennek?
https://www.humblebundle.com/books/world-warcrafts-legend-library-blizza...

Azért a botnak is 2 vége van, azaz ha az Intel mellé áraz az AMD + 5-8% átlag performace-al én nem tudok őszintén feltapsolni árérzékeny vevőként, viszont az mindenképp szép teljesítmény, hogy előkapott 17% IPC az architektúrából és optimalizálta az architektúrát játékra. Most már kb. a márkaszimpátia dönthet, hiszen teljesítményben és árban is tökmindegy. Persze a leggyorsabb asztali CPU titulus mindenkép erős marketing érték, és asztali szegmensben megy is a Ryzen, de ha valaki bemegy notit venni akkor még sanszosabb, hogy egy Intelt kap le a polcról, és az jelentősebb szegmens, meg az officeolós brandOEM munkahelyi konfigok. Rocket Lake is jön hamarosan, igaz, csak max.8 magos kiszerelésben, úgyhogy a 16/32-es 5950x-et nem fogja tudni veszélyeztetni, a 8 magos Zen3-akat lelépheti.

Priviben küldtem, jobb a békesség (tudjukki miatt). :D

Jobbak pár % al azt látom de csak full hd ban az a gyanúm. Kíváncsi vagyok 1440p re vagy netán 4k ra.

Hajrá, jöhet az update. Mi baj lehet ?

rwurl=https://previews.123rf.com/images/gstockstudio/gstockstudio1501/gstockst...

Hajrá Psi! :)
Reméljük fasza lesz. :)

Igen. Az intelnel eddig az volt a mantra, hogy "fastest gaming cpu" mert workstation appokban hulyere lettek verve amugy is. Meg fastest single core. Mostmar ugye egyik se lesz igaz. PCI-E 4.0 sincs. Minden szempontbol szarabbak meg a legjobbjaik is. Ez azert eleg huzos.

Itt most ne azt nezd, hogy 5-20% kozott jobb a gaming perf hanem azt, hogy JOBB amikor a Zen2-vel nagyjabol ennyivel voltak elmaradva masfel eve.

hat, ha annyiert odaadod, amennyit tudok erte fizetni, johet :)

Late to the party on this thread, but wanted to chime in. Sorry for the length, didn't have time to make it shorter...

Was building a miniature Razorcrest, and shooting it Mo-Co absolutely necessary? No. Did it help to make the final result better? "Better" is subjective, but I believe in this case, the answer is yes. I've never been in the "practical is always better" camp. I dislike the push to do things practical in cases where it makes no sense, and is just for the PR, or because of nostalgia on the part of the filmmaker. Too often it feels like pandering to the fans who say they hate "CGI".

In this case though, in my opinion, the final result is more interesting to look at, more tactile, and the shots feel more old-school, than if we had not done it. So yes I think the process made the result "better".

There are two aspects to this. The first is building the model, the second is going the extra mile of shooting it Mo-Co. We could have stopped with just the model, and used it simply as lighting reference, but we didn't, so I'll talk about both.

First the model...

Before we decided to build the miniature, we already had a good looking CG Razorcrest, and had even finaled a shot or two with it. However, the Razorcrest has a paint finish that is nothing like any other Star Wars spaceships. It's not as matte as the Falcon, and nowhere near as mirror-like as Padme's ship in Ep1. It's somewhere in between. If we were just reproducing a known Star Wars ship, (or a new ship, but with a finish similar to known ships), there wouldn't be much benefit to building it practically. We know how to make a CG Falcon that's indistinguishable from the model(s), for instance. However because of the unknowns, if felt like there were things we could discover with further exploration, and we chose this path to explore.

As I mentioned, we had a darned good looking CG asset, that we had created through our normal CG look dev process. Even if we had pushed on with more experimentation of the look in CG, I doubt the ship would have ended up looking much different using that particular toolset. No one was saying "ugh, it just doesn't look good". As I said, we'd already finaled some shots, and they looked great. This was more about saying "what don't we know? What can we try to shake up this process, and discover new things?"

During the process of building the miniature, John Goodson discovered things through trial and error (and his vast experience building models), and arrived at a more scuffed, dirtier, but still "aircraft aluminum" finish on the Razorcrest.
The key to this is that at least part of that result was serendipitous, and came out of the process, and materials, rather than being a clear cut goal that John was simply executing on the model. If we hadn't built the model, we wouldn't have gotten that result.

Again, is that result "better" than the CG version? Again, subjective, but it's certainly more interesting in the way it takes the light, and the complexity it communicates, and whether it's "better" (which I think it is), we definitely wouldn't have gotten that specific result any other way.

Once we had the model, we duplicated that look on the CG version. Which of course demonstrates that there is no technical barrier to creating a ship that looks like that in CG, but again, it was the peculiarities of the model building process, the materials being used, and the mind of the model builder that arrived at that particular result. Duplicating that look in CG wasn't an issue, but arriving at that result, the path to getting there, was very specific to the route we chose.

Ok, that's just the decision to build a practical model, then there's also the decision to shoot it Mo-Co, rather than just using it as lighting/texture reference.

The decision to shoot it Mo-Co was Jon's, but came out of discussions we were having about what makes the original trilogy shots look and feel the way they do. Limitations of the technology of the time, shot design decisions having to do (in part) with George using actual aerial footage from films like Battle of Britain, and Dambusters in his rip-o-matic, shooting the models separately from the star fields, photo-chemical compositing, etc. all had an effect on the final result. In discussing all those things, we thought that putting ourselves through that process (or a trimmed down version of it) might render interesting results, with the old school vibe we were after.

We wanted to follow in those footsteps. Could we have done that in CG? Kind of? In fact, each of the Mo-Co shots began in Maya with me animating them using a CG version of the Mo-Co rig (like Previs folks do when Tech-Vising a shoot with specific equipment), in order to enforce the limitations of that particular rig, and the lenses we had, etc.

We could have simply rendered out those animations in our CG pipeline, and again would have gotten a perfectly acceptable result. However, the particular, peculiar, old-fashioned process of putting the model on the pylon, looking through the lens, discovering new things under the lights, making adjustments, dealing with unforeseen problems (and opportunities), yielded a specific result, that in my opinion was worth chasing.

Ok, so up top I said I disliked when a filmmaker opts for a practical approach simply out of nostalgia for the films they grew up on (it's almost never a filmmaker who actually had to make films that way back in the day). However in this case, I'll admit that there absolutely was a component of nostalgia here. For Jon certainly, but also for us doing the work. Is that a good reason to go to all this trouble? Not at all, not if that's the ONLY reason. On the other hand, if it's merely one ingredient, and there are other compelling reasons to go that route, I don't mind. Nostalgia makes it fun, and why shouldn't it be fun?

Hal Hickel, ILM animation director

riszpekt

+1
nekem is már elegem van a mostani helyzetből, de nem nagyon tudok merre indulni.
Esküszöm elmennék takarítani Vajk szállodájába is, annyira elegem van már.