Remote Control Personal computer or great movie script?

[TRexian 0]

So.... there would be fake explosions in this mini-world game, that would be controlled so as not to ruin the deception of being tiny?

[dmarkwick 261]

So.... there would be fake explosions in this mini-world game, that would be controlled so as not to ruin the deception of being tiny?

Filmed at 85 fps for scale :)

[boytitanium 10]

More details on this woud have a fabric sheeted 3d, so the plexiglass/glass enclosure made by the scientific data would provide literally trillions of pixels to manipulate light. Controlling shadows on a building, etc. all at the programmers discretion to program. The autobots light fabric would also be of this same material to provide uniform/tema colour in multiplayer combat.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/13/fujitsus-flexible-low-power-color-screen/

Edited January 16, 2010 by boytitanium
website idea for concept

[TRexian 0]

Just. Wow.

[Simon C 0]

Ok. This is getting beyond a joke now. I shall now attempt to bring some reasoning into this thread.

@boytitanium - Do you seriously believe it's possible to do anything you've mentioned here? You are seriously telling me that you think it's possible to create a mini-atmosphere where people can watch robots fight to the death with explosions and helicopters? Because if that's what you are suggesting, then you need to step away from the keyboard my good man and take a step outside where there is some air, because this is the stuff of fantasy. It would not happen in the near future at best, for a few hundred years is more likely. Please, step forward and admit that this was a joke, or forever be scarred with the lunatic-hammer's mark. :)

[olro 0]

Oh, you laugh now... history proved these wrong too:

«Man will not fly for 50 years.»

Wilbur Wright, American aviation pioneer, to brother Orville, after a disappointing flying experiment, 1901 (their first successful flight was in 1903).

«The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad.»

The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford's lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903.

«There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.»

Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

And now:

"....because this is the stuff of fantasy. It would not happen in the near future at best, for a few hundred years is more likely". Simon C, Gunnery Sergeant from Derbyshire UK, arguing against boytitaniums Remote Control Personal Computer in 2010.

;-P

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, I can see there is some amount of laughing & dismissal of opinion here :) but really, the idea is fundamentally flawed because of the scale vs perceived time issue. When you scale things down (no matter what atmosphere you generate for it) you need to perceive time faster in order for it to make sense. As it stands, the only way you can do that is via filming it as a faster FPS and replaying at a slower FPS. Obviously, you cannot do that in real-time.

But really, the OP has introduced this idea and has dismissed the opposing opinions as simple pessimism (supplying an almost impenetrable site as evidence of preemptive pessimism) and yet supplies the most simplistic argument against digital simulation in response i.e. it cannot be done now, therefore it will never be possible. That's exactly the argument he's dismissing against his own idea, except that those arguments are very real and serious. Digital simulation can overcome almost any limitation with time, especially if all you're doing is generating an image for the user, which is what the OP avatar system is doing.

[boytitanium 10]

please read the entire thread before responding to this topic.

Edited January 17, 2010 by boytitanium

[dmarkwick 261]

1+1=2 is an example of an axiom. It's a basic truth that must be taken as truth without mathematical proof, because there is no more basic math available to prove it with.

As for your other stuff, it's almost entirely nonsensical. That ILM formula I mentioned is what you NEED to do in order for scaled models to appear full size. That's not a mistake. If you didn't use that formula, all your filmed miniatures would look like miniatures, you can scale a model but you cannot scale down gravity or time.

Scaled avatars cannot be used for real-time human interaction with the intention of simulating full-scale. It's really as simple as that.

[Daniel 0]

@boytitanium

Well, you might be completely off your box, but at least you've started using paragraphs.

Do you actually think this should or will happen? Or are you simply musing the possibility?

[boytitanium 10]

1+1=2 is an example of an axiom. It's a basic truth that must be taken as truth without mathematical proof, because there is no more basic math available to prove it with.

As for your other stuff, it's almost entirely nonsensical. That ILM formula I mentioned is what you NEED to do in order for scaled models to appear full size. That's not a mistake. If you didn't use that formula, all your filmed miniatures would look like miniatures, you can scale a model but you cannot scale down gravity or time.

Scaled avatars cannot be used for real-time human interaction with the intention of simulating full-scale. It's really as simple as that.

How can nasa simulate space on earth and train for space missions? What you are telling me is that humans cannot recreate an autobot(human like robot) to duplicate this exact action?

Edited January 17, 2010 by boytitanium

[dmarkwick 261]

How can nasa simulate space on earth and train for space missions? What you are telling me is that humans cannot recreate an autobot(human like robot) to duplicate this exact action?

No, what I'm saying is that you cannot recreate scaled autobots to duplicate this exact action. If you scale dimensions, you must also scale time.

This argument is going nowhere as far as axioms are concerned no 1st grader could know about axioms before knowing 1+1=2?, chirality in chemistry is more of an axiom and just as feasible in a scaled human version of what I call autobots.

I mention axioms because of your rather confused and nonsensical 1+1=2 introduction. Now you've introduced the notion that first graders cannot understand axioms. Quite clearly, you cannot maintain a coherent discussion on this topic.

[boytitanium 10]

Actually you have introduced that it cannot be done? I am going with your idea and disproving your ILM statement that is how logic is done.

Here is a simple logic proof:

when confronting any problem you need to compliment the problem before you can understand to prove it is wrong.

So if for example anyone on this forum cannot compliment the system first then they cannot prove it wrong.

the most simple example is the arcade displaying a car game/motorcycle game where you are on a motorbike and racing, or paperboy where the handlebars are actual bicycle handlebars, but it is not possible?

I think people are just not bothering to read the whole topic that I have introduced. Very simple to have miniature model trains for R/C or r/c cars that go 160mph at 1/8 scale but no you cannot possibly build an r/c interactive environment for the PC?

http://fastestrc.blogspot.com/2008/03/guinness-world-record-for-fastest-rc.html

Edited January 17, 2010 by boytitanium

[dmarkwick 261]

Actually you have introduced that it cannot be done? I am going with your idea and disproving your ILM statement that is how logic is done.

That ILM formula thing doesn't require disproving, it's simply how it's done. It's not a theory put forward by ILM about how scaling down models introduces timing issues, it's simply the formula they use to make miniature filming work. As such, it directly applies to any miniature use, particularly when using miniatures as real-world avatars and counterparts.

As such, I don't see how you can disprove that formula doesn't apply to scaled real-time miniature usage.

Take this simple example: if you place a camera onto a scale model of a racing car, then race it around a scale model race track, viewing that camera footage shows a very fast race, too fast for life-size cars to accomplish those turns and maneuvers. If you see a scale model car crash, it's over in a fraction of a second, just like the tumbling toy it is. However, if you slow that footage down appropriately, it becomes more realistic. You need to slow down the footage to adjust for scale.

THATS why the scaled autobot idea is unworkable. It's very simple logic, and simply denying the application of time/scale calculations won't change that.

Here is a simple logic proof:

when confronting any problem you need to compliment the problem before you can understand to prove it is wrong.

I don't know what you are saying. Do you have another way to say that idea?

[Daniel 0]

...you cannot possibly build an r/c interactive environment for the PC?

Exactly that.

Here is a simple logic proof:

when confronting any problem you need to compliment the problem before you can understand to prove it is wrong.

English only on these forums please.

[Simon C 0]

Oh, I thought this topic had died. This made me sad.

Now I see it's open again, this makes me very amused. Carry on chaps. :)

On topic, it won't happen boytitanium. Complimenting problems only makes them feel good about themselves, making them worse. :)

[AndresCL 10]

Drugs are bad

[boytitanium 10]

Building smaller models scaled in reality makes more sense than making larger than life creations and sending actual humans. We are witnessing time in reverse here for all practical purposes. How is it man can achieve 8 meters persecond without first building a smaller model to achieve this speed like a remote control? 3.5 x times human pace in logic with small remote controls makes more sense than your ILM book writing by some human who could have made a human mistake. Humans are backwards for all purposes--all examples in physics/animal footage show smaller is faster, yet humans do the exact opposite and build smaller go-karts slower than racecars,etc?

a shrimp strikes a clam with a speed of 8 meters per second, actually showing footage on television light being emitted from work being done from this force times distance.

It does make sense to build remote control models to go into space with a smaller autobot to withstand the force of space rather than actually sending a human or dog, chimpanzee, etc. No human will travel to another earthlike planet without first building a remote control autobot pilot system to collect the data first--- like a satellite for example but more complex so it is on and exploring another earthlike planet-- It is just much safer and logical.

Same concept applies here but on this planet, a remote control like for example robotix--this is a good children's toy example but for adult gaming. I have explained the basics we are not talking humans actually playing in a video game, I am talking about 4" remote controlled components that are programmable much like your computer to interact with other components.

Instead of you buying 3 video cards the video game developer would have the ideal configuration already set-up for lets say 400 players on their processing system that you would pay a monthly fee to connect to. IN my opinion if you can provide an 8Mgps line for downloading then this is possible to provide a video gaming connection.

Edited February 2, 2010 by boytitanium

[TRexian 0]

Darmok and Jilad at Tanagra.

[dmarkwick 261]

Building smaller models scaled in reality makes more sense than making larger than life creations and sending actual humans. We are witnessing time in reverse here for all practical purposes. How is it man can achieve 8 meters persecond without first building a smaller model to achieve this speed like a remote control? 3.5 x times human pace in logic with small remote controls makes more sense than your ILM book writing by some human who could have made a mistake. Humans are backwards for all purposes--all examples in physics/animal footage show smaller is faster, yet humans do the exact opposite and build smaller go-karts slower than racecars?

a crab strikes a clam with a speed of 8 meters per second, actually showing footage on television light being emitted from work being done from this force times distance

Dude why repeat that post? You already made it, and I already debunked it as complete nonsense. If you didn't understand, just say :)

[Tankbuster 1746]

[NeMeSiS 11]

Humans are backwards for all purposes--all examples in physics/animal footage show smaller is faster, yet humans do the exact opposite and build smaller go-karts slower than racecars,etc?

You.... I....

I dont know where to start, I'm speechless.

[boytitanium 10]

Dude why repeat that post? You already made it, and I already debunked it as complete nonsense. If you didn't understand, just say :)

How then can your quote be wrong? I was editing the whole time while you were responding to just parts of my post? You've debunked nothing--but what?--a trip on acid--I will save for others to experience/read.

Edited February 2, 2010 by boytitanium
details

[Simon C 0]

This is back? Wow.

boytitanium, it's just not going to happen in the near future. I am admittedly finding it hard to understand what you're putting, but it seems like you just want to either visit space or shoot robots. I really don't think this is related to ArmA or BIS in anyway, so I don't see why you posted it here. Sorry, but I just don't get it. :confused:

[boytitanium 10]

The reasoning why I think a video game connection would be useful instead of people buying 3 video cards and 6-core processor--- This game really can drain processor and game cards, so it makes more sense now to build a game processor unit that others can connect to so they can be supplied with all the processing requirements the game requires. I don't know if this is possible but it follows with logic that it is and the next level of gaming systems.