MehMan

Well, this is my dilemma. Conrad says the SFH485P has a viewing angle of 40°. While Farnell says it has a viewing angle of 160°. Both are supposed to be the same product. Osram on the other hand is saying the same as conrad. And this is supposed to be enough?

That's the other thing that bothers me. The PS3 eye might be great, but if the drivers eat up 30% of your CPU and FT takes up another chunk, then it might not be the most optimal solution. Another question with the LEDs: viewing angle. I can only find IR leds with a viewing angle of 40°, FT recommends more. I've found some LEDs that tick all the boxes, BUT the viewing angle. I found a SFH485P LED, which should be just it, but the viewing angle is confusing me. On one site it says it's 40°, on another it's supposed to be 160°. Huh?

Heh, yeah, germany. I'm from Slovenia, which is much smaller and thus not a lot of eyes for sale. I only see one second hand one, and it's on for 44€! That's mental! A new one is 40€! I might call him and offer him 30€ for it and take it off him. Or just buy it off ebay, I can get it for like 30€ there, even less. RE the colour input only: Can't the FT interface make it into B&W and set the exposure really high?

Hmm, very interesting. I'm tempted to go out and buy one, but it's already in a price range where it's becoming a sizeable ammount of money just to try. The other solution that's good, the wiimote is on bluetooth and is thus shit. So the only tested and sure solution is a webcam? I say, i'll have to give it a go. Might even go nuts and try the PS3 eye.

So that means no IR capture?

Indeed, that's what I want to see! The biggest problem to overcome is the FPS, which is shit for most webcams, because they're not built for this purpose. But the PS3 eye and wiimote, which cost almost the same, could be suitable replacements. one would need side by side comparison of a webcam vs the wiimote vs ps3 eye vs TIR 5. Well, webcam vs wiimote/ps3 might be very good, webcam vs TIR5 is an obvious win for tir5, but Ps3 vs TIR5 might be interesting. The other thing that one can see instantly see is the higher res TIR5 offers, which along with higher capture FPS can make the whole thing smoother. Can the PS3 eye be made to capture at higher res?

Has anybody made a side by side comparison of FT and TIP? I mean, I can see how FT is tempting, but I can also see why TIP is tempting. While FT is the cheap solution, you see why it's the cheap solution. It can be a bit jerky apparently. And not as smooth as TIP. For some it seems to work just fine, but for some it works like dog shit.

We already have multicore support.

Yeah, but it was expected. I mean, it happened three times in a row by then. There's always bound to be teething problems, BI products just have huge teeth.

How did BI drop the ball by supporting the game? I think they did a great job, even though I sometimes state otherwise.

Another question, how does this work in the dark? When the only light source is your screen?

Sweet, there's even a bunch of recommended webcams to use: http://www.free-track.net/english/hardware/webcam.php I am running down to the store on monday to see if they have any of these! Dont' see my previous posts of me criticism freetrack, they were written by a buffon!

Hmm, this looks rather tempting.

It can get a bit confusing if you're buying it from here: http://www.penisland.net/

I read it as ballpoint penis for the first 10 times. Thank you 4chan.

Ever since max 8 or 9 the UVW maps I've rendered have not been aligned properly, most of the time the wireframe rendered was off by a pixel or less(if you moved the uv map in photoshop you could get it aligned almost properly, but only if it was out by a pixel. the problem is that it's not all misaligned in the same direction. quite annoying). The less bit means you can only correct the misalignment in max, manually. To see what I mean, observe the attachment. I rendered the UVW map via the dialog(that is, by applying Unwrap UVW, edit so you get the layout, tools and render UVW template) and then applied it directly to my model. As you can see, it's misaligned straight away. How can I solve this?

Yeah, I have the textures sizes set to match bitmap as close as possible. The RTT trick does a way better job actually! It's spot on! It does however still applying shading to the UV, despite bumping up the ambient, and it is a tiny bit blurry, but no disaster. It's all up to playing with the render settings.

hmm, good idea. though they frankly scare me with words like edgeflow. then I google for hours before I break down and admit I don't know what it means.

This who CoD:MW2 is made for: He's the one who wants to hear oscar mike and footmobiles over and over again.

What? That doesn't really help. We're talking about 3ds max, not Blender. We're discussing UVW maps, not modeling per se. Thanks for trying to help.

Tried that, doesn't work. Thanks for helping nonetheless. Will check around

Pretty much sums it up. I hate the difficulty that switches mid game. Even on super easy they throw you into situations where you have to fight off 1000 shooting russians at once. And it would seem that the the higher the difficulty level, the more shots you need to take down somebody, coming to a point where the AI kills you with less shots than you can kill the AI. The storyline just looks as if they bought a boxset with Red Dawn, Generation Kill and a few Tom Clancy films and watched it all back to back to back until they came up with that story. On a sidenote, as always, MW2 was awsome on the music front. I reckon it's because Hans Zimmer did the work.

Don't use google chrome to download straight from FTP. It hates it. You need to use IE. A rather huge flaw with an otherwise great browser.

And have them all die when I forget that I left them in the drawer? No way.

I liked the look of Mirrors edge. It was all so clean and nice. The game itself...eh.