6 ms·
It's just plain displacement mapping. It's a very simple (and old), but versatile technique allowing a large amount of effects to be done. The first time I saw
by hackermom 16y ago
It's just plain displacement mapping. It's a very simple (and old), but versatile technique allowing a large amount of effects to be done. The first time I saw this was in 93 or 94, rendered in real time in 256*256 in 25 fps, on an Amiga running a 14mhz 68020 processor. THAT was impressive to me, but seeing this 15 years later in 15-20 fps in Flash on a 2ghz machine just isn't.
- swombat 16y agoAgreed - Also worth looking at the other examples est posted lower in the discussion. Those are more interesting.
- dca 16y agoExactly. And flash was introduced 14 years ago. It really has no excuse for not having better performance at this point. I'm glad its dying.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- DrJokepu 16y agoOf course the real difference is a lot higher as it's not just about the clock rate - an awful lot of improvements were made in areas such as the pipeline, caching, floating-point support etc. so I wouldn't be very surprised if the real performance ratio was higher than 1000.
- ToastOpt 16y agoFloating point ops used to take a while. A 16Mhz Amiga with a floating point co-processor might have had one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68881 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68881 Yeah, 16 Mhz ==> 160 KFlops, if you believe wikipedia. Supposedly the i7 has a peak of 79 GFlops. Sure, you can't get all of that performance out (either then, or now), but 79,000,000 / 160 is a bit larger than 143. You used to measure the number of cycles an integer multiply costed, in the dozens or hundreds. Now it takes 1/4 of a cycle. A factor of 10,000 might be a fairer number
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]