Forum
Mon, 02/11/2009 - 15:13
Sorry to be harsh but what is the point of the demo? I have 'played' it and the fact that lots of very clever stuff has gone into this is hidden by the poor experience of the demo. The impression of going round a real track is completely lost on me. Any number of racing 'games' give a much better impression than this demo. Yes, its a picture on my screen of actual video of the track , but its such poor quality - presumably to get an acceptable frame rate - that any sense of realism is lost. OK, its early days I know, but I don't see how this will be better than using real time positioning and computer generated tracks and cars to give an immersive experience. How does the video-captured bit help? To me it detracts instead. I love the concept of being in a real race (or other event) but I think letting the computer generate the images would be the way to go.
Tue, 03/11/2009 - 13:57
#2
Ok, I'm sure you wouldn't have embarked on this without some research that it would be attractive to a specific audience. I'm intrigued to know what that audience is - I haven't ruled out that I could be in that target audience! From trying the demo though I think (and I am sure you know) there is a long way to go. I shall watch the progress you make with great interest.
Tue, 03/11/2009 - 22:12
#3
Hi again
The iflex technology is 4 months old post Alpha. CGI games are 35 years old. I dont know how much has been invested in console development and games titles overall. I do know that a AAA games title is $20+million and takes 12+ months to author.
In terms of consumer audiences there are two extremes.
The first is the traditional sim gamer who looks for the best quality graphics with a great physics engine. Our graphics will be the best. Physics engines are a commodity
The second audience is the 1.5billion computer users with a broadband connection and no games console. Some of these users want to watch and or take part in the worlds premier racing sports. This could be via any connected platform.
Thanks for your comments
Fri, 06/11/2009 - 08:32
#4
I agree with beavesp.
For example, watch the follwing video (in HD!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fIqRk6pYQ8
Do you think that with the new technology you will be able to compete with those technologies?
Fri, 06/11/2009 - 10:17
#5
The Youtube link you posted is very good but as it clearly says, it's a render and not real.
The point of Realtimerace is to use a real image taken on that day.
For example in F1, sponsor logos change race by race and with Realtimerace you will get the upto date sponsor logos as the video capture would have been taken the day of the race so will be real.
The quality of RTR so far is not upto scratch but over time this will develop into something to match tv coverage.
Rob
RTR
Fri, 06/11/2009 - 11:02
#6
I have not been able to try the demo yet, But what I was wondering was you say your going to be availible for 2010? when in 2010 do you think that will be? Also how close do you think F1 will be in 2010 (will RTR be ready for or involved in next years season?)
I watch with keen intrest and hope.
Fri, 06/11/2009 - 15:05
#7
I think people are slating this too much without actually realising what they are trying to do.
Racing around a real track in real time with real video is a pretty good concept.
It's more to do with virtual reality augmentation, that real time graphics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality
This is augmented reality project, people who don't get that really need to move on, and keep playing pure cgi-games,
like f1-racing.
It would be straight forward to feed the driver data to a game like f1 for the ps3, so those people who want
a pure cgi environment can have it.
But the real time capture systems need to be developed first.
There's obviously a long way to go, but that's the nature of any new technology.
If anything thinks current real-time cgi is as good as real life they are dreaming.
Processors are not fast enough yet for real time ray tracing at home!
Wed, 11/11/2009 - 15:02
#8
Everyone in this thread seems to have missed the main point raised in the opening post...
Regardless of the amount of money/time that has been invested in CGI games over the last "35 years", what was *this* demo supposed to show, or indeed, impress people with?
I'm not criticising the demo for what it is (an early prototype that will hopefully soon blossom into something much more usable), but why RTR felt the need to release it to the public. Fair enough, it sounds as if the BBC wanted something they could show on 'Click' to be built fairly rapidly, and a decent job was done of trying to get their point across regarding what they want to eventually want to achieve in this area - but as a demo to be digested by the public it represents a very, very early stage of the process and does little to make "someone off the street" think that this is going to be a good idea.
Even worse is that the people knowing/caring about this technology at this moment in time and actually visiting this website right now won't be the proverbial "man on the street" who knows nothing about video games, we're all already in the know of what else is out there and I sense most people will play this demo for 20 seconds and instantly dismiss it as a waste of time.
I feel the product at such an early stage should be kept in-house, I don't see this demo impressing many people other than those that are already interested in what you're trying to achieve, such as myself.
Sat, 14/11/2009 - 13:14
#9
DANTM
This product is ultimately aimed at both the man on the street, the sim/game user.
Why did we release so early ? The main answer is strategic I guess.
We have created a significant new electronic technology. Early examples could be radio or television (of course ours isnt quite as significant) or more recently say 3d television, projection TV and mobile phones, you release early.
We have got some great customer and support feedback. We have been offered 2 national TV slots plus other media slots, nearly 50 commercial partnerships of which 2 are from companies worth over $100billion and finally but not least about to sign 2 contracts which will further fund the development.
Must admit though. We didnt quite expect such a successful response.
Thanks for your interest
Mon, 30/11/2009 - 06:53
#10
physics is a bit unreal
Wed, 17/02/2010 - 16:20
#11
I think they could improve in the future. The ideas are there, but the graphics are not there.... yet
Thu, 25/02/2010 - 13:48
#12
I think this demo isn't playable yet, sure. It's rather a pre-preview of demo, a conception. :) But I like this idea. Earlier I imagined that it should be very similar way to make the video-realistic games (with 360-deg. camera etc...). And here I see the realization. Hope this project would develop in the future. Keep it up! ;)
Mon, 17/05/2010 - 19:11
#13
haJXjn cialis 9041 viagra 2686 acomplia brand 472078 buy intravenous tramadol 09976 pain pill ultram 305 levitra delivered tdwvo propecia kjgp
Mon, 24/05/2010 - 10:45
#14
iEIDj7 xanax zppsmn xanax equivalant valium 00879 acompliaAR :O tramadol 051 acomplia diet drug purephentermine 8D
Real Time Positioning and Computer Generated Graphics have were trialled in 2003 in F1. (See how it started). Consumers simply couldnt make the jump from a video game to it being real.
Our focus groups have told us that using television pictures will change that.
Thanks for your interest