This video is silly but does a good job of conveying how dumb chatbots can actually be especially if you think you're onto something. Even though your idea makes sense (I don't know enough about physics to say either way), keep in mind this is the thing that you're sharing it with. If it's dumb when asked a dumb question it's not a good sign for how smart it will be when asked a smart question.
Edit: just remembered about this person recently brought up on a discord server I'm on who was clearly having some chatbot break down over physics in a weird way https://github.com/aaronschutza/Research
Note that many game studios prioritize consoles first and whatever room there is to turn up or down the settings is what makes it to the pc version. When benchmarking level performance targets they're going to use console hardware. They're selling it for the Xbox series S, so that's probably going to be what the devs are considering as the lower end of a decent experience. So that means that an a580, rx 6600, or 2060 super will be more than good enough. The series S only has 10 gb of shared cpu-gpu ram, so it will have to run on fairly limited ram as well.
yep, I got through about 50 hours of Subnautica at ~15 fps back in the day.
Even portal with RTX is kinda playable on the steam deck though if you use that config that one person made to enable fsr3 and do some default settings changes, and put the gpu clock up to full
DM me if you want me to send you my monster sorting program I made a couple of years ago that has pictures of all of the pages in the monster manual in it
As alternatives to webkit/chromium/gecko browsers go, I like ladybird's speed of progress and their mentality of doing everything themselves (no external dependencies), but Kling's political views are concerning. Servo is going slower but still making progress (fell behind in implementing web standards), and both are kinda terrible in terms of speed afaik
Idk, on lemmy back-and-forth conversations are usually just a few replies at most, not particularly long format, unless you count length by all of the separate comments/branches
Sure, I could definitely see situations where it would be useful, but I'm fairly confident that no current games are doing that. First of all, it is a whole lot easier said than done to get real-world data for that type of thing. Even if you manage to find a dataset with positions of various features across various biomes and train an AI model on that, in 99% of cases it will still take a whole lot more development time and probably be a whole lot less flexible than manually setting up rulesets, blending different noise maps, having artists scatter objects in an area, etc. It will probably also have problems generating unusual terrain types, which is a problem if the game is set in a fantasy world with terrain that is unlike what you would find in the real world. So then, you'd need artists to come up with a whole lot of datat to train the model with, when they could just be making the terrain directly. I'm sure Google DeepMind or Meta AI whatever or some team of university researchers could come up with a way to do ai terrain generation very well, but game studios are not typically connected to those sorts of people, even if they technically are under the same company of Microsoft or Meta.
You can get very far with conventional procedural generation techniques, hydraulic erosion, climate simulation, maybe even a model of an ecosystem. And all of those things together would probably still be much more approvable for a game studio than some sort of machine learning landscape prediction.
I don't know of any games that use machine learning for procedural generation and would be slightly surprised if there are any. But there is a little bit of a distinction there because that is required at runtime, so it's not something an artist could possibly be involved in.
Copy the link of the image. You see the bit at the end of the url that says ?format=webp? Change that to ?format=png.
Lemmy often doesn't show images in original quality unless specifically requested to.
Edit: which is fair, because the lossy webp is 51 kb vs 513 for the png. Compressed for longer, it could be a 265 kb lossless jxl though. Once Mozilla and Google finally add support (which is actually happening now!). It could also be a 322 kb lossless avif. All of these aren't max effort, just the effort that takes about 6 seconds on Image Toolbox on my phone
Lossily, avif > webp > mozjpeg > jxl > jpegli for this image, although I think this is just because jxl and jpegli use the same perpetual tuning method which must not favor dark areas. Which might be good for most images but certainly is terrible for this one. It certainly is much better at the bright areas. Mozjpeg vs jxl -> lossless webp (equivalent compressed size)
Note that all of the lossless formats would have been much smaller if the original screenshot in the mastodon post was lossless
Motion blur in video games is usually a whole lot less accurate at what it's trying to approximate than averaging 4 frame generation frames would be. Although 4 frame generation frames would be a lot slower to compute than the approximations people normally make for motion blur.
Yes, motion blur in video games is just an approximation and usually has a lot of visible failure cases (disocclusion, blurred shadows, rotary blur sometimes). It obviously can't recreate the effect of a fast blinking light moving across the screen during a frame. It can be a pretty good approximation in the better implementations, but the only real way to 'do it properly' is by rendering frames multiple times per shown frame or rendering stochastically (not really possible with rasterization and obviously introduces noise). Perfect motion blur would be the average of an infinite number of frames over the period of time between the current frame and the last one. With path tracing you can do the rendering stochastically, and you need a denoiser anyways, so you can actually get very accurate motion blur. As the number of samples approaches infinity, the image approaches the correct one.
Some academics and nvidia researchers have recently coauthored a paper about optimizing path tracing to apply ReSTIR (technique for reusing information across multiple pixels and across time) to scenes with motion blur, and the results look very good (obviously still very noisy, I guess nvidia would want to train another ray reconstruction model for it). It's also better than normal ReSTIR or Area ReSTIR when there isn't motion blur apparently. It's relying on a lot of approximations too, so probably not quite unbiased path tracing quality if allowed to converge, but I don't really know.
But that probably won't be coming to games for a while, so we're stuck with either increasing framerates to produce blur naturally (through real or 'fake' frames), or approximating blur in a more fake way.
Frame generation is the only real odd-one-out here, the rest are using basically the same technique under the hood. I guess we don't really know exactly what ray reconstruction is doing since they've never released a paper or anything, but I think it combines DLSS upscaling with denoising basically, in the same pass.
DLSS Frame Generation actually uses the game's analytic motion vectors though instead of trying to estimate them (well, really it does both) so it is a whole lot more accurate. It's also using a fairly large AI model for the estimation, in comparison to TVs probably just doing basic optical flow or something.
If it's actually good though depends on if you care about latency and if you can notice the visual artifacts in the game you're using it for.
Are there any alternatives that are decently fast for large files? My computer and my phone both get at least 300 mbps from the router, and I have yet to find a local file transfer application that will be anywhere near that fast for large files (destiny, local send, kde connect, might have tried others, I don't remember)
You know, the new word is 'affordability.' Another word is just 'groceries.' It's sort of an old-fashioned word but it's very accurate. And they're coming down
This video is silly but does a good job of conveying how dumb chatbots can actually be especially if you think you're onto something. Even though your idea makes sense (I don't know enough about physics to say either way), keep in mind this is the thing that you're sharing it with. If it's dumb when asked a dumb question it's not a good sign for how smart it will be when asked a smart question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRjgNgJms3Q
Edit: just remembered about this person recently brought up on a discord server I'm on who was clearly having some chatbot break down over physics in a weird way https://github.com/aaronschutza/Research
This one is particularly obviously nonsensical https://github.com/aaronschutza/Research/blob/main/APH_Quake.pdf
Anyways the point is that AI is absolutely not trustworthy in any way