Lights • Hacker News Board

Re: Lights

#21

Post by ck2 » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:26 PM UTC

ericb wrote: post #19

ck2 wrote: post #7

It's amazing. At first I was like - oh shoot, how did they license the music but then I was "oh". Try banking hard right (or left) and then when the sky starts to go technocolor pull up hard. Wow. Works great in Firefox 7, unless I go full width (2048x1152). Chrome seems to spaz out if I try to change the window size. Opera fans with full OpenGL drivers can now use WebGL too http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2011/…

> At first I was like - oh shoot, how did they license the music but then I was "oh". What does this mean?

It's the music artist's website - I didn't realize it at first.

Re: Lights

#22

Post by spot » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:32 PM UTC

DrCatbox wrote: post #14

WebGL is a helluva drug. Have they solved or answered the security considerations from letting a website issue graphics commands?

yes: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/06/cross-domain-webgl-textures...

unless you mean something else...

Re: Lights

#23

Post by melvinram » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:40 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #12

Beautiful, but "interactive" seems a bit of an overstatement here. Unless I missed some interactivity other than popping those bubbles and steering.

Moving your mouse would move the orientation of the light that was travelling across the landscape.

Re: Lights

#24

Post by cshenoy » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:40 PM UTC

moe wrote: post #12

Beautiful, but "interactive" seems a bit of an overstatement here. Unless I missed some interactivity other than popping those bubbles and steering.

From the landing page:

"Click to interact with the environment, keep the button pressed to fly faster."

Try clicking at different speeds and on different elements and you'll see the interactivity (works better with an external mouse). Contrast it to sitting back and watching it go.

Re: Lights

#25

Post by nbashaw » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:44 PM UTC

DanielRibeiro wrote: post #11

Guess it did not get enough traction yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3102979

It's always interesting to me what makes it up and what never catches on. Apparently more HN people are intrigued by the mere title "lights" than a title with more explanation.

Re: Lights

#26

Post by voidfiles » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:46 PM UTC

Feels static compared to what the arcade fire did with google.

http://thewildernessdowntown.com/

The web is a new medium, and browsers can be more expressive then pretty viz. Push the boundaries with this stuff don't just do your radio show on camera.

Re: Lights

#27

Post by navs » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

I don't care much for the track but as the environment pulsated, I found myself smiling. Simply amazing.

Running perfectly on MacBook Pro 5th Gen with Google Chrome Canary (16.0.x.x).

Re: Lights

#28

Post by droz » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:48 PM UTC

voidfiles wrote: post #26

Feels static compared to what the arcade fire did with google. http://thewildernessdowntown.com/ The web is a new medium, and browsers can be more expressive then pretty viz. Push the boundaries with this stuff don't just do your radio show on camera.

Every change of medium results in the old being shoe horned into the new until people figure out the new for what it can be.

Re: Lights

#29

Post by citricsquid » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

So uh, not to cause a fuss but why was the title edited? I can understand removing the word "impressive" as that is an opinion, but removing the explanation (interactive html5 / webgl presentation built with threejs) seems silly? How are users who casually browse news.yc supposed to look at this and have any clue what they're clicking? Titles that are descriptive should be more important than... well I can't think why it was changed to just "lights"? Surely the title containing some sort of description about the content is a courtesy that users would appreciate.

(For reference the original title was "Lights -- impressive html5 / webgl presentation built with threejs" and is now "Lights")

Re: Lights

#30

Post by webspiderus » Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 7:54 PM UTC

nbashaw wrote: post #25

DanielRibeiro wrote: post #11

Guess it did not get enough traction yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3102979

It's always interesting to me what makes it up and what never catches on. Apparently more HN people are intrigued by the mere title "lights" than a title with more explanation.

it was actually on the front page before it got edited to simply "lights" - the previous title was similar to the earlier submission.