Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4D Doom

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: 4D Doom

#51

Post by AndrewDucker »

somat wrote: post #14

I just watched the associated dev video And if I understand it, what the author is doing is kind of interesting. The sensor to see a 3d scene is 2d(eye or camera). What is being done here is simulating a 3d sensor(for a 4d world) then we are looking at this 3d sensor using our 2d sensors (eyes). I don't know if this is the common way of rendering these 4d physics simulations. But it is the first I have heard it descr…

Nitpick - your eyes are, in combination, a 3d sensor. Individually they're 2d sensors, but together they can detect three dimensional information.

Re: 4D Doom

#53

Post by __alexs »

somat wrote: post #30
keyle wrote: post #24

It's cool and all and I typically enjoy lowres renditions... unless, it actually impacts gameplay. Since the gameplay is so much about 4D, clarity in what you see becomes more important and the extremely low resolution actually impairs the player rather than serve a positive (typically 'leaves more to the imagination'). It wouldn't take much of an effort to double or triple the resolution which I think would help the…

The reason it is so low res is actually more interesting than simple aesthetic choice. Think about the sensor(or eye) needed to view a 3d scene, it is 2d right. So this is a 3d sensor(voxels) for a simulated 4d camera. and then we are looking at the 3d sensor. (with our 2d sensor(eyes)), it's sensor inception. So it is as low res as it is because it is a bunch of voxels simulating a 4d camera. The dev put out an inte…

There have been other 4D video games with actually good performance though.

Re: 4D Doom

#54

Post by Citizen_Lame »

somat wrote: post #30
keyle wrote: post #24

It's cool and all and I typically enjoy lowres renditions... unless, it actually impacts gameplay. Since the gameplay is so much about 4D, clarity in what you see becomes more important and the extremely low resolution actually impairs the player rather than serve a positive (typically 'leaves more to the imagination'). It wouldn't take much of an effort to double or triple the resolution which I think would help the…

The reason it is so low res is actually more interesting than simple aesthetic choice. Think about the sensor(or eye) needed to view a 3d scene, it is 2d right. So this is a 3d sensor(voxels) for a simulated 4d camera. and then we are looking at the 3d sensor. (with our 2d sensor(eyes)), it's sensor inception. So it is as low res as it is because it is a bunch of voxels simulating a 4d camera. The dev put out an inte…

They should have used Gaussian Splats, surely this would reduce processing overhead.

Re: 4D Doom

#55

Post by dtj1123 »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #51
somat wrote: post #14

I just watched the associated dev video And if I understand it, what the author is doing is kind of interesting. The sensor to see a 3d scene is 2d(eye or camera). What is being done here is simulating a 3d sensor(for a 4d world) then we are looking at this 3d sensor using our 2d sensors (eyes). I don't know if this is the common way of rendering these 4d physics simulations. But it is the first I have heard it descr…

Nitpick - your eyes are, in combination, a 3d sensor. Individually they're 2d sensors, but together they can detect three dimensional information.

Strictly speaking this doesn't make them a true 3d sensor, but rather a 2d sensor with an accompanying depth-map. In order for them to be true 3d sensors they'd be have to transmit information about both the near and far sides of an object simultaneously, for example.

Re: 4D Doom

#56

Post by heftig »

amlib wrote: post #39

I find it fascinating that it turns into a "descent like" (6dof fps) when using the ability to "peek" the 4th dimension.

The perspective shifts so that the up-down direction becomes the hidden dimension. So the ceiling and floor disappear (and you have trouble avoiding lava) and you only see the walls of the space.

Re: 4D Doom

#58

Post by dickiedyce »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #51
somat wrote: post #14

I just watched the associated dev video And if I understand it, what the author is doing is kind of interesting. The sensor to see a 3d scene is 2d(eye or camera). What is being done here is simulating a 3d sensor(for a 4d world) then we are looking at this 3d sensor using our 2d sensors (eyes). I don't know if this is the common way of rendering these 4d physics simulations. But it is the first I have heard it descr…

Nitpick - your eyes are, in combination, a 3d sensor. Individually they're 2d sensors, but together they can detect three dimensional information.

Hmmm... Agreed that they're mostly 2D sensors, but apart from near-field the post-processing brain can use depth-cues to for us 'see' in 3D. Also, you don't see in 3D unless your head/eyes/target is moving, right?

Re: 4D Doom

#59

Post by AndrewDucker »

dickiedyce wrote: post #58
AndrewDucker wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick - your eyes are, in combination, a 3d sensor. Individually they're 2d sensors, but together they can detect three dimensional information.

Hmmm... Agreed that they're mostly 2D sensors, but apart from near-field the post-processing brain can use depth-cues to for us 'see' in 3D. Also, you don't see in 3D unless your head/eyes/target is moving, right?

You definitely get 3D from just having twin perspectives on an object. You get even more when moving your head.
Post reply on HN