MarkRebuck wrote:The Duke Nukem Forever references are perfectly on point here.
MarkRebuck wrote:There is another very popular expression in the software industry: "Done is better than perfect."
janjansen wrote:MarkRebuck wrote:The Duke Nukem Forever references are perfectly on point here.
EDB probably doesnt know Duke Nukem forever, maybe he's too young to remember how many of us waited 15 years for it, and thus didnt understand my reference to it. But thats ok, Im pretty sure OXO knows it.
janjansen wrote:I think Tim wants to adapt the projection based on where you're looking at. In that video you linked (which is is awesome btw), you can see there is a section in the middle of the screen thats not distorted.
You are only annoying people. Go find another hobby.
Slartibartfast wrote:. Personally, while the demonstrated view of 360° was interesting to see I found setting the FoV to 120° more useful myself, but your mileage may vary
janjansen wrote:Clearly, but I found it impressive that 360° even worked, and appeared playable on a single screen. 120 degrees on 3 screens would be easy then .
janjansen wrote:EDB wrote:search.php?keywords=Duke+Nukem
So, DNF had been brought up twice in the past 5 years. Your point is what, exactly?You are only annoying people. Go find another hobby.
I think you're the only one annoyed, and frankly, annoying in this thread.
For sure you're the only one that's aggressive and insulting. How about you try some of your own medicine.
phercek wrote:One must match real and rendering FOVs and the projection surface with the monitor surface for the best result. Other option would be to use a bit more complicated shape than cylinder to compensate for mismatched FOVs. But cylinder is good enough. I think it gives errors in the range of few percent only (when set up well).
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests