I've been a G-Force Gold member for about a year now and I've been following its evolution carefully. First, Andy and the other config contributors, you guys have been doing a fantastic job. G-F is head/shoulders above the rest. Now for my radical points of view:
1. Personally I think track info is great, especially as a sprite, and would like to have it around either all the time or periodically recurring throught the track. I'd even like to see Time Remaining and Elapsed Time show up the same way. Obviously others don't agree, so I guess it should be a preference.
2. This is really the radical one: from a person who has avidly followed music visualization since the Atari Video Music (Does that date me?) I say its time to lose most of the axially-, vertically-, and horizontally-symmetric wave shapes. They're old and dated. G-F is, after all, dynamic art. When's the last time you saw an artwork with so much symmetry? Never? I thought so. Art works revel in the non-symmetric and avoid the symmetric except for contrast. Often just moving the flow field around and way from the center will fix this.
3. Another thing: I agree with Andy that it's time to lose the 2001 Space Odyssey-type flow fields. Except for short segments, they've also become old and hackneyed. Examples: tunnel vision,
4. Going further: repetetively pulsating patterns, same thing. About the third time I see two vertical lines slowly pulse back and forth I get bored.
OK, enough for now, fire away. After the flames die down I'll get on to where visualization is headed.
A radical point of view on G-Force
Moderators: BTT, andy55, b.dwall, juxtiphi
-
ethan_greer
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Northeastern Ohio
-
JayPro
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: Huntington Station, Long Island, New York
This should be a most interesting debate that I'd like to see hashed out.
Point for point (mostly), I would respectfully submit the following:
1. As you say, this is a matter of preference; but I think that having things like current track and time remaining in the track constantly/mostly hanging around or even moving about from point to point on the screen will detract from the viewer's experience.
2 (Brace yourselves...
). First of all, isn't the concept of the simple waveshape--i.e. the simple horizontal or vertical line or some such thing--in and of itself a delving of sorts into the classic, "old school" music visualization, somewhat like the Atari program you cited? The fact that G-Force and WhiteCap have advanced at such paces without the bells and whistles that other visual apps simply take for granted (Open GL off the top of my head) is truly remarkable. Buth that will change for the better soon.
Secondly, a deep glance at the program in action should indicate that as the program evolves along with the config maker's understanding of the code, so goes the complexity of the Waveshape (effect cited for the sake of your argument). Not only that, but as Andy integrates newer aspects of the program (i.e. the aforementioned Open GL plus a far more powerful engine/coprocessor, specialized C-based scripting/compiling language etc.), we'll be able to create new sorts of sound-responsive waves the likes of which you, dare I say, would likely prefer to see.
3 (and 4 while I'm at it). I don't know for sure, I don't recall Andy actually coming out and saying that a particular config of any type--be it flowfield, colormap or waveshape--ought to be "phased out", if I understand your wording aright. If you want to look at the first config archive release on this site, it contains files of many configs that never made it to a particular public release. I would *imagine* this to be because some of them didn't *necessarily* fit Andy's personal vision of G-Force. However, that he has been gracious enough to make these public shows me that he appreciates the fact that other users might have different interpretations.
Is not art, after all, all about *subjective* tastes?
I hope you see where I'm coming from. In a broader sense, it all boils down to what *you* see or *I* see as art. Specifically, the same can be said for G-Force and whatever unfolds from its continuing evolution.
Point for point (mostly), I would respectfully submit the following:
1. As you say, this is a matter of preference; but I think that having things like current track and time remaining in the track constantly/mostly hanging around or even moving about from point to point on the screen will detract from the viewer's experience.
2 (Brace yourselves...
). First of all, isn't the concept of the simple waveshape--i.e. the simple horizontal or vertical line or some such thing--in and of itself a delving of sorts into the classic, "old school" music visualization, somewhat like the Atari program you cited? The fact that G-Force and WhiteCap have advanced at such paces without the bells and whistles that other visual apps simply take for granted (Open GL off the top of my head) is truly remarkable. Buth that will change for the better soon. Secondly, a deep glance at the program in action should indicate that as the program evolves along with the config maker's understanding of the code, so goes the complexity of the Waveshape (effect cited for the sake of your argument). Not only that, but as Andy integrates newer aspects of the program (i.e. the aforementioned Open GL plus a far more powerful engine/coprocessor, specialized C-based scripting/compiling language etc.), we'll be able to create new sorts of sound-responsive waves the likes of which you, dare I say, would likely prefer to see.
3 (and 4 while I'm at it). I don't know for sure, I don't recall Andy actually coming out and saying that a particular config of any type--be it flowfield, colormap or waveshape--ought to be "phased out", if I understand your wording aright. If you want to look at the first config archive release on this site, it contains files of many configs that never made it to a particular public release. I would *imagine* this to be because some of them didn't *necessarily* fit Andy's personal vision of G-Force. However, that he has been gracious enough to make these public shows me that he appreciates the fact that other users might have different interpretations.
Is not art, after all, all about *subjective* tastes?
I hope you see where I'm coming from. In a broader sense, it all boils down to what *you* see or *I* see as art. Specifically, the same can be said for G-Force and whatever unfolds from its continuing evolution.
"God is syntax."
hmmm,
1. on issue one i agree with you jay, but i suppose a key to enable or disable this could be intergrated, still having this on would remind me of those anoying nag requesters
2. Losing these things would be like ripping the history out of the program. Is it not these things that made G-force so very popular. Maybe i missed the point, deleting the necessary scripts would eradicate these things any ways and i suppose its all down to personal preference again but i like everything the way it is .
3 + 4 are definetly matters of pure personal preference. Maybe a day going through your configs and removing some of the ones you find most offensive:) I like the way milkdrop let you list all the configs and activate or disable them from within the program. Maybe we can expect something like this in G-force 3 ?
Its an age old story though isnt it, You can please most of the people most off the time . but never all the people all the time.
1. on issue one i agree with you jay, but i suppose a key to enable or disable this could be intergrated, still having this on would remind me of those anoying nag requesters
2. Losing these things would be like ripping the history out of the program. Is it not these things that made G-force so very popular. Maybe i missed the point, deleting the necessary scripts would eradicate these things any ways and i suppose its all down to personal preference again but i like everything the way it is .
3 + 4 are definetly matters of pure personal preference. Maybe a day going through your configs and removing some of the ones you find most offensive:) I like the way milkdrop let you list all the configs and activate or disable them from within the program. Maybe we can expect something like this in G-force 3 ?
Its an age old story though isnt it, You can please most of the people most off the time . but never all the people all the time.
There will always be mordernisation for the different configs and thus older ones that look dated will be removed. I know Andy has culled some before and it is needed in a visualization to keep things fresh and up to date.
In fact I am using symmerty a lot more now a days in visualization devolpment adding the Tessellation/Tiling to scenes/maps/flowfields creates some really interesting effects when used to wrap around 3d objects for example.
Examples of some stuff in this
http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=74134
at the bottom of the page.
Sadly the FF in that example only have a mesh of 32x24 not the detail you maybe are used to seeing on some FF's in GF.
So it does have it's uses.
There is more that can be done in fact a lot more. There is a lot of power inside a PC now-a-days that tbh GF does not even touch upon....yet at least.
M.C. Escher for one.the last time you saw an artwork with so much symmetry?
In fact I am using symmerty a lot more now a days in visualization devolpment adding the Tessellation/Tiling to scenes/maps/flowfields creates some really interesting effects when used to wrap around 3d objects for example.
Examples of some stuff in this
http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=74134
at the bottom of the page.
Sadly the FF in that example only have a mesh of 32x24 not the detail you maybe are used to seeing on some FF's in GF.
So it does have it's uses.
There is more that can be done in fact a lot more. There is a lot of power inside a PC now-a-days that tbh GF does not even touch upon....yet at least.
Of course my post was my personal opinion, and thanks for the opposing ones. I just want you folks to consider that people have G-F up and running for hours at a time, and are getting more and more sophisticated about their views.
About my observation that axially symmetric patterns are boring and getting hackneyed, again, this is my personal opinion, but as I stated above, when G-F runs for hours at a time certain repetitive patterns lose their effectiveness.
About M. C. Escher's work: of course it's fascinating, and I'm sure he'd write some killer configs if he were around. *But* as above, we don't look at his work exclusively for hours at a time. Or at least I don't. :-)
Now on to a new topic: "What's next."
About my observation that axially symmetric patterns are boring and getting hackneyed, again, this is my personal opinion, but as I stated above, when G-F runs for hours at a time certain repetitive patterns lose their effectiveness.
About M. C. Escher's work: of course it's fascinating, and I'm sure he'd write some killer configs if he were around. *But* as above, we don't look at his work exclusively for hours at a time. Or at least I don't. :-)
Now on to a new topic: "What's next."
Just for the record (I don't want to derail this thread/forum) the commerical version of R4 is for that commerical clients not marketed for people in there bedroom.Orbstah wrote:nice pics there but who in there right mind would pay a 200 quid reg fee for that.
R4 is a great viz except for the serious annoyance of that requester
With say an 1,000 person capacity nightclub spends a couple of million on a refrub a copy of R4 is too cheap IMHO.
Tried 'shareware' a few years ago and it didn't work a million or two download and used in festivals clubs in front of 50,000+ ppl and guess how many people registered.......... that is right a big fat zero.
-
ethan_greer
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Northeastern Ohio
I think that the more "dated" configs should stay. I dig the hell out of the 2001 flowfields, for example.
However, it's worth pointing out that as more and more configs are added, the less screen time a particular config will have. So, in effect, the breadth of G-Force will effectively "phase out" certain configs.
Just to be crystal clear, since I'm not sure I'm saying this right, here's an example.
Say there are 100 flowfields, and 25 of them are of the Space Odyssey variety. So, 25% of the time, there's a Space Odyssey flowfield on screen. Jump to the future, and 100 new flowfields have been added, none of which qualify as Space Odyssey style. Now, Space Odyssey flowfields account for only 12.5% of the flowfields, cutting their prior screen time in half.
What I'm trying to say is, the problem you cite is self-correcting.
However, it's worth pointing out that as more and more configs are added, the less screen time a particular config will have. So, in effect, the breadth of G-Force will effectively "phase out" certain configs.
Just to be crystal clear, since I'm not sure I'm saying this right, here's an example.
Say there are 100 flowfields, and 25 of them are of the Space Odyssey variety. So, 25% of the time, there's a Space Odyssey flowfield on screen. Jump to the future, and 100 new flowfields have been added, none of which qualify as Space Odyssey style. Now, Space Odyssey flowfields account for only 12.5% of the flowfields, cutting their prior screen time in half.
What I'm trying to say is, the problem you cite is self-correcting.
Rovastar wrote:Just for the record (I don't want to derail this thread/forum) the commerical version of R4 is for that commerical clients not marketed for people in there bedroom.Orbstah wrote:nice pics there but who in there right mind would pay a 200 quid reg fee for that.
R4 is a great viz except for the serious annoyance of that requester
With say an 1,000 person capacity nightclub spends a couple of million on a refrub a copy of R4 is too cheap IMHO.
Tried 'shareware' a few years ago and it didn't work a million or two download and used in festivals clubs in front of 50,000+ ppl and guess how many people registered.......... that is right a big fat zero.
i know what your saying m8 and i hear you, but IMHO two diffrent versions of R4 should be available, one for free and one for professionals, with extra features. hmm that sounds familiar
Any ways back to the topic