| Andrew Grapsas |
|
|
Patenting shading techniques is a great way to wreck 3D rendering progress.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Johan Wendin |
|
It's nice to see Creative Labs so frequently using this patent to elevate shadow rendering to a higher level for the benefit of the gaming community.
Caring by sharing. |
|
|
| Simon Carreno |
|
|
ohh cool but we have 2 options here: Or Carmack writes a better code, or Carmack change the code with the same technical parameters...
|
|
|
| Paul Szczepanek |
|
He could release it in Europe - we don't have crazy software patents yet.
|
|
|
| Kale Menges |
|
|
Can we abolish the patent system? Please?
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Wyatt Epp |
|
|
So we won't be able to see the code as-implemented until... 2019. Great. I continue to be awed by the uselessness of software patents toward the stated goal of promoting "...the Progress of Science and Useful arts.... "
|
|
|
| Peter Schloensge |
|
Why doesn't he publish the code as a study case for the sake of research independently of Doom and then everyone who likes can simply reintegrate it. ;)
|
|
|
| Christer Kaitila |
|
|
Patents hurt programmers. Always.
|
|
|
| Chad Wagner |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_volume -- Depth Fail section describes the technique in detail. Includes links to patent, if you would like to know how it works.
You just can't use it (for free)! :( |
|
|
| Jane Castle |
|
This is a dead algorithm anyways.... No one uses this technique in any modern game. The technique is very fill rate intensive. So utterly pointless to have to deal with this useless patent. I would just release the source without the shadows implemented. All Carmack has to do is place comments where he removed the code. The community will be more than happy to add it back in. Problem solved.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Bart Stewart |
|
|
It occurs to me that there's probably more controversy and less unanimity of opinion about freedom of expression through computer games than there is regarding the application of "physical invention"-based patent law to algorithms about ones and zeroes. I don't think I have ever seen a single well-reasoned argument from an informed person defending the current system -- and given that game developers and gamers will dispute *anything*, that's amazing.
Maybe now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled convincingly on the free speech thing, the IGDA might consider focusing on helping Congress to craft an update to the code that gives the USPTO the tools it needs to start making better rulings on software applications. We'll continue to be stuck with the counterproductive approvals granted so far, but at least the situation could start to improve for the future. So what if anything *are* the IGDA board doing about software patents? |
|
|
| Joel S |
|
|
:(
|
|
|
| Enrique Hernandez |
|
so if I do this in a game I sell:
- Disable writes to the depth and color buffers. - Use front-face culling. - Set the stencil operation to increment on depth fail (only count shadows behind the object). - Render the shadow volumes. - Use back-face culling. - Set the stencil operation to decrement on depth fail. - Render the shadow volumes. I can get in trouble? It seems so random. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
More: Console/PC, Programming, Art, Design, Production