Why is it that every thread you post in becomes a flame fest? All I said was that they were late to market it. I guess you missed where I said the move was better (?)
No one here is attacking the playstation and no one wants to read your fanboy and blind rage rants so if you can’t carry on a civil conversation without breaking down just go on back to your boycott. It’s *edited* like what you just posted that ran everyone off to begin with and if you look around you’ll notice it hasn’t happened while you’ve been gone.
josrocket said:
Mitch once again your ignorance makes you look like a fool and im sick of it, just shut up. Even on day one the Wii was never revolutionary nor was it the first to use any of the technology it uses. The same engineers that designed the move had the initial design since before 2002. There is a video of the very same engineer presenting his work at an engineering convention in 2002 but i cant find it…here is a tech demo from 2003 for the same device from that very engineer.
Here is an written article from 2003 on it:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-87510083.html
The PS move is just a rehashing of this motion technology that didnt surface in a product because the ps2 didnt have the processing power to do this kind of video processing and game video processing at the same time.
It’s interesting you’d bring up the EyeToy because it actually was released on the PS2 and never really took off. It’s failure to take off had nothing to do with processing power and everything to do with it just not being a useful accessory. It ended up with about as many games as the Virtual Boy. The Move simply takes this technology and adds the wand interaction. So if what you say is true and they had this back in 2002, why did they wait until now to release it? Had they released it with the PS3, the Wii would have long since been dead and so would the XBOX360. What you imply is that this decision was either a tremendous engineering oversight or a colossal marketing mistake. Making money now is great but putting competitors out of business during early product introduction would be even better.
josrocket said:
The wii motion plus copies the ps3 sixaxis controler if you want to get techincal about it. The wii mote only did x y and z acceleration. The wii motion plus just added pitch, yaw, and roll to the controller..uh oh 6 axis
I’m pretty sure I know more about tait-bryan angles than you do but sure keep assuming you’re the only one here that knows how this stuff works. Btw, I’ll save you the google time, tait-bryan is what the six-axis implementation of Euler angles is called. I guess if you want to get technical, both systems stole the idea from a 300 year old dead guy.
josrocket said:
I dont even need to explain why the Move works better than a wiimote. You dont have to be an engineer to understand that, you just have to use your brain
The wiimote with wiimotion… uses infarred sensor bar to detect location which is the only thing that the ps3 controller lacks.
I know, I said that too. I actually praised the Move and said the wii could never reach it’s level of accuracy. I guess you missed that part…
josrocket said:
I will have to disagree with you on the 3D at this day in age. The new tv frequency syncing stereoscopic 3D will prob. not be going anywhere since it is easy to implement into any movie made. Also, TV wise, the chip that allows for 3D technology to work is such a inexpensive implementation that soon it will be in every tv that comes out. They are just milking it like they do every other new technology. Also, the 3D blue rays are not the only thing that is being backed but also the community that values 3D games. FYI all new PS3 exclusives are ALL in 3D and even some cross platforms like Batman Arkam Asy, Burnout, CoD etc. Its still early but I dont blame you if you disagree. But consumer electronics are my specialty and Im 90% sure that I will be right.
Hey man, I’m just going by what the experts say. Back in the early 50s every movie shown in theaters was in 3D. They tried it again in the 80s and early 90s but in all cases it ultimately flopped. The sticking point back then was that the 3D effect could not be seen by those with eye defects or color blindness and it was too difficult to keep the two movie reels in perfect sync. The required intermission was also unwelcome. The kicker this time is the eyestrain, motion sickness, or headache that roughly 20% of people get while watching. The problem is a fundamental flaw in the polarization method to creating the 3D effect. The eyes being presented with different images isn’t a problem, the problem is that the 3D effect is created by alternating the frames between eyes at 144 FPS. Every .007th of a second one eye sees an updated image while the other sees the old. It creates a better 3D image than the old method but the brain just wasn’t meant to interpret data that way.
3D won’t take off until you don’t have to use glasses and cheap polarization effects to do it. The next big thing is autostereoscopic 3D, which doesn’t require glasses or alternating frames. The Nintendo 3DS is the first major product to use this.
josrocket said:
They just tell the media that they used all the processing power just to impress the typical gaming community to make it sound like its one hell of a game.
That makes sense but how do you know they aren’t maxing it out? I mean unless it has the equivalent of a task manager you’d never really know. The developer said they specifically tried to have every core running at 100% as much as possible but he also said they could have gotten more power out of it if they had better optimized their code. In a way yes, it’s only artificially maxed out but realistically the more time spent on code optimization the longer the development time and the more it costs to develop the game.
Consoles are typically much more powerful than consumers ever realize but it requires that games be perfectly optimized. Perfect example of this is in wii homebrew, they got the Freespace 2 flight sim engine to run on the wii. The PC requirements called for 10x the amount of video memory that the wii has but by heavily optimizing the code and changing the way textures are stored and called, the video memory required was cut to well within the wii’s specs.
If the PS3 homebrewers tried to squeeze every ounce of processing power out of the system, like the the Wii homebrews are almost required to do, I can’t imagine how powerful a console you guys would have.