pouët.net

Are those assets not usable by people who write their own engines?

3D assets may be, I don't know what mesh formats they are distributed in; in terms of shaders and scripts, I'd say they'd mostly require considerable amount of effort to adapt to a different engine.

so, in that case e.g. jugi's Unity demos are not demoscene worthy according to those 'traditional demoscene values' as he used some assets for cam shakes, some custom particle system, a dancing gorilla and the postprocessing stack v2 (made by a puking-whilst-wearing-a-tutu demoscener actually!)? all originality simply came from importing those few assets, obviously and all was left was pressing that 'ship this demo!'-button so he could pwn those highly original and demos with 1000 DYI-manhours in getting Vulkan to rotate a teapot.obj :P

(i should not correct sentences halfway typing them... then again, they're highly original!)

At least I learned something very useful in this thread: I'm shit at explaining my opinion, as answers trying to prove me wrong (in a nice and friendly way) say exactly what I meant to say ;)

Maali: Why is it so hard for you to understand/accept that some people infact find it equally impressive seeing a coder getting a "simple" Vulkan engine up and running as well as they equally appreciate some artsy-fartsy original stuff done in Unity/UE/Notch/bla?

And why do you always have to ridicule people with other opinions? small penis i suppose

As a professional artist who works with Unity every day, I could most likely put together something by myself that would be fairly "competitive". But personally, it wouldn't be as fun as working together as a team with a proper coder and musician. I'd also would feel like I am cheating quite a bit and would not consider submitting my work as a "proper" demo. I think it's great to see amazing visual creations being made by artists like fthr, Jugi, ntsc et al but I personally consider them as Wild demos rather than anything else. But certainly, no matter how things are put together, they are equally impressive in their own way, I just don't think it's fair to compare them, as much as it's fair comparing pixel art to photography.

spike: i'm not saying it's LESS impressive. i'm ridiculing the opinion that says that a tool-based demo is less impressive. oh, and my penis is fine, but thanks for caring :D

Ok maali, for this dick fight round let‘s call it a draw :)

First of all - a little mythbusting:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SHIP THIS DEMO" BUTTON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

There is no such thing in ANY game engine (or graphics rendering engine for that matter).

wellllllll notch has a "compile demo application" button

Unity has a Build option.

Some of the arguments are just the same old arguments..... like they said a long time ago about making demos in C/C++ and then Java.... in that demos have to be written in machine language and machine language ONLY.

That's only because those demo coders don't know the other language and the so called fear that someone else might "show them up". Wow.... same old "look how big my penis is". Sorry, unless you're talking to women or a gay men, they probably aren't interested.

What I am interested in is... is the demos.

Build / Compile..... oh gawd..... seriously, that's because it has a compiler and has to compile the code you wrote in C# (or if you were using Visual Script, in case of Unity, to 'compile' the visual script into executable code).

Have you used ANY C compiler or ANY compiler language since the invention of compilable programming language.... like Autocode and A-0 back in 1952 and Fortran & COBOL not far after.

OKAY... I'm sure you aren't assuming such a button is magically going to make a demo.... right? I think you're smart enough to know that.

This is still a thing then? *closes browser*

wait, what? demos in java? the heresy!

No, but it does provide you an option to load graphical assets, configure them, animate them, render them, edit them over a timeline, and the create an executable.

How is that not "make a demo"?

For many demos, the coding is really just a script. Think about those intros and early demos. Some of them were just code to move a logo around on a screen, play a tune in the background. They are demos even if they are boring by today's standards.

You need some script to automate. On a very simplistic level, you'd probably can do a simple demo with Visual Script. If you want to do something more involved, you'd probably need to use a regular programming language like C or C++ or C# or some other language of the many languages out there.

There is a bit of work to still compose a demo even if you are using Unity. It's not as simple as click a button and a demo is magically made. It don't work that way. They may not be as tedious to program as machine language programming which can, by the way, to do what you can do in 5 minutes in C/C++, could take you half an hour to an hour (or more.... like days or months) to code one opcode at a time. Some people like the masochism of programming in 32 & 64-bit x86 instruction set architecture including digging into the ol' MMX extensions and all those other instruction set extensions from the base x86 instruction set found in the 80386 microprocessor. Sure, some are masochists and enjoy the torture. Others.... not so much. What are you really saying to people if you are intentionally want to do simple things the hard way and take 3 years to do what you could have done in 3 weeks to 3 months. Self-inflicted torturing doesn't really sound all that cool in itself. I've seen cool stuff done in ML monitor on C64 but that is because of the end product of the demo being cool. It isn't necessarily cool or special that someone choose to do ML coding via hexadecimal coding instead of using assembly mneumonics other than they can memorize the opcode table of hex values to opcode in a particular memory addressing mode of each opcode or they have it all printed out in front of them. That's fine and all on a 6502 based processor but when you have an Intel processor that you are coding for, not so fun with all those opcodes. Even the 68000 series was a pain in the butt.... imagine a cpu today that is magnitudes of an order more complex with much more complex instruction set than that found in the 68K series. It's fun and all in simpler ISAs but not so much on the modern CPU which you may need or want to remember when using the opcodes that maybe needed for your cool ass demo code driven effect. I'm not sure you can get much better than you can with a modern day compiler with optimization features.

Isn't the "Unity" demo not simply another step in the evolution of demos?

I mean, as a coder I like the craft of people writing their own engines, etc. But this discussion is essentially the same as "you shouldn't use DirectX in a 64k intro" or "the only demo platform is the c64, amiga is an IMPOSTER".

In the end, demos gonna demo.

Btw I'm sorry that I missed the spirit of this thread and didn't write a 3gb wall of text.

does anyone remember what the point was? i can't even tell who's arguing for what anymore

The point is that the demoscene is dead and everybody who doesn't code in assembler on bare metal is obviously doing it wrong.
Because everybody knows that that is all what the demoscne is about, which conveniently explains why it's dead.

For me the point is the process, not the product. Although a nice product certainly is Nice.

What v3nom said.

give a man a demo, he'll be entertained for a day. give a man Unity, he'll be entertained for a lifetime.