<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_2312200</id>
	<title>Real-Time, Movie-Quality CGI For Games</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266839640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"An Intel-owned development team can now <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/toys-tools/project-offset-creates-graphical-magic">render CGI-quality graphics in real time</a>. 'Their <a href="http://www.projectoffset.com/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=58&amp;Itemid=12">video clips</a> show artists pulling together 3D elements like a jigsaw puzzle (see for example <a href="http://www.projectoffset.com/media/Video/YH\_FINAL/YH3.html">this video starting at about 3:38</a>), making movie-level CG look as easy as following a recipe.' They hope that the simplicity of 'Project Offset' could ultimately give them the edge in the race to produce real-time graphics engines for games."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " An Intel-owned development team can now render CGI-quality graphics in real time .
'Their video clips show artists pulling together 3D elements like a jigsaw puzzle ( see for example this video starting at about 3 : 38 ) , making movie-level CG look as easy as following a recipe .
' They hope that the simplicity of 'Project Offset ' could ultimately give them the edge in the race to produce real-time graphics engines for games .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "An Intel-owned development team can now render CGI-quality graphics in real time.
'Their video clips show artists pulling together 3D elements like a jigsaw puzzle (see for example this video starting at about 3:38), making movie-level CG look as easy as following a recipe.
' They hope that the simplicity of 'Project Offset' could ultimately give them the edge in the race to produce real-time graphics engines for games.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242318</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Xyde</author>
	<datestamp>1266921780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch a recent PIxar movie in HD and come back and say that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch a recent PIxar movie in HD and come back and say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch a recent PIxar movie in HD and come back and say that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239310</id>
	<title>Re:Or...</title>
	<author>QuaveringGrape</author>
	<datestamp>1266848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe just start supporting OpenGL hardware acceleration? Any day now, Intel...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe just start supporting OpenGL hardware acceleration ?
Any day now , Intel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe just start supporting OpenGL hardware acceleration?
Any day now, Intel...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242490</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1266924480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blake's 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blake 's 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blake's 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240022</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266853500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to <a href="http://www.fudzilla.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=801.0" title="fudzilla.com">this</a> [fudzilla.com], the original Toy Story needed about 7 TFLOPS to render in real time, although I've seen higher estimates.</p><p>87 dual-processor and 30 quad-processor 100-MHz SPARCstation 20s took 46 days to do ~75 minutes, so you need to be 883.2 times as fast to render in realtime.  Anyone overclock a quadcore processor to 8 GHz?  I suppose setup with 4 quadcore cpus @ 2GHz isn't out of reach.</p><p>But then again, the machines might have been IO bound instead of CPU bound, needing to send 7.7 gigabytes per second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this [ fudzilla.com ] , the original Toy Story needed about 7 TFLOPS to render in real time , although I 've seen higher estimates.87 dual-processor and 30 quad-processor 100-MHz SPARCstation 20s took 46 days to do ~ 75 minutes , so you need to be 883.2 times as fast to render in realtime .
Anyone overclock a quadcore processor to 8 GHz ?
I suppose setup with 4 quadcore cpus @ 2GHz is n't out of reach.But then again , the machines might have been IO bound instead of CPU bound , needing to send 7.7 gigabytes per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this [fudzilla.com], the original Toy Story needed about 7 TFLOPS to render in real time, although I've seen higher estimates.87 dual-processor and 30 quad-processor 100-MHz SPARCstation 20s took 46 days to do ~75 minutes, so you need to be 883.2 times as fast to render in realtime.
Anyone overclock a quadcore processor to 8 GHz?
I suppose setup with 4 quadcore cpus @ 2GHz isn't out of reach.But then again, the machines might have been IO bound instead of CPU bound, needing to send 7.7 gigabytes per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238912</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Toy Story isn't particularly difficult to render, even at the time you could render scenes with better quality in a matter of minutes so with a decade and a half of doubling every 18 months I'm pretty sure it could be done by your average gaming GPU in realtime. The biggest problem was sufficient memory for texture and model details but with 2GB of ram available on consumer level video card's I don't think that's such a big deal these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Toy Story is n't particularly difficult to render , even at the time you could render scenes with better quality in a matter of minutes so with a decade and a half of doubling every 18 months I 'm pretty sure it could be done by your average gaming GPU in realtime .
The biggest problem was sufficient memory for texture and model details but with 2GB of ram available on consumer level video card 's I do n't think that 's such a big deal these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Toy Story isn't particularly difficult to render, even at the time you could render scenes with better quality in a matter of minutes so with a decade and a half of doubling every 18 months I'm pretty sure it could be done by your average gaming GPU in realtime.
The biggest problem was sufficient memory for texture and model details but with 2GB of ram available on consumer level video card's I don't think that's such a big deal these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241494</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures?</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem comes down to dynamic lighting and shading, animation and interaction.</p><p>You cant fake lighting, shadows, and objects dynamically interacting with each other with image sequences. Its just impossible.</p><p>I'm not sure you have thought this thought out fully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem comes down to dynamic lighting and shading , animation and interaction.You cant fake lighting , shadows , and objects dynamically interacting with each other with image sequences .
Its just impossible.I 'm not sure you have thought this thought out fully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem comes down to dynamic lighting and shading, animation and interaction.You cant fake lighting, shadows, and objects dynamically interacting with each other with image sequences.
Its just impossible.I'm not sure you have thought this thought out fully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242512</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1266924720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's always room for<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>:(){<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|:&amp; };:</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always room for : ( ) { : | : &amp; } ; :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always room for :(){ :|:&amp; };:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241240</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1266865620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?</p><p>&gt; Never. More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.</p><p>Which is good. Even if you believe in writing good code, this translates to allowing more layers of abstraction. Additional layers of abstraction are generally less efficient, and make it easier to wire together complex components. Consider inverse kinematics and physics engines as examples.</p><p>Consider how much you could improve the immersion of video games, for example, if you had the power and a library for real-time rendering of hair and fur at the individual strand level, maybe with fractal follicle mapping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write ? &gt; Never .
More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.Which is good .
Even if you believe in writing good code , this translates to allowing more layers of abstraction .
Additional layers of abstraction are generally less efficient , and make it easier to wire together complex components .
Consider inverse kinematics and physics engines as examples.Consider how much you could improve the immersion of video games , for example , if you had the power and a library for real-time rendering of hair and fur at the individual strand level , maybe with fractal follicle mapping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?&gt; Never.
More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.Which is good.
Even if you believe in writing good code, this translates to allowing more layers of abstraction.
Additional layers of abstraction are generally less efficient, and make it easier to wire together complex components.
Consider inverse kinematics and physics engines as examples.Consider how much you could improve the immersion of video games, for example, if you had the power and a library for real-time rendering of hair and fur at the individual strand level, maybe with fractal follicle mapping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239042</id>
	<title>This is actually quite old...</title>
	<author>nickdwaters</author>
	<datestamp>1266847200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been watching the development of Project Offset for at least 3 years. Sam McGrath and Co. are doing great things.  The stuff that was shown was built way before Intel bought into them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching the development of Project Offset for at least 3 years .
Sam McGrath and Co. are doing great things .
The stuff that was shown was built way before Intel bought into them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching the development of Project Offset for at least 3 years.
Sam McGrath and Co. are doing great things.
The stuff that was shown was built way before Intel bought into them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240372</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Never. More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.</em> </p><p>Wasting resources deliberately or due to ignorance is a bad thing, but taking advantage of ever-increasing CPU and memory capacities in order to boost to a new layer of abstraction is not. Highly efficient code tends to be more complex. This means it is harder to maintain and harder to understand, usually. More importantly, it is harder to demonstrate its correctness.</p><p>As both a producer and consumer of open source software, I far prefer a piece of code that I can understand, but which is possibly not as efficient as it could be, to a mystifying jungle of cleverness which takes weeks to understand and hours just to make small modifications. Not to mention the inability to completely test those modifications, because the code is so hard to follow I can't figure out all the ramifications of even simple changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never .
More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code .
Wasting resources deliberately or due to ignorance is a bad thing , but taking advantage of ever-increasing CPU and memory capacities in order to boost to a new layer of abstraction is not .
Highly efficient code tends to be more complex .
This means it is harder to maintain and harder to understand , usually .
More importantly , it is harder to demonstrate its correctness.As both a producer and consumer of open source software , I far prefer a piece of code that I can understand , but which is possibly not as efficient as it could be , to a mystifying jungle of cleverness which takes weeks to understand and hours just to make small modifications .
Not to mention the inability to completely test those modifications , because the code is so hard to follow I ca n't figure out all the ramifications of even simple changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Never.
More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.
Wasting resources deliberately or due to ignorance is a bad thing, but taking advantage of ever-increasing CPU and memory capacities in order to boost to a new layer of abstraction is not.
Highly efficient code tends to be more complex.
This means it is harder to maintain and harder to understand, usually.
More importantly, it is harder to demonstrate its correctness.As both a producer and consumer of open source software, I far prefer a piece of code that I can understand, but which is possibly not as efficient as it could be, to a mystifying jungle of cleverness which takes weeks to understand and hours just to make small modifications.
Not to mention the inability to completely test those modifications, because the code is so hard to follow I can't figure out all the ramifications of even simple changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239766</id>
	<title>Re:If I were a betting man</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266851700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive.</p></div><p>I'd bet you're right... and you'll be able to do this stuff in realtime at home as soon as you have <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924\_3-9981760-64.html" title="cnet.com">thousands of cores</a> [cnet.com]. More seriously, though, a future without GPUs would be a <em>good</em> thing, if we could get the same performance (or better) without them. Why? Because in order to use the full power of a computer with a big GPU, you have to do two kinds of programming. A computer where all the powerful processing elements were identical would be much easier to fully utilize, and that means less wasted money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive.I 'd bet you 're right... and you 'll be able to do this stuff in realtime at home as soon as you have thousands of cores [ cnet.com ] .
More seriously , though , a future without GPUs would be a good thing , if we could get the same performance ( or better ) without them .
Why ? Because in order to use the full power of a computer with a big GPU , you have to do two kinds of programming .
A computer where all the powerful processing elements were identical would be much easier to fully utilize , and that means less wasted money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive.I'd bet you're right... and you'll be able to do this stuff in realtime at home as soon as you have thousands of cores [cnet.com].
More seriously, though, a future without GPUs would be a good thing, if we could get the same performance (or better) without them.
Why? Because in order to use the full power of a computer with a big GPU, you have to do two kinds of programming.
A computer where all the powerful processing elements were identical would be much easier to fully utilize, and that means less wasted money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31243524</id>
	<title>Laptops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266935220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about you don't be so cheap</p></div><p>If I wanted to be cheap, I'd buy a game console.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and by a dedicated graphics card?</p></div><p>Where do I plug a dedicated graphics card into a <em>laptop</em> computer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you do n't be so cheapIf I wanted to be cheap , I 'd buy a game console.and by a dedicated graphics card ? Where do I plug a dedicated graphics card into a laptop computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you don't be so cheapIf I wanted to be cheap, I'd buy a game console.and by a dedicated graphics card?Where do I plug a dedicated graphics card into a laptop computer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239380</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266849180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. In order to determine a particles position to a high degree of accuracy you merely need to do a shitty job measuring its velocity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal .
In order to determine a particles position to a high degree of accuracy you merely need to do a shitty job measuring its velocity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.
In order to determine a particles position to a high degree of accuracy you merely need to do a shitty job measuring its velocity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241540</id>
	<title>CGI</title>
	<author>Lorens</author>
	<datestamp>1266868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CGI is awful, they could at least have tried for EGA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CGI is awful , they could at least have tried for EGA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CGI is awful, they could at least have tried for EGA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239410</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266849360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool, please tell where I can get one that has GPL drivers.</p><p>I'll wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , please tell where I can get one that has GPL drivers.I 'll wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, please tell where I can get one that has GPL drivers.I'll wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245886</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1266947460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time? Say 1080p?</p></div><p>We should be getting pretty close, however a fundamental difference between early CGI and todays realtime graphics still exist, namely artifacts like pixels and polygons.</p><p>Even Tron managed to have round wheels on the vehicles, yet even the best looking games like Crysis still have noticeable edges on surfaces that should be round. The reason for this is simply the way the graphics and art pipelines are build, they expect polygons, not geometric description, thus a round surfaces will have edges when you look close and not automatically get more polygons as they should. Offline rendering doesn't suffer from this problem. Renderman, which is used for most Pixar stuff, for example will break all the polygons down to pixel size before the rendering stage, so you will never have a big edgy polygon in the picture as its all smoothed out. Geometry Shaders, which are available in the latest generation of GPUs, should allow similar effects in realtime. I however haven't yet seen a game that makes use of them.</p><p>With pixel artifacts it is the same thing, in offline rendering you can go the extra mile to get rid of them, be it by fine tuning the size of your shadow buffer or enabling anti-aliasing. While in realtime rendering you often spend the left over CPU power on a smoother picture or improvements of the graphics in other aspects. Things are however also slowly changing, on the PC anti-aliasing is pretty standard these days and consoles also seem to be slowly getting their. Shadow buffers can also be smoothed out by post processing effects and other trickery, so the artifacts, even so they might technically still be there, are much harder to spot.</p><p>One remaining point we might not get rid of so quickly is however simply the framing. In a movie everything is carefully layouted so that it looks good and every object that might be getting close to the camera will have enough detail. In a video game the camera is mostly handled automatically and so it will get into ugly spots and you can't stop it from going really close on some low-detail object. That is an issue we won't get rid of anytime soon. Fully procedural graphics might help, but those aren't exactly ready for mainstream video games yet, a few experimental things like Spore aside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time ?
Say 1080p ? We should be getting pretty close , however a fundamental difference between early CGI and todays realtime graphics still exist , namely artifacts like pixels and polygons.Even Tron managed to have round wheels on the vehicles , yet even the best looking games like Crysis still have noticeable edges on surfaces that should be round .
The reason for this is simply the way the graphics and art pipelines are build , they expect polygons , not geometric description , thus a round surfaces will have edges when you look close and not automatically get more polygons as they should .
Offline rendering does n't suffer from this problem .
Renderman , which is used for most Pixar stuff , for example will break all the polygons down to pixel size before the rendering stage , so you will never have a big edgy polygon in the picture as its all smoothed out .
Geometry Shaders , which are available in the latest generation of GPUs , should allow similar effects in realtime .
I however have n't yet seen a game that makes use of them.With pixel artifacts it is the same thing , in offline rendering you can go the extra mile to get rid of them , be it by fine tuning the size of your shadow buffer or enabling anti-aliasing .
While in realtime rendering you often spend the left over CPU power on a smoother picture or improvements of the graphics in other aspects .
Things are however also slowly changing , on the PC anti-aliasing is pretty standard these days and consoles also seem to be slowly getting their .
Shadow buffers can also be smoothed out by post processing effects and other trickery , so the artifacts , even so they might technically still be there , are much harder to spot.One remaining point we might not get rid of so quickly is however simply the framing .
In a movie everything is carefully layouted so that it looks good and every object that might be getting close to the camera will have enough detail .
In a video game the camera is mostly handled automatically and so it will get into ugly spots and you ca n't stop it from going really close on some low-detail object .
That is an issue we wo n't get rid of anytime soon .
Fully procedural graphics might help , but those are n't exactly ready for mainstream video games yet , a few experimental things like Spore aside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time?
Say 1080p?We should be getting pretty close, however a fundamental difference between early CGI and todays realtime graphics still exist, namely artifacts like pixels and polygons.Even Tron managed to have round wheels on the vehicles, yet even the best looking games like Crysis still have noticeable edges on surfaces that should be round.
The reason for this is simply the way the graphics and art pipelines are build, they expect polygons, not geometric description, thus a round surfaces will have edges when you look close and not automatically get more polygons as they should.
Offline rendering doesn't suffer from this problem.
Renderman, which is used for most Pixar stuff, for example will break all the polygons down to pixel size before the rendering stage, so you will never have a big edgy polygon in the picture as its all smoothed out.
Geometry Shaders, which are available in the latest generation of GPUs, should allow similar effects in realtime.
I however haven't yet seen a game that makes use of them.With pixel artifacts it is the same thing, in offline rendering you can go the extra mile to get rid of them, be it by fine tuning the size of your shadow buffer or enabling anti-aliasing.
While in realtime rendering you often spend the left over CPU power on a smoother picture or improvements of the graphics in other aspects.
Things are however also slowly changing, on the PC anti-aliasing is pretty standard these days and consoles also seem to be slowly getting their.
Shadow buffers can also be smoothed out by post processing effects and other trickery, so the artifacts, even so they might technically still be there, are much harder to spot.One remaining point we might not get rid of so quickly is however simply the framing.
In a movie everything is carefully layouted so that it looks good and every object that might be getting close to the camera will have enough detail.
In a video game the camera is mostly handled automatically and so it will get into ugly spots and you can't stop it from going really close on some low-detail object.
That is an issue we won't get rid of anytime soon.
Fully procedural graphics might help, but those aren't exactly ready for mainstream video games yet, a few experimental things like Spore aside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239574</id>
	<title>reducing implementation time is a good thing</title>
	<author>snooo53</author>
	<datestamp>1266850380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the thing.  Normal people don't want to spend hours and hours creating detailed 3D models in Blender or whatever.  They just want the easiest way to turn their ideas into reality.  Reducing the implementation time for a high quality end product, and eliminating the tedious tasks is a worthy goal.  It's the same reason normal people don't program in assembly anymore.  With the exception of some very specific programs, higher levels of abstraction are almost always better, and this is no exception.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing .
Normal people do n't want to spend hours and hours creating detailed 3D models in Blender or whatever .
They just want the easiest way to turn their ideas into reality .
Reducing the implementation time for a high quality end product , and eliminating the tedious tasks is a worthy goal .
It 's the same reason normal people do n't program in assembly anymore .
With the exception of some very specific programs , higher levels of abstraction are almost always better , and this is no exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing.
Normal people don't want to spend hours and hours creating detailed 3D models in Blender or whatever.
They just want the easiest way to turn their ideas into reality.
Reducing the implementation time for a high quality end product, and eliminating the tedious tasks is a worthy goal.
It's the same reason normal people don't program in assembly anymore.
With the exception of some very specific programs, higher levels of abstraction are almost always better, and this is no exception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238446</id>
	<title>CGI-quality graphics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now there we have an accurate statement: "Computer Generated Imagery" quality graphics</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now there we have an accurate statement : " Computer Generated Imagery " quality graphics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now there we have an accurate statement: "Computer Generated Imagery" quality graphics</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239492</id>
	<title>Movie quality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266849840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nVidia beat you to it nearly ten years ago, Intel... <a href="http://developer.nvidia.com/object/IO\_20011001\_367" title="nvidia.com" rel="nofollow">the GeForce 3</a> [nvidia.com] was used to create "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" big-screen movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nVidia beat you to it nearly ten years ago , Intel... the GeForce 3 [ nvidia.com ] was used to create " Final Fantasy : The Spirits Within " big-screen movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nVidia beat you to it nearly ten years ago, Intel... the GeForce 3 [nvidia.com] was used to create "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" big-screen movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238714</id>
	<title>Not tied to their parallel HW now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no longer hamstrung by Larrabee to it should be pretty cool if it ships, they actually purchased this company a year or two ago. I hope they release the engine because Unreal Engine UDK is now free to develop with and you license when you ship under flexible terms. It'd be nice to get these tools from Intel, until it ships it's just a science project. There are games now which do all of these rendering effects with real game data and very large paged worlds already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no longer hamstrung by Larrabee to it should be pretty cool if it ships , they actually purchased this company a year or two ago .
I hope they release the engine because Unreal Engine UDK is now free to develop with and you license when you ship under flexible terms .
It 'd be nice to get these tools from Intel , until it ships it 's just a science project .
There are games now which do all of these rendering effects with real game data and very large paged worlds already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no longer hamstrung by Larrabee to it should be pretty cool if it ships, they actually purchased this company a year or two ago.
I hope they release the engine because Unreal Engine UDK is now free to develop with and you license when you ship under flexible terms.
It'd be nice to get these tools from Intel, until it ships it's just a science project.
There are games now which do all of these rendering effects with real game data and very large paged worlds already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is basically what I was going to say. The latest crop of "funny fuzzy animal" movies have graphics about as good as the best video games &mdash; the secret to making games look as good as movies is apparently to make movies look shitty. I just can't sit through a movie that doesn't look as good as playing a game. I also can't sit through a movie with a worse plot than nethack, but that's a separate issue. Unfortunately, the aforementioned movies suffer from both of these failings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is basically what I was going to say .
The latest crop of " funny fuzzy animal " movies have graphics about as good as the best video games    the secret to making games look as good as movies is apparently to make movies look shitty .
I just ca n't sit through a movie that does n't look as good as playing a game .
I also ca n't sit through a movie with a worse plot than nethack , but that 's a separate issue .
Unfortunately , the aforementioned movies suffer from both of these failings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is basically what I was going to say.
The latest crop of "funny fuzzy animal" movies have graphics about as good as the best video games — the secret to making games look as good as movies is apparently to make movies look shitty.
I just can't sit through a movie that doesn't look as good as playing a game.
I also can't sit through a movie with a worse plot than nethack, but that's a separate issue.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned movies suffer from both of these failings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</id>
	<title>"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1266843900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Movie-Quality" is basically a worthless statement. Which movie? Avatar, Final Fantasy, Toy Story, Tron? The quality of digitally produced movies, and the quality of game graphics power are constantly moving targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Movie-Quality " is basically a worthless statement .
Which movie ?
Avatar , Final Fantasy , Toy Story , Tron ?
The quality of digitally produced movies , and the quality of game graphics power are constantly moving targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Movie-Quality" is basically a worthless statement.
Which movie?
Avatar, Final Fantasy, Toy Story, Tron?
The quality of digitally produced movies, and the quality of game graphics power are constantly moving targets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239564</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures?</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1266850320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's how the characters in the older Myst games worked (except that they used this great new technology called "video camera" to get moving pictures into them).</p><p>This was fine in those games, because the viewpoint was always fixed. That's a restriction you don't want to have in current games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's how the characters in the older Myst games worked ( except that they used this great new technology called " video camera " to get moving pictures into them ) .This was fine in those games , because the viewpoint was always fixed .
That 's a restriction you do n't want to have in current games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's how the characters in the older Myst games worked (except that they used this great new technology called "video camera" to get moving pictures into them).This was fine in those games, because the viewpoint was always fixed.
That's a restriction you don't want to have in current games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239158</id>
	<title>Not impressed</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1266847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didnt see anything in those videos that I can't find in most modern games.
Also, they say its rendering in real time... So what? You can sit and optimize a scene for weeks before releasing it. It's when you get half a dozen real players running in unpredictable directions and in unpredictable patterns that an engine either shines or fails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt see anything in those videos that I ca n't find in most modern games .
Also , they say its rendering in real time... So what ?
You can sit and optimize a scene for weeks before releasing it .
It 's when you get half a dozen real players running in unpredictable directions and in unpredictable patterns that an engine either shines or fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt see anything in those videos that I can't find in most modern games.
Also, they say its rendering in real time... So what?
You can sit and optimize a scene for weeks before releasing it.
It's when you get half a dozen real players running in unpredictable directions and in unpredictable patterns that an engine either shines or fails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241950</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1266916260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is lame. The guy doesn't even claim the video was made in real-time. He claims that the editing of the game can be done in real-time. That distinction is important, because most of the time I see someone demoing a 3-D editing tool on Youtube, they've accelerated the demo by a huge factor -- just to make the video look cool (and it does look cool that way, but it's also misleading). By the way, here is the same <a href="http://www.projectoffset.com/media/video5.html" title="projectoffset.com">demo "teaser"</a> [projectoffset.com] referenced through youtube, there is actually no need to have to wait for the 3 minutes and 38 seconds on that other video for the boring guy to stop droning on, it's essentially the same teaser (with the same building and the same shading) -- it's just been spliced into the interview in small pieces (as if to imply that the teaser was made at the same speed the interview was videotaped at).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is lame .
The guy does n't even claim the video was made in real-time .
He claims that the editing of the game can be done in real-time .
That distinction is important , because most of the time I see someone demoing a 3-D editing tool on Youtube , they 've accelerated the demo by a huge factor -- just to make the video look cool ( and it does look cool that way , but it 's also misleading ) .
By the way , here is the same demo " teaser " [ projectoffset.com ] referenced through youtube , there is actually no need to have to wait for the 3 minutes and 38 seconds on that other video for the boring guy to stop droning on , it 's essentially the same teaser ( with the same building and the same shading ) -- it 's just been spliced into the interview in small pieces ( as if to imply that the teaser was made at the same speed the interview was videotaped at ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is lame.
The guy doesn't even claim the video was made in real-time.
He claims that the editing of the game can be done in real-time.
That distinction is important, because most of the time I see someone demoing a 3-D editing tool on Youtube, they've accelerated the demo by a huge factor -- just to make the video look cool (and it does look cool that way, but it's also misleading).
By the way, here is the same demo "teaser" [projectoffset.com] referenced through youtube, there is actually no need to have to wait for the 3 minutes and 38 seconds on that other video for the boring guy to stop droning on, it's essentially the same teaser (with the same building and the same shading) -- it's just been spliced into the interview in small pieces (as if to imply that the teaser was made at the same speed the interview was videotaped at).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241940</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266916200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is Heisenberg's principal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is Heisenberg 's principal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is Heisenberg's principal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242046</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1266917760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't everyone know the secret behind rendering gears of war?  I thought it was simply draw a black rectangle over your screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't everyone know the secret behind rendering gears of war ?
I thought it was simply draw a black rectangle over your screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't everyone know the secret behind rendering gears of war?
I thought it was simply draw a black rectangle over your screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241446</id>
	<title>Re:As a former (contract) developer on Project Off</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1266867840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work with Sam Mcgrath and I consider him an old friend. I was fortunate enough to be there from the very start of his new engine and see it develop back when there was no company or anything...</p><p>He blew me away years ago with the very basics of its shader editing and render quality. I havent seen newer versions of it in years but... Sam was kicking ass from the start of it.. trust me.</p><p>Sam is an incredibly talented coder, perhaps one of the best and most hard working out there. Sammy, best of luck to you if you see this. And Jon, if you're reading.. and I know you are... Modern Warfare 2 rocked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P Great job. I'm fucking hooked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work with Sam Mcgrath and I consider him an old friend .
I was fortunate enough to be there from the very start of his new engine and see it develop back when there was no company or anything...He blew me away years ago with the very basics of its shader editing and render quality .
I havent seen newer versions of it in years but... Sam was kicking ass from the start of it.. trust me.Sam is an incredibly talented coder , perhaps one of the best and most hard working out there .
Sammy , best of luck to you if you see this .
And Jon , if you 're reading.. and I know you are... Modern Warfare 2 rocked ; P Great job .
I 'm fucking hooked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work with Sam Mcgrath and I consider him an old friend.
I was fortunate enough to be there from the very start of his new engine and see it develop back when there was no company or anything...He blew me away years ago with the very basics of its shader editing and render quality.
I havent seen newer versions of it in years but... Sam was kicking ass from the start of it.. trust me.Sam is an incredibly talented coder, perhaps one of the best and most hard working out there.
Sammy, best of luck to you if you see this.
And Jon, if you're reading.. and I know you are... Modern Warfare 2 rocked ;P Great job.
I'm fucking hooked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239818</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities first!</title>
	<author>aronschatz</author>
	<datestamp>1266852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, have you played the original Sonic games on the Genesis? If so, how can you say that ANY 3D Sonic game is good?</p><p>Hopefully SEGA won't screw up with Sonic 4. After the crap they continually push out in the Sonic realm, one must wonder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , have you played the original Sonic games on the Genesis ?
If so , how can you say that ANY 3D Sonic game is good ? Hopefully SEGA wo n't screw up with Sonic 4 .
After the crap they continually push out in the Sonic realm , one must wonder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, have you played the original Sonic games on the Genesis?
If so, how can you say that ANY 3D Sonic game is good?Hopefully SEGA won't screw up with Sonic 4.
After the crap they continually push out in the Sonic realm, one must wonder...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390</id>
	<title>Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241358</id>
	<title>great graphics, dull games</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game graphics seem to be getting better and better while the games seem to be getting more and more dull.  Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2 are hardly games at all anymore, they are little more than movies with a fast forward button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game graphics seem to be getting better and better while the games seem to be getting more and more dull .
Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2 are hardly games at all anymore , they are little more than movies with a fast forward button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game graphics seem to be getting better and better while the games seem to be getting more and more dull.
Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2 are hardly games at all anymore, they are little more than movies with a fast forward button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239488</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266849840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one time people did that, see the famous game Myst.</p><p>These days people like moving where ever they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one time people did that , see the famous game Myst.These days people like moving where ever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one time people did that, see the famous game Myst.These days people like moving where ever they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241698</id>
	<title>Re:This is actually quite old...</title>
	<author>Zaphod The 42nd</author>
	<datestamp>1266956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, this is front page news? I heard about Project Offset easily 3 years ago, and THEN It sure seemed cool.<br>
And no, Its not just project offset that is that old, those videos and pictures and the whole project offset website hasn't been changed at all in at least a year. Check the video dates.<br>
So, whats the news? Somebody just heard about it for the first time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , this is front page news ?
I heard about Project Offset easily 3 years ago , and THEN It sure seemed cool .
And no , Its not just project offset that is that old , those videos and pictures and the whole project offset website has n't been changed at all in at least a year .
Check the video dates .
So , whats the news ?
Somebody just heard about it for the first time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, this is front page news?
I heard about Project Offset easily 3 years ago, and THEN It sure seemed cool.
And no, Its not just project offset that is that old, those videos and pictures and the whole project offset website hasn't been changed at all in at least a year.
Check the video dates.
So, whats the news?
Somebody just heard about it for the first time?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244686</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures?</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1266941520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because with 3d animation you can program in your model, program in your model's movement rules, and then that model can make motions that you never specifically animated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because with 3d animation you can program in your model , program in your model 's movement rules , and then that model can make motions that you never specifically animated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because with 3d animation you can program in your model, program in your model's movement rules, and then that model can make motions that you never specifically animated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>PotatoFarmer</author>
	<datestamp>1266846060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Never.  More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write ?
Never. More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?
Never.  More hardware means programmers can get away with writing less efficient code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388</id>
	<title>What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1266843420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... now they can pump out  crappy movies that have quality CG faster than ever before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... now they can pump out crappy movies that have quality CG faster than ever before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... now they can pump out  crappy movies that have quality CG faster than ever before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244100</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266938700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Movie-Quality" is basically a worthless statement."</p><p>I totally agree with this statement I couldn't stand how some of the transformers from the first and second movie looked compared to their cartoon counterparts, the art direction is most important.  I couldn't stand how optimus prime's face looked in the first movie because it was made "realistic"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Movie-Quality " is basically a worthless statement .
" I totally agree with this statement I could n't stand how some of the transformers from the first and second movie looked compared to their cartoon counterparts , the art direction is most important .
I could n't stand how optimus prime 's face looked in the first movie because it was made " realistic "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Movie-Quality" is basically a worthless statement.
"I totally agree with this statement I couldn't stand how some of the transformers from the first and second movie looked compared to their cartoon counterparts, the art direction is most important.
I couldn't stand how optimus prime's face looked in the first movie because it was made "realistic"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239086</id>
	<title>I must be jaded</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1266847380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I went to the link in the summary to see the video, and I MUST be too jaded. It looked *exactly* like a level from Unreal Tournament 3. I love that game, so that's all well and good. I'm sure my laptop could render that youtube clip in realtime without a problem. It still seemed fake to me. The movement of the foliage was too "calculated", as was much of the debris when it fell. The camera motion was "too perfect" and looks exactly like what my camera moves look like in After Effects, which bear very little resemblance to what a camera move looks like for real.</p><p>Better than Mass Effect? yeah. Better than Counterstrike/Half-Life/Half-Life 2? you bet. Better than UT3 or Crysis? That, I feel, is debatable. If it's debatable, then I'm not certain that there is a breakthrough here. But that's just me, and I could be completely off-base here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I went to the link in the summary to see the video , and I MUST be too jaded .
It looked * exactly * like a level from Unreal Tournament 3 .
I love that game , so that 's all well and good .
I 'm sure my laptop could render that youtube clip in realtime without a problem .
It still seemed fake to me .
The movement of the foliage was too " calculated " , as was much of the debris when it fell .
The camera motion was " too perfect " and looks exactly like what my camera moves look like in After Effects , which bear very little resemblance to what a camera move looks like for real.Better than Mass Effect ?
yeah. Better than Counterstrike/Half-Life/Half-Life 2 ?
you bet .
Better than UT3 or Crysis ?
That , I feel , is debatable .
If it 's debatable , then I 'm not certain that there is a breakthrough here .
But that 's just me , and I could be completely off-base here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I went to the link in the summary to see the video, and I MUST be too jaded.
It looked *exactly* like a level from Unreal Tournament 3.
I love that game, so that's all well and good.
I'm sure my laptop could render that youtube clip in realtime without a problem.
It still seemed fake to me.
The movement of the foliage was too "calculated", as was much of the debris when it fell.
The camera motion was "too perfect" and looks exactly like what my camera moves look like in After Effects, which bear very little resemblance to what a camera move looks like for real.Better than Mass Effect?
yeah. Better than Counterstrike/Half-Life/Half-Life 2?
you bet.
Better than UT3 or Crysis?
That, I feel, is debatable.
If it's debatable, then I'm not certain that there is a breakthrough here.
But that's just me, and I could be completely off-base here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239432</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>frieko</author>
	<datestamp>1266849600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moore's law isn't some sort of natural occurrence, it's economics. If hardware pulls ahead, hardware engineers switch to writing software. If software pulls ahead they switch to writing hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moore 's law is n't some sort of natural occurrence , it 's economics .
If hardware pulls ahead , hardware engineers switch to writing software .
If software pulls ahead they switch to writing hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moore's law isn't some sort of natural occurrence, it's economics.
If hardware pulls ahead, hardware engineers switch to writing software.
If software pulls ahead they switch to writing hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241260</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1266865860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Umm I have a dedicated graphics card.  WTF does that have to do with Intel needing to put out something that runs games other than Solitaire?

You should invent a jump to conclusions mat!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm I have a dedicated graphics card .
WTF does that have to do with Intel needing to put out something that runs games other than Solitaire ?
You should invent a jump to conclusions mat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm I have a dedicated graphics card.
WTF does that have to do with Intel needing to put out something that runs games other than Solitaire?
You should invent a jump to conclusions mat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245052</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1266943740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The frames were also rendered at "a resolution of 1536 by 922 with an effective 48 bits per pixel."  So increasing that to 1920x1080 would be a 47\% increase in the number of pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The frames were also rendered at " a resolution of 1536 by 922 with an effective 48 bits per pixel .
" So increasing that to 1920x1080 would be a 47 \ % increase in the number of pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The frames were also rendered at "a resolution of 1536 by 922 with an effective 48 bits per pixel.
"  So increasing that to 1920x1080 would be a 47\% increase in the number of pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239062</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities first!</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1266847260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, so *Doom 3* played like a survival horror game.</p><p>I see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so * Doom 3 * played like a survival horror game.I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so *Doom 3* played like a survival horror game.I see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242790</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1266928320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?</i></p><p>More importantly at what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write on a budget that could reasonably be recouped by the product? And does it even make sense to go that far?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write ? More importantly at what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write on a budget that could reasonably be recouped by the product ?
And does it even make sense to go that far ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?More importantly at what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write on a budget that could reasonably be recouped by the product?
And does it even make sense to go that far?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240642</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must suck to work on GPUs at Intel, they had the Larrabee BSers on the one hand, and on the other they're facing an executive that refused to unleash them on a full-blown GPU design. Intel will never bite the GPU bullet because institutionally the cannot bring themselves to accept it's as important as the CPU and it deserves some goddamned respect, not some shitty free-D corner of a chipset somewhere.</p><p>Make a REAL GPU with a rasterizer and dedicated raster ops &amp; early zbuffer architecture that is not some half-assed parallel compute device with too few cores or a tiny area on the chipset to fill the lowest end of the product line.</p><p>Build something that's viable NOW, not something that will be viable if teh whole friggin' world changes direction and does exactly what Intel's silly wet dream hopes they will.</p><p>Take anyone who hypes ray-tracing and fire them, that would be a good start to weed out the incompetent bozos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must suck to work on GPUs at Intel , they had the Larrabee BSers on the one hand , and on the other they 're facing an executive that refused to unleash them on a full-blown GPU design .
Intel will never bite the GPU bullet because institutionally the can not bring themselves to accept it 's as important as the CPU and it deserves some goddamned respect , not some shitty free-D corner of a chipset somewhere.Make a REAL GPU with a rasterizer and dedicated raster ops &amp; early zbuffer architecture that is not some half-assed parallel compute device with too few cores or a tiny area on the chipset to fill the lowest end of the product line.Build something that 's viable NOW , not something that will be viable if teh whole friggin ' world changes direction and does exactly what Intel 's silly wet dream hopes they will.Take anyone who hypes ray-tracing and fire them , that would be a good start to weed out the incompetent bozos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must suck to work on GPUs at Intel, they had the Larrabee BSers on the one hand, and on the other they're facing an executive that refused to unleash them on a full-blown GPU design.
Intel will never bite the GPU bullet because institutionally the cannot bring themselves to accept it's as important as the CPU and it deserves some goddamned respect, not some shitty free-D corner of a chipset somewhere.Make a REAL GPU with a rasterizer and dedicated raster ops &amp; early zbuffer architecture that is not some half-assed parallel compute device with too few cores or a tiny area on the chipset to fill the lowest end of the product line.Build something that's viable NOW, not something that will be viable if teh whole friggin' world changes direction and does exactly what Intel's silly wet dream hopes they will.Take anyone who hypes ray-tracing and fire them, that would be a good start to weed out the incompetent bozos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242302</id>
	<title>Re:CGI-quality graphics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266921480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad you cleared that up. I was trying to imagine Common Gateway Interface graphics...</p><p>I havent been this confused since people were getting headshots in Cascading Style Sheets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad you cleared that up .
I was trying to imagine Common Gateway Interface graphics...I havent been this confused since people were getting headshots in Cascading Style Sheets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad you cleared that up.
I was trying to imagine Common Gateway Interface graphics...I havent been this confused since people were getting headshots in Cascading Style Sheets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240464</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1266857400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bet they aren't using Intel integrated graphics chips...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bet they are n't using Intel integrated graphics chips.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bet they aren't using Intel integrated graphics chips...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</id>
	<title>Pictures?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so this is slightly off-topic, but something I've always wondered about.</p><p>I can take a 12megapixel picture. And reduce it down to a 12k gif. Or 120k or whatever the compression results are.</p><p>At that point, it's just a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gif. (or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jpg or whatever). The computer doesn't know it's any different than a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gif I created in MSPaint, right?</p><p>So if I open GameMaker 7, and use that photo as one of the frames in my character's animation. By repetition, I could create a character moving and walking frame by frame.</p><p>Right? What's wrong with this?</p><p>I understand that on-the-fly rendering is nice. And that the goal is to get a computer to generate a 'real' picture. But. The difference between a 'great' game and an okay one is the graphics. I could (if I could draw) take a pencil and do one of those black and white sketches that almost looks like a photo, and scan it in and use it too.</p><p>What are the technical hurdles or barriers that prevent someone from just doing this?</p><p>K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so this is slightly off-topic , but something I 've always wondered about.I can take a 12megapixel picture .
And reduce it down to a 12k gif .
Or 120k or whatever the compression results are.At that point , it 's just a .gif .
( or .jpg or whatever ) .
The computer does n't know it 's any different than a .gif I created in MSPaint , right ? So if I open GameMaker 7 , and use that photo as one of the frames in my character 's animation .
By repetition , I could create a character moving and walking frame by frame.Right ?
What 's wrong with this ? I understand that on-the-fly rendering is nice .
And that the goal is to get a computer to generate a 'real ' picture .
But. The difference between a 'great ' game and an okay one is the graphics .
I could ( if I could draw ) take a pencil and do one of those black and white sketches that almost looks like a photo , and scan it in and use it too.What are the technical hurdles or barriers that prevent someone from just doing this ? K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so this is slightly off-topic, but something I've always wondered about.I can take a 12megapixel picture.
And reduce it down to a 12k gif.
Or 120k or whatever the compression results are.At that point, it's just a .gif.
(or .jpg or whatever).
The computer doesn't know it's any different than a .gif I created in MSPaint, right?So if I open GameMaker 7, and use that photo as one of the frames in my character's animation.
By repetition, I could create a character moving and walking frame by frame.Right?
What's wrong with this?I understand that on-the-fly rendering is nice.
And that the goal is to get a computer to generate a 'real' picture.
But. The difference between a 'great' game and an okay one is the graphics.
I could (if I could draw) take a pencil and do one of those black and white sketches that almost looks like a photo, and scan it in and use it too.What are the technical hurdles or barriers that prevent someone from just doing this?K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241478</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>eeCyaJ</author>
	<datestamp>1266868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Grab yourself a Dell XPS / Alienware laptop. There you go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grab yourself a Dell XPS / Alienware laptop .
There you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grab yourself a Dell XPS / Alienware laptop.
There you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238422</id>
	<title>As long as Moore's law holds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can there be any doubt that realtime rendering will approach the quality of today's offline rendering when computing power grows exponentially?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can there be any doubt that realtime rendering will approach the quality of today 's offline rendering when computing power grows exponentially ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can there be any doubt that realtime rendering will approach the quality of today's offline rendering when computing power grows exponentially?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238820</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you haven't the least bit of idea of what you're talking about....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you have n't the least bit of idea of what you 're talking about... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you haven't the least bit of idea of what you're talking about....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>binarylarry</author>
	<datestamp>1266843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've discovered the hidden secrets to rendering Academy Award winning films such as "Gears of War" and "Crysis."</p><p>Congrats Intel dev team!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've discovered the hidden secrets to rendering Academy Award winning films such as " Gears of War " and " Crysis .
" Congrats Intel dev team !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've discovered the hidden secrets to rendering Academy Award winning films such as "Gears of War" and "Crysis.
"Congrats Intel dev team!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240026</id>
	<title>Re:reducing implementation time is a good thing</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1266853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes me think of microsoft power point. The same crappy blue shaded background on every slide I see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me think of microsoft power point .
The same crappy blue shaded background on every slide I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes me think of microsoft power point.
The same crappy blue shaded background on every slide I see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years...</p></div><p>How about you don't be so cheap and by a dedicated graphics card?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years...How about you do n't be so cheap and by a dedicated graphics card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now maybe they can get to work on shipping on-board graphics cards that can actually play games released within the past couple of years...How about you don't be so cheap and by a dedicated graphics card?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239328</id>
	<title>Boof</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1266848880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this means we are going to see games with movie budgets and no gameplay at all...we already do, but the balance will detriment gameplay even further by reasoning of manpower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this means we are going to see games with movie budgets and no gameplay at all...we already do , but the balance will detriment gameplay even further by reasoning of manpower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this means we are going to see games with movie budgets and no gameplay at all...we already do, but the balance will detriment gameplay even further by reasoning of manpower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238582</id>
	<title>If I were a betting man</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1266844440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive .
Or maybe I 'm just paranoid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager that their solution is way more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive.
Or maybe I'm just paranoid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242030</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1266917580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As is "CGI-quality". I guess whoever wrote the article summary didn't actually consider what CGI stands for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As is " CGI-quality " .
I guess whoever wrote the article summary did n't actually consider what CGI stands for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As is "CGI-quality".
I guess whoever wrote the article summary didn't actually consider what CGI stands for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240962</id>
	<title>Re:Pictures?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you can never anticipate every situation you'll need to photograph.</p><p>Let's say you want a walk cycle of your character.   Let's say a loop of about 1 second at 30fps.  Now you have:<br>30 frames.<br>Now you want your character to turn so you need it to rotate.  Now you have to shoot about 1080 more angles.  So now you're up to:<br>32,400 frames.<br>Oops but now you also need to see this walking character from above or below.  Let's say 200 degrees and assume nobody will ever see it from right below the ground.   Ok now you are up to:<br>6,480,000 frames.<br>Now let's say you want your character to walk but you also want to be able to rotate the torso of your character.  Let's say you want 100* of rotation at 1* increments.  Now you're up to:<br>648,000,000 frames.<br>But you also need a dark and a light version for even the most crude of lighting views you're up to:<br>1,296,000,000 frames.<br>But you also need a transition in and out of walking to standing still.  That's 2 more animation cycles:<br>3,888,000,000</p><p>There you now have the equivalent of about 50 years of video to fit onto a disk somewhere AND it looks like crap since it's shot under a single lighting condition and doesn't fit into any environment.   Also you'll never get good blending between animation cycles because you can't mix them.  You can't have your character yawn while walking.  Or aim both to the left and the right while walking... Every possible angle just multiplies on top of all the previous.</p><p>One interim solution is to instead of taking a 2D picture take a 3D picture.  Instead of pixels you capture voxels.   These voxels are in 3D space and then you can render your character from any angle.   Trouble with voxels is the same as the trouble with your pictures though.  If you just capture a single scenario you are then faced with game scenarios where you need the character doing something you never filmed.  So then you have to animate your voxels.   You also have to light your voxels since you need the character to look like they're in the right 3D space.</p><p>Before too long you're exactly back where you started.  Some form of CGI which uses a 3D mesh or Voxel volume rigged to a skeleton lit by 3D lights and rendered by a 3D camera.</p><p>And then you have things like reflections.  To really get a realistic scene you need reflections.  Most of the modern world is reflective.   If you take a picture from one angle you need the reflections to change based on your viewing angle, you can't bake everything onto a surface.   So then you need ray tracing.  Also not all objects in the world are just opaque you have something like skin which changes its hue and brightness based on backscattering and reflections so you need a high quality approximation.</p><p>What happens if your character jumps forward and then stops and lands.  If they have a cloak or such on the cloak should have momentum.   You anticipate every action your character will take so that cloak has to be simulated using physics.</p><p>Long story made only slightly shorter: yes you can just use video but you'll be extremely limited.  For some applications it works spectacularly well but as soon as you want a third dimension or fluid animation which blends and can do a combination of things at once not pre-programmed it all falls apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you can never anticipate every situation you 'll need to photograph.Let 's say you want a walk cycle of your character .
Let 's say a loop of about 1 second at 30fps .
Now you have : 30 frames.Now you want your character to turn so you need it to rotate .
Now you have to shoot about 1080 more angles .
So now you 're up to : 32,400 frames.Oops but now you also need to see this walking character from above or below .
Let 's say 200 degrees and assume nobody will ever see it from right below the ground .
Ok now you are up to : 6,480,000 frames.Now let 's say you want your character to walk but you also want to be able to rotate the torso of your character .
Let 's say you want 100 * of rotation at 1 * increments .
Now you 're up to : 648,000,000 frames.But you also need a dark and a light version for even the most crude of lighting views you 're up to : 1,296,000,000 frames.But you also need a transition in and out of walking to standing still .
That 's 2 more animation cycles : 3,888,000,000There you now have the equivalent of about 50 years of video to fit onto a disk somewhere AND it looks like crap since it 's shot under a single lighting condition and does n't fit into any environment .
Also you 'll never get good blending between animation cycles because you ca n't mix them .
You ca n't have your character yawn while walking .
Or aim both to the left and the right while walking... Every possible angle just multiplies on top of all the previous.One interim solution is to instead of taking a 2D picture take a 3D picture .
Instead of pixels you capture voxels .
These voxels are in 3D space and then you can render your character from any angle .
Trouble with voxels is the same as the trouble with your pictures though .
If you just capture a single scenario you are then faced with game scenarios where you need the character doing something you never filmed .
So then you have to animate your voxels .
You also have to light your voxels since you need the character to look like they 're in the right 3D space.Before too long you 're exactly back where you started .
Some form of CGI which uses a 3D mesh or Voxel volume rigged to a skeleton lit by 3D lights and rendered by a 3D camera.And then you have things like reflections .
To really get a realistic scene you need reflections .
Most of the modern world is reflective .
If you take a picture from one angle you need the reflections to change based on your viewing angle , you ca n't bake everything onto a surface .
So then you need ray tracing .
Also not all objects in the world are just opaque you have something like skin which changes its hue and brightness based on backscattering and reflections so you need a high quality approximation.What happens if your character jumps forward and then stops and lands .
If they have a cloak or such on the cloak should have momentum .
You anticipate every action your character will take so that cloak has to be simulated using physics.Long story made only slightly shorter : yes you can just use video but you 'll be extremely limited .
For some applications it works spectacularly well but as soon as you want a third dimension or fluid animation which blends and can do a combination of things at once not pre-programmed it all falls apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you can never anticipate every situation you'll need to photograph.Let's say you want a walk cycle of your character.
Let's say a loop of about 1 second at 30fps.
Now you have:30 frames.Now you want your character to turn so you need it to rotate.
Now you have to shoot about 1080 more angles.
So now you're up to:32,400 frames.Oops but now you also need to see this walking character from above or below.
Let's say 200 degrees and assume nobody will ever see it from right below the ground.
Ok now you are up to:6,480,000 frames.Now let's say you want your character to walk but you also want to be able to rotate the torso of your character.
Let's say you want 100* of rotation at 1* increments.
Now you're up to:648,000,000 frames.But you also need a dark and a light version for even the most crude of lighting views you're up to:1,296,000,000 frames.But you also need a transition in and out of walking to standing still.
That's 2 more animation cycles:3,888,000,000There you now have the equivalent of about 50 years of video to fit onto a disk somewhere AND it looks like crap since it's shot under a single lighting condition and doesn't fit into any environment.
Also you'll never get good blending between animation cycles because you can't mix them.
You can't have your character yawn while walking.
Or aim both to the left and the right while walking... Every possible angle just multiplies on top of all the previous.One interim solution is to instead of taking a 2D picture take a 3D picture.
Instead of pixels you capture voxels.
These voxels are in 3D space and then you can render your character from any angle.
Trouble with voxels is the same as the trouble with your pictures though.
If you just capture a single scenario you are then faced with game scenarios where you need the character doing something you never filmed.
So then you have to animate your voxels.
You also have to light your voxels since you need the character to look like they're in the right 3D space.Before too long you're exactly back where you started.
Some form of CGI which uses a 3D mesh or Voxel volume rigged to a skeleton lit by 3D lights and rendered by a 3D camera.And then you have things like reflections.
To really get a realistic scene you need reflections.
Most of the modern world is reflective.
If you take a picture from one angle you need the reflections to change based on your viewing angle, you can't bake everything onto a surface.
So then you need ray tracing.
Also not all objects in the world are just opaque you have something like skin which changes its hue and brightness based on backscattering and reflections so you need a high quality approximation.What happens if your character jumps forward and then stops and lands.
If they have a cloak or such on the cloak should have momentum.
You anticipate every action your character will take so that cloak has to be simulated using physics.Long story made only slightly shorter: yes you can just use video but you'll be extremely limited.
For some applications it works spectacularly well but as soon as you want a third dimension or fluid animation which blends and can do a combination of things at once not pre-programmed it all falls apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238828</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine you could do it on any decent powered computer nowdays. The only thing is you couldn't. Realtime rendering and the sort of movie rendering use wildly different techniques, you would have to remake a lot of the film. Seconly you probably couldn't pan the camera much or anything; as back then it was so stressful on their computers they probably removed most of the unseen faces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine you could do it on any decent powered computer nowdays .
The only thing is you could n't .
Realtime rendering and the sort of movie rendering use wildly different techniques , you would have to remake a lot of the film .
Seconly you probably could n't pan the camera much or anything ; as back then it was so stressful on their computers they probably removed most of the unseen faces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine you could do it on any decent powered computer nowdays.
The only thing is you couldn't.
Realtime rendering and the sort of movie rendering use wildly different techniques, you would have to remake a lot of the film.
Seconly you probably couldn't pan the camera much or anything; as back then it was so stressful on their computers they probably removed most of the unseen faces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239386</id>
	<title>linkzzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266849180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpdPWVfaBQs&amp;feature=related</p><p>Three years ago. Combat animations certainly aren't on par with GTA4 (Euphoria) and this demo at least reeks of Oblivion imo.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVk1GArKqfo&amp;feature=player\_embedded</p><p>New demo is... kinda better. Impressive PhysX(R) (TM)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = FpdPWVfaBQs&amp;feature = relatedThree years ago .
Combat animations certainly are n't on par with GTA4 ( Euphoria ) and this demo at least reeks of Oblivion imo.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jVk1GArKqfo&amp;feature = player \ _embeddedNew demo is... kinda better .
Impressive PhysX ( R ) ( TM )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpdPWVfaBQs&amp;feature=relatedThree years ago.
Combat animations certainly aren't on par with GTA4 (Euphoria) and this demo at least reeks of Oblivion imo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVk1GArKqfo&amp;feature=player\_embeddedNew demo is... kinda better.
Impressive PhysX(R) (TM)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894</id>
	<title>Priorities first!</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1266846420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attention, developers: graphics are not the most important thing.</p><p>For example, the two <i>Sonic Adventure</i> games for the Dreamcast were imperfect but very enjoyable. Now check <i>Sonic The Hedgehog</i> for PS3/X360. It looked far better, but it had craploads of game-breaking glitches, long loading times, overall poor design, so the reviews were mostly negative. Another example, <i>Doom</i>. Everyone loved the first two games... then came in <i>Doom 3</i>, that looked stunning, but played more like a survival horror game. How can someone take such a wild, frantic, exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it?</p><p>So, first get a game that PLAYS good, then make it look good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attention , developers : graphics are not the most important thing.For example , the two Sonic Adventure games for the Dreamcast were imperfect but very enjoyable .
Now check Sonic The Hedgehog for PS3/X360 .
It looked far better , but it had craploads of game-breaking glitches , long loading times , overall poor design , so the reviews were mostly negative .
Another example , Doom .
Everyone loved the first two games... then came in Doom 3 , that looked stunning , but played more like a survival horror game .
How can someone take such a wild , frantic , exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it ? So , first get a game that PLAYS good , then make it look good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attention, developers: graphics are not the most important thing.For example, the two Sonic Adventure games for the Dreamcast were imperfect but very enjoyable.
Now check Sonic The Hedgehog for PS3/X360.
It looked far better, but it had craploads of game-breaking glitches, long loading times, overall poor design, so the reviews were mostly negative.
Another example, Doom.
Everyone loved the first two games... then came in Doom 3, that looked stunning, but played more like a survival horror game.
How can someone take such a wild, frantic, exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it?So, first get a game that PLAYS good, then make it look good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241326</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1266866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you haven't the least bit of idea of what you're talking about....</p></div><p>How you extended crappy movies to multiple genres to get an interesting ranking seems to be the sad state of Slashdot. The GP focused on movies but unfortunately didn't take the time to elaborate on what they meant by crappy. I'm betting they were singling out the shallow screenplays and low budgets towards casting being covered up by the Wow factor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you have n't the least bit of idea of what you 're talking about....How you extended crappy movies to multiple genres to get an interesting ranking seems to be the sad state of Slashdot .
The GP focused on movies but unfortunately did n't take the time to elaborate on what they meant by crappy .
I 'm betting they were singling out the shallow screenplays and low budgets towards casting being covered up by the Wow factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hating on the current quality of movies/games/music automatically gets you karma points even if you haven't the least bit of idea of what you're talking about....How you extended crappy movies to multiple genres to get an interesting ranking seems to be the sad state of Slashdot.
The GP focused on movies but unfortunately didn't take the time to elaborate on what they meant by crappy.
I'm betting they were singling out the shallow screenplays and low budgets towards casting being covered up by the Wow factor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239180</id>
	<title>Gameplay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully soon games will render so realistically that no one will be able to tell them from real life. That will hopefully end the obsession with shiny graphics at the expense of all else in games. then finally they can start work on elements like depth of gameplay experience. Or maybe they will just move their attention to smell sythesisers and try and get it so you can smell those burning corpses you fragged with generic first person gun #23. Seems like the movie industry could also benefit from forgetting about shiny CGI a bit in favour of things like interesting plot developement, character depth etc.</p><p>If CGI is so great then why wasn't Star Wars Episode I better than Episode V?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully soon games will render so realistically that no one will be able to tell them from real life .
That will hopefully end the obsession with shiny graphics at the expense of all else in games .
then finally they can start work on elements like depth of gameplay experience .
Or maybe they will just move their attention to smell sythesisers and try and get it so you can smell those burning corpses you fragged with generic first person gun # 23 .
Seems like the movie industry could also benefit from forgetting about shiny CGI a bit in favour of things like interesting plot developement , character depth etc.If CGI is so great then why was n't Star Wars Episode I better than Episode V ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully soon games will render so realistically that no one will be able to tell them from real life.
That will hopefully end the obsession with shiny graphics at the expense of all else in games.
then finally they can start work on elements like depth of gameplay experience.
Or maybe they will just move their attention to smell sythesisers and try and get it so you can smell those burning corpses you fragged with generic first person gun #23.
Seems like the movie industry could also benefit from forgetting about shiny CGI a bit in favour of things like interesting plot developement, character depth etc.If CGI is so great then why wasn't Star Wars Episode I better than Episode V?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238430</id>
	<title>Not supprised</title>
	<author>SoCalledNotion</author>
	<datestamp>1266843600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the clips look amazing, I can't say that I'm in the least bit shocked by this. GPU's and CPU's are only getting more powerful, so it would stand to reason that this kind of thing is finally becoming feasible. The real question is whether or not this game</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the clips look amazing , I ca n't say that I 'm in the least bit shocked by this .
GPU 's and CPU 's are only getting more powerful , so it would stand to reason that this kind of thing is finally becoming feasible .
The real question is whether or not this game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the clips look amazing, I can't say that I'm in the least bit shocked by this.
GPU's and CPU's are only getting more powerful, so it would stand to reason that this kind of thing is finally becoming feasible.
The real question is whether or not this game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</id>
	<title>Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>ipquickly</author>
	<datestamp>1266844620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?</p><p>If we have the hardware to simulate 'The Matrix', but no-one has written the software to make it realistic, what do we gain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write ? If we have the hardware to simulate 'The Matrix ' , but no-one has written the software to make it realistic , what do we gain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?If we have the hardware to simulate 'The Matrix', but no-one has written the software to make it realistic, what do we gain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240680</id>
	<title>Re:As a former (contract) developer on Project Off</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1266859560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I've been following now for about four years and they occasionally throw out a few interesting videos and such, but ultimately I haven't seen anything new from their team in quite some time.  It was an interesting choice selling out to Intel of all places... I only hope they don't turn it into another Duke Nukem: Forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I 've been following now for about four years and they occasionally throw out a few interesting videos and such , but ultimately I have n't seen anything new from their team in quite some time .
It was an interesting choice selling out to Intel of all places... I only hope they do n't turn it into another Duke Nukem : Forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I've been following now for about four years and they occasionally throw out a few interesting videos and such, but ultimately I haven't seen anything new from their team in quite some time.
It was an interesting choice selling out to Intel of all places... I only hope they don't turn it into another Duke Nukem: Forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239264</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities first!</title>
	<author>Tynin</author>
	<datestamp>1266848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Doom</i>. Everyone loved the first two games... then came in <i>Doom 3</i>, that looked stunning, but played more like a survival horror game. How can someone take such a wild, frantic, exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it?</p></div><p>That really is a sad statement on how far survival horror games have fallen when someone thinks Doom 3 fits that genre. Doom 3 was just a crappy FPS... walk into dark room, shoot the bad guy that is always positioned in an out of the way corner, rinse and repeat. It was never a survival horror... if I told my wife what you said she would be quaking with fiery, and her ranting would be epic. She and I both miss the glory days of survival horror... <br> <br>That said, the rest of your point still stands and I agree with you. Enjoyable game play should always be the focal point that everything else branches off of. Instead what we get are games that are so graphically polished but play more like tech demos showing how pretty the latest and greatest video card can make everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doom .
Everyone loved the first two games... then came in Doom 3 , that looked stunning , but played more like a survival horror game .
How can someone take such a wild , frantic , exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it ? That really is a sad statement on how far survival horror games have fallen when someone thinks Doom 3 fits that genre .
Doom 3 was just a crappy FPS... walk into dark room , shoot the bad guy that is always positioned in an out of the way corner , rinse and repeat .
It was never a survival horror... if I told my wife what you said she would be quaking with fiery , and her ranting would be epic .
She and I both miss the glory days of survival horror... That said , the rest of your point still stands and I agree with you .
Enjoyable game play should always be the focal point that everything else branches off of .
Instead what we get are games that are so graphically polished but play more like tech demos showing how pretty the latest and greatest video card can make everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Doom.
Everyone loved the first two games... then came in Doom 3, that looked stunning, but played more like a survival horror game.
How can someone take such a wild, frantic, exhilarating series and make something so boring out of it?That really is a sad statement on how far survival horror games have fallen when someone thinks Doom 3 fits that genre.
Doom 3 was just a crappy FPS... walk into dark room, shoot the bad guy that is always positioned in an out of the way corner, rinse and repeat.
It was never a survival horror... if I told my wife what you said she would be quaking with fiery, and her ranting would be epic.
She and I both miss the glory days of survival horror...  That said, the rest of your point still stands and I agree with you.
Enjoyable game play should always be the focal point that everything else branches off of.
Instead what we get are games that are so graphically polished but play more like tech demos showing how pretty the latest and greatest video card can make everything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242272</id>
	<title>A single comment</title>
	<author>Andtalath</author>
	<datestamp>1266921000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About avatar annoyed me, they somehow said that there where CGI in it that where so good that you couldn't tell it was CGI.

Which isn't true at all if you ask me, all creatures and many plants looked as flawed as most CGI things generally do, heck, the uniform colors where actually worse than what I've seen in several animations earlier (for instance, the raven in the WCIII intro).

Also, I'll never get why games should look real, I prefer them to look stylistic, that's more interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About avatar annoyed me , they somehow said that there where CGI in it that where so good that you could n't tell it was CGI .
Which is n't true at all if you ask me , all creatures and many plants looked as flawed as most CGI things generally do , heck , the uniform colors where actually worse than what I 've seen in several animations earlier ( for instance , the raven in the WCIII intro ) .
Also , I 'll never get why games should look real , I prefer them to look stylistic , that 's more interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About avatar annoyed me, they somehow said that there where CGI in it that where so good that you couldn't tell it was CGI.
Which isn't true at all if you ask me, all creatures and many plants looked as flawed as most CGI things generally do, heck, the uniform colors where actually worse than what I've seen in several animations earlier (for instance, the raven in the WCIII intro).
Also, I'll never get why games should look real, I prefer them to look stylistic, that's more interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239204</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer the cutscenes of Super Mario Bros and ExciteBike.  When are films gonna achieve that quality?  I mean Avatar tried, but didn't quite nail it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer the cutscenes of Super Mario Bros and ExciteBike .
When are films gon na achieve that quality ?
I mean Avatar tried , but did n't quite nail it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer the cutscenes of Super Mario Bros and ExciteBike.
When are films gonna achieve that quality?
I mean Avatar tried, but didn't quite nail it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239096</id>
	<title>define movie quality</title>
	<author>poly\_pusher</author>
	<datestamp>1266847500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As stated by other posters, "film quality" is misleading.  Primarily it refers to resolution and remember many cameras record at up to 4k, so the ability to render in real time at ultra-high res is definitely sought after.
<br>
<br>
Currently, the big push in 3d rendering is towards physically based  raytrace or pathtrace rendering.  <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path\_tracing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path\_tracing</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_tracing\_(graphics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_tracing\_(graphics)</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
Physically based rendering produces a much more accurate representation of how light interacts with and between surfaces.  It has always taken a long time to render using physically based techniques due to the huge amount of calculations necessary to produce a grain free image.  This has changed somewhat recently with multi-core systems and with GPGPU languages such as CUDA and OpenCL we are about to experience a big and sudden increase in performance regarding these rendering technologies.
<br>
<br>
While this game looks great, the engine is by no means going to be capable of rendering scenes containing hundreds of millions of polygons, ultra-high res textures, physically accurate lighting and shaders, and high render resolution.

We are still pretty far away from real-time physically-based rendering, which is the direction film is currently headed.
So that would have to be what "Movie-Quality CGI" is defined as and this game does not live up to that definition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As stated by other posters , " film quality " is misleading .
Primarily it refers to resolution and remember many cameras record at up to 4k , so the ability to render in real time at ultra-high res is definitely sought after .
Currently , the big push in 3d rendering is towards physically based raytrace or pathtrace rendering .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path \ _tracing [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray \ _tracing \ _ ( graphics ) [ wikipedia.org ] Physically based rendering produces a much more accurate representation of how light interacts with and between surfaces .
It has always taken a long time to render using physically based techniques due to the huge amount of calculations necessary to produce a grain free image .
This has changed somewhat recently with multi-core systems and with GPGPU languages such as CUDA and OpenCL we are about to experience a big and sudden increase in performance regarding these rendering technologies .
While this game looks great , the engine is by no means going to be capable of rendering scenes containing hundreds of millions of polygons , ultra-high res textures , physically accurate lighting and shaders , and high render resolution .
We are still pretty far away from real-time physically-based rendering , which is the direction film is currently headed .
So that would have to be what " Movie-Quality CGI " is defined as and this game does not live up to that definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As stated by other posters, "film quality" is misleading.
Primarily it refers to resolution and remember many cameras record at up to 4k, so the ability to render in real time at ultra-high res is definitely sought after.
Currently, the big push in 3d rendering is towards physically based  raytrace or pathtrace rendering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path\_tracing [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray\_tracing\_(graphics) [wikipedia.org] 
Physically based rendering produces a much more accurate representation of how light interacts with and between surfaces.
It has always taken a long time to render using physically based techniques due to the huge amount of calculations necessary to produce a grain free image.
This has changed somewhat recently with multi-core systems and with GPGPU languages such as CUDA and OpenCL we are about to experience a big and sudden increase in performance regarding these rendering technologies.
While this game looks great, the engine is by no means going to be capable of rendering scenes containing hundreds of millions of polygons, ultra-high res textures, physically accurate lighting and shaders, and high render resolution.
We are still pretty far away from real-time physically-based rendering, which is the direction film is currently headed.
So that would have to be what "Movie-Quality CGI" is defined as and this game does not live up to that definition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241946</id>
	<title>FINALLY!!!one</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266916260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>FINALLY we can have CGI-quality in computer games!<br>
It was such a pain, when computers couldn't achieve the quality of COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES</htmltext>
<tokenext>FINALLY we can have CGI-quality in computer games !
It was such a pain , when computers could n't achieve the quality of COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FINALLY we can have CGI-quality in computer games!
It was such a pain, when computers couldn't achieve the quality of COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238836</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it will make the CGI worse.</p><p>When someone has to spend time creating the graphics, a little bit of human soul leaks over even if their ideas are uninspired.</p><p>Some of the 80's CGI (Tron etc) looks dated, but has a vivacity that is lost when everything is too perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it will make the CGI worse.When someone has to spend time creating the graphics , a little bit of human soul leaks over even if their ideas are uninspired.Some of the 80 's CGI ( Tron etc ) looks dated , but has a vivacity that is lost when everything is too perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it will make the CGI worse.When someone has to spend time creating the graphics, a little bit of human soul leaks over even if their ideas are uninspired.Some of the 80's CGI (Tron etc) looks dated, but has a vivacity that is lost when everything is too perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1266847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies (without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies ( without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies (without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580</id>
	<title>Re:"Movie-Quality"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time? Say 1080p?
</p><p>I know the state of the art keeps moving, Avatar is <i>far</i> better looking than the original Toy Story, but with the limited visual "feature set" used in Toy Story, are we very far from being able to do something close looking in real time?
</p><p>Can we do it raster, now that we have so many GPU based effects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time ?
Say 1080p ?
I know the state of the art keeps moving , Avatar is far better looking than the original Toy Story , but with the limited visual " feature set " used in Toy Story , are we very far from being able to do something close looking in real time ?
Can we do it raster , now that we have so many GPU based effects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me how close we are to being able to render Toy Story in real time?
Say 1080p?
I know the state of the art keeps moving, Avatar is far better looking than the original Toy Story, but with the limited visual "feature set" used in Toy Story, are we very far from being able to do something close looking in real time?
Can we do it raster, now that we have so many GPU based effects?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238644</id>
	<title>slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someone please tag the article as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ed</p><p>server is already showing a 500</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someone please tag the article as / .
'edserver is already showing a 500</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone please tag the article as /.
'edserver is already showing a 500</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242576</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1266925440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wouldn't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies (without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors)?</p></div> </blockquote><p>The big problem there is not graphics quality - that's already there, take a look at Fallout 3 or Arkham Asylum at maximum graphical settings - it's the quality of tools. You'd need "digital actors" able to move, react and emote without you having to put every eyebrwo into place manually. You'd also need good-quality soft-body collision detection, physics, etc.</p><p>Everyone will be able to make movies when AI gets good enough to read the script and let you play the director with a microphone. Until then, that's limited to people with technical expertise and lots of free time on their hands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies ( without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors ) ?
The big problem there is not graphics quality - that 's already there , take a look at Fallout 3 or Arkham Asylum at maximum graphical settings - it 's the quality of tools .
You 'd need " digital actors " able to move , react and emote without you having to put every eyebrwo into place manually .
You 'd also need good-quality soft-body collision detection , physics , etc.Everyone will be able to make movies when AI gets good enough to read the script and let you play the director with a microphone .
Until then , that 's limited to people with technical expertise and lots of free time on their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this mean that this is just another step in the direction of letting anyone make movies (without needing a billion dollars with of computers and another billion dollars worth of actors)?
The big problem there is not graphics quality - that's already there, take a look at Fallout 3 or Arkham Asylum at maximum graphical settings - it's the quality of tools.
You'd need "digital actors" able to move, react and emote without you having to put every eyebrwo into place manually.
You'd also need good-quality soft-body collision detection, physics, etc.Everyone will be able to make movies when AI gets good enough to read the script and let you play the director with a microphone.
Until then, that's limited to people with technical expertise and lots of free time on their hands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240504</id>
	<title>Where is the AI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will be in awe when we will have realistic AI. I would prefer a pixelated character with a realistic AI over brain dead but realisticly rendered character.</p><p>I think it is easier to push multiplayer (no need for AI) and realistic graphics than realsitic artificial intelligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will be in awe when we will have realistic AI .
I would prefer a pixelated character with a realistic AI over brain dead but realisticly rendered character.I think it is easier to push multiplayer ( no need for AI ) and realistic graphics than realsitic artificial intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will be in awe when we will have realistic AI.
I would prefer a pixelated character with a realistic AI over brain dead but realisticly rendered character.I think it is easier to push multiplayer (no need for AI) and realistic graphics than realsitic artificial intelligence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238770</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?</p><p>With the state that the education system is in, I'd say not far off at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write ? With the state that the education system is in , I 'd say not far off at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;At what point will the hardware capabilities exceed the software we can write?With the state that the education system is in, I'd say not far off at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238704</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will they actually spend more time on the gameplay now, or is this just a new plateau in making barely interactive movies disguised as games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will they actually spend more time on the gameplay now , or is this just a new plateau in making barely interactive movies disguised as games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will they actually spend more time on the gameplay now, or is this just a new plateau in making barely interactive movies disguised as games?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242714</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1266927480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about you realize this is not about him personally? Some of the Epic higher-ups have complained that too many PCs ship only with Intel graphics and that greatly limits the potential audience for a technically demanding game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you realize this is not about him personally ?
Some of the Epic higher-ups have complained that too many PCs ship only with Intel graphics and that greatly limits the potential audience for a technically demanding game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you realize this is not about him personally?
Some of the Epic higher-ups have complained that too many PCs ship only with Intel graphics and that greatly limits the potential audience for a technically demanding game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31246768</id>
	<title>Re:Who will write the software for the bird?</title>
	<author>elmartinos</author>
	<datestamp>1266950400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea how fast I can write software that is slow on any hardware in both the forseeable and not-forseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea how fast I can write software that is slow on any hardware in both the forseeable and not-forseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea how fast I can write software that is slow on any hardware in both the forseeable and not-forseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686</id>
	<title>As a former (contract) developer on Project Offset</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4 or 5 years ago, it was basically comparable to Unreal 3. The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw. Fine graphics, but nothing really mind blowing. Having said that, I have not seen what they've done since Intel bought them, but I'm guessing its basically support for Intel's research projects.</p><p>As a developer of modern console and PC games, My Professional Opinion is that there's nothing new to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 or 5 years ago , it was basically comparable to Unreal 3 .
The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw .
Fine graphics , but nothing really mind blowing .
Having said that , I have not seen what they 've done since Intel bought them , but I 'm guessing its basically support for Intel 's research projects.As a developer of modern console and PC games , My Professional Opinion is that there 's nothing new to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 or 5 years ago, it was basically comparable to Unreal 3.
The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw.
Fine graphics, but nothing really mind blowing.
Having said that, I have not seen what they've done since Intel bought them, but I'm guessing its basically support for Intel's research projects.As a developer of modern console and PC games, My Professional Opinion is that there's nothing new to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240106</id>
	<title>Re:What this really means is ...</title>
	<author>Pseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1266854340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can already make movies without a billion dollars worth of computers and a billion dollars worth of actors.  The difficulty is finding a million dollars worth of animators and fifty thousand dollars worth of screenwriters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can already make movies without a billion dollars worth of computers and a billion dollars worth of actors .
The difficulty is finding a million dollars worth of animators and fifty thousand dollars worth of screenwriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can already make movies without a billion dollars worth of computers and a billion dollars worth of actors.
The difficulty is finding a million dollars worth of animators and fifty thousand dollars worth of screenwriters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31246768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31243524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_2312200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31243524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31246768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31244100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240022
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31245052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31242046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31240464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31241950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31238422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_2312200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_2312200.31239180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
