Thank you for the GLB Programer's Reference Book, MapChap. It is a valuable resource that I will reference often. The section on 3D graphics is especially interesting to me.
-CW
-CW
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
#2
Off Topic / Re: GLB Support for 4k monitors?
2014-Jan-29
Thanks to everyone for your very thoughtful replies. It seems like good news for GLB all the way around.
To Fuzzy, yeah I went to the extreme when I chose the 7072 x 3688 numbers, for the sake of my question. You are correct as to 4K resolutions. The Forbes article referenced a 3840 x 2160 for 4K.
Like you, I can't see the pixels on my htc one smart phone either. I once read about what is called the Letcher distance, which is the typical distance people view their TVs from. The Letcher distance (spelling?) is 9 feet. At that distance, for a TV with a (is it 50 or 60 inch) screen, standard high def provides the maximum resolution that the human eye is physically capable of seeing. So for TV viewing at the Letcher distance on normal sized screens, the new 4k format is a waste. It's like snapping a four mega-pixel photo and then displaying it to friends on your phone. The phone physically can't show all that data, so you are way passed the point of utility. If you can't see the pixels, why do you need more of them? That is what the Letcher distance is all about.
However as TV screens grow ever larger, standard high-def is no longer up to the task and 4k systems come into their own. This is why most 4k screens on display are HUGE. You are all but invited to walk right up to the screen, and the detail you can see on them is stunning. With computers, people sit much closer than 9 feet to their screens and more pixels make for a much sharper image than we currently enjoy. Imagine the fidelity of your your iphone write large. I'm talking an iPad with a 32 inch screen. Imagine gaming on that! God it makes me drool. I dream of the day I can do things like render a Mandelbrot fractal on a screen of that size. If it takes eight hours to render it, that's just fine. I'd do a screen capture and use it as my wallpaper. lol
Anyway, it's fun to dream. Thanks all!
-Science_1
To Fuzzy, yeah I went to the extreme when I chose the 7072 x 3688 numbers, for the sake of my question. You are correct as to 4K resolutions. The Forbes article referenced a 3840 x 2160 for 4K.
Like you, I can't see the pixels on my htc one smart phone either. I once read about what is called the Letcher distance, which is the typical distance people view their TVs from. The Letcher distance (spelling?) is 9 feet. At that distance, for a TV with a (is it 50 or 60 inch) screen, standard high def provides the maximum resolution that the human eye is physically capable of seeing. So for TV viewing at the Letcher distance on normal sized screens, the new 4k format is a waste. It's like snapping a four mega-pixel photo and then displaying it to friends on your phone. The phone physically can't show all that data, so you are way passed the point of utility. If you can't see the pixels, why do you need more of them? That is what the Letcher distance is all about.
However as TV screens grow ever larger, standard high-def is no longer up to the task and 4k systems come into their own. This is why most 4k screens on display are HUGE. You are all but invited to walk right up to the screen, and the detail you can see on them is stunning. With computers, people sit much closer than 9 feet to their screens and more pixels make for a much sharper image than we currently enjoy. Imagine the fidelity of your your iphone write large. I'm talking an iPad with a 32 inch screen. Imagine gaming on that! God it makes me drool. I dream of the day I can do things like render a Mandelbrot fractal on a screen of that size. If it takes eight hours to render it, that's just fine. I'd do a screen capture and use it as my wallpaper. lol
Anyway, it's fun to dream. Thanks all!
-Science_1
#3
Off Topic / Re: GLB Support for 4k monitors?
2014-Jan-28
Hi Spacefractal. Thanks for the reply. Just so I am clear, are you saying that if I did a SETSCREEN 7072, 3688, TRUE and had the ram, graphic cards, monitor and drivers to support it, GLB could handle it, even though performance would suffer? Or would I be limited to a SETSCREEN 1768,922,FALSE window on the ultra high-def screen, but that GLB would run just fine?
Right after I made my post, I did some browsing on the web. It turns out that early 4K PC systems are currently possible for under $2500. If you are interested, check out this Forbes article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/26/how-to-build-a-4k-gaming-pc-for-less-than-2500-ultra-hd-monitor-ssd-and-windows-included/
I think these system will be here sooner rather than later. Indeed, they are here already.
-Science_1
Right after I made my post, I did some browsing on the web. It turns out that early 4K PC systems are currently possible for under $2500. If you are interested, check out this Forbes article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/26/how-to-build-a-4k-gaming-pc-for-less-than-2500-ultra-hd-monitor-ssd-and-windows-included/
I think these system will be here sooner rather than later. Indeed, they are here already.
-Science_1
#4
Off Topic / GLB Support for 4k monitors?
2014-Jan-28
Has anyone seen the new 4k TVs? 
I am salivating at the idea of getting my hands on a 4k monitor and a graphics card to drive it. Because the pixels are four times smaller, the images are razor sharp. Cell phones and casino game machines are leading the way with this sort of image quality. For the PC, the technology is so new that there currently are no applications, operating systems (Windows), games, movies, or other software to support it, but I expect that to change in the next year or so. Once you see it, you've gotta have it.
I was curious if GLBasic plans to support such resolutions? (Is it even practical to dream so?) Wouldn't it be great to render drawings at 4K resolutions where each pixel is almost too small to see? True, every page would take 16 times longer to render on a pixel-by-pixel bases, but I can think of some great applications that I'd like to try, where speed isn't an issue. As for game creation, we might be able to load a background at 4K resolution and then move sprites in 4-bit increments without losing much to appearance or game performance. But then, I don't know anything about the heavy lifting which goes on in the background of GLB. What do you think? Might GLB be able to handle 4K? Is that something worth dreaming about?
-Science_1
(PS, As it turns out Windows 8.1 can handle Ultra High-def; and also, apparently, can some games. See the Forbes article on a 4k game-PC system build.)
I am salivating at the idea of getting my hands on a 4k monitor and a graphics card to drive it. Because the pixels are four times smaller, the images are razor sharp. Cell phones and casino game machines are leading the way with this sort of image quality. For the PC, the technology is so new that there currently are no applications, operating systems (Windows), games, movies, or other software to support it, but I expect that to change in the next year or so. Once you see it, you've gotta have it.
I was curious if GLBasic plans to support such resolutions? (Is it even practical to dream so?) Wouldn't it be great to render drawings at 4K resolutions where each pixel is almost too small to see? True, every page would take 16 times longer to render on a pixel-by-pixel bases, but I can think of some great applications that I'd like to try, where speed isn't an issue. As for game creation, we might be able to load a background at 4K resolution and then move sprites in 4-bit increments without losing much to appearance or game performance. But then, I don't know anything about the heavy lifting which goes on in the background of GLB. What do you think? Might GLB be able to handle 4K? Is that something worth dreaming about?
-Science_1
(PS, As it turns out Windows 8.1 can handle Ultra High-def; and also, apparently, can some games. See the Forbes article on a 4k game-PC system build.)
#5
Off Topic / Re: Unbreakable Software Protection Method
2013-Aug-06
Here is a disturbing article about an instance of Chinese code theft which could have a direct bearing on the development, use and possible commercial release of this encryption method.
-CW
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19566531-chinese-firm-paid-insider-to-kill-my-company-american-ceo-says?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
-CW
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/06/19566531-chinese-firm-paid-insider-to-kill-my-company-american-ceo-says?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
#6
Off Topic / Re: Unbreakable Software Protection Method
2013-Aug-05
Hi all.
I've been thinking about this story, and I have a few notions which I'd like to share.
First, my idea that a virtual machine observing memory access might be able to decompile the encrypted code wouldn't work. While such a virtual machine may well be able to reconstruct simple machine language commands, it would not be able to capture the logic behind those commands; and it is the logic more than the code which IS a program.
Second: I also wonder if unbreakable software technology will even be allowed in the market by the American Government. As a security threat, and as a weapon, it may just be too powerful. The Government may militarize this technology. The next Stuxnet worm is almost certainly going to be encrypted before it is released. Such a worm could do its job with absolutely no possibility of it being turned back against its maker. Suspicions as to who the maker is would run high towards the US in the short term, for the technology was developed first here; but by its uncrackable nature, such a worm is all but untraceable and there will soon be other players in the game.
Third: It is the nature of technology that once a high-level player makes a major breakthrough and that a thing is discovered to be possible, it is only a matter of time before other players replicate the achievement. China in particular is certain to train its massive intellectual savvy on the challenge and will, within a few years, have the ability to create uncrackable worms of their own. This may happen sooner if they can successfully employ espionage. That should give anyone pause. Russia too is a major contender to develop this technology, as is any country with serious mathematical chops and a military bent. (India, Israel, Japan perhaps.)
Fourth: Even if encrypted programs are currently slow to run, it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes viable. It may take a computer generation or three before computer speed eliminates any slowing issue, and any slowness may be dealt with much sooner if the technology becomes commercialized. Computers may ship with a dedicated processing chip specifically to support on-the-fly encryption math. Microsoft is sick and tired of its operating systems being cracked and on the streets before they are even released. The appeal of unbreakable software to the industry is obvious.
We may also see other forms intellectual property become unbreakabily encrypted. Want to watch the new 'Pandora Part III'? Sure! Simply pop the DVD into your machine, load up the included special encryption player program, and enjoy! Perhaps this form of encryption could extend even to Satellite or Cable. Music, literature, video.. who knows how far a commercialized form of this technology could extend? Maybe even to the newest version of GLbasic?
Finally, one benefit of commercializing this technology is that it could make hacking much more difficult and thereby make critical infrastructure systems more secure. Imagine the source code for every sort of system going black. It could make hacking things so much more difficult it it becomes impossible for a hacking team to dump code that is burned onto hardware chips; the sorts of chips found in cars, pacemakers, cellphones, utilities, you name it.
Just some speculations. You heard about them here, first.
-CW
I've been thinking about this story, and I have a few notions which I'd like to share.
First, my idea that a virtual machine observing memory access might be able to decompile the encrypted code wouldn't work. While such a virtual machine may well be able to reconstruct simple machine language commands, it would not be able to capture the logic behind those commands; and it is the logic more than the code which IS a program.
Second: I also wonder if unbreakable software technology will even be allowed in the market by the American Government. As a security threat, and as a weapon, it may just be too powerful. The Government may militarize this technology. The next Stuxnet worm is almost certainly going to be encrypted before it is released. Such a worm could do its job with absolutely no possibility of it being turned back against its maker. Suspicions as to who the maker is would run high towards the US in the short term, for the technology was developed first here; but by its uncrackable nature, such a worm is all but untraceable and there will soon be other players in the game.
Third: It is the nature of technology that once a high-level player makes a major breakthrough and that a thing is discovered to be possible, it is only a matter of time before other players replicate the achievement. China in particular is certain to train its massive intellectual savvy on the challenge and will, within a few years, have the ability to create uncrackable worms of their own. This may happen sooner if they can successfully employ espionage. That should give anyone pause. Russia too is a major contender to develop this technology, as is any country with serious mathematical chops and a military bent. (India, Israel, Japan perhaps.)
Fourth: Even if encrypted programs are currently slow to run, it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes viable. It may take a computer generation or three before computer speed eliminates any slowing issue, and any slowness may be dealt with much sooner if the technology becomes commercialized. Computers may ship with a dedicated processing chip specifically to support on-the-fly encryption math. Microsoft is sick and tired of its operating systems being cracked and on the streets before they are even released. The appeal of unbreakable software to the industry is obvious.
We may also see other forms intellectual property become unbreakabily encrypted. Want to watch the new 'Pandora Part III'? Sure! Simply pop the DVD into your machine, load up the included special encryption player program, and enjoy! Perhaps this form of encryption could extend even to Satellite or Cable. Music, literature, video.. who knows how far a commercialized form of this technology could extend? Maybe even to the newest version of GLbasic?
Finally, one benefit of commercializing this technology is that it could make hacking much more difficult and thereby make critical infrastructure systems more secure. Imagine the source code for every sort of system going black. It could make hacking things so much more difficult it it becomes impossible for a hacking team to dump code that is burned onto hardware chips; the sorts of chips found in cars, pacemakers, cellphones, utilities, you name it.
Just some speculations. You heard about them here, first.
-CW
#7
Off Topic / Unbreakable Software Protection Method
2013-Aug-05
Hi all!
I've been off enjoying my summer, but when I came across this article I thought of you.
Computer Scientists at UCLA have hit upon the holy grail of software protection. A protection method which allows full functionality of any program, yet any attempt to read the source code returns a number stream of pure garbage. The article gives only the sketchiest description of how it works; apparently the code is so mathematically folded in upon itself, with each part so mathematically interdependent upon the other parts (like a mathematical jigsaw puzzle) that the program will only execute if the encrypted whole is untouched. I wonder if a virtual machine recording how the program accesses virtual components could expose the functionality.. -the article doesn't say. If this method of protection can allow execution in real time without significant slowing, I'll bet we will see unbreakable software become the norm in the next few years. (The patent-holder is set to become VERY rich.) Suck it, China!
Anyway, here is a link to the article for you to enjoy.
-CW
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161946.htm
I've been off enjoying my summer, but when I came across this article I thought of you.
Computer Scientists at UCLA have hit upon the holy grail of software protection. A protection method which allows full functionality of any program, yet any attempt to read the source code returns a number stream of pure garbage. The article gives only the sketchiest description of how it works; apparently the code is so mathematically folded in upon itself, with each part so mathematically interdependent upon the other parts (like a mathematical jigsaw puzzle) that the program will only execute if the encrypted whole is untouched. I wonder if a virtual machine recording how the program accesses virtual components could expose the functionality.. -the article doesn't say. If this method of protection can allow execution in real time without significant slowing, I'll bet we will see unbreakable software become the norm in the next few years. (The patent-holder is set to become VERY rich.) Suck it, China!
Anyway, here is a link to the article for you to enjoy.
-CW
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161946.htm
#8
GLBasic - en / Re: XBox One (aka XBox 720) revealed
2013-Jun-20
Control-freak Microsoft has decided to relax its grip somewhat on the upcoming X-Box systems in response to the public outcry over their proposed policies. First, the new X-Box systems will no longer be required to connect to the internet at least once every 24 hours. Second, users will continue to be able to buy and sell second-hand software. I might actually consider buying the system now. 
Story here: http://news.msn.com/science-technology/microsoft-changes-xbox-one-policies-after-outcry
-CW
Story here: http://news.msn.com/science-technology/microsoft-changes-xbox-one-policies-after-outcry
-CW
#9
Off Topic / Re: To be in flood ...
2013-Jun-12
I've been following the flooding news from Europe in the media, ever since I found out that some of you live near by. The photos from around Germany are worrisome. 
I hope you are all safe, on high ground, and keeping your computers dry.
-CW
I hope you are all safe, on high ground, and keeping your computers dry. -CW
#10
Here are three more tools you may want to include.
The first as a wonderful utility for printing custom graph paper, music paper, etc.
http://download.cnet.com/Graph-Paper-Printer/3000-2064_4-10037453.html
The second is a free, open-source flow-chart utility called DIA.
http://download.cnet.com/1770-20_4-0.html?query=Dia&tag=srch&searchtype=downloads&filterName=platform%3DWindows&filter=platform%3DWindows
I particularly like Dia Portable because it will fit on and work from a thumb drive.
http://dia-portable.en.softonic.com/
My only two problems with Dia are, first, that you are not allowed to connect a flow arrow to certain types of lines; and second, that connection points cannot be placed exactly where you want them (in arbitrary positions), which can result in skewed and slightly ugly flow lines. Still, these issues can be worked around, and for free, this utility is hard to beat.
-CW
The first as a wonderful utility for printing custom graph paper, music paper, etc.
http://download.cnet.com/Graph-Paper-Printer/3000-2064_4-10037453.html
The second is a free, open-source flow-chart utility called DIA.
http://download.cnet.com/1770-20_4-0.html?query=Dia&tag=srch&searchtype=downloads&filterName=platform%3DWindows&filter=platform%3DWindows
I particularly like Dia Portable because it will fit on and work from a thumb drive.
http://dia-portable.en.softonic.com/
My only two problems with Dia are, first, that you are not allowed to connect a flow arrow to certain types of lines; and second, that connection points cannot be placed exactly where you want them (in arbitrary positions), which can result in skewed and slightly ugly flow lines. Still, these issues can be worked around, and for free, this utility is hard to beat.
-CW
#11
Announcements / Re: GM Roster Utility
2013-Jun-11
Still working on my set-field K=Key() input routine with cursor, which has turned into a project in its own right. This is giving me some trouble. The problem seems to be that I was thinking too small, so I'm going to scrap it and take a fresh run at it. I will post when I have something to show or have given up on the effort. Another week should tell. -CW
#12
A WONDERFUL Utility! 
I'm sold. Thx Moru!
-CW
I'm sold. Thx Moru!
-CW
#13
Hi all,
Today I was working on a key-mapping utility as part of my larger keyboard scanning function, based on the swift K=Key() command, and I came upon a puzzling absence in the font sets created by the GLbasic utility. The '&' symbol is missing. This isn't a big deal and is easily correct, but I am just curious as to if there is a reason the symbol isn't there.
Here is a bit of code to show the problem. Create a font, name it "smalfont.png", and save it to the Media folder. Then run the following:
Thanks!
-CW
PS. Attached is a character set with my hand-drawn '&' symbol included, for anyone who might find it handy.
Today I was working on a key-mapping utility as part of my larger keyboard scanning function, based on the swift K=Key() command, and I came upon a puzzling absence in the font sets created by the GLbasic utility. The '&' symbol is missing. This isn't a big deal and is easily correct, but I am just curious as to if there is a reason the symbol isn't there.
Here is a bit of code to show the problem. Create a font, name it "smalfont.png", and save it to the Media folder. Then run the following:
Code (glbasic) Select
SETSCREEN 1366,768,FALSE
GLOBAL sw%,sh%,sm%
GETSCREENSIZE sw,sh
sm = sw/2
SETCURRENTDIR(GETCURRENTDIR$()+"Media")
GLOBAL fontkey = GENFONT(),fw%,fh%
LOADFONT "smalfont.png",fontkey
SETFONT fontkey
GETFONTSIZE fw,fh
PRINT "Ascii code 38 is the 'AND' sign,",50,fh,TRUE
LOCAL a$ = "&"
PRINT "Let a$ = "+CHR$(34)+"&"+CHR$(34)+". Here is a$-> |"+a$+"|",50,fh*2,TRUE
PRINT "It is also CHR$(38). Here is CHR$(38)-> |"+CHR$(38)+"|",50,fh*3,TRUE
PRINT "The symbol is missing from GLbasic font creation utility.",50,fh*5,TRUE
PRINT "Is there a reason, or is it just a minor oversight?",50,fh*6,TRUE
PRINT " Press Key to Exit.",50,fh*8,TRUE
SHOWSCREEN;KEYWAIT
Thanks!
-CW
PS. Attached is a character set with my hand-drawn '&' symbol included, for anyone who might find it handy.
#14
GLBasic - en / Re: Purchased Premium License But No Key
2013-Jun-06
Hi Seodude,
I'm sure you have done this already, but check your junk mail folder in case the E-mail with the key took a wrong turn at your in box. Three days is plenty of time, and you have acted correctly in posting your concern here. Please let us know when the issue is resolved, so we are not left to wonder.
-CW
I'm sure you have done this already, but check your junk mail folder in case the E-mail with the key took a wrong turn at your in box. Three days is plenty of time, and you have acted correctly in posting your concern here. Please let us know when the issue is resolved, so we are not left to wonder.
-CW
#15
Announcements / Re: GM Roster Utility
2013-Jun-05
Sounds like a plan!
No hurry on your various projects. I'm going to take another crack at my user input routines. That should keep me busy for a while.
Cheers!
-CW
No hurry on your various projects. I'm going to take another crack at my user input routines. That should keep me busy for a while.
Cheers!
-CW