Your SNES is getting uglier everyday and you can't fix that. Won't this eventually drive the price up for an actual gray SNES?

File: 174 KB, 1600x1200, dafuqisthis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:37:35 2015 No.2317368 [Reply] [Original]

Your SNES is getting uglier everyday and you can't fix that.

Won't this eventually drive the price up for an actual gray SNES?

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:40:43 2015 No.2317374 You can fix that though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJW7xFcCya0 You could probably make a good chunk of change by buying working SNES consoles on ebay and removing the yellow and then reselling them as gray.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:41:43 2015 No.2317379 Not all Super Nintendos change at the same rate. I have three, and only the bottom half of one has changed color. Also, retrobrite is still a thing

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:42:50 2015 No.2317384

I don't really mind it. Though my SNES isn't as yellow as the one in that pic, it's just the bottom half that's yellowish, the top is still grey.
But even if it turned orange, I'd still love my SNES. This buddy has been with me since 1993, I'd never change it even for a brand new one. it holds a special value for me other than collector faggotry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:54:18 2015 No.2317406 I'd rather mount the pcb in an custom UV protected acrylic case if it was really a big problem.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:55:16 2015 No.2317409 >>2317374 Might have to give this a try. My super is about as yellow as a Brit's teeth and is a pain in the ass to look at.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:58:12 2015 No.2317414 The fuck? Aren't these collector's items? I paid $1500 for a Gold SNES a few years ago.

Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:58:52 2015 No.2317415 [DELETED]

my snes is still as grey as it always was. i think the later models were made with a different kind of plastic or something that doesn't turn yellow.

even if the price does get driven up though, there's no way in hell i will ever sell my snes, not for any amount of money

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 29 23:58:53 2015 No.2317416 I prefer the quiet dignity of a yellowed snes. It's like some weathered old veteran sitting on my shelf, with tales of adventure and misfortune.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:08:10 2015 No.2317435 I don't really see the major problem with a yellowed SNES - it still works, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:08:45 2015 No.2317436 File: 38 KB, 408x295, snes_plastic_carts_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2317368 What about cartridges? This has happened to a few of mine over the years.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:10:40 2015 No.2317442

1) I see plenty of consoles/computers/plastic stuff that gets yellowed over time, but I never see ANYTHING that yellows as prominently as the SNES. With other stuff you might see a couple examples of systems that got a little yellow, while plenty of others may be fine. But with SNES it's like 90% of the systems are yellow. And not just slightly yellow - like super piss yellow to the point where they're crumbling apart. Something notorious about the SNES's ABS plastic compared to others?

2) do other old consoles like the genesis and n64 also "yellow" but you just can't tell because they're black and dark gray?

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:11:42 2015 No.2317443

>>2317415
Yes. I just bought an SNES and looked this up. It has to do with the flame retardant chemical they used in the original model. It yellowed over time. They ended up switching the plastic around in the later models.

My fear has always been it also makes the plastic -weak- over time. For me, its only the bottom half effected.

There are alternatives to retrobrite but they involve large quantities of peroxide and Oxy and a nice sunny day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJW7xFcCya0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:14:46 2015 No.2317453 >>2317435 Plastic becomes very brittle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:14:57 2015 No.2317454 >>2317442 I don't think so. I've never seen a yellowed Playstation, for instance.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:15:45 2015 No.2317458

>>2317442
>1) I see plenty of consoles/computers/plastic stuff that gets yellowed over time, but I never see ANYTHING that yellows as prominently as the SNES. With other stuff you might see a couple examples of systems that got a little yellow, while plenty of others may be fine. But with SNES it's like 90% of the systems are yellow. And not just slightly yellow - like super piss yellow to the point where they're crumbling apart. Something notorious about the SNES's ABS plastic compared to others?

If you actually go outside, you'd see that's not the case.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:18:21 2015 No.2317463

My mini SNES is sun yellowed just on top, and where the original owner's name was written in Sharpie it didn't yellow underneath that ink.

The full size one I have that's yellowed is the same color even on the inside that can't have been exposed to light.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:33:00 2015 No.2317494 Doesn't it have to do with the particular model and type of plastic used more than the age?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 00:45:05 2015 No.2317521 >>2317368 Mines never became beige. It stopped working before it could. Why did this happen? I think a friend of mine one that turned beige as well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 01:22:13 2015 No.2317573 >>2317521 I think it has to do with sunlight? Mine is a normal color, although it has a crack in it. I kept it inside though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 01:58:31 2015 No.2317624 File: 122 KB, 900x900, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >American SNES

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:18:07 2015 No.2317637 File: 58 KB, 800x600, Dreamcast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Your Dreamcast is getting uglier every day and you can't fix that. Won't this eventually drive the price up for an actual grey Dreamcast?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:34:05 2015 No.2317649 >>2317436 Pal area here but it's usually the backs only so I swap them with crappy games that haven't discoloured

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:35:27 2015 No.2317650 >>2317368 My SNES is still completely gray

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:53:27 2015 No.2317664 how the FUCK did you manage to turn your SNES yellow Is it a saiyan

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 02:58:50 2015 No.2317670 File: 92 KB, 648x484, snes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only part of my Super Nintendo that has gotten yellow is the plastic around the controller inputs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:04:17 2015 No.2317676 File: 753 KB, 2688x1520, 1427698954472-702053332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] dug this out of storage I forgot how much it yellowed

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:42:31 2015 No.2317726 >>2317676 >>2317637 I've seen pictures of yellowed consoles like this and it surprises me, because I've never seen them where I live (NW US). Is it a climate thing? Temperature, sunlight?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:46:57 2015 No.2317731 My SNES is still grey

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 03:48:17 2015 No.2317735 >>2317637 I have a yellowed DC controller (got it at the flea market basically for free) but I've never seen an actual yellowed DC.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 04:14:45 2015 No.2317749

>>2317726
It's just the bomide in the plastic (added as a fire retardent) aging, it'll happen if its in the box or out.

Some batches of SNES were made without bromided plastic, so thats why you see some pretty good condition ones out there, or ones where only the top or the bottom has yellowed.

It's sort of reversable by using retrobrite to bleach it back to an almost new colour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 04:24:14 2015 No.2317758 >>2317749 >>2317453 Retrobriting makes the plastic even more brittle

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:30:48 2015 No.2317843 >>2317758 Don't confuse retrobrite with bleach. The whole point of using it is that you don't displace the bromine in the plastic and create weaknesses in the structure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:46:11 2015 No.2317852 >>2317374 Does this procedure work on clear plastic? I'd really like to refurb my custom Dreamcast.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:49:27 2015 No.2317854 >>2317735 I have 4 DCs and 2 of them are yellowed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 06:58:31 2015 No.2317860 >>2317368 Every time I see a yellowed SNES I get an urge to go brush my teeth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:08:01 2015 No.2317867 >>2317670 For me it's the opposite. Everything is yellowed but the part where the controller was plugged in. Talk about bizzaro

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:14:16 2015 No.2317873
File: 125 KB, 1036x800, SegaMegadrive2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2317368
Meanwhile your Genny, despite showing some unavoidable marks of age has aged gracefully and can still make you revive some scents from your earlier times together when she glances at you that way she only knows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:14:39 2015 No.2317874 >>2317867 Most SNESs were made from mutliple batches of plastic, so the plastics for different sections will have different compositions depending on when that individual piece was cast.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 07:44:29 2015 No.2317896 >>2317873 >red buttons shit-tier ugly Genesis. Black button Genesis-owning master race reporting in.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:36:19 2015 No.2317925 File: 1.44 MB, 2252x1752, snes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] i got lucky i guess

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:41:11 2015 No.2317927 >>2317925 No, you still got the American SNES

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:48:40 2015 No.2317938 >>2317927 whatever kid it looks more mature then the childish rounded out eurofag thing lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:51:38 2015 No.2317942 >>2317938 >childish Yes, a purple, blocky, cheap console with inferior plastic is so mature. What did you Americans think when you saw the four colour SNES logo?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 08:53:37 2015 No.2317946 >>2317938 Honestly, the american snes hasn't aged well. It looks shit.

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 10:12:05 2015 No.2317993

>>2317927
i love the looks of the ntsc-u snes
i think the euro/jap snes/sfc is more childish in my opinion.

probably just nostalgia, since i've had this unit since i was a kid >>2317925 and it's still pretty mint, although dirty in that picture (from oct 2013)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 10:15:33 2015 No.2317995 >>2317896 Check your privilege

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:07:26 2015 No.2318165 >>2317874 Actually my SNES is a lot like op's pic. It's all yellowed out except where the controller would plug in. It's probably like that cause that small area was never exposed to any sunlight. just like me

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:54:19 2015 No.2318241

>>2317942
it'd be interesting to see if Nintendo actually did any focus group testing on the hardware design in burgerland, or if they just assumed we'd like that blocky purple piece of shit better than the original design.

i'd also like to read said focus group results/analysis, if it exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:57:47 2015 No.2318250 >>2317368 Why do peoples SNES' get so ugly? What are you doing? My uncle got his not soon after release and it isn't yellow

Anonymous Mon Mar 30 12:59:19 2015 No.2318254

>>2318241
The explanation was that too many NES were damaged by liquid spillage and they wanted to remove any flat surface so that nobody could place a glass or bowl on top.
It makes sense when you consider the NES design but the Famicom or Super Famicom just don't invite you to use them as a desk. I'm not sure if other flat top consoles like the PS2 had similar problems.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:05:00 2015 No.2318270 >>2318254 do you have a source for this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 13:09:47 2015 No.2318279 >>2318250 Mine neither, but i have a pal and a jap one, and those generally don't get yellow easily.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 19:39:45 2015 No.2319123 >>2317927 Call me crazy, but I actually like the angular look accented by purple.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:34:14 2015 No.2319384 >>2317843 >the museums that tested it said it absolutely fucked with the plastic and they can't use it because it will damage the exhibits.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:35:30 2015 No.2319386 >>2318279 I have a NA one and it is white

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:36:36 2015 No.2319390 Every white console eventually turns to piss color. This is why black consoles are the superior race.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:44:46 2015 No.2319421 >>2317442 Yep, you can't tell because they're gray. I remember reading Nintendo's opinion on it and they said it happens to most consoles over time, but you won't notice because of paint

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:48:09 2015 No.2319435 >>2317873 >Genny >Posts Mega Drive May be the same thing, but Jesus anon, be more politically correct

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 30 22:50:06 2015 No.2319442 File: 154 KB, 1024x768, 1379731246172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2319384 SOURCE OR KILL YOURSELF

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 03:35:31 2015 No.2319968 Isn't filling a plastic box with water dioxide and putting it in sunlight a good idea to get rid of the yellowing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 12:54:19 2015 No.2320516 >>2317374 Seems like a lot of work. My SNES is still perfectly functional. It wears its yellow with pride.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:48:47 2015 No.2320602 >>2317938 it's not just eurofag, also japanfag, you uberfag.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:48:59 2015 No.2320603
File: 236 KB, 1600x1200, SNES- DarkGoldSpecialEdition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It's a pity that they did not use that plastic for the whole console but only in parts. A fully yellowed one would look pretty cool imho, has sth. of a special edition.

>>2319968

Do you mean dihydrogen dioxide? Yes, but it would be very bad for the plastic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 31 13:55:56 2015 No.2320610 >>2317938 >whatever kid it looks more mature It must help when you are playing kirby super star.

Anonymous Tue Mar 31 14:32:00 2015 No.2320686

go to Sally's Supply Store, get the Brand "Salon Care" Volume Crème 40, then go to walmart or whatever and get a UV light then , open the snes with the special bit from ebay, then rub it with that crème, then put a clear plastic wrap, so the crème don't evaporate, so kept it under the lights for hours, but pay attention to it, then BANG it's all new.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 14:12:47 2015 No.2322585 >>2317368 consider this a good thing, we can have a chance here for cheaper SNES consoles since people will want a grey one over a yellow one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 17:10:59 2015 No.2322804 File: 147 KB, 1356x643, Silver and Gold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2317368 They're not getting uglier, they're becoming golden.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:15:01 2015 No.2322906 >>2317927 >>2317938 >>2317942 >>2317946 The American SNES really is ugly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:36:46 2015 No.2322917 So should you use Retrobright or can you use one of the other techniques mentioned here? My Famicom looks like it's been in an Indian toilet for years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:54:32 2015 No.2322938 My SNES is as gray as it gets and I never did any sort of maintenance with it. Why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:55:01 2015 No.2322940 >>2322906 Did you have to post this? Was it necessary?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 18:57:09 2015 No.2322945 >>2322940 It's my opinion. I felt the post was necessary, since without it wouldn't have been able to share that opinion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 19:12:55 2015 No.2322963 >>2322938 Some yellow, some don't. I've got one that's like yours and another that's piss yellow but only the top piece of the shell is affected. So even in the same production run there was variation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 19:15:46 2015 No.2322967 >>2322945 The sentiment has already been posted, as has the counter-sentiment. You're not actually adding anything to the, er, "discussion."

Anonymous Wed Apr 1 19:18:42 2015 No.2322971

Mine's still nice and gray. When not in use, I keep it covered with a dark cloth. This was originally just to keep dust off the console, but it has the added benefit of shielding it from light as well.

I know it's likely going to yellow eventually, but I've staved it off for quite a long time, so I'm not worried, and happy it's lasted this long.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 23:26:35 2015 No.2323271 >>2322967 I don't care if you or anyone else shares or disagrees with my opinion. I'm expressing it because I feel it's relevant, and because I have not yet done so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 23:38:33 2015 No.2323284 >>2323271 >I feel my opinion is relevant That is so adorable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 1 23:39:04 2015 No.2323285 >>2323284 Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 00:16:31 2015 No.2323327 >>2317368 I bought mine used from a guy last year and its new as shit. No yellow to be seen. What the fuck do you people do to these things? are you sure you don't smoke?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 00:34:51 2015 No.2323352 >>2317637 One reason why for my current Dreamcast, I went with the Sega Sports version.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 07:08:34 2015 No.2323702 i can always emulate, so my SNES is mostly just a decoration at this point

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 09:46:11 2015 No.2323851 Why does this happen? A friend of mine gave me his that's just been sitting around In God knows what part of his house and is still fully gray.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 10:05:50 2015 No.2323862 >>2317873 I was about to post this, time has proven that the Genesis is superior.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 10:09:40 2015 No.2323864 >>2317368 Mine is still grey and I also picked one up at a yard sale last weekend that is still grey. I noticed that about 50-75% of fat snes I find are yellowed but I've never encountered a yellowed mini snes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 10:10:32 2015 No.2323865 >>2323327 >What the fuck do you people do to these things? >>2323851 >Why does this happen? read the thread you unsavory people

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 10:14:21 2015 No.2323868 File: 3.31 MB, 4608x3456, DSCN6508.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2323864 Pic related. My unyellow snes. On a side note my dreamcast has yellowed over the years and never been in a smoking environment.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 10:42:47 2015 No.2323893 >>2323864 The mini SNES is newer, so that#s not really surprising. As already mentioned the problem is the used plastic, that affected plastic was replaced sometime during the SNES production. When the mini one came out it wasn't used anymore.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 18:02:10 2015 No.2324434 >>2318250 Fags be smokin'.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 18:36:56 2015 No.2324473 >tfw in a thousand years all your retro consoles and cartridges will have turned to dust

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 18:39:32 2015 No.2324480 >>2324473 In a thousand years humans will either all be dead or have the technology to 3D print exact replicas of any hardware that ever existed. Assuming we don't simply start living our lives in a virtual reality world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 18:40:50 2015 No.2324483 >>2323868 Holy fuck dust

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 18:47:41 2015 No.2324498 >>2324483 Quick, take a spontaneous photo of your invariably immaculate gaming setup. I'm sure no one will find anything mundane to arbitrarily criticize.

>>	Razz Thu Apr 2 18:51:38 2015 No.2324509 >>2324473 >tfw 900 years from now you will be dust too

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 19:04:25 2015 No.2324524 >>2324509 At least my dust won't be yellow

>>	Razz Thu Apr 2 19:32:52 2015 No.2324553 >>2324524 Excellent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 19:48:21 2015 No.2324574 >Nintendium can withstand anything >except a couple decades of exposure to oxygen

Anonymous Thu Apr 2 20:55:39 2015 No.2324670

>>2324480
>VR world
Mathematically inefficient and most likely impossible; simulating realities would need nigh infinite processing power which in itself would require infinite matter (Beckenstein limit) and infinite power through means of a frictionless material or perpetual motion machine.
With any single piece of that technology we could do way more than make cool comouter games.

Anonymous Thu Apr 2 21:09:01 2015 No.2324692

>>2324670
Are you retarded? Are you shitting out something you read in some sci-fi novel or something? You're the only one here talking about an exact virtual replication of the entire universe. Shit doesn't need to be even close to quantum accurate to fool a human's senses. Goddamn, it's like someone was talking about flying a rocket to the moon and you go off on some unrelated tangent about how light speed travel is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 21:18:36 2015 No.2324706 >>2317454 They do yellow, but it mostly makes them look darker grey. I think a lot people don't even know how light grey the original PlayStations were.

Anonymous Thu Apr 2 22:33:26 2015 No.2324779

>>2324670
Bullshit.

Human perceptual limits are extremely low, relative to the underlying physical reality. This fact has been exploited in video game development from the beginning. Games progress through time in discrete units; all quantities within a game are discrete. Nonetheless, they manage to fool everyone that they're continuous.

Between physical accuracy and perceptual correctness lies a huge chasm.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 2 22:37:59 2015 No.2324782 >>2324670 >>2324692 >>2324779 >discussing virtual world simulation NOT RETRO COMMENCE ANEURYSM

Anonymous Thu Apr 2 22:48:08 2015 No.2324789

>>2324670

I agree with you, although most of the times I bring that point, people like >>2324692
>>2324779 come up too. But what you say is actually true.

Yes, computer graphics might be able to make us believe they look "realistic", but you can always tell they're not. MAYBE in still pictures or renders, but not in VR.

In VR, you would be able to , for example, come up close to a tree leaf, or perceive sun light from different locations, and those will never be replicated accurately by any human-made computer. It'd require real-time rendering of both, micro and macro cosmos. As you say, it'd require infinite processing power. It's just not possible.

However, what >>2324779 says is also true, it works in games or movies with CGI images, they might fool us a bit, but as soon as new technology is developed and more processing power can be used, graphics become even more detailed. And it's then when we notice that these old graphics, that we used to think looked so realistic, are actually obvious CGI. It's the basis of the whole "wow this game looked great in release, it looks like shit now" thing. The game didn't change your perception of how computer-generated graphics are made changed.
But a game or any computer-generated image will never have the detail reality has. And ultimately we'd be able to tell it's not real. Uncanny valley, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 00:27:04 2015 No.2324903 >>2324498 If I would take a photo I would atleast dust. Wait no, I do that on a regular basis so it doesnt look like I live in the fucking desert.,

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 00:42:29 2015 No.2324931

>>2324903
If I were ever to take a photo for 4chan, I don't think sprucing up to make sure the anons were impressed would be a priority. That said, I'd also anticipate that they'd comment on anything other than the photo's subject. Anyway, good on you cleanbrah. We're all impressed and sufficiently shamed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 00:46:13 2015 No.2324938 My snes probably no longer exists because my idiotic parents don't recognize the value in game systems and instead prefer to waste money on things that have no lasting or increasing value over time. they probably smashed it with a hammer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 00:57:19 2015 No.2324958 >>2324938 >My money sink is better than their money sink! >parents r lame, amirite? Homework sucks! For someone with such superior taste, it's surprising you left your treasure behind and unaccounted for.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 00:57:33 2015 No.2324959 >>2324931 I'm sorry that dusting is harder that cleaning your fedora.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:00:04 2015 No.2324964
File: 134 KB, 540x1391, 20101109.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2324789
>no not in VR ever
dude, are you stuck in 1996?
I assume you're not talking about god rays, because those are even /vr.

I think you're talking about godray and a nice warm translucent effect from looking close through a leaf... which isn't hard, but I can't be bothered to google for one. Even light bending transparency is like DX8

Carmack predicted like, 2 more generations before we have 'good enough to fool anyone' graphics? I hate to argue from authority but he built the industry.

>micro and macro cosmos
Bullshit alert.

If you want the game to grow the leaf from scratch, and then make a nice 3d picture of it from you...
Mostly it's a waste of resources and time, but I'm sure dwarf fortress will do that for you in 30 years.

To model it microscopic or atomically? Why would you bother? Make it good enough, no human will ever notice anything microscopic (by definition). If you need more detail than that, like it's a game about a microbiologist, then I'm sure you could model instances of petri dishes/samples

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:01:05 2015 No.2324969 >>2324959 Ha! Ha! Because fedoras are shorthand for a stereotype that is employed more as an insult than as an assessment of character! You sure got my number, guy.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:13:06 2015 No.2324995
File: 951 KB, 3200x2400, PMMAog-H2O2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2319442
http://aktuelbevaring.natmus.dk/afrensning-af-plast-med-retrobright.html
http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/archive/index.php/t-30057.html
translation and rebuttal from retrobrite dude
tldr; you're not a museum, just a collector, don't worry about the damage, it looks pretty again, don't it?

" After the treatment of polymethylmetakrylat (PMMA) with hydrogen peroxide one could see a distinct cracking in the area where the solution had been applied."

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:20:16 2015 No.2325014

>>2324964

It's okay, I'm not going to burst your optimistic bubble.
But you won't change my mindset either. Actually realistic graphics that look exactly the same as reality won't be possible. Yes, computer graphics will keep getting better and better, and the illusion will be more credible each time, but every time a small leap in technology happens, you will realize just how artificial what you used to think that looked "realistic" actually was. There will always be uncanny valley.

>micro and macro cosmos
>bullshit

what?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:38:20 2015 No.2325048 >>2317650 same here. gray and I bought it at launch. though it sat far from windows for 15 years and then in a shoebox in a closet for the rest... afraid to take it out..

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:39:22 2015 No.2325050

>>2325014
You sound like one of those goal post movers that said humans are special and computers will never beat us in checkers! Then chess! Then stock trading! Then jeopardy! Then in writing music! Then in visual analysis of photos! Then in medical diagnosis! Then in circuit design!

Strawman'd as fuck.

What's really going to stop realistic graphics is the fucking art budget and that no one is actually going to want them. They will absolutely be realistic enough. We know exactly how many pixels you can see, and how light reflects off of everything. We even have a pretty good idea when we can have a display of sufficient resolution with hardware beefy enough to push enough triangles and textures to fill every pixel there. It's not even far off.

Your examples of 'impossible' shit for computers to do are so retarted it's like you're being the /vr guy from the comic strip

'whoa dude, you mean it happened?'
Multiple light sources? Whaaaaaaattt? No way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI1_quVr_3w
This isn't even hard, this is current hardware doing everything you were talking about. The worst thing is the human is still uncanny. I'd say that's mostly down to direction, they didn't care that much about her, it's to show off her wings and hair, not her idle animation.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:39:36 2015 No.2325051

>>2325014
>every time a small leap in technology happens, you will realize just how artificial what you used to think that looked "realistic" actually was.

Would that really matter, though? That only affects people who employ the older technology, who should reasonably expect the technology to be less immersive. It's no different than putting down a bleeding-edge game and playing Doom 2. Sure, it might make Doom 2 seem primitive, but that doesn't somehow make the current game less convincing.

As an aside, I anticipate that just like games from any other era, virtual reality experiences would all exclusively strive for true-to-life realism; a lot of developers and gamers would embrace experiencing worlds that can't be experienced in reality.

>Actually realistic graphics that look exactly the same as reality won't be possible

Never say never, especially in regard to technology. Think about all the things we enjoy today that the average person would have dismissed as "impossible" even fifty years ago. Reality-matching graphics certainly won't happen in our lifetimes, and probably not for several more afterward. But "impossible?" That's not a bold statement, it's a silly one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:40:43 2015 No.2325052 >>2325048 Cut holes in the shoebox for controllers and cords.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:47:39 2015 No.2325058

>>2325050

You seem overly defensive. I'm aware I am pessimistic, but you are too optimistic. That video you posted about light sources isn't really what I'm talking about.

Yes, I know computer graphics have come a long way. I'm not the "vr guy from the comics". I'm just not a fool and I'm not wowed that easily anymore. Maybe if I was a kid, but sadly I can see through technology.

I'm sure technology will bring us a lot of great things. In fact, I believe it would be more likely we'll get some kind of (non toxic) chemical suffix that could go directly into our brains, and maybe we'll be able to experience lucid dreams as we please. That'd be a possible way to trick our brain into thinking what we're seeing is reality, when in fact it's just an illusion. But computer graphics, at least computers as we know today, won't be able to process that much information at once. As I said, they will keep getting better, but we'll be able to tell it's not real.

>>2325051

I'm only talking about the technology we know: We will never achieve "real life graphics" with the current kind of technology. Of course it's possible in the future a new kind of technology unheard of until now might be able to do incredible things like render a whole universe without bursting out, but as for now, such thing doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:47:39 2015 No.2325059 >>2325014 https://youtu.be/XISqvBVyASo?t=3m37s For my money, I don't really see that being 'better' ever. That is pretty much maximum graphics.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:53:48 2015 No.2325067

>>2324670
>simulating realities would need nigh infinite processing power
There's a limit to the amount of information the mind can digest: you'd only need to simulate a theoretical minimum of this amount of information in order to create a convincing simulation.

Emulate only what the mind sees, not the entire world. Efficiency 101: even modern video games only render what's in your field of view.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:54:23 2015 No.2325069 >>2324958 I guess you told me. I'll go apologize to my parents straight away for having the audacity to create such a post.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:57:54 2015 No.2325074

>>2325067

What you say would be easy if the human brain followed the same pattern everytime and a computer could adapt to it automatically. Sadly, each individiual perceive things differently, and the same individual could perceive things differently in different occasions, too, so what you're saying isn't accurate regarding simulation of reality.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 01:59:08 2015 No.2325079

>>2325058
>I'm only talking about the technology we know: We will never achieve "real life graphics" with the current kind of technology. [...] but as for now, such thing doesn't exist."

Uh... no kidding? I've never seen anyone move a goalpost backwards before. No one has argued that we could possibly achieve anything remotely close to reality with current technology. The very first comment on the subject said "in 1000 years" (and before you pick apart the number, it was obviously not meant to be taken literally). Even you have been discussing how technology will evolve over time. By removing the "future" component from your argument, you've turned your entire argument into an utterly redundant statement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:00:08 2015 No.2325081 >>2325069 >everything turned out better than expected

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:02:34 2015 No.2325087

>>2325079

You have to understand one thing: when I say it's not possible with "current technology", I'm refering to current technology applied in the future too.
Computers will keep getting better, but I'm sure they will never be able to render a whole universe in real time. Pretty sure of that.

In order for a kind of computer to be able to do that, we'd need a completely different kind of technology, and probably a new scientific paradigm, too.

So if we're going to argue that actual reality simulation could be possible in the future with an unknown, still undiscovered kind of technology; then we're not arguing possibilities, we're just talking about science fiction.
Yes, in the future we might be able to travel back in time and buy copies of Panzer Dragoon Saga for 10 bucks, who knows?

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:04:00 2015 No.2325089

>>2325074
So you simulate one perception set for each mind. That way, computation power required increases linearly with number on minds connected, and each mind requires only a small amount of processing power.

As I said, much more efficient than fully simulating the whole world redundantly. The field of view analogy is appropriate again, considering multiplayer games.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:06:04 2015 No.2325091 >>2325089 Yes, but add to the equation the fact that it's not only different minds, but the same mind might change its subjectivity dynamically at any given time.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:06:42 2015 No.2325092

>>2325074
Dude.. What

Your eye doesn't have infinite resolution. We're not even talking about the brain. To simulate a visual reality, all we need to fool is your eyeball. That's fucking easy. That is why the oculus rift was created, because it has enough pixels in the right density to fool your eye, given good enough source.

>Each individual perceives things differnetly
>Micro cosmos
>macro cosmos
>Brain patterns
Did you fall out of /x or something? You don't really know very much about what you're talking about.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:07:00 2015 No.2325094

>>2325087
>You have to understand one thing: when I say it's not possible with "current technology", I'm refering to current technology applied in the future too.

You have to understand that that's silly. I don't think any reasonable person assumes that current technology will last into the far future. Technology is constantly changing, and the rate of change keeps getting faster.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:08:10 2015 No.2325096 >>2325091 Doesn't matter, you're still going to be re-rendering every x milliseconds, regardless of what's in the mind.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:09:35 2015 No.2325097 File: 271 KB, 1856x1792, 1427773359475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >SNES yellowing thread >becomes discussion of the possibility of authentic simulated reality Oh, /vr/ Seriously though, good on you guys for keeping it cogent and civil.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:15:33 2015 No.2325102

>>2325092

It's not just about resolution and pixels, dude.

Also, I didn't know things such as individual perception, atoms or stars were /x/ related.

>>2325094

>Technology is constantly changing

I never said the contrary. I just said that, until now the kind of computational technology we have wouldn't let us render a whole universe in real time. And even if we only render a small part of it as >>2325089 says, it will never reach the level of detail real life has. It's more possible to achieve such a thing as a reality simulation via other methods, manipulating the brain itself maybe, rather than working on graphics on computers.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:19:43 2015 No.2325108

>>2325102
But you did say it was impossible, which is we've what we've been railing against all along. I'll grant you your qualified argument (mostly because it goes without saying); it'd be nice if you could concede that ruling this out as "impossible" and "it will never happen" was an overreach.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:20:04 2015 No.2325109

>>2325102
>it will never reach the level of detail real life has
But that's what I'm saying: you really don't process that much information. Only a tiny fraction of what's out there are you really aware of, so you might as well only simulate those parts.

You don't need the simulation to go as fine-grained as atoms to fool the eye. Hell, we already have screens high-res enough that you can't differentiated two adjacent pixels. The amount of data displayed on that screen is infinitesimal compared to the orientation and state of every atom in the same space.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:23:21 2015 No.2325114
File: 26 KB, 244x388, nasa_antennae.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2325050
Oh by the way
>Music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6haUes-usG4
>Medical diagnosis
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/15/ibm-watson-medical-diagnosis/
>Circuit design
http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

We already can't compete with computers in many many things. You think they're not going to be able to fool our eyeballs?

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:24:29 2015 No.2325115

>>2325108

To clarify: I think it would never be possible with computers as we know them. Even in the future. We might get incredibe-looking stuff, but never "real". The uncanny valley will still be there for us.

As for a new, undiscovered kind of technology that might appear in the future, sure. But again, that's just science fiction, and honestly again, I think it'd be easier to simply trick our brain, rather than our eyes. You can fool the eyes, but eventually the brain will realize the truth. If we fool the brain directly, then that would be a different story.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:26:58 2015 No.2325118 >>2325115 tricking the brain would be like dreaming. Whatever you're perceiving would be too 'clear'. You'd just know the blob was your mom about to smother you, even though it looked like the toaster. The triangle would be a perfect triangle.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:29:17 2015 No.2325123 >>2325115 >>2325118 Nah. Give a millenium if takes that, but I'd give it a few hundred years. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Thanks for an interesting discussion. And not once was an off-topic post saged, due to quality of said discussion.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:31:32 2015 No.2325128

>>2325102
By using 'cosmos' like that you've entered theological territory.
They are clearly special words to you and people you hang out with, but it was totally devoid of meaning. I guessed you meant you wanted a computer to simulate every quantum interaction up, which is silly and not necessary to anything. And if it did, then that's just one cosmos, not two. They're not different.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:31:35 2015 No.2325129
File: 24 KB, 544x304, Edward-Nygma-batman-forever-1261865_544_304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2325115
You're entitled to believe what you believe. I'm a bit more optimistic. There are tons of things around us that were once nothing "science fiction." Technology is generally created, not discovered; though a technology capable of allowing us to create convincing substitute realities will almost certainly not resemble today's technology, the advancements we make today do inch us just a little bit closer, millimeter by millimeter.

As for brain manipulation--that may or may be not easier, but I highly doubt any governing body would allow that to come to bear. You think getting your bank account hacked is a problem? You don't want to open that door.

>mfw when I nearly crafted a sentence that was a line from Batman Forever by pure coincidence

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:43:57 2015 No.2325139

>>2325128

Yeah, maybe the wording was incorrect, but you still get what I mean.

>I guessed you meant you wanted a computer to simulate every quantum interaction up, which is silly and not necessary to anything.

It IS important, I think. As you said, it's one cosmos, but it has different levels. The microscopic and the macroscopic (maybe I should have used these words, sorry, english is not my native language), and they affect the way we perceive things, such as textures, or lighting (amongst many other things).

>>2325129

I respect your posture, too. And actually, even though I said I'm more on the pessimistic side (no, I don't think machines will rebel against us, I just think computer graphics aren't enough to fool our brains, is all), I'm open to any possibilities because as you said, technology is dynamic and ever changing. But I'm just talking about what we know now, and projecting it into the future: I don't see computers being able to actually make real life graphics that look "real" in the very strict of the word. They will keep getting more and more detailed, but as I said before, there's more than resolution and pixels. There's a lot of things our eyes can't directly see, but our brain still perceive.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:51:24 2015 No.2325151

>>2325139
>There's a lot of things our eyes can't directly see, but our brain still perceive.

That's an interesting point--I wonder what the pursuit of virtual reality might teach us about how our brain works.

You've articulated yourself quite well even for someone who IS a native speaker, no need to worry about that.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:53:26 2015 No.2325156

>>2325139
I started to think it must be a foreign language thing.

Look at some of the YouTube demos. There's things your see out of the corner of your eye, the smoke effects, turbulence, wall destructions, fire burning and actually consuming ira fuel, the fuel determining the size of the flame and smoke...

The whale splash is kind of cringe worthy actually, the good bot is the turbulence.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:58:15 2015 No.2325163

>>2325151
I took it to mean things you don't focus on but take for granted. Obviously there's more senses, were just focused on visual here. Its even easier to trick your ears than your brain.

So I took him to mean things like a guy walking through fog to enter a room and the fog flows around him correctly and is lit right, and he tosses a cigarette into it and it lights a gasoline trail and races along it or something, all while stuff is floating by in the wind...this is pretty much all done in the latest unreal out of the box. Model a cigarette, and a dude in a trench coat and texture some stuff and its a done scene.

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 02:59:57 2015 No.2325165

>>2323868
Take care of those consoles, you lazabout. If I don't see a feather duster or some form of dusting cloth in your hand in, I will be disappointed. Thats not how you take care of your babies. You do not let them sit in grime and dirt. You nurture them and keep them clean.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 03:01:38 2015 No.2325169 ya gotta spice if UP a bit!

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 03:02:05 2015 No.2325172 >>2325163 I understand that that's probably not what he meant, but it still got me wondering. Trying to recreate reality will almost certainly teach us a thing or two about how we perceive reality.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 3 13:19:08 2015 No.2325739 >>2317368 >Implying you can't fix it baby's first retro console

Anonymous Fri Apr 3 22:55:07 2015 No.2326603

>>2325102
>>2325115

Fooling the brain directly is vastly harder and more the realm of science fiction than fooling the eyes. Humans only perceive coarse phenomena- our eyes only have a resolution of ~10,000x10,000. Things can absolutely be simulated down to an appropriate level, and rendered at such, as to consistently fool people. The uncanny valley results from a peculiar stage of technological development- there's a before and after to it, it's not the endgame.

>>2325139
>The microscopic and the macroscopic (maybe I should have used these words, sorry, english is not my native language), and they affect the way we perceive things, such as textures, or lighting (amongst many other things).

No, fine-grained stochastic phenomena like illumination are trivial to fool people with. The SOLE operative difference between a slightly uncanny render and one indistinguishable from reality is that the latter has scene data and light transport at a higher frequency. The light transport models themselves are, as far as perception is concerned, perfect. Again, to point out the parallel with actual game development, many modern global illumination techniques are far from physically accurate while still being perceptually correct. With most things, the brain is even easier to fool than you'd expect.

> There's a lot of things our eyes can't directly see, but our brain still perceive.

It's very much the other way around. Our brain fills in our vision with lots of interpolated and extrapolated information due to the only moderate sensitivity of our eyes.

Also beware that convincingness of real-time graphics could potentially be much greater than it is today, on modern hardware- photorealism was a fad around 2000. It's rarely even been attempted since then. Phenomenae that are extremely hard to nail due to how much scrutiny our brains give them, such as facial animation (a key aspect of human social development), are no longer uncanny.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/vr/ - Retro Games