News - Nvidia releases Apollo 11 conspiracy busting software

[HEXUS]

We first saw this software, used to debunk moon landing hoax claims, in Sept.

Read more.

[DemonHighwayman]

I'll take a gander I think, been looking for a tech demo to try out on my 970.

[Pleiades]

Impressive.

[spl]

I'll take a gander I think, been looking for a tech demo to try out on my 970.

Same here. I hope nVIDIA doesn't stop developing tech demos. Another thing you could try is a New Dawn. It was developed for the GTX690 but I reckon our GTX970s could handle it (I know my GTX670 couldn't). I tried the UE4 demos, but they all looked blurry for me, like they were being rendered at 1600x900 or something and upscaled.

[DemonHighwayman]

Same here. I hope nVIDIA doesn't stop developing tech demos. Another thing you could try is a New Dawn. It was developed for the GTX690 but I reckon our GTX970s could handle it (I know my GTX670 couldn't). I tried the UE4 demos, but they all looked blurry for me, like they were being rendered at 1600x900 or something and upscaled.

I'll give that a try thanks spl. I too hope they keep making them, its nice to see the sort of graphics your hardware can produce in an ideal world.

[Ttaskmaster]

Another thing you could try is a New Dawn.

Is that the one with the butterfly-winged pixie?
She was very cute!! A bit vacant and unanimated, but her tech was exceptionally well demonstrated...

I figure if something can render a character as well as that, it's gotta be good. It looked even better than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within when I first saw it at the cinema!

[spl]

Is that the one with the butterfly-winged pixie?
She was very cute!! A bit vacant and unanimated, but her tech was exceptionally well demonstrated...

I figure if something can render a character as well as that, it's gotta be good. It looked even better than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within when I first saw it at the cinema!

Haha yeah that's the one :-)

[spl]

I'll give that a try thanks spl. I too hope they keep making them, its nice to see the sort of graphics your hardware can produce in an ideal world.

Alright forget New Dawn - it's not kind to Maxwell it seems. Fine during night, but when daylight hits I'm looking at drops into the 20s on an EVGA GTX970 SC and i7. The moon lander demo, like all UE4-based stuff I've run on this setup, comes out blurry.

[DemonHighwayman]

Alright forget New Dawn - it's not kind to Maxwell it seems. Fine during night, but when daylight hits I'm looking at drops into the 20s on an EVGA GTX970 SC and i7. The moon lander demo, like all UE4-based stuff I've run on this setup, comes out blurry.

I found that with new dawn too - 20fps or lower in daylight, I thought it was because I am running at 1440p and 1080p was pretty much the standard when dawn came out. Is the moon lander demo not designed to look kind of low res' and blurry to mimic the camera that Neil used ?

One other demo I tried was supersonic sled which runs very smoothly and is fun for a while trying to beat your own records and killing the pilot guy in some nasty nasty ways.

[spl]

I found that with new dawn too - 20fps or lower in daylight, I thought it was because I am running at 1440p and 1080p was pretty much the standard when dawn came out. Is the moon lander demo not designed to look kind of low res' and blurry to mimic the camera that Neil used ?

One other demo I tried was supersonic sled which runs very smoothly and is fun for a while trying to beat your own records and killing the pilot guy in some nasty nasty ways.

That's a good point re lander blurriness (is it the same for you?) but doesn't explain why all the other UE4 stuff is blurry. I'm hoping it's not a hardware issue. New Dawn and Borderlands are perfectly sharp though, which is encouraging. Haha yeah, Supersonic Sled was good fun :-) But it was flawless on my GTX670 and I'd really like something that's well-matched to my GTX970.

[DemonHighwayman]

That's a good point re lander blurriness (is it the same for you?) but doesn't explain why all the other UE4 stuff is blurry. I'm hoping it's not a hardware issue. New Dawn and Borderlands are perfectly sharp though, which is encouraging. Haha yeah, Supersonic Sled was good fun :-) But it was flawless on my GTX670 and I'd really like something that's well-matched to my GTX970.

Yep the apollo lander was blurry for me to, maybe it is just the way the unreal 4 engine works, Its not hardware though as I have tried out loads of games and there are no problems with blur or low resolution, I've even modded a few games ini files to get my full monitor resolution and they look great.

[spl]

Yep the apollo lander was blurry for me to, maybe it is just the way the unreal 4 engine works, Its not hardware though as I have tried out loads of games and there are no problems with blur or low resolution, I've even modded a few games ini files to get my full monitor resolution and they look great.

Well that's a relief! It doesn't really matter as long it doesn't make its way into any full UE4-based games. It does mean though that there's still not really any great tech demos for our new cards... ah well. It shouldn't be too long until something comes along to really put them to the test.

[KendrickDM]

A simulation of a copy does not prove an original is true any more than they can prove the orignials were fake. Someone has to return to the moon and examine the evidence left behind to proove or disprove the moon landings.

[Saracen]

A simulation of a copy does not prove an original is true any more than they can prove the orignials were fake. Someone has to return to the moon and examine the evidence left behind to proove or disprove the moon landings.

But how does the "someone" that "returns" to the moon unequivocally prove that their "return" wasn't also faked, the same way conspiracy nuts claim the originals were?

[KendrickDM]

A simulation of a copy does not prove an original is true any more than they can prove the orignials were fake. Someone has to return to the moon and examine the evidence left behind to proove or disprove the moon landings.

But how does the "someone" that "returns" to the moon unequivocally prove that their "return" wasn't also faked, the same way conspiracy nuts claim the originals were?

I would be looking at a modern industrial arcaeologist team sourced from the worlds universities or the first lunar settlement preserving the landing sites in situ and the public being able to see for themselves. I will always however hold that the majority of footage is a replica of radiation damaged original's from studios however. Gamma radiation is immune to 3mm of Aluminium and all critics, you also do not throw away the entire original Apollo 11 footage from the archive unless you really wish the world to doubt.

[KendrickDM]

Also not well accepted, is that in the era 1947 until l991 the Cold War was entirely active, meaning that it was entirely acceptable for a country to lie and missrepresent its space achivements to gain a political and propoganda advantage on its opponent, Russia did this with its firsts and the United States played catch up unable to hide most of its failures in the way Russia did. However NASA and the industrial complex depended and still do on huge influxes of pork barrel money, NASA until recent times received and spent more money than many UN members entire GDP, depended on more not less spending every year and every program it created was designed with a huge budget in mind.

To get a persective on how space X has changed matters, it is doing for 1/10th the cost the launches NASA could do with the shuttle with what is effectively the upper stage of the Saturn. How honest is throwing away 9 times more of the publics money than necessary - or more to the point, with this sort of money sloshing around, how dishonest could NASA become.

Belief in NASA fakery is well founded, but should also be balanced by USSR fakery as well, the rewards for dishonesty are great and frankly there is no honesty policeman to be had.