idea for dan200, ComputerCraft

/

Only an idiot would handle displaying by routing it through a server first.

Well if you don't route it through a server then how does the server save the video of the camera?

lieudusty, on 23 September 2012 - 01:12 AM said:

Well if you don't route it through a server then how does the server save the video of the camera?

Simple. It doesn't. Why would it need to?

I think what cloudy is trying to say is that the server would just load the chunk for the client and the client would handle rendering the display.

i was think that he add tape so it will record on to the tape and you could also use bundled cable to get the video

Bubdled cable transmits redstone signals. The theoretical max speed is 40 bytes/second. Have fun sending video over that.

immibis, on 24 September 2012 - 11:07 PM said:

Bubdled cable transmits redstone signals. The theoretical max speed is 40 bytes/second. Have fun sending video over that.

"Hey bill, you see this awesome thing I'm building over here?"
"Hold on a minute, i'm receiving the first frame!"

Also, bundled cable holds numerical data from 0-255. So, it is faster than you think.

Keeping in mind whatever video your transmitting also has to go from server to client. You'd bring an average connection to its knees, not to mention the processor load of rendering the video. I maintain that the best way to do a video camera is just loading the remote chunk and letting the MC client handle the rendering. You COULD theoretically save the chunk data and replay it, but you're pushing it just asking for real-time video.

JJRcop, on 25 September 2012 - 05:38 AM said:

immibis, on 24 September 2012 - 11:07 PM said:

Bubdled cable transmits redstone signals. The theoretical max speed is 40 bytes/second. Have fun sending video over that.

"Hey bill, you see this awesome thing I'm building over here?"
"Hold on a minute, i'm receiving the first frame!"

Also, bundled cable holds numerical data from 0-255. So, it is faster than you think.

It holds 16 redstone signals = 16 bits = 2 bytes = a number from 0 to 65535. And you definitely can't transmit more than once per tick which is 20 times per second.

2 bytes/tick x 20 ticks/s = 40 bytes/s.
The actual limit is likely lower.

well he could add a new tip of cable. and what the camera can do is be like a chunk louder. and you could do like a map like thing where it takes a pic every time a player go's in a area of it and thin it can us a printer to make a pic of the player.

JCDisme, on 25 September 2012 - 06:09 PM said:

well he could add a new tip of cable. and what the camera can do is be like a chunk louder. and you could do like a map like thing where it takes a pic every time a player go's in a area of it and thin it can us a printer to make a pic of the player.

You are really determined to get this camera aren't you?

D3matt, on 25 September 2012 - 11:00 PM said:

JCDisme, on 25 September 2012 - 06:09 PM said:

well he could add a new tip of cable. and what the camera can do is be like a chunk louder. and you could do like a map like thing where it takes a pic every time a player go's in a area of it and thin it can us a printer to make a pic of the player.

You are really determined to get this camera aren't you?

not rely just saying what he could do even know we most likely wont add it.

Cloudy, on 23 September 2012 - 12:32 AM said:

Only an idiot would handle displaying by routing it through a server first.

Less being an ass or you know where you can go…

Or CCtv. Closed circuit would just take pictures. Obviously low res pictures, but definitely easier to send over bundled cable.

Kane Hart, on 26 September 2012 - 12:51 AM said:

Cloudy, on 23 September 2012 - 12:32 AM said:

Only an idiot would handle displaying by routing it through a server first.

Less being an ass or you know where you can go…

I'm not being an ass. I was stating that it wouldn't increase network load for SMP. Because it wouldn't - the client would handle rendering itself, not receiving the information from the server, which other people seemed to think would be needed.

I was saying if someone DID implement it sending video data frame by frame through the server, they would be an idiot :P/>/>

Even the forums isn't safe from you now huh? :D/>/>

LOL one half of this conversation is over the processing speed of the vid. (The bitrate is over 9000 (duh))
And the other half is how it'd connect!


Can't wait to see it in the next update dan!
:P/>/>

Posting something in the suggestions does not guarantee that it will be implemented. Just take a look at all of these suggestions, only a fraction were ever taken seriously. I think this is more of an area to discuss the pros/cons of adding a suggestion, and if the idea is good, and the arguments are convincing enough, it MIGHT be added. Just like the colored terminals that have been requested a lot.

Cranium, on 27 September 2012 - 04:46 PM said:

Posting something in the suggestions does not guarantee that it will be implemented. Just take a look at all of these suggestions, only a fraction were ever taken seriously. I think this is more of an area to discuss the pros/cons of adding a suggestion, and if the idea is good, and the arguments are convincing enough, it MIGHT be added. Just like the colored terminals that have been requested a lot.

ya thats y i made the post. nothing will ever happen with out these tipes of post even if i dont get it in the mod at lest i tried to get it in and thats all that matters