The new DEP designs will do better, but exceeding 10:1 seems unlikely
207 karma · joined July 12, 2012
The new DEP designs will do better, but exceeding 10:1 seems unlikely
Location: Washington DC
Remote: No
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: CUDA, MATLAB,C,C++,Python
Résumé/CV: Soon to be Ph.D. grad in aerospace eng. Research in fluids, structures, magnetics, optimization and a bit of robotics. Strong self-taught programming skills.
Email: steve g sherman at gmailThe actuation forces are incredibly low - if i've eyeballed correctly - around 10 micro newtons and it requires a large bulky magnetic field setup, only shown in the supplementary section.
In case you're curious, the reason is that teaching at a private school is easier, so people who love teaching are willing to take the pay cut.
I'm skeptical that changing how we represent the numbers will help - when the physics are icky, they're icky.
I would guess your biggest challenge is sales - convincing farmers that they need this. Is this true? Also - out of curiosity, what do you fly?
Realistic visuals needs realistic walk cycle. But since realistic walking isn't a perfect stable cycle (it is disturbed by head/hand motions, surface variations, etc), there can be no realistic walk cycle because real walking isn't a cycle. AFAIK current videogame animation all involves walk cycles. Realism at this level of detail needs some new form of animation, not the love and care of a person that is so present in this demo.
Right now, the vast majority of games have characters with fixed walk cycles that are used no matter the terrain. Realistic CG needs to have a walk cycle that captures the subtle changes in gait that corresponds to a given surface. I know people have been doing research on adaptive walk cycle, but afaik it has yet to hit production games.
For generating art, there is hope, as procedurally generated games look fantastic (No Man's Sky), but have yet to expand beyond sci-fi games, or into games with story and specific art styles.
Maybe reusing assets is the way forward, but I'm skeptical. Reusing the visuals just means more army guys fighting in sandy deserts crouching behind crates. Maybe the Storm Trooper models for battlefront really are as good as they get. But even then, I think aesthetically realism can lead to a dead end. The most visually impressive game I've played, other than Star Wars Battlefront is The Witness, which is simple in the CG sense, but has some really tremendous visual aesthetic moments that are something I've never seen done in a game. For me, the stylized look and the artistic/game opportunities that enabled were far more exciting than Battlefront's perfect rocks.
For videogames/vr to break the photorealistic barrier, there needs to be some order of magnitude reduction in art development costs for these experiences to be affordable. Not all videogames can be star wars battlefront, where probably $150M ($330M overall cost to develop and market [1]) was spent making the best damn textures videogames have ever seen, but produced a simple, limited game.
Photorealism is a dead end for videogames unless art costs come down.
[1] http://fortune.com/2015/12/30/star-wars-video-game-sales/
Funding this, however, would never come from industry. You'd need to convince NIH that spending many years rediscovering old drugs is the magic leap forward we need.
As someone ignorant of the field - has this been done? What is the state of validation in computer biology?
From the paper, the conclusions seem to be: Decision theory creates a logically grounded explanation as to why high predictive value experiments are being done less often. To resolve this, research needs to be done in measuring the effectiveness of drug discovery models.
Nowhere in the article do they call for more math - the final conclusion of the paper is a call for more experiments validating existing drug models.
"Using the argument of [1] and [2] it can be shown, with brief step x, it can be shown that this theorem holds in xxxx" and then moving onto the conclusions, is exactly the same as "Using the software developed in [3] to solve Eq. 1, we show that our result is statistically significant."
If the claim is probable, it will and does get through review.
Is there a sample output spec, compared with the norm of human readable input? As is, this seems like a solution for computers, not folks in the lab.
For single GPU stuff, I find myself writing the performance critical kernels in cuda, and using thrust for nearly all the easy stuff.
A lot of the phrases in vogue right now seem to indicate companies that want employees that work 80 hour weeks and pay entry level salaries. Have you tried "competitive compensation" or some other non-numerical indicator that you guys pay well or phrases that indicate you guys have a professional vs. passionate culture?
In aerodynamics, which has had much more time and money invested, CFD can almost completely replace the wind tunnel, but only for aerodynamics problems we understand (ie wings, fairings, nacelles, turbine blades, backward facing steps, etc). As soon as you leave the validated/understood world, CFD becomes a tool used to augment the designer's intuitions, with the wind tunnel providing an essential ground truth.
Fluid dynamics is the business of predicting complex nonlinearities to a few %, and imo, complex nonlinear models are only useful when validated. It's telling that when they debated building the DDG1000 they built a 1/4 scale ship:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Advanced_...
The other example he gave was giving doctors performing surgery time to step away from the patient, so that they dont turn things into a real life game of surgeon simulator, an example I personally find to be extremely horrifying and nightmare inducing.