»SML:»CL9:-------------------------------------- »CL8: »BIG:Hysteria - are votes fair?» »CL9:-------------------------------------- »CL4: By Kollaps/Instinct »CL0:The idea by writing this article is an old idea I've had for years, but first now I decide to write it. Therefore some things in the text may be too old for some readers to remember. I have read the »CL1:Eurochart» frequently since 1991 and there are allways things in the charts I don't agree with. Don't we all feel the same some times in between?? I guess so. But the mainpoint is, that some sceners who really deserve to be on the chart don't enter or some who don't belong are placed where they shouldn't be. My first example are the wellknown musicians »CL1:Tip», »CL1:Firefox» and »CL1:Mantronix». These 3 musicians really brought us some great hits years ago. Ofcourse we voted them into the charts. But who entered? »CL1:Tip» and »CL1:Mantronix» were high placed for many issues. Firefox was not to find there... Why did »CL1:Tip» and »CL1:MTX» enter? For some time they were placed because of the great module »CL1:"Musiklinjen"» from the »CL1:Phenomena»-demo »CL1:"Enigma"». No doubt one of the best modules ever made. But if you read the credits, you will see that this module was made by »CL1:TIP» and »CL1:FIREFOX»!! It is a fact that »CL1:Tip» and »CL1:MTX» worked most together, but this »CL0:famous module was not made by »CL1:MTX». Only our confusion and hysteria made us vote for »CL1:TIP&MTX». »CL1:Firefox» remained forgotten.... »CL2:The masters of hard and fast innovative code were »CL3:The Spy» and »CL3:Deftronic». All their first demos were made by them both with no specific who-did-what. In »CL3:Hardwired», the credits were more specific and »CL3:The Spy» seemed to be the most active there. He topped the charts for long time. I agree with that, since he WAS one of the best ever. But (allways a but) where ended »CL3:Deftronic»? Of course he did not as much as »CL3:The Spy» in Hardwired, but to exclude him from the chart at all would not be so fair... he actually made »CL3:Trash'm'One», which no others are able to. And on the other hand - had nobody seen their earlier productions from 1990 where they already there made pure codemagic? Ok, later he entered the chart, but so did all the other »CL3:Hardwired»-coders too. I can't remember if »CL3:Murphy» entered (responsible for some hard vector) but »CL3:Guzzler» entered! And for what?? It was of course because of the transforming linevector which looked great! But as far as I have understood, he only made the linevector..! It was »CL3:Saxs» who made the transforming plotmorph. So there the voters got carried away again! »CL1:The party 1992. »CL0:At the democompetition a demo called »CL1:PurpleBrain»CL0: by »CL1:KGB» contributed. It got one of the last places and remained forgotten. But not in my mind!!! This demo contains some of the hardest code ever!! It contains blitterrotated texturemapping and realtime raytracing and very complex real lightsource vector. Blitterrotated pictures is as far as I know only made by »CL1:Rob Rose/Brainstorm» (»CL1:Blitter Miracle»/1991) and »CL1:Mr.Pet/Sanity» (»CL1:Turmoil»/1991 and »CL1:W.O.C.» /1992) Something that the winners »CL1:Lonestarr» and »CL1:Hannibal» never dared dream about. But what caused the bad placing? Design, music and GFX! The demo contained awful music, bad GFX and a lousy design. All this is lame, but it hurts me that some people even called the code bad because of that!! I agree that the demo looks awful, but nothing can hide the fact that the routines were superb!! I voted for the coders behind that demo in the »CL1:Eurochart(tm)» and it seemed that I was the only voter for them. This means that if a nontalented coder entered a known group and only made the selector for a musicdisk or slideshow with some known artists, then that coder would be great and enter the charts? I really feel sorry for »CL1:ZX68» and »CL1:U235» of »CL1:KGB» who made that superb code in »CL1:PurpleBrain». I remembered you and i voted for you in the chart!! Your work wasn't wasted! I do still watch this demo, since it contains routines that I still can't figure out to make!!! »CL0:These examples were the ones that i have been thinking at for long time. Now it's 1998 and I may ask: »CL1:"is it still like that?"» Well, I don't want to cause any trouble, but I think that some coders on the chart only are placed because of some nice vectorobjects. What I mean about this, is that nothing new has happended since »CL1:Shaft7» and »CL1:Thuglife». Everybody makes the same code and the only things that improve is the way of designing vectorobjects. If a demo contains some great sceneries, then the coder gets all the honour. But not if he just showed another doughnut nomatter how fast and smooth it is... I think that much of the credit that way should go to the 3d-modellist (tracer). Thats mabye an idea for a new chart??! So please try to be more critical and find out what is code and what is design, before you let your votes run away. A good friend of mine, »CL1:Amadeus of Shelter», admitted that he gets carried away by nice textures and forgets to judge the difficulty in the code. Many people gets tempted that way. (Some times me too...!) I really respect fast code with fast C2P's and fast Polygons, but nothing new has happended since »CL1:ThugLife». Not even the Amazing »CL1:"Rise"» by »CL1:Mellow Chips»! This demo is the most beautiful demo ever! But I must say, that the code is not innovating, as far as I can see! I'm not critisizing it, but nothing »CL0:new has happended there since »CL1:"DIM"» from 1996. Where are the innovating routines? Are coders lazy?? Everybody makes »CL1:Thuglife» and »CL1:Shaft7» clones. Try to look at the PC-scene. Have anybody seen »CL1:"Machines of Madness"» by »CL1:Dubius» (winner of Assembly 1996)? This demo contains REAL shadow calculation and REAL mirror calculations. Imagine how hard it is to make with texturemapping! Such things haven't been seen on Amiga since »CL1:"Beyond the future"» by »CL1:Union» in 1994 (code by »CL1:Musashi»). I made a demo called »CL1:"TurboTronic"» for TheParty97 (but got rejected since it didn't work on the organizers A1260%$%$) and this demo contained shadows and mirrors. I was very proud of this heavy routine. It was not easy to make! And i am sure that it was not even most optimal! So I look forward to see some of you fast coders out there make some demos with mathematics in and not the noninnovative demoes we see now. The only mirrors we see now are ENV or fake-feedback. These things have NOTHING to do with REAL mirrors!!! Refresh your maths!!! »PIC:Cyt1.iff» So voters, try not to be carried away because of nice looking textures or athmospheric design and music. Code is code and if you are in doubt whether a routine is hard or not, then do not vote at that demo/person/group. Only if you are sure what you are voting at. »CL2:Does anybody remember the »CL3:Budbrain» debate? »CL3:Psycho/Budbrain» won the »CL3:TSL/RSI» party in 1990 by not making hard code, but only funny cartoons. Many coders got mad at that, since coding was what it all was about. The same thing repeated again around »CL3:1992-1993», where »CL3:design» became the most important thing. Many coders entered the charts only by inventing new design (often the graphic-artists invented it...!) and making some seenbefore glenz vectors but in new colors and pink spritelogos and so on. In »CL3:1995-1996» a new demorevolution came with the »CL3:fastram-configurations». Many new things appeared as ENV and Bumpmap. Texturemapping, Gouraud and Voxel were already invented, but they went throug a new development caused by the new possibilities. A brave new world was conquered! The high-peak happended at »CL3:TP96» when »CL3:Shaft7» and »CL3:Makaveli» were shown. Routines could not be faster. ..Sadly innovation couldn't either...! So I look forward to see new ideas and complexity as mentioned about the shadows and mirrors. And for voters not to be emotionally carried away! Be more critical!