• ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Wikipedia says it’s 16,000x16,000 (which is way less than I thought). The way the math works, that’s 16x as big as a 4k monitor, so 16 GPUs would make sense. And there’s a screen inside and one outside, so double that. But I also can’t figure out why it needs five times that. Redundancy? Poor optimization? I dunno.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      But wouldn’t that be only necessary if it needed to render real-time graphics at such a scale? If I’m correct, all its doing is playing back videos.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think it’s doing some non-trivial amount of rendering, since it’s often syncing graphics with music played live.

      • stormeuh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Even if it’s just playing back videos, it still should compensate for the distortion of the spherical display. That’s a “simple” 3d transformation, but with the amount of pixels, coordinating between the GPUs and some redundancy, it doesn’t seem like an excessive amount of computing power. The whole thing is still an impressive excess though…

    • Mark@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I work for a digital display company, and it is definitely redundancy. There will be at least two redundant display systems that go to the modules separately so they can switch between them to solve issues. If a component fails on one side they just switch to the other.