Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Unlimited Detail Technology

Author
Message
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 20:28 Edited at: 24th Aug 2011 13:26
It's time for Unlimited Detail Technology II - The return of the point-bit



EDIT: New Gallery Page

EDIT2: Interview with a live demo


It's back, It's looking more interesting, and I'm less sceptical. The artwork is looking a lot more interesting, especially in a modern-gaming-applied way.
One thing I did notice is "Brucie" seems to have a deeper voice and has a stronger accent *Twilight Zone Music*

Discuss


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Math89
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 20:35
I see lots of issues coming when they'll deal with 'soft' animations (e.g. characters), or more than a couple of unique meshes (cause at the moment, they seem to have only a handful of different models copied a few thousand times).
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 21:23
I don't see why a skeleton based system can't be applied to point-cloud geometry.
I assume they'd have considered games might need more than 5 different meshes, and are just using a few for the tech demo


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

bruce3371
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:00
Quote: "One thing I did notice is "Brucie" seems to have a deeper voice"


I never was able to sing falsetto lol

Anyway, talk about dejaveux, I was just reading a thread about this on the BMS forums lol

uzi idiot
Valued Member
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Dec 2009
Location: Who Knows?
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:07
Notch says it's a scam.


Mental Stability is over-rated!
Blobby 101
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:17
@Uzi Idiot, Oh! Well that makes ALL the difference, if NOTCH says it's a scam then it must be, after all - he does know everything!

RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:18
Until I see something animated in one of these videos... I remain believing that it's only good for making that island.

Math89
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:30 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2011 22:31
Quote: "I don't see why a skeleton based system can't be applied to point-cloud geometry."

I don't think that simply moving or turning objects is too problematic, as long as most of the scene remains static. But in the case of skeletal animation, yYou need to link every single point to its N closest bones (eats your memory) and then it must be transformed accordingly (kills either your cpu or gpu).

And I can't believe that some people still call this a scam... Maybe they should read some actual research papers about rendering instead of video games related websites. However, I must admit that the guy in the video puts it in a way that makes it look a bit like a scam (like every other adverts, actually ).
Red Eye
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Oct 2008
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:31 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2011 22:33
Quote: "Until I see something animated in one of these videos... I remain believing that it's only good for making that island."


Quote: "
I see lots of issues coming when they'll deal with 'soft' animations (e.g. characters), or more than a couple of unique meshes (cause at the moment, they seem to have only a handful of different models copied a few thousand times)."


Whatever it is a scam or not, those are the most naive comments ever.
What were you thinking when you wrote that? "Before I see the next modern warfare i remain sceptical?" O COME ON!

Anyway, if you read the blogs, you can read that they made a converter to convert animated meshes / skeletons / rigged skinned meshes etc... into their software, fully supported for their animation system (which they very much "almost" have).

Now the funny thieng is, how people react on a total new engine (scam or not), it is baiscaly the same how people reacted on the moon-traveling-thing back in the old days, naive, and maybe even shocked!

How do you think other engines started?

...

How good of you! They showed a empty room, and maybe even a terrain showign the basic concepts of the engine.


Maybe do some reading about the technique behind this awesome rendering system .

Stopping here before my inner phylosophy, on people's naive thinking, spreads out into the forum.

Just think before saying something. - Not refering to this thread only, but I see this everywhere on the forum, pretty much a plague. Most of the times I ignore it, but thats only when they dont make someones hard work look like nothing.

Quote: "However, I must admit that the guy in the video puts it in a way that makes it look a bit like a scam (like every other adverts, actually )."


True! Change that GUY!

RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 22:36 Edited at: 2nd Aug 2011 22:48
Take a chill pill god damn.

I'm 'skeptical' about a product... did I say it was a scam? No... When I see it used in a way I understand, then I will believe in it. Not because they said they have it working... When they show it working in those regards, then I won't be skeptical.

Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:03
Well...

That's awesome!

For a second I was thinking "Oh god not another one of these threads".


Why does blue text appear every time you are near?
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:03
Despite the extremely vehement posts in support of this, I still think it isn't the future.

By the time they get this refined to the point it can be used in mainstream games, polygon technology will have advanced to the point noone will really care about the difference.

I mean take Joe Average. Casual CoD player, makes up the majority of the market and has no understanding of game tech. Is he really going to care if the game is made of flat edges or dots? No. He cares about what get marketed the best and what everyone else is playing.

I can't see this revolutionising gaming the way everyone believes it will.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:04
It's not a scam! It's a hoax. There's a difference. If it was a scam, they'd be asking for our money. They're just having a laugh at your expense.

I love the narrator. I'm sure he's using his tongue in cheek voice on purpose just to mock.

Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:20
They've just been gone a year because that scene took a year to render

Read Notch's blog, then look at the footage again. I think people are confusing the phrase "3D atom" and it doesn't necessarily mean voxels as we know them at least. They're dots, equivalent to a pixel of colour on the screen


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:28
http://notch.tumblr.com/

Throwing it up there.

TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:33
What about saving these maps? Won't they be huge in size?

TheComet

lazerus
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:34
Been on Pc for 1 day and theres a 5 page argue/counter arguement going on. General idea coming across its most likly end up vapore-ware, the spokesman is condecending thoughtout and at points puts a middle finger up at any graphics artist watching it.

Heres a my view summed up another user.

Quote: "
Still want to punch the guy in the neck...

Still don't have any tools to test...
If it takes 4x as long to make a game with "unlimited point clown data" then that's a deal breaker.

Still doesn't show any physics or animation....
If you're going to give players millions of tiny atoms then they will expect them to behave that way. Why use trillions of tiny points to make something look only slightly more rounded than a polygon model? Doesn't DX11 tessellation fix this same problem?

"But if you turn on cheats, and fly around to an area normal players can't get to, behind the model, you see its been optimized...FLIMFLAM! THEY'RE LYING TO YOU! CHARLATANS!!1" Exactly ass clown, why are you making the ground out of trillions of points you'll never see? Maybe using a plane that selectively tessellates the area around you using proven lighting and bump techniques to push the effect over the top? Maybe that will look better than rendering trillions of points you'll never see. Using tools that have yet to be invented.

Maybe the solution to mip and lod jumping isn't to make things out of atoms but to create systems that transition more smoothly. Maybe create systems that automatically lod materials and meshes on the fly so instead of 6 lods full of pops we have a smooth transtion... oh wait we have that already and he's choosing to show the worst case vs his best case...

Does anyone else find it mildly humorous that they spent the last year creating a polygon to point cloud data converter? It seems like guys that trash talk polygons so much wouldn't begin their new pipeline by relying on them soo much?"


Mild language ahead but most of them have informed views

old_School
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Aug 2009
Location:
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:40
Not to sound mean here but why does this look boxy? Its built in block style, it has no shape on the landscape. I barely watch the video so I can only assume your using FPSC? Or did you make your own engine?
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:46
Old School...did you actually watch the video? Noone here made this.

Math89
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:51
Quote: "What about saving these maps? Won't they be huge in size?"

Not the maps, but the meshes will.
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 2nd Aug 2011 23:58
I'd like to point this out, which on the surface appears to actually use the technologies this is bandying about:

http://www.atomontage.com/

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:30
They still have a ways to go with this, if it is real. I completely understand the skepticism going on. For this to be real would be.... bewilderingly outstanding. So, of course, it's going to be met with skeptical glances.

If it is real... I'm wondering how they're going to pair this with physics, or movement in general... They claim to be "a technology company, not a graphics company", but they seem to be focused more or less only on the graphics right now. I would like to see this level of detail in a small playable demo, I don't care if the level is a small island, but as long as it can run at a decent framerate, is paired with a bit of gameplay, I'll be impressed.


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:37
As mentioned before... this will not be made mainstream anytime soon, and if it does... it will be in beta for at least a decade...

and to add to this... i cant see why we give a mug as it likely if real will cost through the nose as he said in the video... one company having an edge over another... we can give this the opportunity to get buried nice and simple... as we all know when Nvidia PhysX came out it was something like $50,000 just to use it in your projcts... per project... same goes for Unreal... which still holds a similar system...

A price tag on this... possibly close to something stupid like $1,000,000

come on I am right here >.<

we can forget about ever using this free for at least a decade after it [if ever] launches

Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:40
Quote: "They claim to be "a technology company, not a game company""



Why does blue text appear every time you are near?
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:54
Thanks for correcting that. Still... what is the point of this if not for games/simulations? They need to pick a target audience and stick to it. Right now it seems they're targeting games specifically by making all of those comparisons... yet, they're failing to cater to the gamer's interests, which would be something actually playable. I don't mind that they only used 5 shapes in a whole scene, if it plays and looks nice and runs at a decent framerate, I'd be happy.


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:57
Best way to show off a product is a demo.

E.g., selling a TV, you flick through the channels, showing off the picture quality, but the customer's a bit miffed that you didn't show the revolutionary new 3D that makes up most of the cost in action.

I wish I could just point at a TV and go, "This is amazing and will change everything about your life because your current TV sucks so horribly that this TV will make it pale in comparison."

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 00:58
Quote: "Until I see something animated in one of these videos... I remain believing that it's only good for making that island."


i've yet to see the file size of it too (since i read notch's blog that would actually be interesting)

and for the record, I am a man.

Blobby 101
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Jun 2006
Location: England, UK
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:03
Plystire, they're saying that they themselves are not a games company, as in they won't be making games themselves, but they are hoping to license the tech to game companies.

MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:10
Quote: "they are hoping to license the tech to game companies."


with a bagejillion$ licence to boot

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:10
I wouldn't purchase a license for that thing without knowing if it actually works or not, or how well it works.

They need to bring together a demo of what their technology can do, before expecting anything like that. I think their "demonstrations" on video are a bit premature and bringing more skepticism towards themselves than necessary.


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:10
Games companies won't retrain their staff and abandon well-known production techniques until this thing shows it's worth. Viable demonstration of product.

I mean come on, this is the same game industry everyone here complains is lazy, money-grabbing, and releases identical FPSs everywhere.

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:13
Quote: " the same game industry everyone here complains is lazy, money-grabbing, and releases identical FPSs everywhere."


And I'm one of them.


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:33
Heheheheh...awkward. XD

But in honesty, every CoD, Halo and other mainstream game thread devolves into the argument that "every FPS is the same and all you do is shoot stuff!"

My God! It's so true!

Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:39 Edited at: 3rd Aug 2011 03:23
They're supposed to be releasing an SDK soon if you guys had listened to the video. There will be demos I'm sure.

Also. Those videos claim to be rendered in software mode (at 20FPS). If that is true, let's just imagine what hardware made specifically for that technology could do. How many polygons can you run in software mode vs what they're showing. You definitely can't get that level of detail. Couldn't you safely multiply your polycount thousands and thousands when you bring a video card into the mix? How about if you have a special card for rendering technology like unlimited detail?

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:47
I'm no expert, but isn't polygon rendering less of a drag than physics, skinning, shaders, AI logic, raycasts, scripting, animation, particle effects, etc, etc?

(Am aware some of those require polygons.)

BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:51
Quote: "Just think before saying something."

@Red Eye - Maybe you should take your own advice, there was no need to go off like that.

And in fact they both have valid points, the video is probably real, but being able to animate point cloud data is just a whole different story to rendering it. So I doubt it will be a replacement for polygons any time soon.

Insanity Complex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2005
Location: Home
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 01:57
This keeps coming up over the last year or so...and I still have yet to see anything "new" about it. Still the same tech demo with the same claims and nothing really interesting to show for it...

Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 02:12 Edited at: 3rd Aug 2011 02:14
The video seems to be aimed at people who have very little knowledge of computer graphics (they avoid technical terms like the plague). The only reason to do that would be to build up hype among people who don't know enough about it to realise it's a hoax. The engine isn't any use to players, it's only useful for game developers...

They do have a fairly unique algorithm for finding which points need to be drawn quickly using some sort of spatial tree structure. The problem is that the algorithm is only fast enough because of the limits placed on it. As soon as you want to move points around however, you need to either rebuild the tree structure (very slow) or have multiple tree structures and then move the whole of one tree around.

The point finding algorithm needs to run once for each tree, so each moving object will dramatically slow down the engine. Having bone based animation is completely impossible without a massive increase in hardware speed (in which case you may as well invest in more polies instead...)

The way I can see this coming in useful though is for the landscape. Things like the ground, grass and maybe trees rarely need to move at all, and these are the things which are improved most by using a point cloud instead of polygons. It shouldn't even use too much memory since only a very thin surface of points is needed for the ground. It would also give very effective occlusion culling against the terrain. It should be very easy to use a hybrid of this and standard polygon based rendering.

[b]
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 02:15
Quote: "The way I can see this coming in useful though is for the landscape. Things like the ground, grass and maybe trees rarely need to move at all, and these are the things which are improved most by using a point cloud instead of polygons. It shouldn't even use too much memory since only a very thin surface of points is needed for the ground. It would also give very effective occlusion culling against the terrain."


problem there would be: i would like to see more movement in the trees and grass, not less

and for the record, I am a man.

Insert Name Here
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 02:23
I have no in depth knowledge about voxels or polygons or rendering or any of that, so basically all I have to go on here is what I can see in the video, and my own personal opinions about graphics and stuff.

And here it is.

It looks bloody awful.

Here's my point: Avatar was a much worse movie than say, How to Train Your Dragon, which came out the same year. Because while Avatar tried to be as realistic as possible and so unaavoidably suffered from Uncanny Valley, HTTYD went with a cartoon style that looked good, and that is what we should be aiming for: A strong visual style that is clear and works well with the content, rather that an uber-realism that forces you to focus on every little problem it has.

Also, that bloke's voice is annoying

Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 03:16 Edited at: 3rd Aug 2011 03:18
Perhaps if their tech demo came out with more technical points and less casual talk, we'd have a clearer picture of what they have going.

I know next to nothing about voxel rendering. But from reading around, it sounds like the biggest hurdle for voxels to be useful is animation, or movement in general. The technique sounds like it is only effective due to all of the voxels being handled in the same way, by the same routine, and I suspect this is where movement becomes an issue. Seeing as there are supposedly tons of voxels in a tiny space, moving something of moderate size would require relocating all of the voxels that make it up... which I'd bet would be excruciatingly slow to the point that you wouldn't want to have too many moving pieces at any one time, for fear of locking up the system.

Another drawback to voxels that I noticed in many of voxel engines out there, is it's not that great to look at up close. Most systems that I've seen make things look very mosaic up close. I'm sure with the right technique, this can be overcome, though.


Interesting technology nonetheless. I agree with Diggsey in that this could prove useful if you combine it with polygons to take care of moving parts of the scene... and let's face it, most scenes consist of tons of immobile objects that this system could easily replace and provide (as advertised) higher quality scenary.

And Agent Dink brings in a good point that with hardware supporting the technology, I suspect performance could be vastly improved.


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
DevilLiger
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2003
Location: Fresno,CA,USA
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 03:26 Edited at: 3rd Aug 2011 03:27
I felt like if this is real than it's not ready yet. So far I see nothing moving. The day they get something moving at a very high FPS than it'll at least get some attention maybe even mainstream. Of course the pricing has to be affordable for the average person. No average person wants to spend a million dollars on a technology only he/she can use.

Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 04:06
I don't get it, surely the voxel itself has to be made up of polygons?

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 08:18
I am fairly certain Avatar didn't focus on realism, and in MY opinion: That movie was shoey amazing, seen it three times already x) getting a liitle bit annoyed with it after the third one...

and for the record, I am a man.

Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 08:54
^as far as graphics goes, it definitely focused on realism.

I don't think that movie was in uncanny valley. On the edge, maybe, but it was definitely realistic.

And TBH I like the visual style of avatar more... but that's kinda just the graphics geek in me.


Why does blue text appear every time you are near?
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 09:04
The visuals of it were AMAZING in every aspect, and even now after seeing it 3 times i still gaze at the graphics when i see them

and for the record, I am a man.

MikeS
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 09:45
Having actually done some work with volume rendering myself, I can say that you can generate some impressive images using a voxel based engine. I actually would say it is likely that the images are real in the video. I do not think they are very impressive however. With all of this data though, it comes at a cost however, and that cost is that the file sizes are extremely huge! This can perhaps be worked around if you can generate data procedurally, but then again, we run into limited ram. It's likely they ran this demo in real time, but I bet they have a cluster of machines running this simulation with terrabytes of data for storage and many gigabytes of RAM available.

As mentioned, character animation with voxels would be extremely difficult. I do not even know where to begin explaining, perhaps because there just has not been a lot of work done here. Perhaps this could be an area of research for students for many years. The problem with voxels, is it's really hard to group them together in a meaningful way. Often times you would have to segment(keyword in medical imaging-registration) the data. This takes a great deal of time! However, for those that say it is impossible to animate, please take a look at this, and the reference paper here. For those who have used tools like ZBrush, they will understand why there it does not include a full feature of animation tools.

As for the polygon converter to voxel(or atoms, or whatever they're calling it) and vice versa, look up Marching Cubes(The process can be reversed to get voxels using other algorithms). So this is kind of old news here, almost 20 years old in fact! The video was good to mention this though, because they were able to give polygon counts which gives us a better reference to what is going on. I do not know however, if they can claim a 1 to 1 correspondence between triangles and voxels/atoms, and say they boosted technology by a magnitude of 6 orders.

I guess overall, I'm not a skeptic, I'm sure this technology does exist. I am glad their are some people trying to look at new ways to accelerate graphics and generate some excitment. I think voxels do have some applications that could be useful, but it's not ready for gaming or realtime usage quite yet. I mean, lets have a look at the real cutting edge stuff here-3D Mark 11.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
Rampage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 10:04
I would have to say the technology does exist. They wouldn't be in their rights minds to lie through their teeth that much.
In any case I don't think people should jump straight to the point at sayings its a scam.
That includes Notch. He pretty much tried to prove it was downright fake with insubstantial evidence.
It seemed he was trying to sound smart rather than thinking with the head he had before it was stuffed with thirty-million dollars.

I am a skeptic not on the technology (they have made it very clear what this method CAN and CAN'T do as of yet. But also mentioned that it is not impossible to get the animation/physics sorted out.)

But I AM a skeptic on the new revolutionary graphics that will kick start the next decade in a matter of months.

He mentioned releasing an SDK within the next couple of months so I'll hold him to that.

I would love to see how this runs.


Regards,

Max
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 12:13
Yawn... here we go again.

Cue epic music. One year later...

Still the same damn argument, same graphics, same technology, same bull. We've had voxels for about the same time as we've had polygons, there is a reason why voxels did not take off.

The real world is full of motion, and virtual worlds need motion too. Polygons can move, and it's moving polygons that are at the forefront of gaming technology. Look at LA Noire, the facial animations in that game bring it into a new level of realism - that is impossible with voxels. We don't really need to see every particle in an object, we just need a representation that looks good, and moves fluently if it has to. A 50,000 polygon character model moves nicely, can react to physics, in the future it'll have great facial animation, and shaders to make it look realistic as hell. If it was done in this supposed engine, then it would need so much data that it will never happen. There isn't an infinite amount of data to store unique models. They can't even model things very effectively from what I've seen - ohh, this rock is based on a real rock, meanwhile look at these 50 polygon rocks from a 2 year old game in comparison. The reason why they are using real world items, is that it's EASIER to model them, they get scanned with equipment that cost just a couple of thousand dollars, and it could be done by anyone. IMO there is only so much detail we need in models, because most models are a passing glance as I run past them, I mean are they making this engine for people with some sort of disorder that forces them to examine everything in meticulous detail!
Also, any developer worth his salt would have done something fun with it already, like made a little shooting game, to proove collision detection and motion are actually possible. The fact that the engine looks like it hasn't changed at all tells me all I need to know about the reality of this engine being used for a game.

Anyway, sick of ranting about this thing, no more videos please until we can see something moving, or something that isn't the same half-dozen models rubber stamped on a grid.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 3rd Aug 2011 12:21
I just read Notch's blog. I think it was reasonable. I think he basically said, based on what the industry knows about voxels, what they're proposing doesn't work. It can only work in a limited way, with masses of data repetition.

I can't believe we're still discussing this though. People do not spend 3 years working on an engine, which has been in a working state for 2 years, and never allow anyone at all to see a realtime demo. A video doesn't count. When presented with so many disbelievers, you don't hide away and not prove them wrong, while simultaneously pleading for funding and releasing videos trying to convince people it is genuine.

I'd bet my Aunt Susie it's not real, and she's a nice Aunt. Good at baking. She'll do you a mean scone if you win her.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-20 23:50:28
Your offset time is: 2025-05-20 23:50:28