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: 5th Aug 2011 16:54
Quote: "Personally I hold more hope for polygon smoothing technology, like using polygons but polygons that can be infinately smooth - like a bezier curve. That's the logical progression IMO"


A mix of tessellation and polygon smoothing could work. Are there any actual examples of that concept?


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 5th Aug 2011 17:56
Quote: ""Well of course if we all hate them then their public relations are crapppy!""


Happens a lot, how many people dislike Apple as a result of Steve Jobs' PR and their adverts, a lot of the time I get into a discussion people seem to use their PR to reinforce the idea that they're terrible. GoCompare probably easily detract people from using their site. Of course when it comes to Apple and GoCompare, it obviously works and it seems Australia bought Unlimited Technology's sale pitch.

I recognize this is horrible PR and it seems to give enough people reason to believe or suspect it's all BS, but people can still make great products and just have horrendous marketing skills, so my opinion will form when/if we see the technology in action.

MikeS
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 6th Aug 2011 09:26
Voxels have a huge advantage in that they are much more easy to use in parallel on tools such as CUDA, OpenCL, or DirectCompute. And I agree that if the last ten years efforts had been focused on voxels, we would see great benefits. It should be noted that the video I posted earlier with the voxel animation was not optimized(as stated in the actual paper, due to time requirements as this was a school project).

I really think that voxels have a solid future, but it's not always the best technology that wins in the end(I'm not assuming voxels are the 'best' but this is a general statement). Lots of companies are not going to dump their engines they've poured years into developing to take a chance on new technology if the cost model is not right. We'll need to see more proof of concept demos before this engine and others get serious consideration. Looking back on my previous post, I should have brought this game back up: http://www.theprodukkt.com/ . There might be clever ways to compress data in these voxels and generate items procedurally to make this technology feasible, just as the produkkt uses lots of clever technology to compress and uncompress their data. It just needs more R&D.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 6th Aug 2011 09:40
Definitely. I think we've established that voxels lend themselves to resource hungry applications,(t least in terms of RAM/HD (no idea about CPU cycles). Back when 3D started, people were still playing in DOS using 640k base memory. I guess polys were a great way to represent large objects and worlds with little resources. Then as resources increased, we were able to increase poly counts and details to render more realistic environments.

Perhaps now we're finally reaching a point where the limitation of voxels imposed by lack of resources are finally being blurred. Maybe voxels will have a comeback.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 6th Aug 2011 10:44
If you are able to work with polygons and then convert to voxels...
that'd be gold :3

and for the record, I am a man.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 6th Aug 2011 11:02 Edited at: 6th Aug 2011 11:05
I was just thinking, a Voxel based model maker app would be awesome. Way better than polys in my opinion. It'd be like sculpture, or clay modelling.

You'd essentially just have little blocks, which you'd set the colour of, and begin to make your model. You could have an import function that would convert a texture image to voxel mesh. For example, you get a picture of a brick, 100 pixels long, 40 pixels high. It converts it to a block of 100x40x1 voxels. You then extrude/duplicate it backwards, making it 40 voxels deep, 100x40x40. You then have a brick prefab. You can hand paint any pixel/voxel in that prefab, or remove voxels from the outside surfaces to give it texture, or use a tool which detects depth and does that for you.

Building a person, you'd have a load of shape prefabs, just like 3D tools now, with spheres etc. except there would be no resolution, they'd be as perfect as the grid resolution allows. You'd drag and drop them in, rescale etc, and give them base colours, or 'material algorithms' which would paint them through all their volume layers with the correct algorithm.

For a face, you'd drag a drop a sphere, then begin deleting voxels to sculpt the features, adding some here and there. The sphere would use a skin algorithm as its base, and you'd then spray/paint on facial hair etc perhaps using an image sprayer tool. You could drag and drop a brain prefab inside the head, swapping the voxels inside the solid skin coloured head for brain voxels. Later when his head gets blown apart in your violent FPS, there are brain voxels inside to expose.

I can see the sculpting side of things far more intuitive than 3D modelling today, and giving masses of freedom, and no fear of how triangles connect, or poly counts, but the process of colouring the voxels would require lot of cool tools, and a lot of thought would have to be given to the inside of models, if you intend them to be destructible. But that is cool though. You could make your 3D characters have full skeletons, internal organs, etc. all ready to be exposed upon getting blasted by buckshot.

Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 04:08
Quote: "You could make your 3D characters have full skeletons, internal organs, etc. all ready to be exposed upon getting blasted by buckshot.
"


this.

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 12:46
What, Like Left For Dead 2?


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 21:47
Like Left For Dead 2, only not canned and with an infinite number of non-predetermined ways to blow off limbs / chunks.

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 21:57
And kinda unnecessary. :S

I mean who'd notice that on an army of zombies? And if it were implemented into a war game, we'd lose the ability to survive more than one bullet is our guts were blown out.

Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 21:59
Whilst voxels are good for destruction, we can't really get them at a high enough resolution for organic stuff without a huge amount of computing power


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:02
I WANT VOXELS, IN ENVIROMENTS

enough said!!!!!! xD

and for the record, I am a man.

Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:06 Edited at: 7th Aug 2011 22:19
at the moment, model swaps are best way of doing destruction
which is fine, as long as destruction isn't large scale

Who needs large scale destruction anyway, you're not...
I was going to say duke nukem, but I've noticed a lack of destruction from him... probably why He's flumped now


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:21
Play Red Faction: Guerilla.

Then you'll understand why I want large-scale destruction in voxels.

Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:24
Quote: "And kinda unnecessary. :S"


If you're making games that are meant to be realistic, then attention to detail (any detail) is never unnecessary. It would be awesome. Also, think outside of the box a little. Picture fighting a giant boss like you might find in Serious Sam or Painkiller. Then imagine how awesome realistic bodily destruction would be.

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:29
Then imagine the people who complained that their shot severed the jugular artery that would result in the death of the victim within 7 seconds.

I.e., the sad people who complain games aren't realistic enough and what they actually want to play is a mirror.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 22:47
Quote: "Play Red Faction: Guerilla.

Then you'll understand why I want large-scale destruction in voxels."


this
this
this
this

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: 7th Aug 2011 23:11
I want to say tools like Zbrush are using some kind of voxel technology(They use a "pixol").

Quote: "You could make your 3D characters have full skeletons, internal organs, etc. all ready to be exposed upon getting blasted by buckshot."

Exactly! Because voxel's store depth information, this would be entirely feasible. Considering this is very commonly done in medical imaging, maybe there is something we can learn from the biomed field for gaming.

The outstanding questions just seem to be how to produce clean animations, and how to process and store large amounts of data. I have posted that it is possible on the first page of this post, but to what quality? The animation was maybe along the lines of .md2 quality, where we are translating individual points(in polygons, equivalent to translating vertices) and doing some interpolation.



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 23:25
I think we need hardware acceleration. If the last 10 years of development had been put into, say, parallel pipelining technology for translated voxels using bone animation, maybe we could move 1 million voxels in a microsecond. For now I guess we just make do with what a CPU can do.

... having said that, shaders which are processed on graphics cards, translate vertex data on the hardware. I wonder if you could get the hardware to translate your voxels for you in the same way, and spread the load? Not something I could work out!

Melancholic
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Nov 2009
Location:
Posted: 7th Aug 2011 23:53
Reading through this thread there seems to be a consensus that polygons and voxels cannot work in harmony. I'm not suggesting rendering both at the same time, but only rendering polygons. Some time ago i devised a system for completely destructible meshes. The way it worked was by having 2 types of geometry, the traditional polygon system, and a grid full of "nodes" inside the mesh. When a mesh experienced enough force to be destructed, the plan was to have a noise algorithm generate cracks and have the mesh split up. The algorithm would only be able to use points in the grid to generate the cracks. New faces could then be created easily by using the nodes in the grid as vertexes(the ones selected by the algorithm. Obviously this does not include voxels directly. But the grid of nodes is essentially just an array of voxels.


I can count to banana...
MikeS
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 8th Aug 2011 00:53
Quote: "Reading through this thread there seems to be a consensus that polygons and voxels cannot work in harmony."

Not necessarily. In the sense that you could still use polygons for animation and have static objects be used for destructable elements that are not animated.

Carmack discusses in this interview briefly(In 2 or 3 sentences) this is an example of what goes on in the id tech 5(Rage) engine.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/John-Carmack-id-Tech-6-Ray-Tracing-Consoles-Physics-and-more?aid=532

Quote: "I wonder if you could get the hardware to translate your voxels for you in the same way, and spread the load? Not something I could work out!"


I think with projects like Larabee, this was the goal. Because if you can do your graphics and cpu operations on the same chip, you can then operate on all of these voxels and translate them without having to send them back and forth from cpu to gpu back to cpu, etc.

Voxels could certainly be a good topic as I look for a thesis to complete my graduate work in the next years(yes it will take quite a bit of time!)



A book? I hate book. Book is stupid.
(Formerly Yellow)
DJ Almix
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Location: Freedom
Posted: 8th Aug 2011 06:55
Quote: "Quote: "Play Red Faction: Guerilla.

Then you'll understand why I want large-scale destruction in voxels."

this
this
this
this"


THIS

[center]
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 8th Aug 2011 09:53
That works in theory, but the problem is performance. While you can set up a clever grid array to make the cracks dynamically and correctly, each time you split a face, you're adding more polys. If you have a wall which is one flat poly and then shoot it full of 100 holes, you'll probably end up with 1000 polys in that wall to render.

The thing about voxels is, you're already rendering the maximum resolution, so adding/removing them shouldn't have much of an effect on performance. In fact, removing them will probably speed things up.

I think a system like you described it great for low level destruction, but would probably suffer performance issues with lots of constant erosion type scenarios.

BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 04:24
Just stumbled upon this (If people haven't seen it already)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc

Sort of makes me a little less sceptical.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 10:26
Damn that video. It certainly goes some way to proving it works on some level. I still don't think they can store unlimited detail. The interviewer asked all the right questions EXCEPT "Is the model data instanced or duplicated?" because instanced is the only way that seems feasible.

Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 10:43
I was amazed with the first video I've seen but that last one should silence all the naysayers in the industry. I'm betting that companies like Nvidia and ATI are shaking in their boots because this process doesn't need a high end graphics card. I can't wait for this to be the new standard for games and added to Darkbasic Pro.

Math89
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 10:46
Quote: ""Is the model data instanced or duplicated?""

This is not DBPro, there is no need to duplicated anything. In a proper 3D engine, you would store only one mesh of each kind and then draw them multiple times (even when dealing with animations).
Indicium
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 11:28 Edited at: 17th Aug 2011 11:28
Thus the data is instanced, and it can't really handle unlimited detail. Also, DbPro can instance.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 11:36
I'm still sceptical. That was all talk, where is the evidence?

Ohh that's right, the critics would just critique it, fancy that! And there won't be anything released until it's finished, how convenient.

I stick by my original concerns, that video was damage control. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this working, but they need to be honest about it's applications, they need to address the concerns with actual evidence, not just hot air.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 14:31
Quote: "This is not DBPro, there is no need to duplicated anything. In a proper 3D engine, you would store only one mesh of each kind and then draw them multiple times (even when dealing with animations)."


^ What Indicium said. I also program in Open GL, so I understand vertex buffers. What I mean is, where they have the same tree placed hundreds of times, is it in fact the same data instanced or is it different data? It has to be a brand new duplicate of the data otherwise the diversity of the world is massively reduced and certainly not infinite.

Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 15:45
I want a polygon puppy. Can't wait for the euclidean store

I'm a believer, they're watching, ect.


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

zenassem
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 16:18
This video gave me a little more information,, starting at 6:10 and on.



Your signature has been erased by a mod please reduce it to 600 x 120.
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 17:42
Hats off to these guys, it takes alot of guts to put everything you have in something that goes against the grain of the whole industry.

The basic premise is a good one, you only need to draw as many pixels as the screen resolution provides. If you can find that information fast enough then your set.

I don't really understand all the worries about memory, so what if memory becomes your main concern from now on, at least cpu/gpu speed is no longer a concern, thats good right?

All my devices have more memory than I know what to do with right now

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 17:47
It's a search algorithm, but the problem with that is how do you make a very fast search algo?

Indexing.

And how do you update that index when something moves?

Slowly!

Sparky's collision plugin probably does something similar to the search algo in this - based on a 3D area, Sparky's would have to decide which polygons are inside that area very quickly, so indexing is vital. If it wasn't for a strong index system, then Sparky's would be very slow - the less calculations needed to identify the polygons in that area, the better. This engine would need to work out what point's are within the render area, and I have no doubt that it's an impressive and efficient system, otherwise it would be slow as hell.

But that brings me to the original point, the point that I raise whenever this crops up. If you have a point cloud, and you have an index to make the search fast enough - how on earth can you expect to move objects within the environment, update the index, and allow for occlusion and collision and everything else?

My guess is that Sparky's treats moving objects differently, dynamically. If you have a big terrain and objects that don't move, it makes sense to optimise that for collision detection, because that's where you'd get the most benefit. With a collision check, it doesn't matter too much if there are moving objects, because the outcome will be the same - check the static geometry, then check moving geometry - and just hope that there isn't too much moving geometry. With that engine though, it's rendering, so a completely different problem - rendering a moving point cloud is one thing, but allowing for complex indexing on static geometry at the same time is a major concern.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 18:00
Quote: "I don't really understand all the worries about memory, so what if memory becomes your main concern from now on, at least cpu/gpu speed is no longer a concern, thats good right?
"


I might add that having to have 100gb memory per game isnt a good thing at all

and for the record, I am a man.

TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 18:12
We don't know if they are using indexing though... We have absolutely no technical data on how it works, in fact, we don't even know if it really exists.

TheComet

Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 18:17
Quote: "I might add that having to have 100gb memory per game isnt a good thing at all"


That would be awesome, providing your computer has that much memeory, which it will in the not too distant future

I also agree with TheComet, I don't see how we can speculate what is possible with their algorithms, I'm sure they know. I'm pretty sure it probably does not use the same algo as Sparkys Although I do see where you are coming from Van B.

swissolo
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2010
Location:
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 18:40
I remain sitting right on the fence on this topic, yes it does hurt a bit, but I'm not budging. Someone would be a fool to deny any possible improvements for the future simply because it's too impressive, but of course, who says these people aren't just creating fake pre-rendered videos? Is it real? We can't really possbly know, so why bother yourself with it?

swis
No, it's not pokemon.
Joined: Tues Dec 16th 2008
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 20:07
Trouble is a people are speculating a lot on how something like this is working because you're comparing it to stuff that's similar but they've left out a lot of details on the technical side, making it hard for people to picture exactly how it's working and whether it'd actually live up their claims. Unfortunately, this is something we're going to have to wait for. I've avoiding jumping to conclusions to save looking like an idiot later.

The interview is nice and we get some questions answered, but they're holding back on giving evidence...based on their claim that it's not ready yet. Some might argue, "why show it when it's not ready?" and it looks like it's how they've decided to market it, I mean, it has gain a lot of attention and had a lot of skeptics questioning it and passing a lot of criticism who are waiting for answers. They've got a lot of clicks on YouTube and a lot of people are talking about it. If the masses are impressed and the critics proven wrong, then it looks good on them when they finally deliver and pitch it directly to companies within the games industry. If they don't deliver, they'll find it hard for anybody to take them seriously.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 20:17
They don't release a video because they aren't ready and get accused of running off with the money and being fake.
They release a video and get accused of not showing enough evidence.
They can't win! Give them some time, they are a really small company, we'll just have to wait and see what comes out of this project.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 20:36
Quote: "They can't win!"


They can win! They had a small win there. This is a significant step beyond the lame videos they posted themselves. This at least proves there is an engine of sorts. There was just that one key question about instanced data (for me at least) that the interviewer wasn't clued in enough to ask!

Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 21:53
I think the main reason many companies are against them is because it barely uses a graphics card. So when this comes out why would we shell out $700 bucks for the best video card today when (as they said on the interview) a video card from 1994 would work just as well. They are all scared this technology is going to make their newest video cards practically useless. And forget about needing multiple video cards for better performance.

Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 22:42
If my new gaming computer just needed random stuff from the 1990s and lots and lots of memory, then hell yeah, this tech is awesome. Western Digital has 2TB hard drives for 70 bucks. 3 of those and I'm good to go.


RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 23:07 Edited at: 17th Aug 2011 23:09
Quote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc"

Certainly interesting to watch and definitely lowers my skepticism a bit. At least they showed there was animations from 7 years ago. It's a little irritating not being able to see where they have taken that now. The video seemed mostly all talk so it's still hard not to be skeptical.

Though I must say, I want this to be real more than most people. I'll never have a PC that is capable of running any modern game. I'm not getting a paycheck from my second job until at the earliest of September 27th (and it's only payment of a small portion of the past 6 months of work. It will be a long while before I truly make any money from it) and my minimum wage job is barely enough for school and housing lol.

Though it's near impossible for me to be somewhat skeptical, it's the responses you hear from people like Notch that make me irritated. Calling something like this a scam hurts my hopes of this being real lol.
I'd much rather sit hear and be excited for this for several months, years even, only to eventually found out it was all fake, rather than never have this to hope for. But that's just me, hope lightens me up.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 23:47
Notch seems to carry a lot of authority in his blogs, but I don't get why. He hasn't made a technically impressive game. He's just made a very playable cool game, so I don't know why we should be believe his opinions on this project. The words of people like Carmack carry more weight in my opinion.

Still sceptical though!

Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 23:48
John Carmack (creator of Wolfenstein 3D) and Notch are both innovators of 3D environments and they both think it's fake and/or impossible. I think of them in the same category as the "scientists" that used to believe the Earth was flat. Yes, they are brilliant people but because this goes against their fundamental ideas they of course are totally against this new method.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 17th Aug 2011 23:52
Quote: "Notch seems to carry a lot of authority in his blogs, but I don't get why. He hasn't made a technically impressive game. He's just made a very playable cool game, so I don't know why we should be believe his opinions on this project. The words of people like Carmack carry more weight in my opinion."


he haven't made an technically impressive game? i think it's rather impressive. And anyway: that doesn't show anything about his KNOWLEDGE .

and for the record, I am a man.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 00:15 Edited at: 18th Aug 2011 00:27
He could know everything there is to know about engines, but if Minecraft represents the extent of his engine coding ability, then he doesn't know much about graphics engines. I have no idea. But you can only judge someone on what they produce. Notch has produced an awesome game with a technically simple graphics engine. So we don't know how much he knows about graphics engines.

Carmark on the other hand has developed ground breaking engine after ground breaking engine. Doom, then Quake, then Doom 3 etc. so clearly knows his stuff and therefore his opinion is far more credible to me.

CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 00:16
Let's be honest, you can't improve Minecraft's graphics without damaging the functionality of the gameplay. I mean, how else would it work other than with blocks?

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 00:36
voxels? xD

and for the record, I am a man.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-20 23:55:59
Your offset time is: 2025-05-20 23:55:59