Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
igRaVeN
Amarr Drunken Wookies BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:18:00 -
[1]
Edited by: igRaVeN on 02/08/2011 01:20:21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
|
Lithalnas
Amarr Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:26:00 -
[2]
this is one of those "wait and see" things. The methodology is sound, the problem is probably implementation. -------------
Mictro-Transactions can bite my shinny metal exhaust port. |
Darveses
Fantastulousification Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:27:00 -
[3]
Thats quite amazing - will be interesting to see how it plays out, and what kind of rig you need to run it.
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:32:00 -
[4]
Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.
Ill see it when I believe it in front of me on my own screen.
Here's to hoping though.
|
Sarah DeMerchant
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:34:00 -
[5]
This technology could make the Incarna door look amazing.
On a serious note, it all depends on cost to implement vs. income potential. Some things are great in theory, but too impractical to actually make real. We'll see where they go from here and if the hardware is able to catch up and stay ahead of the software.
|
Digital Messiah
Gallente Oregami Ultd
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:50:00 -
[6]
How does it get the data to build all these objects? And how big is each models file size?
Quote: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
|
VAsh Ozuwara
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:58:00 -
[7]
this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.
point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.
sometimes its good to sit back and question why
|
igRaVeN
Amarr Drunken Wookies BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:04:00 -
[8]
Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw3DnhD8Gls
|
Andr Katelo
Caldari Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:05:00 -
[9]
Its all nice looking, but its static.
I want to see it in motion, with physics and movement. If it cant do those, interaction with environment is impossible and therefor this is completely useless to the current gaming industry. Please ensure your signature is within the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24,000 bytes. Navigator |
VAsh Ozuwara
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Andr Katelo Its all nice looking, but its static.
I want to see it in motion, with physics and movement. If it cant do those, interaction with environment is impossible and therefor this is completely useless to the current gaming industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlMCToxlt1c
from march last year. note how ****ty the frame rate and rendering is in real time with minimal panning motion.
|
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:15:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15 bah,
thats like saying a recording of a professional studio trumpet player on a modern digital device is better than a recording on a primative device of Louis Armstrong jamming.
Content is king. The resolution is a very very very very low priortiy for me...
In fact lower resolution can have better artistry than higher resolution at times... at least its largely irrelevant.
Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.
A sharper resolution medium isn't going to bring us a better game... probably will even distract from the real focus in many cases.
A mmo is very much a work of art.. maybe more like a movie.. but still its a creatively inspired environment with reaction of viewers minda a major element.
|
JC Ferguson
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:27:00 -
[12]
Looks great. Melts any PC not a supercomputer. 15-20 years from now games will be like that (if the global economy doesn't crash and burn before then) but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.
tl;dr It's a lot easier to program ultra hardware-intensive crap than to make the hardware that can run it.
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: JC Ferguson but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.
Oh...
The irony
|
Chopper Rollins
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15 Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a painting holds no water.
Before them, the perfection of the image (in purely technical terms) was what art was seen as being all about. Those Roman ststues were painted in an attempt to make them seem real, not clever representations. Along came the camera and wrecked that for painters. They had nowhere to go but abstraction or some version of it. The immediate reaction was that Impressionism was degenerate garbage, remember? I read about a series of panels drawn on an altar where halfway through the series, the artist had been shown how to draw with perspective, different from that mediaeval flatness before it. The artist didn't go back and modify the previous panels though, nor did he sign his work. Technical improvements push everything else aside.
So yeah, resolution isn't a big deal, but we're in the earliest days here, of immersion in entertainment that will be indistinguishable from 'real life', ho ho. Total immersion was predicted in the 80's, as many things were, but since then people have lost their expectations.
tl;dr for livestock: gamers won't often refuse more or better anything.
|
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:54:00 -
[15]
This is a method I've been thinking about for years, after remembering some of the old voxel games (like the Commanche series).
I wasn't aware of this project, but about a year back I did some google searches on voxels and why they weren't used in games. Now, that was voxels, which are similar but I suspect very different than what's used in the linked demo, but some of the problems might be the same.
Some of the problems mentioned were real time shadows (the demo briefly mentions shadows but doesn't say whether they are real time or pre rendered), real time lighting (same deal), and collistion detection. You would almost have to have an undrawn polygon wrap around the collideable objects else you'd have horrendously complex collision detection. You can imagine a character running around and the hardware having to determine how it interacts with each grain of dirt and how that would be handles via physics too - very difficult. I also didn't see anything moving in that demo.
But there are huge benefits if they can overcome those hurdles. You can imagine the effects on item destruction. Shoot a wall with a machine gun and chew it away bit by bit or with a rocket launcher and blow a hole through it realistically. You could also have different physical properties depending on the type of material. That is, the "atoms" that make up a wooden wall when shot at would react differently than the atoms that make up a metal wall. One would shatter apart, the other would bend and rupture. That is, the artist could set the kind of material used as an item property and the atoms would have a different level of cohesion and mass. Same for fluids and viscosity.
I hope this company has managed a way to overcome all the problems. I'd love to see cames go this direction. It would be great for games like Eve where art wouldn't have to be updated continuously to live up to modern standards.
|
Oberine Noriepa
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:59:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Oberine Noriepa on 02/08/2011 04:02:57
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.
point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.
sometimes its good to sit back and question why
Incorrect. Point cloud rendering is used in a lot of high-end CG production. The main reason as to why you don't see this kind of tech used in the gaming industry is because most if not all rendering engines are polygon based. Implementing point cloud rendering would require some extensive effort for implementation or rewriting. There are also other elements to deal with, such as animation, lighting, and physics.
|
VAsh Ozuwara
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Oberine Noriepa Edited by: Oberine Noriepa on 02/08/2011 04:02:57
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.
point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.
sometimes its good to sit back and question why
Incorrect. Point cloud rendering is used in a lot of high-end CG production. The main reason as to why you don't see this kind of tech used in the gaming industry is because most if not all rendering engines are polygon based. Implementing point cloud rendering would require some extensive effort for implementation or rewriting. There are also other elements to deal with, such as animation, lighting, and physics.
sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.
|
Magnus Veyr
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.
That's a problem of inertia; people needing to be convinced that their "NEED MOAR POLYS" mantra may actually be wrong, perhaps even a shift of focus in video cards.
I'm very excited to see what they can come up with.
|
Iggy Stooge
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:35:00 -
[19]
You call this a Game Changer, it isn't. All it would change is how games look, but the games would remain the same old stuff. I'd be more impressed if game companies showed some imagination in gameplay, rather than rehashing the FPS/RPG/tank-healer-mage cliches.
|
VAsh Ozuwara
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:49:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Magnus Veyr
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.
That's a problem of inertia; people needing to be convinced that their "NEED MOAR POLYS" mantra may actually be wrong, perhaps even a shift of focus in video cards.
I'm very excited to see what they can come up with.
scalability > detail.
polygons have been developed over the past 20 years to a point that they can give a great visual representation and can still scale well to different hardware capabilities. these point clouds need more computation power just to render static. if you bothered to watch the demo from last year i linked you will see why this really is not viable for real time rendering, not yet at least.
i dont mind the guy trying to be innovative, but he is literally trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to games.
|
|
Naran Eto
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:54:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Chopper Rollins
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15 Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a painting holds no water.
Before them, the perfection of the image (in purely technical terms) was what art was seen as being all about. Those Roman ststues were painted in an attempt to make them seem real, not clever representations. Along came the camera and wrecked that for painters. They had nowhere to go but abstraction or some version of it. The immediate reaction was that Impressionism was degenerate garbage, remember? I read about a series of panels drawn on an altar where halfway through the series, the artist had been shown how to draw with perspective, different from that mediaeval flatness before it. The artist didn't go back and modify the previous panels though, nor did he sign his work. Technical improvements push everything else aside.
So yeah, resolution isn't a big deal, but we're in the earliest days here, of immersion in entertainment that will be indistinguishable from 'real life', ho ho. Total immersion was predicted in the 80's, as many things were, but since then people have lost their expectations.
tl;dr for livestock: gamers won't often refuse more or better anything.
I wouldn't say "better", i would more say "realistic" and it's been proven time and again that realistic is not always better, just look at minecraft, that has a huge following and is a aimple block game, yet there are thousands of people clammering to play it and it's not even finnished development.
Quality of gameplay over realism for me any day.
|
Zagdul
Gallente Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:59:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Zagdul on 02/08/2011 07:59:12
Originally by: Jada Maroo Edited by: Jada Maroo on 02/08/2011 04:14:36 This is a method I've been thinking about for years, after remembering some of the old voxel games (like the Commanche series).
I wasn't aware of this project, but about a year back I did some google searches on voxels and why they weren't used in games. Now, that was voxels, which are similar but I suspect very different than what's used in the linked demo, but some of the problems might be the same.
Some of the problems mentioned were real time shadows (the demo briefly mentions shadows but doesn't say whether they are real time or pre rendered), real time lighting (same deal), and collistion detection. You would almost have to have an undrawn polygon wrap around the collideable objects else you'd have horrendously complex collision detection. You can imagine a character running around and the hardware having to determine how it interacts with each grain of dirt and how that would be handles via physics too - very difficult. I also didn't see anything moving in that demo.
But there are huge benefits if they can overcome those hurdles. You can imagine the effects on item destruction. Shoot a wall with a machine gun and chew it away bit by bit or with a rocket launcher and blow a hole through it realistically. You could also have different physical properties depending on the type of material. That is, the "atoms" that make up a wooden wall when shot at would react differently than the atoms that make up a metal wall. One would shatter apart, the other would bend and rupture. The artist could set the kind of material used as an item property and the atoms would have a different level of cohesion and mass. Same for fluids and viscosity.
I hope this company has managed a way to overcome all the problems. I'd love to see cames go this direction. It would be great for games like Eve where art wouldn't have to be updated continuously to live up to modern standards.
+1
I look forward to seeing where this tech goes.
A company looking to release a SDK means that they're far from an actual release of a demo or game. Just proof of concept type thing which could potentially get them funding and raise the eyebrows of hardware developers to start catering to their ideas instead of polygon calculations for physic engine development.
|
Ciar Meara
Amarr Virtus Vindice
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:59:00 -
[23]
Interesting technology, if they are able to to animation as well as they claim I don't see how firms won't be wanting to use this tech. - Hilmar getur ekki tala= vi= ¦ig n·na, hann er a= fara ß japanska Tfskuverslun.
|
Naran Eto
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: igRaVeN Edited by: igRaVeN on 02/08/2011 01:20:21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
Looks pretty good but as he says himself in the video running 4 or 5 objects will run fine but it's in no way going to be able to run as a game, we need to wait for hardware to catch up with the software before this can happen.
More importantly, why is he trying to do a poor impression off Lloyd Grossman?
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:12:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.
They said it was all done in SOFTWARE, not hardware.
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Ill see it when I believe it in front of me on my own screen.
Me too.
I think there are two big problems: 1) Good lightning and 2) Animations
If they can overcome those solutions, then they have won :-) |
Valei Khurelem
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:19:00 -
[26]
As someone who's used Maya in the past but was frustrated over how limited I was in what I could make, I am seriously looking forward to this, thanks for the link! :)
|
dexington
Caldari Baconoration
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:51:00 -
[27]
At the moment no one knows if the technology is real, they have only released two videos which really don't prove anything. It would not be the first time some new great technology turn out to be a scam, i'll not expect it used in games before they produce are a more convincing demonstration.
|
Naran Eto
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:57:00 -
[28]
Originally by: dexington At the moment no one knows if the technology is real, they have only released two videos which really don't prove anything. It would not be the first time some new great technology turn out to be a scam, i'll not expect it used in games before they produce are a more convincing demonstration.
I don't think it's a scam as such, more likely wishful or very forward thinking thinking from the developer, it can be done, and has been done for years, just take a look at CGI films, they use 500 times more polygons than a game already, the problem here is that the software may be able to do it, but to actually put it into a gaming environment will mean the end user would have to have some meaty hardware just to process it.
|
RaTTuS
BIG Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:09:00 -
[29]
minecraft FTW
|
Nemesis Factor
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Naran Eto
I wouldn't say "better", i would more say "realistic" and it's been proven time and again that realistic is not always better, just look at minecraft, that has a huge following and is a aimple block game, yet there are thousands of people clammering to play it and it's not even finnished development.
Quality of gameplay over realism for me any day.
That's the correct conclusion but your example is far from evidence. In my mind Minecraft is enjoyed and loved by many in SPITE of it's graphical drawbacks. Sure it has it's charm, but what percentage of the playerbase would be upset if the graphics could be scaled up to modern FPS levels?
Increased fidelity is never a bad thing, it just isn't a necessary component for a good game. ==================== ~/~ Sultan of Buruni |
|
Valei Khurelem
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:26:00 -
[31]
Originally by: RaTTuS minecraft FTW
Oh god yes, they could do minecraft really detailed with this sort of technology :D
|
Naran Eto
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:54:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Originally by: RaTTuS minecraft FTW
Oh god yes, they could do minecraft really detailed with this sort of technology :D
But would it have the same charm as it does now?
There's something about the simplicity of the graphics in minecraft that kind of draws you in, it's hard to explain.
And to the guy who said that if the graphics were updated people wouldn't complain, yes you're right they wouldn't, but more realistic graphics wouldn't make it a better game, it would just make it more pleasing to the eye. i would take a game with terrible graphics and great gameplay over a game with awesome graphics and terrible gameplay any day of the week.
|
Barbelo Valentinian
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 10:30:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Barbelo Valentinian on 02/08/2011 10:30:54 I agree about the point re. art, but at the same time photorealism has to be "done" too, there is obviously a want for it (otherwise developers wouldn't be progressing it, and almost sacrificing gameplay in the pursuit).
I should think a majority of people would like to play games that look exactly like real life, but for the addition of things that don't exist in real life (dragons, "Magic", s-f paraphernalia, etc.).
Tech looks very interesting - but it's not totally new is it? Isn't it just a new, clever way of doing voxels (and, shrewdly, having them imitate polygons, because that's what artists and modellers are used to)?
There was a great game from a few years ago called Outcast, which showed something of the potential of voxels - a whole, alien world which, at the time, was pretty impressive in its scale and depth. Unfortunately, like many other good games at the time, it was overlooked because of the (then) new Quake/Voodoo revolution.
*****
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 13:27:00 -
[34]
Frankly, I would like it better if someone figured a way to use procedural membranes rather than polygons or voxels, specially for organic characters. Membranes would make it way easier to render clothing and skin...
|
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:10:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.
They said it was all done in SOFTWARE, not hardware.
Literally reta rded.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:10:00 -
[36]
It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..
Basically, folks want more proof.
----- CCP's NeX Pricing Tiers Affordable: One PLEX Mid: 3-4 PLEX Deluxe: Only for "flamboyantly rich capsuleers" Exceptional: ?? |
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:36:00 -
[37]
Originally by: stoicfaux It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..
Basically, folks want more proof.
Indeed, once they can show that system with animated objects I will become a believer.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:45:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Iggy Stooge You call this a Game Changer, it isn't. All it would change is how games look, but the games would remain the same old stuff. I'd be more impressed if game companies showed some imagination in gameplay, rather than rehashing the FPS/RPG/tank-healer-mage cliches.
Aren't game environments, especially if they are destructible, limited by the polygon count? Removing those limits would probably aid in creating better, more varied gameplay. ... Return the Old Hangar Back... for Immersion.
|
Brit Green
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:52:00 -
[39]
I thought that was a great tech demo and will follow the technology with interest. The luddites in this thread should just smash their computers and go back to playing board games.
|
Naradius
DEATHFUNK
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: GavinCapacitor
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.
They said it was all done in SOFTWARE, not hardware.
Literally reta rded.
This...all software has a hardware overhead.
Also, this is vaporware.
Also, also - gameplay and story telling beat graphics beauty hands down...this is why "Toy Story" was more popular than "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", for example.
|
|
Peter Powers
FinFleet Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:17:00 -
[41]
i believe it when i can run a techdemo on my machine, rather than watching a prerendered video. wearing expensive clothes since 2011.06.24 22:03:00
|
Valei Khurelem
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:02:00 -
[42]
I just found something that may interest you guys, I'm not as enthusiastic anymore :( as long as they put out some proof though I'd be sold, Notch put this post in this blog about this video.
Notch argument
|
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:13:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Mr Epeen
Originally by: JC Ferguson but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.
Oh...
The irony
-------- Enemy corps raided into disbandment: Three.
Originally by: Tarminic
OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?! |
Uninhabited
Caldari Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:47:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Uninhabited on 02/08/2011 17:50:11 Edited by: Uninhabited on 02/08/2011 17:49:17 l'll give you my target weld when you take it from my cold, dead hands
cold and DEAD
that goes for array, bevel, bridge, chamfer, loop, connect and turbosmooth!!!
|
Bienator II
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 18:00:00 -
[45]
nothing revolutionary in it. Its an instanced voxel engine. Just press stop if they show the ground -> they are only a handfull of different grass or stone shapes. It is impossible to load more voxel based shapes into mem since there is simply not enough of it.
Even the id tech 5 engine is far more impressive since it allows at least unique looking textures on *current* hardware.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/02/notch-vs-unlimited-detail/
|
Toanfoal
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 18:07:00 -
[46]
From Notch:
"ItÆs a scam!
Perhaps youÆve seen the videos about some groundbreaking ôunlimited detailö rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
Well, it is a scam.
They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. ThatÆs cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. LetÆs assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic.
So obviously, itÆs not made up of that many unique voxels.
In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you donÆt need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine.
Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. ItÆs possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but itÆs not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do.
ItÆs a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but theyÆre carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and theyÆre pretending like what theyÆre doing is something new and impressive. In reality, itÆs been done several times before.
ThereÆs the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y
Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw
And thereÆs more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc
TheyÆre hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. ItÆs a scam. DonÆt get excited.
Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen." |
Tzarkan Tzeench
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:27:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Tzarkan Tzeench on 02/08/2011 19:29:54
Originally by: Iggy Stooge You call this a Game Changer, it isn't. All it would change is how games look, but the games would remain the same old stuff. I'd be more impressed if game companies showed some imagination in gameplay, rather than rehashing the FPS/RPG/tank-healer-mage cliches.
two words: destructible environment.
imagine putting a row of bullet holes through a plank of wood in a shooter like BFBC2. currently the wood just "shatters" in a predetermined pattern, but with this system the bullets could "destroy" specific "molecules" of the wood, and leave persistent bullet holes through the object in an infinite number of ways. this in turn could be tied to some sore of structural integrity system, and once it is compromised the physics engine breaks it in a realistic and complex(and probably 100% unique) way. this allows the realistic destruction of environment, instead of the prescripted stuff current destruction uses.
edit: damn should have finished the thread before posting.
|
Trini Soren
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:39:00 -
[48]
Hi
I'm new and don't know what things looked like before. But when I am in my cabin thing and I look at myself, I look pretty darn realistic. So I guess what I'm thinking is that things are fine like they are. No need to up the polygon count or whatever.
|
Rasz Lin
Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:48:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: stoicfaux It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..
Basically, folks want more proof.
Indeed, once they can show that system with animated objects I will become a believer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qkne-EOG8
he has a second vid with small game, car driving around leaving tire marks
|
Wilhelm Riley
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:48:00 -
[50]
What Notch thinks
I don't know what to think, however.
|
|
Ammzi
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:52:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Roosterton
Originally by: Mr Epeen
Originally by: JC Ferguson but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.
Oh...
The irony
I laughed out loud ... very loud.
|
Gallente Citizen 86639136
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:55:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.
I'm going to agree with everything you said except that bit. Photography is a better art form than paiting
|
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 20:07:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Gallente Citizen 86639136
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.
I'm going to agree with everything you said except that bit. Photography is a better art form than paiting
Yeah lol I'm a terrible speller , terrible typist, and my non-linear way of thinking relating one complex concept to a corralary concept often leads to some strained grammar and rethinking of directions I'm going mid sentence.
...
Back to the subject...
I DO want progress with programming.. but the stuff I'd year for would be AI in a more verbal sense perhaps, and the ablity to maybe even talk with npcs using your voice eventually (Not a game priority of mine, but I think it would be sort of exciting to me the way people seem excited about better rendering)
I'd also love to be able to control the facial emotions , gaits , gestures etc of our Eve avatars. I'd prefer a cartoon that could wink and frown without just a packaged /emote..
In the characte editor , while trying to take a snap shot of a character their pupils contract and facial muscles make subtle changes giving shifts between wry smiles, impatience, disdain, boredom etc. Certainly some emotes in many games incorporate those sorts of things.. but again packaged.
It would take a heck of a lot of creativity to come up with a easily managable UI to quickly do that sort of thing on the fly...what would be really cool is is you could control the avatars expressions by having them mirror facial expressions you make sitting in front of the computer.
|
Xirin
|
Posted - 2011.08.02 20:25:00 -
[54]
I don't see this panning out in the near future...I mean, eve can't even get polygon collision working (everythign's an oval or sphere). I seem to recall the reason was "less computing power needed server(or was it client...)-side for spheres." Now imagine what they'd say if we said we wanted collision mechanics based on the radius of little spheres at a density of several thosuand per cubic millimetre...
Architects and engineers might purchase it though, if they can get a physics engine to run in real-time with all those little specks (lol good luck). Anyone who knows anything about CFD or FEM will understand why that kind of sounds absurd.
|
Barbelo Valentinian
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 00:03:00 -
[55]
Thought people might be interested that Carmack has weighed in on this, on Twitter:-
Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.
I vaguely recall that Carmack has long been interested in the potential of voxels, and there's a little bit of voxel tech in the Rage engine IIRC. *****
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding |
Gwenywell Shumuku
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 01:19:00 -
[56]
Stop hyping this...its not new, its not doable on todays hardware, and its not even fully done yet (no animation, no water, no lighting, no real shadows yet, bad performance even on static content, games we play today would need petabytes...). They talk about 2-3 months...we will see. They didn't make much progress in 1 year, still the same stuff.
|
Mspaine
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:36:00 -
[57]
Am i the only one who needs a change of pants?
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:58:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Mspaine Am i the only one who needs a change of pants?
Nah. What I saw was impressive for a static image with lots of repetitious art and shapes. I'm not saying what they propose and have developed isn't impressive but, I have my doubts.
If you looked at the rendering we had dynamics of perspective. I.E. You're POV moves and the image changes. However, the sky, water, even the grains of dirt stayed in one place. Why didn't we have changing skies or waves rippling across the water? Could it be that animating billions of particles times however large your play map is might be a bit....um.....processor intensive?
Even though they addressed the lackluster artistry of their scenery you'd think a technology company would be eager to hire an artist to make their creation shine. But, no, from the sounds of their narration they want the gaming industry adapt the technology and make it shine. *shrugs* IDK.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:45:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Ghoest on 04/08/2011 05:46:13 This is all very silly.
Who cares if you have a system that can make use of a fantastic number of data points?
Creating and storing the data points is ultimately much much harder and more important.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Reeno Coleman
|
Posted - 2011.08.04 06:57:00 -
[60]
They are frauds.
Computer graphics is more than just a polygon mesh or point cloud. Artists need light, shadow and transparency, animation and physics, fog, depth of field, a particle system, etc, etc. Infinite Detail just has colored dots with badly working hacked shadow maps.
And by the way, they can only make it run on their machines, because the data is for a big part procedurally generated (that's why their island looks like minecraft) and not real unique architecture.
They have been looking for big game investors (Nvidia, Intel, AMD and the like) for three years now, but everyone is just laughing at them; which is not surprising at all, 'cause they are just taking existing technology for scientific visualization and trying to sell it as their idea of a game engine.
Bleh, shameful company!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |