NERDGASM ALERT: Detailed Rendering of CG just got infinately better. The polygon is dead

Originally posted by MisterMan

Originally posted by Segador
This is all bull****, these people are cherry picking hardcore. They have avoided talking about all the flaws, this is nothing but a pipe dream.

None of this is new and there is a good reason why none of this caught on years ago.
The requirements for this technology makes it impractical.

Well, could you provide us an example of these "flaws?"

No, and that's precisely the point.

Originally posted by enament
This may be fake. LOOK here->

notch.tumblr.com...

This is possibly not true. please read above and go to link.

Notch uses a straw man argument and demolishes it.
He also assumes the engine is a voxel engine + quotes massive figures to show how unreaalistic it is.
Taking advantage of redundancy would cut these numbers down by massive amounts..

i wonder if they could use this to show scans of planets..imagine having every detail easily viewed...

reply to post by C0bzz


Yes for several years yet agreed. But nobody claims the product this thread is about is done yet.

It is not a finished product at all yet.

So my post was thinking more like in the future and not tomorrow.

Originally posted by fatdad
i wonder if they could use this to show scans of planets..imagine having every detail easily viewed...

Like I could visit your sisters p.... and see everything clearly?

Omg I am so funny today: Joke

reply to post by Limbo


It's not a straw man, it's a ver good argument. Why are people defending to the hilt concepts they do not understand?

Just started reading the thread. I saw these vids on youtube a while ago. Its a point cloud data search algorithm so you only render what can be seen from the point of the observer. They only render visible polygons in standard computer graphics as it is to save on CPU/GPU time.

It just seems a bit like good old fashioned voxels to me. Think Minecraft only higher resolution. Minecraft is procedurally generated on the fly.

My bet is you will still need a bit of muscle in your system to produce these visuals, especially when you bring physics and animation.

Perfect for the cloud however.

Originally posted by OwenGP185
reply to post by enament

 

I already posted this a couple of posts above mate.

I posted this on page 4 and nobody read it..Or payed attention to it.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Limbo

 

It's not a straw man, it's a ver good argument. Why are people defending to the hilt concepts they do not understand?

He assumes it is a voxel engine = strawman..

Notch's "debunking" is unconvincing, to put it generously. Firsly, the voxel engines he links to can't do what this engine supposedly can. The Atomontage engine, for example, has to use 12-16 LODs to be able to have the high level of detail seen when it zooms in (www.atomontage.com...).

Secondly, his whole argument is based on the *assumption* that it's just a voxel engine. It might just be jealousy, but he doesn't seem to understand that the developer has said numerous times that it isn't a voxel engine, and Notch also doesn't seem to understand that the main selling point of the engine is "unlimited detail". That means no LODs, and it means if the engine is real, *he doesn't know how it works*. So the only plausible criticism in his "debunking" is that it's a scam -

I think it's unlikely to be a scam because they've already developed the main chunk of it and are soon to release an SDK, and licensing the engine is how they will make their money. If the engine can't do what they say, then it won't sell, and they won't make money from it. I don't think they've had big investments into it so the whole "run with the investors' money" idea is unfounded.

Edit: according to this (ATS is butchering the URL, type euclideon into google and click the cache) they got investment over a year ago and instead of running away with the money, spent the year hiring people and developing the engine, with the results we see in the most recent video. The scam theory is pretty weak at this point.

As a software engineer myself, the only realistic technical problem I can see with it is in deformable animation, like the kind you see with human bodies. If they can find a way of doing that, I see no reason why it couldn't work.

That isn't to say I think it's real. I remain sceptical, but it is plausible that it's legit. It might be a misguided developer, or a scam, but people who think they *know* it's a scam are deluding themselves, IMO. This quote about sums up such people: -

"If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday..... he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!"

-Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1", p337, 1893.

i am going to cut through the BS here, I want to invest in this company, that is what i think of the technology.

reply to post by Limbo


Of course it's a voxel engine!

I wonder what CPU and GPU power we need to play these things.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I am a parent to 3 children and I do not allow them to play any games that are unsuitable for them.

Yeah and then when they have no games to play because their silly parents wont let them, they'll join a gang and play some "real" games... Most studies show that those "unsuitable" games are good for our kids. Hell, you might even consider playing the games with them and bond a little!

Spending time with my children, acting as though I am in the army shooting at people and watching their heads and other parts of their body explode is not the best way to bond as a fmaily (is this what you do with your children). We prefer to go outdoors to our local recreational park or the lakes and get fresh air and gel as family enjoying nature and our company together.

To say that, and I quote, "Most studies show that the unsuitable games are good for our kids", only goes to prove me orginal point which is parents should be educated in the detramental effects that these games are having on children.

I have a deep sense of sadness for you as you quite clearly are lost in a fantasy world that you perceive as real.

Jesus is your friend

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Nick_X
This is apparently not real at all and a scam and has been debunked here:

Notch Debunking of Unlimitedness

[...]Yes, some guy said it can't be true, therefore its not true.

I read the article, and every page so far, there has been at least 3 or so posts pointing to that guys opinion piece[...]

Massive thank you SaturnFX for bringing this breakthrough to our attention.

It is sad that this thread has become a broken record of people repeating the same points already mentioned & already covered, and nothing New has been added to the existing arguments and counter-arguments (in the spirit of good discussion).

Why? Very few read or even starred the main points as they developed past page....1 (as you also notice, "every page so far, there has been at least 3 or so posts pointing to that guys opinion piece") which has obviously not run its course.

As an end-user and gamer as well, I see the evidence of the island (yes, including the "repetition" and lack of motion...one thing at a time, please) and have to say, that is nothing short of Incredible, especially since they say it runs on 'software mode' and still manages 20 fps.

To those still clinging to the "more power, more polygons, tessalation this, dx11 that," when this comes out and gets implemented, you either discard the wheels & wings and embrace the space age revolution in virtual reality or remain earthbound.

A revolution happens when we surrender old ways of thinking that once served as a lifeline, and embrace the new reality with its emerging possibilities even if we can't fully grasp them as of yet.

I apologize if this interview has already been posted.
thisismyjoystick.com...


I think I've developed a simple understanding of this tech method and the possible advantages. But I'm still not sure I fully grasp the concept.

(1) Polygon Method - a scenario is loaded into the game and must be rendered on the fly to allow for perspective changes and interactions and things like that. All loaded polygons take up space regardless of whether or not aspects of them are visible or necessary. This, naturally, bogs the machine down with processing elements it doesn't need. The result, is of course a pixelized image to the viewer.

(2) Unlimited Detail - all possible data exists in a cloud. So, you enter into a scenario and the perspective being requested is similar to a search engine. It only returns the values required to produce the image needed. All of the other values, and possible relationships still exist, because the assets have been created by the artists, but they are not preloaded in a 3D state.

(3) Details and problems ... I'm not claiming a full understanding of this. It appears to me like no matter what you have to convert 3d information into 2d information in order for it to produce an on-screen image. So, in the polygon method the artist creates an asset. The developer creates a scenario with assets and relationships. The user loads the game and the scenario. The user's input is then converted into a 2d image by the graphics display system.

Now, in the UD method it just seems like the conversion process is happening earlier in the process to help free up the CPU. For instance, the assets and scenario are created, but the actual engine loads the scenario's visuals by essentially returning a search result based on the perspective. The result is an image that can be displayed, not one that needs to be converted.

But the conversion still has to happen somewhere ... Does this happen in the cloud? Where is the cloud? Is it on the disc? Is it connected to the Internet?

The idea has merit, but I don't think I fully understand it.

Originally posted by TimeSpiral

(2) Unlimited Detail - all possible data exists in a cloud. So, you enter into a scenario and the perspective being requested is similar to a search engine. It only returns the values required to produce the image needed. All of the other values, and possible relationships still exist, because the assets have been created by the artists, but they are not preloaded in a 3D state.

If you imagine a model known as a gasket
en.wikipedia.org...

or a fractal etc
Essentially you have infinite detail. I think that is what they are talking about.
You can keep on zooming into it revealing more and more detail.
(Similar to a fractal.)

Maybe them showing a scene composed of this gasket was a clue to why they claim infintie detail or whatever?.
Makes me think their engine is a tesselation hybrid..


EDIT :-

Looked more

secondreality.co.uk...
What is Unlimited Detail?

Unlimited detail.

In short it’s a graphics rendering technology made by a company called Euclideon that blows away other technologies in terms of the amount of detail it can display (by over 100,000 times), and it doesn’t even require a graphics card

reply to post by pilotx


What is your background in the field if real-time, computer graphics that you can brush off the criticisms and cheerlead this tech with such scant information?

If this tech becomes a reality would not our current screens with it`s pixel count limit how it would look, there always seems to be a bottleneck for technology.

Originally posted by 1947flxible
i am going to cut through the BS here, I want to invest in this company, that is what i think of the technology.

Do you remember a game called into the shadows?
www.youtube.com...