It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
170
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Are this the same guys as at the Australian Game Developers Conference in 2003?
www.agdc.com.au...
www.agdc.com.au...

Vaporware, anyone!?




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akasirus

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
This thread reminds me of the old sprites are better than polygon debate because its not practical for consumers to render such objects. Back in the day we could put up more sprites than polygons, just saying.


2D->3D is not in anyway the same as Polygons->Voxels. The former was adding new dimension, with a different coordinate system. Polygons and voxels are just different ways of subdividing a 3D object. The same vectors and math in a 3D world apply to both polygons and voxels.

Think of it this way: Polygons are building blocks used to subdivide a 3D object to allow it to be rendered with finite resources. Voxels are also building blocks used to subdivide a 3D object to allow it to be rendered with finite resources. Polygons are already so small, they are pushing the limit of most hardware. Voxels are many, many times smaller than most polygons. Do you see the problem here? So how are we supposed to have thousands of times more building blocks calculated, using less resources?


I get what you are saying but you left out one simple fact. In a perfect voxel world there is only one voxel that exists in multiple places at the same time. Polygon rendering requires you to track everything about each polygon, specifically the three sides of a triangle. Each polygon will have different dimensions, voxels in this case only have one size so you only have to track the dimensions of one object. You will still have to track its point in space however.

The next step will be to make a super-voxel engine that can simulate each type of atom in the periodic table so we can build better computer models to test things like chemistry, quantum mechanics, ect...
edit on 3-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
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?

I already put my background: end-user (ie. I know nothing about programming, and therefore make no claim in that regard beyond my gaming experience over the years).

I "cheerlead" it because that is my contribution to what I think based on the evidence itself (the video demonstration, which I Trust the developers to be authentic and not a pre-rendered video). End-users, and all users, eventually pay for this stuff to make it into a reality, based on how promissing they believe it to be at its initial stages.

Scant information? Do you know another source that talks more about their most recent developments beyond what the OP has posted? I saw the video, and found it highly impressive.

Brush off criticism? The criticism I had was that the thread was not evolving. In terms of the "it's a scam" blog, there's been software engineers who have already put their perspective on that. I am not addressing it because I simply don't know enough about it, and I doubt anyone does. Based on what I see, I would certainly buy into it.

You will find I am not alone in "cheerleading" my impression of what they promise.


Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Limbo
 


Of course it's a voxel engine!


Really? Are you sure? I'd like to know more about whether this is or is not that engine. It was one of those points that never got cleared up.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I am an artist and believe you me this new technology is a major improvement to things as they stand at present. I am really looking forward to it rolling out into all of our usual computer games. It will begin being implimented over the next year or two. Once you see it you will never want to go back to how it is at present. Best thing is that consumers will probably not have to invest in any new computer hardware.

My own humble CG animations were done using TERRAGEN 0.9 and are free to watch at my VF website. Click on the link below. All the music in the animations is my own creation too.

vampirefreaks.com...

My favourite computer game is Sci-Fi space simulation Eve-Online.

Eve Online

SHIMONO

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I work with 3ds max and stuff. I find such atom based engines an unnecessary thing. Users are already being blown away with the amount of interactivity available in today's game that there simply no need for more realism but intelligent use of the already existing engines and tools.

Artists spend hours trying to model out as usable, near photo real set and props, characters and find a sense of accomplishment and hard work worth doing for. This technology would work in research areas but not feasible to sit in the user's wallet. The amount of hardware power would go immense and think about the 'art' stuff and such. There will be less work for artists and more for programmers and developers alike.

And most importantly is it going to make the games more expensive and the users more self-destructive? Imagine users sitting and immersing themselves into reality amongst an already existing pile of meaningless entertainment.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

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?


The debunking method used by notch is pretty straightforward strawman.

he says its probably X, and here is why X won't work...then goes on and on about X.
He is guessing first off that X is the key here, and makes a good argument as to why X has not yet worked because its old tech thats been around for over a decade and not implemented.

And its also covered in the first minute of the video that it doesn't work if your using the old X standard.

So yes, not only is notch "debunking" it, but also the video of the people he is debunking also debunked -that method- as feasable...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by radkrish
I work with 3ds max and stuff. I find such atom based engines an unnecessary thing. Users are already being blown away with the amount of interactivity available in today's game that there simply no need for more realism but intelligent use of the already existing engines and tools.

Artists spend hours trying to model out as usable, near photo real set and props, characters and find a sense of accomplishment and hard work worth doing for. This technology would work in research areas but not feasible to sit in the user's wallet. The amount of hardware power would go immense and think about the 'art' stuff and such. There will be less work for artists and more for programmers and developers alike.

And most importantly is it going to make the games more expensive and the users more self-destructive? Imagine users sitting and immersing themselves into reality amongst an already existing pile of meaningless entertainment.


Scientists would like to have a word with you. You cannot simulate the universe using small triangles, it requires atoms. They will use this for some games to begin with but not all. I see this tech hitting the scientific market first.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Wow. The implications of this technology is mind boggling. No more need for monster PC's or updated consoles every few years. This tech has the potential to create the closest thing to reality ever.

Amazing find OP. Can't wait to see what happens when they hand it over to the games developers and and artists.. With enough storage space, you could make a seamless virtual earth.

S&F



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nobama
reply to post by T3hEn1337ened
 


uh, Directx can barely keep up with a properly set up OpenGL API, so what makes you think it has any chance of competing with unlimited atoms??


Because people don't always use what works best or makes the most sense. People have been sold on DirectX for the past 10 or 15 years, and from what it sounds like these unlimited atom guys don't even have backing from a single game studio.

My point wasn't that DirectX 11 is somehow better than Open GL or unlimited atoms, my point was that people are coming out with technology to overcome the polygon problem now, not 10 or 20 years in the future. DirectX 11 is what most game developers are using right now, regardless of whether it's the best choice or not. If most game developers won't even make the move to the more powerful and universal platform of Open GL, how well do you think unlimited atoms are going to sell?

Maybe someone will pick them up 20 years down the road, but they're going to have to start proving themselves. Right now, most people don't even understand their technology or believe that it's possible, and they're basically saying, "Okay, here's this cool thing we made. Someone go make a game with it for us so we can prove that it works." If they're really going to sell unlimited atoms, then they need a game that will support their system, so they can show people that it actually works when you factor in character movement, physics, etc. and so they can show that it actually IS better than current technology.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

If your a gamer, this is going to knock your socks off X 1000


Thanks for the OP! This technology looks amazing and will only get better. Game artists, and consumers for that matter, are going to jump all over this when it hits the market.

Oh, and I'm a gamer -- it knocked my socks off.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Thundersmurf
 


You would still have PCs increasing in power because other aspects of the processing could be improved. For example, more powerful shaders in the video card, more realistic physics simulation (this is the biggest area of improvement due to the limit being basically a full atomic reality simulation), etc.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


No. He has skills and experience pertinent to this field, something the cheerleaders don't. Its laughable how people can cheerlead technology they do not understand in a field they are ignorant of.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Wow I am a Web/Graphics designer...


Wow...
Um... cool... so very cool...
I Bet you can't run that on a PC...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by T3hEn1337ened
 


OpenGL and directx have feature parity as they are merely APIs exposing the functionality of the underlying hardware. The reason studios use DirectX over OpenGL on the PC platform at least is because Microsoft have their # together to offer a clean API and SDK for pc and xbox development whilst the Kronos group have different goals. The reason game studios aren't relying on this "unlimited detail" stuff is because it's a flawed technology. Believe you me, the game studios have no allegiance to any particular technology, they would use it in a shot if it delivered. Greater detail with greater market penetration? They'd be all over it. Fact of the matter is, they're not.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
This paves the way for the Matrix to become real.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
WoW!!!!

Awesome!!!

S&F


But bloody scary on what the dark millitary outfits of this world will be capable of with this tech!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
saw this yesterday and was like OMFG!!!

they still haven't answered if physics can be done with their engine, also dynamic lighting (as everything in the video is static)

the dev said in the video they were running this simulation in software mode, which begs the question why not in hardware mode? are current graphics not able to process or understand the instructions present in their engine...

while the level of detail in their engine is mind blowing, i think it is still a long way from being implemented in mainstream gaming.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The OP has been debunked here someone mentioned it Earlier but didn't garner enough attention.

It doesn't run on Weak computers. That's just Non-sense.

notch.tumblr.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
The OP has been debunked here someone mentioned it Earlier but didn't garner enough attention.

It doesn't run on Weak computers. That's just Non-sense.

notch.tumblr.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


He is assuming this new tech is voxel based which the creator say that it is NOT voxel based. Straw man argument from a fat neckbeard who is jealous IMO. Just because he created minecraft does not make him the authority in the matter.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Try Reading. It doesn't run on Weak computers this is a scam based on others work Voxel Engines.


They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That’s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s 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.





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. It’s 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 it’s not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do.

edit on 3-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
170
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join