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: 12
170
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
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.

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


How about you try reading. Here is Notch backtracking and admitting that he is making assumptions. Read the last sentence, he is mad because the marketing team is hyping it up and he does not like that. I hate sales people too!

Word of Notch




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Do you know what voxels are? The problems are NOT limited to voxels. It is not a strawman argument, the people saying so haven't got a clue what they're talking about. People cheerleading unsubstantiated claims in a field they have no knowledge about is the height of ignorance. Typical ATS.
edit on 3-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Do you know what voxels are? The problems are NOT limited to voxels. It is not a strawman argument, the people saying so haven't got a clue what they're talking about.


Read this please.

notch.tumblr.com...
edit on 3-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 





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.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Thank-you basically what you posted proves the point even more this is a scam and Hyped up based on others ideas exploited by this company

And it doesn't run on Weak Computer.

Its when the Un-Flag option comes in handy IMO



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by T3hEn1337ened
 


Fact of the matter is, they're not.


The fact of the matter is it's not on the market yet.

Unless, ofcourse, your notion of a "fact" is when a person whose "expertise" consists of having written 1993-era game technology opines about something which they don't even know the internals of, and to substantiate their argument they link to videos which don't actually support their argument (voxel engines, none of which can do what's shown in the UL video).



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I have tried 3d modeling programs in the past such as
blender and such, so this new program sounds cool but
I am hoping it will be easier to use than what is out
not for modeling. If an elephant statue contains
500k+ atoms how long would it take to create it?

Scanning in items would be cool, say if you took a picture
of something and the program made a 3d image of it.

The comparisions between polygons and "unlimited" is
not that polygons have limited details, its that
in most games like FPS minor details are meaningless
to someone running and not going to take the time
to inspect blades of grass or bark on a tree.

Again importing of objects from the real world
into a virtual one is what I have been waiting for,
that or a program with virtual gloves so you can
actually mold a model in the program and not use a mouse.

Not that this is debunked....its more of a caution that the program
as of right now will not be able to deliver.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 




And a final word to the engineers who worked on this: Great job, I am impressed! But please tell your marketing department to stop lying.


So what is it? Is it a scam? If its a scam why is he impressed? Where are all the other software engineers saying that this is a scam? BTW, I have a BSIT/SE and have been working with various languages since 2005. All I see is jealous nerd raging. Give it a few more days and he will back track even more. This reminds me of the guy that said "no one will buy 5 dollar coffe" but take a look at starbucks. People are quick to dismiss things they do not understand.

What they describe is very possible with today's hardware, unless you are obtuse and think that we have already discovered all the tricks that are possible.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


"But please tell your marketing department to stop lying"




Why it’s a scam:

* They pretend like they’re doing something new and unique, but in reality a lot of people are researching this. There are a lot of known draw-backs to doing this.

* They refuse to address the known flaws. They don’t show non-repeated architecture, they don’t show animation, they don’t show rotated geometry, and they don’t show dynamic lighting.

* They invent new terminology and use superlatives and plenty of unverifiable claims.

* They say it’s a “search algorithm”. That’s just semantics to confuse the issue. Sparse voxel octrees is a search algorithm to do very fast ray casting in a voxel space.

* They seem to be doing some very impressive voxel rendering stuff, which could absolutely be used to make very interesting games, but it’s not as great as they claim it is. The only reason I can see for them misrepresenting it this bad is that I assume they’re looking for funding and/or to get bought up. If these guys were being honest with the drawbacks and weaknesses of their system, I’d be their biggest fan. As it is now, it’s almost like they’re trying NOT to be trustworthy. All this said, voxels are amazing. So is raytracing and raycasting. As computers get more powerful, and storage gets faster and cheaper, we will see amazing things happen.

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

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



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Explain it in your own words. Youve taken a position contrary professional opinion so I can only assume you have a great understanding of the field. Otherwise you're just another ignorant poster parroting the same unfounded "rebuttals".



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
WoW addicts aren't really a good example for this kind of technology, since the graphics for WoW have always been pretty modest. It was the cartoony graphics that appeals to people imo. mmorpg graphics have to appeal to people much longer than other games so exactly "what" the graphics should look like is a tougher issue.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


"But please tell your marketing department to stop lying"
edit on 3-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)


He is assuming they are lying because he is assuming they are using voxels. They are not using voxels, they are using a new technique similar to voxels. See the fallacy in your argument? He even said he is assuming! What happens when we assume?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Why
is
it
so
important
to
recreate
what
is
NOW?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Listen. The obvious, show stopping drawbacks have not been mentioned. That is where the charge of dishonesty is being laid. It's as if they're appealing to laymen to invest rather than getting proper industry backing. That alone raises red flags over their claims.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


The drawbacks are not limited to voxels. The results are impressive for what they are. It's what they're NOT telling you that is the turn off.
edit on 3-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Eastern1Stranger
 


If you've been waiting for the ability to import real world objects into virtual ones, you have missed out because this has been readily available for a good while. Scanning an object into a 3d virtual space isn't exactly new.

Not trying to diminish this tech or anything because, as others have said, I'm not an expert in this field and therefore I cannot say what they can or cannot do. However, to say it's not a voxel engine and then the description of what it does sounds essentially the same seems a bit strange.

In the least it just seems like exceedingly small polygons with some optimization in controlling what ones are drawn on screen based on perspective to lighten the load. Which it is highly obvious and well-known how high poly models can vastly improve the look over lower ones.

The video looks to me as if it could just be a bunch of pre-rendered scenes with a moving camera when it's showing the UD objects, which is an extremely far cry from something workable for a game and a dynamic camera/world.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


The drawbacks are not limited to voxels. The results are impressive for what they are. It's what they're NOT telling you that is the turn off.
edit on 3-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


They do tell you some of the limitations if you actually watch the entire video and pay attention instead of going in with your Notch fanboy preconceptions. They do not have to tell us exactly how it works because they plan on making money off of it. They do not want to divulge intellectual property or even hint at how they are doing it. Hell, if it was me I would not have even posted a youtube vid.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


They are Voxels and using obfuscation in the video to avoid saying as such because they do not want to give anyone else credit for the idea they have hi-jacked.

Here are what voxels are.

As in their video watched it twice now

What they are explaining is essentially voxels.

Wikipedia- Voxel

The Items they describe as 'Atoms' Are in fact Voxels

And in Fact the video is not a running animation it is only a rendering of an island albeit an island of very not so unique repeating structures.

A Fraud and you are touting it

Animating Such an Island with moving parts would take a super computer.

Something in the OP Also Claimed this runs on weak computer. That is just pure non-sense

The Video is only a rendering of the island. They have created

This is nothing new in fact your championing a cause that is fraudulent and taken by others ideas.

These people have invented nothing they are con-artists.
edit on 3-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


I've seen the vids, they've been kicking around for years. Their claims do not add up, simple as that.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I generally agree. When Valve Software saw Narbacular Drop, they hired it's creators on the spot, because they saw the potential for creating an awesome puzzle game, which ultimately resulted in Portal and Portal 2. If unlimited detail didn't have major shortcomings, it would have been snapped up by some game studio by now.

If (and this is a BIG if) they can find a way to make unlimited detail work with a physics engine in a way that won't crash every computer in existence, then they might actually be on to something. The company behind unlimited detail seems to be willfully ignorant of it's problems though, which is worrying if they actually take themselves seriously.




top topics



 
170
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join