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: 14
170
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


I never said they "hijacked" anyone's work. In fact, a few posts prior I've stated why people view them with suspicion and it has nothing to do with defrauding people and everything to do with being very economical with the truth. The lack of transparency coupled with ambitious boasts of "killing the polygon" make their claims very dubious indeed. By his own admission, he hasn't kept up to date with contemporary techniques and research. That doesn't give me much faith.
edit on 3-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

edit on 3-8-2011 by Xionmir because: Already there



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


As I have stated in an earlier post: This is a fraud. If you had any knowledge of voxel based rendering you would know that their claims of "unlimited" detail or "100.000x" detail (which is a contradiction to the previous statement!) is not possible. "Unlimited" is NEVER possible as there will always be a limit (if you think differently then you mind is gone). And 100.000 times the current detail level is thinkable - but the performance could be something like one frame per hour on modern equipment


Voxel based rendering also has problems with "filling in the gaps" because voxels cannot be defined everywhere (data and processing amount issues). Therefore seamless rendering of voxels with such a level of detail is per say not possible today.

The crazy thing is that people in this thread do not know what they are talking about when they seriously believe such claims.

The tech as such (voxel based rendering) is of course existing but the storage and processing capacities are far from being there yet.

What these videos show are mockups - best case. Either prerendered (not realtime) or simply some sort of level of detail rendering - which is available in many games these days.

They could potentially show that voxels are involved by zooming in strongly. Because the detail is ALWAYS limited it should then be visible that voxel based rendering is in fact being used. As they do not do that... FRAUD!

It IS vaporware for the next - well, 20 years or so



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
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.


Yes, thats nice
I personally am working with the Anvil engine for my personal projects, granted, its a bit dated, but the price was right (wink) and I am an avid zbrush user (some good importing).
I have yet to work on the NPC aspect of things.

What I am saying is that...wow, I have knowledge of this field also, actually, since I have been focusing in mostly on the CG end of things, my opinion may in fact trump ole notch's.

And I claim...I don't know what this guy is introducing...one thing I am certain of though, is that its not what notch is claiming it to be due to the fact that, well, in the first bloody minute of the video, the guy talked about the issue to begin with and how that was a limitation.
This "cloud engine rendering" is something I have not heard of before, nor has notch, or anyone on this thread...its new, hense why saying old stuff won't work is irrelevant.

It may be a hoax, or it may be legit...there is no enough information to really tell one way or another as of yet, and when there is not enough information, then listening to someone say its not real because of the old information available = invalid.

I know notch, I know the work done by their whole indie company, I am waiting like many others for project zomboid to be released and support their efforts, however, they are -not- masters of the universe and can dictate what will and won't be the possibilities of computer rendering technology...hell, they aren't even working in that specific field (have you seen their work?!)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrMasterJoe
reply to post by moebius
 


As I have stated in an earlier post: This is a fraud. If you had any knowledge of voxel based rendering you would know that their claims of "unlimited" detail or "100.000x" detail (which is a contradiction to the previous statement!) is not possible. "Unlimited" is NEVER possible as there will always be a limit (if you think differently then you mind is gone). And 100.000 times the current detail level is thinkable - but the performance could be something like one frame per hour on modern equipment



Ooh, so you have info on how their new cloud rendering is going to be working?
Do share...this could be breaking news...how did you find out? did you talk to them directly?

-sits back and waits to take notes on the new insider info-



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by T3hEn1337ened
 


That's exactly what the point of all of this is man, they CAN now make better graphics than those 3 videos you posted up - if you watch the FIRST video that SaturnFX posted, the developers of the technology clearly state that they are NOT artists.

GAME developers can now use this new technology to scan real life objects and put them directly into the games they are designing, rather than create them digitally with Polygons or Triangles... the Polygons and Triangles stuff will still be used, but will be used for things that do NOT exist in reality, like Dragons etc.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
he hasn't kept up to date with contemporary techniques and research. That doesn't give me much faith.
edit on 3-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)


Another way to consider that though is...
how many ways do you need to learn how to animate a gif when your not even trying for that anymore,...someone who is working on 3d vrml language probably won't give a toss about how the latest gif animations are being processed so to speak...(slightly poor example, but you get the point)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If anyone here understands what voxels are you will understand this isnt very impressive and secondly this company is out to showcase there work in order to generate massive investment. As far as graphics are concerned its a bit meh.

This has already been exposed as a fraudulent, so you know, be aware and all that.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Err, well. I only have to use some pretty simple and basic logic. Most people these days don't seem to be able to do that any more!

More detail = more data = more processing and storage requirements. GOT IT?
There is no way around that...

I do not even have to know the details of this tech. But you simply have to look up voxel based rendering. Without stating the word "voxel" itself they claim in the video that their tech is based on something that is known in medical visualisation. Well and that IS voxel (volumetric) rendering.

You guys believe in fairy tales these days...
edit on 3-8-2011 by mrMasterJoe because: Typos



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


You made some pretty big assumptions. Can provide PROOF of this?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mrMasterJoe
 


As far as the hardware stuff goes, I agree with you - for the most part. But in reality, Quantum computers are right around the corner... Once we enter the next "phase" of evolution / technology / whatever you want to call it, a LOT of things are going to change. It's like going from the Stone Age to the Iron Age.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I doubt the polygon is dead. i can't see the video here at work so pardon me if it explains my questions, but.. how much will software for this technology cost?, and the hardware? how long before it's on the market? High end apps like Maya now are in the $thousands.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Hentai just got awesome.

woop!!!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


Whatever man, the original video posted doesnt provide any PROOF as it were, so why believe that and not my claims?

Any way man read this if you understand it or are even remotley interested in technology to the point your able to discern whats realistic and whats not. But meh, up to you man if you wanna read it or not its all good. You know there is a reason why Voxel technoloy was abandoned. OR MAYBE ITS BEING SURPRESSED LOL

notch.tumblr.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mrMasterJoe
 


I don't know how old you are, but I got my first computer when I was 15 years old. Back then America Online was the biggest internet provider around. My first modem was a 14.4k. I think my video card had something like 8 megabytes of memory, and I think my system had somewhere around 16 megs of Ram - maybe 32. Anyway, that computer was pretty much a "top of the line" desktop 15 years ago. The sytem I'm on right now has a video card with 512 megs of memory, several Gigabytes of Ram, and almost a Terabyte of Hard Drive space... and it's a pretty "crappy" system these days!

So I can totally see what you're saying about the hardware needed. However, the thing is things are getting better exponetially. Just like you jump from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 512 to 1024 so on and so forth... So yes, who knows it might be another 20 years til we see desktops running this stuff, but somehow, I REALLY doubt it. Honestly because of the fact that people are already developing it and talking about it out in the open, tells me that there are people already using this required hardware - they're just not putting it up for sale to the consumers like me and you - yet.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Time2Think
 


Well I agree with you somehow that if we would have some quantum computing available the game COULD eventually change.

BUT:

1) There can't be any quantum computing involved because there is no such hardware available on the market at this very moment. And I am damn sure that they do not have any "secret" prototypes guyz


2) It is not yet really known for which applications quantum computers could be utilized. I personally believe they are useful for quite different things than regular computers and are a complementary to those.

3) There is still a looong way to go until quantum computing can be used for ANYTHING useful. No experience or application pratice exists.

That being said I am certain that the claims of this company are leading us to a fraud. And everyone who believes them will soon realize that the money is flushed down the toilet

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



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Time2Think
reply to post by T3hEn1337ened
 


That's exactly what the point of all of this is man, they CAN now make better graphics than those 3 videos you posted up - if you watch the FIRST video that SaturnFX posted, the developers of the technology clearly state that they are NOT artists.


Riiight, but they can't.

See, what they CAN create is a still scene with unlimited detail. I'm not denying that that's impressive, and while game developers can't do that yet, they CAN create photorealistic graphics with movement, physics, lighting, and shading fully integrated.

It has nothing to do with being an artist. I understand that they're not artists, and so that's why their textures look like crap, but until they can create a character that moves through a scene, gets hit by a rocket, and then flys across the room using ragdoll physics, their technology can't be used for for anything but static objects. In a world where destructible environments and moving vegetation are all the rage, static objects don't get you very far.

Do you get what I'm trying to say? It's not about what their technology CAN do, it's about what it CAN'T.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrMasterJoe
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Err, well. I only have to use some pretty simple and basic logic. Most people these days don't seem to be able to do that any more!

More detail = more data = more processing and storage requirements. GOT IT?
There is no way around that...

I do not even have to know the details of this tech. But you simply have to look up voxel based rendering. Without stating the word "voxel" itself they claim in the video that their tech is based on something that is known in medical visualisation. Well and that IS voxel (volumetric) rendering.

You guys believe in fairy tales these days...
edit on 3-8-2011 by mrMasterJoe because: Typos


The cloud rendering technique is what is being touted here, how it appears, not the base mesh itself. This can be tweaked. They make a big deal about POV rendering (which assumes everything else outside of the rendering field of vision is not rendered, but that is just an assumption since they made that point pretty clear).

So, ya...only the immediate relevant information is rendered through some sort of search engine style principle (only get what you seek).

I guess the concept is, if you are looking forward, everything behind you disappeared, until you turn around...sort of surreal if you think about it...again, just basing my assumptions on a claim.

There are numerous examples of this (vector graphics for instance where you can have infinate clarity, yet the size of the image is very small because its based on algorthms verses point by point pixels)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
when they say atomic detail are they not just saying that the software only has to depict what each pixel on the screen has in it and if so, that would mean the software wouldn't have to also compute things that are currently not in visual range (et al, the back of a tree). in effect, it would only have to compute precisely what the camera sees for each pixel and nothing else (no preloading entire 3d models necessary, just data for each pixel CURRENTLY in the camera's view).
edit on 3-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Its lies, stop wanting to believe in it.




top topics



 
170
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join