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: 17
170
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
I been thinking about this for some and i may have figured out what he has done. As it has been mentioned before the engine would not render what can not be seen, as in as much as off screen. However, there is also an area that would be optimized out of the rendering process. This area is any point which lies between the resolution at which the screen is native too.

The algorithms they may be using do not decide "what" you see but rather what you "can not" see due to the resolution. Because The visual limit for any current tech is determined by the resolution of the its self.

Through this line of thought this new engine does not generate 3D images but renders complex 2D images.


All engines generate 2D images (even the "3D" images are just a stereo pair of 2D images)

I'm afraid your explanation does not really make sense. All this is is a voxel engine. It's a different rendering process to a polygon engine, but it's nothing really new or special, and it has several problems.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Im not saying its new, as it has been around for some time. What I am saying is that all the naysayers claiming this would require more processing power compared to current gen is a false statement.

The new that I believe he and his company has done is changed the rules on what is and not needed to create the illusion of a 3D model.

I agree there are challenges that need to be addressed, animation being the foremost concern.
edit on 3/8/11 by Glyph_D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
It is claimed that "64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter)". This the maximum this technique can zoom in on an object. Surely this is overkill when considering game design. The level of detail would be cut at a virtual distance of an average of 6-12 inches(as per the status quo of current gen games)


How would it render hair, which is 0.07 mm thick?

Here's an in-game weapon from Rage, are you sure you could model this at .25mm?



Remember, ever little speck on scratch and there has to be made from voxels.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


if my understanding is correct it would not be an issue. The limit of detail will be determined by the artwork itself. The model converter they claim to have made would work out the position of each point and then fill in the gaps up to and including 64 cubic units per millimeter.



edit on 3/8/11 by Glyph_D because: cubic units :/



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
The new that I believe he and his company has done is changed the rules on what is and not needed to create the illusion of a 3D model.


That's what he'd like you to think so he can con another $2 Million from the Australian government.

This is all stuff that's several years old, and stuff where better version exist. He's hawking old technology as snake oil. Tell me one thing he's done that is new.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Well i never said I was blindly following this man or his claims. I will NOT be donated any form of support other than emotional to his company.

If he is lying about what his company can do time will tell. Im just working with what has been claimed as it has not been verified.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
reply to post by Uncinus
 


if my understanding is correct it would not be an issue. The limit of detail will be determined by the artwork itself. The model converter they claim to have made would work out the position of each point and then fill in the gaps up to and including 64 cubic units per millimeter.


But with a human hair, the artwork is smaller than the smallest voxel. So you'd get jagged hair. That gun also has details smaller than 0.25 mm.

The point is that it's not "unlimited" as he claims. There's a limit to the resolution, and there's a limit to how much he can get in there. There's also a limit to animation, and lighting.

Sure, it's an interesting technology for static environments. But he did not invent it, or even do anything special with it.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus


The point is that it's not "unlimited" as he claims. There's a limit to the resolution, and there's a limit to how much he can get in there. There's also a limit to animation, and lighting.



Your absolutely right. It is not unlimited in the micro detail, however the macro is a different story.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Well i never said I was blindly following this man or his claims. I will NOT be donated any form of support other than emotional to his company.

If he is lying about what his company can do time will tell. Im just working with what has been claimed as it has not been verified.


He's not lying with the videos. It did render those videos. But compare it to a modern polygon engine:




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
That gun also has details smaller than 0.25 mm.


This is disputable. Are you suggesting there are geometric details at that level? Im not even sure if the high res texture are that intricate.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D

Originally posted by Uncinus


The point is that it's not "unlimited" as he claims. There's a limit to the resolution, and there's a limit to how much he can get in there. There's also a limit to animation, and lighting.



Your absolutely right. It is not unlimited in the micro detail, however the macro is a different story.


How so?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus


He's not lying with the videos. It did render those videos. But compare it to a modern polygon engine:



That where my attention resides, because Im thinking they may have removed a very intricate element that is apparent in the video you provided.

Volume- geometric volume to be precise.

if all images render in 2D, why simulate a 3D world? Im under the impression he cut out what is not needed.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D

Originally posted by Uncinus
That gun also has details smaller than 0.25 mm.


This is disputable. Are you suggesting there are geometric details at that level? Im not even sure if the high res texture are that intricate.


In his engine there are no textures. The detail from the textures here needs to be made from millions of individual voxels.

It's like building that gun from millions of tiny solid color Lego bricks that are 0.25mm wide.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
WOW! jaw dropping.
can it work with virtual worlds?
you use the internet to down load it.
will it be down loading trillions of bits of graphics?
making it no good for on line games?
I dont see how it can work on a small PC??

if this does work.
it will be a Great way to store information.
from the claims a small PC can have a game
with graphics area that is bigger than the hard drive??
so if it works.
the information a PC can store have just got very very BIG!
some one just needs to store it as 010101011 on sheets of paper.
and if the graphics can have a very large
amount if things active at the same time.
you can have a super computer in the virtual world.
and have it on a small PC!!!!!!!
I hope you can understand this.
it will be a massive leap in computer power.
a true virtual world. this is so big.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
That where my attention resides, because Im thinking they may have removed a very intricate element that is apparent in the video you provided.

Volume- geometric volume to be precise.

if all images render in 2D, why simulate a 3D world? Im under the impression he cut out what is not needed.


He's still storing a data representation of geometric volume. More so that polygonal engines actually. Polygonal engines store arbitary surfaces. Voxel engines store cubic volumes.

You have to simulate a 3D world to render it. These are just different ways of doing it.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by Glyph_D

Originally posted by Uncinus


The point is that it's not "unlimited" as he claims. There's a limit to the resolution, and there's a limit to how much he can get in there. There's also a limit to animation, and lighting.



Your absolutely right. It is not unlimited in the micro detail, however the macro is a different story.


How so?

Because, if this engine generates graphics on a point base system, and and holds algorithms to enforce this rendering, as the camera pans out the pixels at the smallest level are rendered out and the replaced by the surrounding level of pixels and so forth. Due to the limits of the screen. they are using the limits inherent in the video feed to regulate the detail provided.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


No, it does not actually store more information. All it can do "unlimitedly" is draw the same things over and over. It's like if you stand between two mirrors. You've not actually made thousands of versions of yourself.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
Because, if this engine generates graphics on a point base system, and and holds algorithms to enforce this rendering, as the camera pans out the pixels at the smallest level are rendered out and the replaced by the surrounding level of pixels and so forth. Due to the limits of the screen. they are using the limits inherent in the video feed to regulate the detail provided.


Polygonal engines do the exact same thing with LOD (Level of Detail) and MIP mapping (LOD for textures).

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I would think that by the time this is actually coded into a usable game engine and ready for production it will be too late to make any improvements. CPU/GPU power will have doubled a few times in the 4+ years it would take to get a playable game on the shelf. I would rather see a big leap in AI to make smarter enemies that don't rely on scripted events.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

In his engine there are no textures. The detail from the textures here needs to be made from millions of individual voxels.

It's like building that gun from millions of tiny solid color Lego bricks that are 0.25mm wide.





He's still storing a data representation of geometric volume. More so that polygonal engines actually. Polygonal engines store arbitary surfaces. Voxel engines store cubic volumes.

You have to simulate a 3D world to render it. These are just different ways of doing it.


But only rendering line of sight.



new topics

top topics



 
170
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join