Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 25
170
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Also, I get the feeling like you did not watch the interview. At the very least read about the interview.


Thanks, was VERY skeptical before, that HardOCP interview was great. Before, i doubted that their tech demo would even run on a normal PC. Obviously, i was proven wrong.

YES - it's still static..but nevertheless already impressive.

I still have some doubts in regards to "this new technique is so alien to the industry"...but i am now more tending towards believing them...good interview.

Also..i cannot take notch seriously since his game looks like ***t - i'd rather "believe" the Euclideon people than want to believe that in 2011 games like Notch's game still need to look like they have been written in 1984.

***
EDIT: I apologize, something is off with my internet, posts simply wont go through causing double posts when i reload the stuck browser - and i cant find the option to delete those double posts
edit on 12-8-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
del
edit on 12-8-2011 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
del



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
del



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
del



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Care to explain why the LOD in the Atomontage engine is painfully obvious and LOD in the Unlimited Detail engine is not? Because they are rendered using complete different tech.


Can you explain what bit of the video you are referring to? At about 2:50 they manually adjust the voxel size.

They are using the exact same underlying technology (voxels), there's just no instancing (duplication of objects) in the Atomontage engine, which is why it looks infinitely better when zoomed out - a real landscape, rather than a collection of blocks.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Care to explain why the LOD in the Atomontage engine is painfully obvious and LOD in the Unlimited Detail engine is not? Because they are rendered using complete different tech.


Can you explain what bit of the video you are referring to? At about 2:50 they manually adjust the voxel size.

They are using the exact same underlying technology (voxels), there's just no instancing (duplication of objects) in the Atomontage engine, which is why it looks infinitely better when zoomed out - a real landscape, rather than a collection of blocks.


Explain why Atomontage uses 16 LODs and Unlimited Detail only uses 1.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Care to explain why the LOD in the Atomontage engine is painfully obvious and LOD in the Unlimited Detail engine is not? Because they are rendered using complete different tech.


Can you explain what bit of the video you are referring to? At about 2:50 they manually adjust the voxel size.

They are using the exact same underlying technology (voxels), there's just no instancing (duplication of objects) in the Atomontage engine, which is why it looks infinitely better when zoomed out - a real landscape, rather than a collection of blocks.


Explain why Atomontage uses 16 LODs and Unlimited Detail only uses 1.


Because in "Unlimited Detail" he's referring to geometry model level LOD. In Atomontage it's voxel level of detail , where each high level voxel contains a filtered representation of the voxels below it . I'm sure Euclideon has similar voxel LODs, it's impossible not to have them, and still avoid shimmering.

Note in the interview Dell refers to LOD as "Level of Distance", it's actually "Level of Detail".



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Because in "Unlimited Detail" he's referring to geometry model level LOD. In Atomontage it's voxel level of detail , where each high level voxel contains a filtered representation of the voxels below it . I'm sure Euclideon has similar voxel LODs, it's impossible not to have them, and still avoid shimmering.

Note in the interview Dell refers to LOD as "Level of Distance", it's actually "Level of Detail".



It is impossible yet he shows it running realtime on the screen with NO noticeable LOD. Yes I noticed he said Level of Distance instead of Detail, you are aware that English is not his first language? Not that it matters, he could act like a bumbling idiot but it does not change the fact that he has a new engine and NOT snakeoil.

You are still thinking inside the box of today's current tech. Your attitude is similar to when we went from sprites to polygons. People were like "no way!" back then too. Remember when Bill Gates said we would not need more than 640k of memory? Oh, we could call Bill Gates an expert but what a dumb ass remark. His remarks of the past are similar to Notch's today.

I understand why you think the tech is bunk and why you think it would be too hard to make use of. What I don't understand is how you can cling to old industry standards and assume that everything that can be done has been done.

Bruce Dell obviously knows more about the tech than anyone else. Maybe if you are lucky he will answer your questions. Here is his contact info.

info@euclideon.com
www.euclideon.com...
edit on 12-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: your youre you are



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The only people who said "no way!" when 3d models replaced sprites were people with no understanding of computer graphics. You do realise that 3d graphics has been around for about 50 years now? Hell, per-pixel lighting has been around for 40-odd years. This whole "stuck in the box" argument is absurd. Anyone who's kept up to date with the field can make safe predictions as to where the field is going to go. Like I've said before, it's NOT a discovery science. Only people such as yourselves who have no understanding of the concepts they cheerlead seem to be bedazzled by this whole "unlimited detail" gimmick.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
It is impossible yet he shows it running realtime on the screen with NO noticeable LOD.


No model LOD. The voxel-level LOD is noticeable by the fact that it's not shimmering when zoomed out.

But it's not really LOD. A better term for it is MIP-mapping.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look, every engine programmer who has looked at these videos knows exactly how they are done. It's a sparse voxel octree with node instancing, rendered with ray casting.

Game engine programmers don't use the technology because it limits you to highly repeated worlds, like you see in the videos. There are also problems with lack of lighting and animation. Eventually as technology advances, then it will become a more viable approach, like Carmack said.

Nothing that he shows is at all surprising. What people are reacting to are the claims that it is "unlimited", which is impossible based on the fundamental math of information theory, and also clearly demonstrated to be false by his highly repeating demonstration.
edit on 12-8-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-8-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Bruce Dell obviously knows more about the tech than anyone else. Maybe if you are lucky he will answer your questions. Here is his contact info.


This should be obvious - but for some reason i doubt that he has any significant technical expertise in that field. His wording is just too simplified ("search engine" etc..) and he is also using wrong words - he is describing his engine like someone who has a very simplistic view of it.

He is the "investor" but not the nerd behind the engine, that's how i see it.

Furthermore, the read on HardOCP forum was also interesting, some concluding (with me) that his PR work, repetitive use of superlatives etc. in the FIRST video was...."not professional" by a long shot. He came over as arrogant, causing more doubt in people than actually convincing them about their engine.

The interview is WAY better, with him pretty confident and also more credible as opposed to that first video, possibly converting more doubters to believers now.

The HardOCP interviewer was VERY impressed, to say the least.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Yeah, but again the HardOCP interviewer (John Gatt) was not a journalist, he was a marketer, quite possibly paid by Dell to promote his company. See his linkedIn profile:

au.linkedin.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Yeah, but again the HardOCP interviewer (John Gatt) was not a journalist, he was a marketer, quite possibly paid by Dell to promote his company. See his linkedIn profile:

au.linkedin.com...


Is that outside the norm for the industry? Also, I don't think the reporter is doing any obfuscation. He has had a forum account at HardOCP for at least a year. If you look through the forums at that site you will see what I mean. Either way, until another industry player comes out or until Euclidean releases a demo, this thread is going nowhere.

Another impossible tech that I would like to mention is the tiles on the space shuttle. That stuff was invented by a man in his garage to much skepticism but look at him now. Also, you would think that those are the best tiles but they are not. They will be replaced with Aerogel tiles, which many thought was a hoax too. LOL



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Ok, at this point I'm starting to think you're trolling. One last time: NO ONE IS SAYING THE TECH IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEY ARE SAYING IT IS NOT NEW NOR GROUNBREAKING AND HAS BIG DRAWBACKS. how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Here's what John Carmack thinks about it, and other stuff :
www.pcper.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


Ok, at this point I'm starting to think you're trolling. One last time: NO ONE IS SAYING THE TECH IS IMPOSSIBLE, THEY ARE SAYING IT IS NOT NEW NOR GROUNBREAKING AND HAS BIG DRAWBACKS. how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?


Show me ONE voxel engine that shows no apparent LOD like the Unlimited Detail engine. I will wait.

Also, nice caps.

EDIT - Read this. Sound familiar?
www.isprs.org...
edit on 12-8-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Back after watching the vid this time and I still can't believe it.
That Dude is so full of pure awesomeness, he's gonna ascend to full Godhood while still on this earth.

Hell, I think we should hurry and developp immortality just for him.

Long Live John Carmack !

Yep, procedural stuff has been around... But detail is horse power and we need that horse power for other things first, raytracing, then, maybe radiosity.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrysalis
Back after watching the vid this time and I still can't believe it.
That Dude is so full of pure awesomeness, he's gonna ascend to full Godhood while still on this earth.

Hell, I think we should hurry and developp immortality just for him.

Long Live John Carmack !

Yep, procedural stuff has been around... But detail is horse power and we need that horse power for other things first, raytracing, then, maybe radiosity.


His manly pecks were protruding his silk shirt during his keynote. I almost turned gay, almost.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Show me ONE voxel engine that shows no apparent LOD like the Unlimited Detail engine. I will wait.


First explain what LOD is in a voxel engine, because I don't think you understand it.





new topics

top topics



 
170
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join