Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
170
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Actually u can already do that in "fallout 3" for instance. It should be just a matter of changing the mesh's and texture packages to the new and improved "pixle" of a 0 or 1,,,,,
Script Kiddies,,u have your assignment,,


"Build the Hardware,,,and we will make it work right",,,,script kiddie oath.
edit on 2-8-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
For the people who are saying the frame rate 20fps was low...

The guy in the video said it was running on software not hardware, download the original version of quake for the PC and see the frame rate you get while in software mode and youll see what I mean.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Frankly, all they need to achieve is 30fps and a decent motion blur and that works just fine, equal to reality.

If you have no blur at 100fps, it looks choppy, hense why graphics are now trying to put more on vision effects (blur things not directly in focus and depending on distance, etc)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


100 fps doesn't look choppy I think your thinking about screen tear which is when the vertical sync is off, games on PC allow you to turn vsync on, which mean it stores the frame in a buffer until its fully rendered then displays it and this stops screen tear issues, tear issues are when there are 2 separate frames rendeerd on the screen at the same time, 1 frame might be the top half of the screen and the second rendered on the bottom this is the "tear" as the vertical sync was off it rendered 2 frames on the screen.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Examples of FPS

I think ultimately we need to focus on trying to make things equal to a human eye in regards to framerate and blur overall as a decent goal.

You could possibly get things going at 200fps, but why? no chance in hell the human eye can see that

I think choppy is a bad word...however, you can get a flicker effect for no smooth transition from frame to frame, even if you don't consciously see it, the mind does subconsciously register the flicker (its why you get headaches and such from watching too much tv or gaming and eventually can start hemmoraging after like 24+ hours of it)

Transition effects should be looked into more, then the FPS will almost be inconsequencial so long as it is acceptably high enough...and anything at 30+fps does a pretty good job in being high enough for unnoticable overt lag



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Wow, I'm not a nerd (though I am kinda geeky in some ways) but the concept of this technology is crazy! Thanks for that.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I have an aversion to games but love technology. So excuse an ignoramus butting in but the conversation has intrigued me. Not exactly ignorant of technology, the first computers I worked on were called micro at the time and were as tall as me and we had to input a binary number through a series of switches on the front in order to start them up.. Then I went elsewhere so a promising beginning was lost.
If the Scaler value of the Voxel is included with the atomic rendering do you get the best of both worlds reality and real time positioning. After all the guy virtually admits to the debt owed to Voxel.
Excuse my questions and ignorance in that even though I don't play games I have watched the Graphics and possibilities grow and these sorts of developments open possibilities in so many other areas it's of interest to more than just the gaming community



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I hate to say it but in all likelihood this tech is dead in the water from the get go from an industry perspective. By his own admission he hasn't kept up to date with contemporary techniques. Big no-no. Not only that, but this glorified voxel visibility algorithm has only been demonstrated with static geometry. That alone greatly inhibits it's flexibility. Also, the test case videos are very deceptive. Rendering thousands of instances of a given geometric shape is not impressive, modern GPUs can handle such cases with geometry instancing with ease. The fact that a public API has been "in development" for a few years now raises a red flag with regards to the pertinacity of such an algorithm within a contemporary context. There's too few details to say anything conclusive but I very much doubt the likes of nVidia and ATI are quaking in their boots at the sight of this.

Long story short: the polygon is not dead. There are very good reasons why the polygon is not dead. Voxel technology is not new. It has it's place but is not going to replace polygons any time soon.
edit on 2-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Being the chief engineer for a significant simulator facility since 1991, I think... I need to go change my underwear. If it doesn't show up at IITSEC this fall, it's all a bust. (IITSEC.ORG)
edit on 2-8-2011 by tkwasny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Looks pretty cool, I can't imagine how frusterating it must be to sit and wait for those images to render.

This must look awesome on a 3-D compatible TV...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I can't wait untill the day we figure out that what we call "reality" or "life" was only a very highly sophisticated video game the whole time.
The ultimate virtual reality video game.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Damn SaturnFX, I KNEW we had something in common


That was a great tech demo. The thing that irks me is it will still probably be a few years before we ever see this implemented in any major fashion in games.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Physics is physics. I'm not sure what you're getting at with "today's physics"... The laws of physics stent going to change any time soon (God forbid), nor are the technological challenge of emulating said physics.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Skip to the last post in the following link, shows why this "new" technology is not viable for gaming.

arstechnica.com...

Also, voxel engines, which this is (just heavily modified) have been around for at least 15 years. This is far from a new technology.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

edit on 8/2/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Not sure why people keep claiming its old voxel tech
only in the comments is that suggested, and in the first minute of the video, it addresses how its not that because of the rendering cost.

So yeah, sort of confused about how people keep claiming that.

Ultimately, we will know soon enough of these people are on to something, or if its as people are stating, too good to be true...personally, I think its legit as I see almost daily how things advance and new methods of amazing tech is introduced into software...like when maxis started using basic algorithms for evolution verses endless lines of code (see Spore)

But ya, we will see...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Physics is physics. I'm not sure what you're getting at with "today's physics"... The laws of physics stent going to change any time soon (God forbid), nor are the technological challenge of emulating said physics.


Game physics...they are currently aimed at using giant blocks and are event driven...sort of the difference between our day to day physics and quantum physics in reality...very different concepts overall.

Anyhow, that is needing a tune up...if your dealing with just a single plane, you don't need to worry about sand compression under a foot, or a bullet hitting the ground and having specific particles of sand shoot off, etc...for now its just you shoot, and a bit of smoke may come along with some dot markers showing where the bullet landed



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Sux.

SCAM.

notch.tumblr.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Because it is voxel, just heavily modified.

It wont work with animations or physics with the tech we have today.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Examples of FPS

I think ultimately we need to focus on trying to make things equal to a human eye in regards to framerate and blur overall as a decent goal.

You could possibly get things going at 200fps, but why? no chance in hell the human eye can see that

I think choppy is a bad word...however, you can get a flicker effect for no smooth transition from frame to frame, even if you don't consciously see it, the mind does subconsciously register the flicker (its why you get headaches and such from watching too much tv or gaming and eventually can start hemmoraging after like 24+ hours of it)

Transition effects should be looked into more, then the FPS will almost be inconsequencial so long as it is acceptably high enough...and anything at 30+fps does a pretty good job in being high enough for unnoticable overt lag


Not trying to be an ass but the flicker is interlacing, in CRT tech they show the frame in odd and even line over and over and it creates a flicker effect, when using progressive scan as in 720p its progressive in the same way as the frame is stored in a buffer and when showed created a flip book effect, 24 fps creates the movie effect but 25 fps creates the live video effect our eyes are used to and so does any fps higher.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Hallelujah.
Battlefield is gonna be sexual if this tech is forreal.





new topics

top topics



 
170
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join