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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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...

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.

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.

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...

Hallelujah.
Battlefield is gonna be sexual if this tech is forreal.