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

page: 4
170
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I'm not really that impressed. Tessellation is already being used in many modern games if you have a quick direct x 11 capable graphics card - which practically eliminates the blockiness inherit to using polygons. Semi-dynamic destructable environments already exist as well and are getting much better with physics engines running on the GPU.

The nvidia rocket sled demo demonstrates this, and it runs fantastic on existing hardware (very smooth on my GTX 570 OC @ 1920*1080).





3d mark 11 also runs smoothly at 1280*720 on my 3 year old overclocked quad core (worth about $120) and GTX 570 $350)



It might be promising at all, but it's certainly not ground-breaking new technology that's vastly better than what we're already doing.
edit on 2/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
I'm not really that impressed. Tessellation is already being used in many modern games if you have a quick direct x 11 capable graphics card - which practically eliminates the blockiness inherit to using polygons. Semi-dynamic destructable environments already exist as well and are getting much better with physics engines running on the GPU.

The nvidia rocket sled demo demonstrates this, and it runs fantastic on existing hardware (very smooth on my GTX 570 OC @ 1920*1080).





3d mark 11 also runs smoothly at 1280*720 on my 3 year old overclocked quad core (worth about $120) and GTX 570 $350)



It might be promising at all, but it's certainly not ground-breaking new technology that's vastly better than what we're already doing.
edit on 2/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)


Things like Tesselation, pixel shading, etc., it's basically the equivalent of putting make-up on an ugly girl. I think it's time for us to ditch polygon rendering. We're really reaching the technological limits that the whole pixel schema allows for.

If you had some proper artists working with voxel rendering, the results would be far better than current techniques.

The problem is (like many different industries these days), nobody is going to support this. There is already big dollars behind the current, expensive methods of rendering. Nobody is going to buy into voxel rendering, because it would mean profit losses for so many different industries - for example, graphics processing hardware would become nearly worthless, and that's obviously a huge profit loss for companies like say, Nvidia.

Shame.
edit on 2-8-2011 by free_form because: stuff
edit on 2-8-2011 by free_form because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
You were right about the NERDGASM part...I think I need to go change underwear...

I can't wait to see this implemented in video games /drool....



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Ive always imagined this.

Imagine creating a computer with the graphic elements shown in this thread.
you first create an atom and then apply properties to that atom. you then create an infinate amount of these. you then insert specific codes, numbers and laws into the programme. click on "start" and the atoms spead out in the graphic universe following the codes and laws which have neen input.

Sound familiar?



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Thought you might find this interesting.Not sure if its an angry developer or not?

notch.tumblr.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
So instead of polygons...things are made of little atoms, or spheres...which are polygons.


And how would this not take up massive computing power? If it was "unlimited power" then why did he say they ran it at 20fps? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Realistic graphics don't make a game good either. Art > graphics.


Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by countduckula24
I'm fairly techno-illiterate when it comes to the concept of graphics. However this sounds really cool, so thank you very much for sharing. I am reading the article now and will watch the video later, as I am at work at the moment. From what you've indicated it sounds like video games, and hopefully other applications, are about to get completely revolutionized.


More or less, yes.

If your a gamer, this is going to knock your socks off X 1000


Hmm...no. Tessalation, yes.
edit on 2-8-2011 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I dont know why everyone is making such a big deal about this engine, I remember watching the first videos for it when It was announced,

A month or two ago I found out about the Atomontage engine, which is far superior voxel based renderer, and created by one guy. It blew me away and the more I learned about it the more I could immediately see it has far greater potential.

www.atomontage.com...

They didnt even start tossing the word atoms around with Unlimited Detail untill the developers seen this Atomontage engine. The voxels with Automontage can hold information such as weight, conductance, gravity, chemical properties, ect. Making them like atoms. The engine is more efficient in every regard.

Unlimited Detail at this point is just rendering. And not very well at that.

Some videoes of it in action it since seems to not want to correctly embed the youtube videos.

www.atomontage.com...
edit on 2-8-2011 by EnigmaticDill because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 




I'm not really that impressed. Tessellation is already being used in many modern games if you have a quick direct x 11 capable graphics card - which practically eliminates the blockiness inherit to using polygons.
Do you work for nVidia or something? Tessellation is completely different to the concept presented by the OP. This is actually building virtual objects from tiny "atoms", something that is usually not possible due to the processing power that would require. These guys claim to have invented a way of getting around that problem. However I am still questioning whether their claims are real or not, because the implications are quite huge. I hope they aren't lying. I can't really see why they would.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Don't know why they would lie? Well I don't know, maybe because they are the company making this. Tessellation isn't exclusively Nvidia or anything, both AMD and Nvidia's recent cards have improved tessellation performance pretty drastically.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stAtrill
 





You can scan in things and it will look exactly like what you scanned in with no poly count consideration...it runs on even a weak computer and makes all things smooth and breathtaking...not to mention the ability to use the new infinate geometry in practical environmental settings (dust storm is literal bits of sand picked up randomly from the scene, could even to proper destruction.


Bull Crap

Also its not infinite Quality. That is a deception.

And Also your gonna need a Darn good system to run this.

Its not gonna run on Weak Computer like you say.

As he said the hard ware needs to catch up this stuff has been around for a while.

The Hard ware just wasn't powerful enough for it.

Read this.

The Technology has been around for a while the Hardware is just catching up now to make this kind of graphics possible.

This man who claims to have invented it in the OP is only exploiting others ideas.



This looks to be nothing more than a reincarnation of the voxel idea, which (for those of you who have been coding long enough) remember preceded polygonal modeling. It is a very cool idea, dont get me wrong, but those of us who have been doing this a while already knew that voxels would overtake polygons eventually, the hardware just had to catch up.


You're thread OP runs under the false-pretense that this man invented the Idea.
edit on 2-8-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Wow.

I wonder how this will look on my spiffy Voodoo 2 card and my super fast 400mhz slot 1 proc!

WHOOOOOOOA NEEEEEELLY!

Man! I cant wait to crank up my 2800 baud modem and tell the guys on the BBS about the results LOL!



But seriously,

I heard of a scientist about 15 years ago that had a couple of books out discussing the future of PC's including AI. It sounded facinating. This cat had been around for about 20 years at the time. It wasnt Moore.

If what we have is old "hand me down" tech from DARPA, can you imagine the capabilities of a "real" computer?

A friend in the tech sector told me about that same time he had been to a "insiders" tech show. He was telling me about some weird tech that stored data on some sort of "crystal" based storage. VAST amounts that even now make a terrabyte seem small....and they were stable and "safe" from mechanical failure.

mind boggling comes to mind.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


LOL I love the right side up and upside down pyramids they showed.

pandering to anyone or any organization?

OH Nvidia you must be jealous or should I say envious (Envidia = goddess of envy)
edit on 2-8-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

EuclideonOfficial signed up barely 3 days ago, yet from his two videos alone, he has already gotten over 11,398 subscribers...oh wait, let me refresh...now it says 11,407. It went up by 9 in a 15 second period.

The applications of this technology are endless. You think WoW addicts are bad? Just wait until we enter the "pre-Star Trek" era where we are one step away from holograms using virtual technology to propel ourselves into this incredibly detailed world.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Curmudgeon report...

Advanced CGI has ruined the movies, and now it's ruining video games. I think Banjo Kazooie is the pinnacle of video gaming.
edit on 2-8-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Realistic destruction is still a no go. Also, it doesn't run on weak computers... he gets a pretty low frame rate on the computer he is demoing it on... and even says the frame rate is still pretty rough and that they have advanced versions that have better lighting models that weren't ready to show yet because they aren't finished and also have low frame rates.....

Realistic destruction is a no go because there would still have to be a separate physics engine. Remember these different "game atoms" need to have different physical properties to them like real atoms. I.E. A wooden table would be made up of millions of atoms... in which, when they fuse they need to act like wood. That means the cpu would have to track the physical interaction between millions of digital atomic particles vs a couple hundred polygons which are then grouped into a low amount of "hitboxes" which in props can be as low as 1...

In reality, rag doll physics will be about the same, but destruction is going to end up being harder to do if attempting to do it off of any modern physics engine of today and trying to scale it to millions and billions of atoms. These guys didn't make an unlimited detail physics engine to go with it... In the end, the physics will be identical to now... they will have atoms grouped into hit boxes and do canned animations out of the atoms like normal physics now.

Ya dig? Clipping is fundamentally a different problem separate from rendering techniques. This isn't going to help cgi either... At all. Every art asset in the engine that runs on atoms is still built in polygons... The engine converts it to atoms.

They would need to make a different renderer for suites like maya and 3dsmax that converts all assets upon completion into atoms before animation in order for that to improve CGI. It probably still won't help CGI too much anyhow... since this has nothing to do with texture constraints. All it would do is marginally speed up the render time. Something that used to take 5 weeks to render might only take 2 now.... This would largely depend on the efficiency of the version built for the suites though.....
edit on 2-8-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



I wouldnt write it off just yet though.

Its a start toward a new tech. Gotta start somewhere.


Even the oaks come from a tiny seed.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Companies who buy this SDK will be SEVERELY disappointed. Development time will sky rocket and costs will increase.

What they failed to do in their demonstration is including animations, movement, effects, etc. Drawing the atoms is one thing, but all the calculations that need to occur between frames is another thing. I don't see this being as successful as they expect it..... unless they expect us to spend thousands of dollars on video cards.

Cool concept though, give them props.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
This is apparently not real at all and a scam and has been debunked here:

Notch Debunking of Unlimitedness



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


This is really cool tech, but "zpool"? Really? You'd trust ZFS? You must be a Sun legacy guy...LOL.

Seriously though, zpool is cool, it's easy, but it's too buggy.

Thanks, Nick_X, I guess this tech isn't that cool...LOL

edit on 2-8-2011 by navy_vet_stg3 because: Edited after seeing Nick's post above.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Weird...
I have posted stories about how they can remove and add memories now, have been able to create literal zombies (rage virus invented and tested in rats), etc...yet this is the thing that hits the front page..

Either ATS has some serious gamers, or people are suckers for the "Alert" message....bah...its great, but hardly as cool as some of the other crap I have reported on lately...


Anyhow

Yes, I know about the guy on tumblr says...he doesn't believe it and demands it must be voxel tech...thing is, he is guessing what it probably is, then talking about the problems associated with the older tech. Obviously the claim here is that, -its not that-...and if you would watch the first minute of the video, that was addressed as a issue with the old voxel tech, hense why its impractical.

nevermind, just keep chirping and rehashing what the one minecraft (I make everything look like 1994) dude...this is the same guy that is jealous about secondlife and others doing a million times better than him...

He can't imagine it, much less do it, therefore he is screaming that it has to be fake...whatever...he may be right in the end, but he offers nothing but his skeptical opinion based on "it can't happen" standing...and people like that are pretty much universally fired from proper industry programming...shortsightedness and opinions on what cannot be done is not very desirable in the gaming industry...hense why he is a indie developer still to this day developing games that look like its straight out of the early 90s.

Portal was a indie game..mod really to begin with that was demonstrated on how to advance physics in games that caught a lot of people off guard.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nick_X
This is apparently not real at all and a scam and has been debunked here:

Notch Debunking of Unlimitedness


-yawn-

Yes, some guy said it can't be true, therefore its not true.

I read the article, and every page so far, there has been at least 3 or so posts pointing to that guys opinion piece.

Its debunked by that guy in saying that it hasn't been done before, sure...and the claim is not that this tech is 15 year old tech that is being pushed...nevermind...just, lets go with what notch says verses any actual listening on the claims and understanding of the presentation laid out. Simplier to dismiss without thinking about it





top topics
 
170
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join