It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sevrens83
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.
“The Goombas have lost...Again?! Is this our destiny?! To be trampled by oppressive feet for all eternity? No, we will definitely triumph next time! Yes, next time! The Goombas' fate is not defeat, but perseverance!” —Goomboss, Super Mario 64 DS
Exactly. The guy is simply guessing. I wont get my hopes up, but I also wont call this a hoax yet. As for those people stating the atoms are like small polygons. I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
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.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
There is however some astute observations...such as the processing power for (current) physics would be huge when you even say, walked down a dirt path...would you sink down into the dirt because your "mass" is greater than the dirt, having it move aside as you step...impact physics for a footstep alone would be incredible without a base.
So ya, an entire new physics engine will need to be written for it. and that may take a few years from start to finish before its functional.
It's a modelling engine, not a physics engine, so it isn't a "major issue" or problem. A lot of games have different physics actually. It will be up to game developers to make physics engines, which may take a few years, but who cares, the graphics boost is well worth it. Why are you so attached to "good old polygons"?
as of now they can only offer unlimited geometry. By the time they sort out all the other major issues like no animation and no physics
Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by SaturnFX
Whoa whoa whoa. What is this "disappeared" note?
Seems pretty convenient to me.
Of course the "atom" approach is obvious. Nothing more than a much smaller polygon. At any rate, wouldn't the real technological breakthrough be the hardware/ software needed to render these objects? Seems to me that it would take a massive amount of processing power to be able to do this.
ETA: I don't know what the freak-out about scanning is all about. We've been doing this for a long time now. The technology is readily available.edit on 2-8-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: (no reason given)
ETA2: I see. Popular Science would be a reputable source in my mind. Seems to me your snippet cut off at an inopportune time, leaving me with a false impression. I suggest editing it to remove that last sentence or adding a little more content. Cool stuffedit on 2-8-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: (no reason given)