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

page: 5
170
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

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.


What will be required is a brand new physics engine developed for this of course.




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I never said I dismissed it.

I just presented an opposing viewpoint from another person.


I honestly don't understand the technology and the vocabulary but would appreciate it if graphic artists on this forum were able to hear two sides of one story and make the decision themselves.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I love this idea. Instead of having a crap ton of polygons that you have to track separate dimensions and xyz you will only have one polygon that has multiple points in space. This is very exciting.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
they didnt explain how they could make it smooth on regular computer , what they said is hospital are using it and stuff on graphics stations. Like somebody said before it voxel technology. And i guess the voxel count impact the perf too .
Im waiting for the sdk to go out now =) their demo look like minecraft with better graphics lol.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Nick_X
 


As for the validity of the engine, it can't be determined by graphic artist; being a 3d artist myself the main advantage of this tech is that it may eliminate the need for keeping a polygon budget during the modeling process; generally helping streamline the artist' workflow.

I didn't know who Notch was till I read every other comment on that video boasting that their favorite idol "debunked" it by making assumptions about the tech. I'm not sure if it's based off voxels, or a new approach, but we'll see soon whether or not this is the real deal.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Cool stuff, and it can be done if they really wanted to but like all things you would first have to clear the old to make way for the new.

Anyways. Making things more real is kind of overrated and if the game is not fun or has crappy game-play then it just a waste of time. Though in the vid he says that in the future games will be divided into two categories fiction and non fiction. That is wrong, or at least depending on what future your talking about, but anyways in the future games will blur the lines of what you call reality till there is no such thing as fiction or non fiction, since all will be real that you can imagine as real.

Dam I would say matrix anyone?

But we already are in the matrix, a reality we think is real, and in this reality we make countless other realities, we call fiction or games. Though the thing does not actually use atoms, it just a more efficient way of programming but when they actually can quantum lock the atoms then there wont be any need for training wheels, since all the information that ever existed and ever will, already is all around us. Were just to stuck in the programming to notice it, like all other lower vibrationals.

And so we make fictitious realities with our logic and rules that we impart on the aether of this universe, to effect our real reality in it. And so ye shall be as gods.

But forget all that # about gods, they need to make a freaking fun and cool ass game I am sick and tired of all these, lame ass games that look cool but aren't really all that fun.

# Mario 64 is still one of the best 3d game out there, and every time I play one of the newer games I always seem to think to myself. "I want jump on some goombas till they are all smashed and give me the dam mushroom" making things more real also make them more lame, because this reality to tell the truth in it's originality is pretty weird and lame.

We need to smash them goombas, there planing and plotting for world domination once again.



“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



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


i don't think voxellization type destructible environments will be that big of an issue, particularly since his model started originally with voxel technology, particularly after the destructible voxel concept came out. that's essentially what this is anyway: an advanced voxel software development kit with a google like search algorithm
edit on 3-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




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.
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.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Very cool! Were almost to the age of realism within games, just as long as everyone can remember that it's not real!
edit on 3-8-2011 by SelfSustainedLoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I can't wait until this engine is released! I remember seeing their video last year and I was drooling haha, awesome to see they're still working at it and could be ready a few months from now.

First thing I thought when I saw this technology... "@#%$@ everything I learned in 3D school is useless!! Damn."
Second thing I thought was, "maaan I can't wait to get my hands on that software!"

It's ganna be awesome, it's ganna be epic, 2012! hahaha



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I haven't really read the thread, but I hope there's at least a few people debunking this.
It's a bit of a scam, these guys have been around for ages.
The tech is slightly viable but nothing like they've made it out to be.
Do abit of research and you'll find a lot of people explaining in further detail.
Not my responsibility and don't care enough to debate this.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
the australian government is supporting them now with funds set aside for new australian technologies, to the tune of over 1 million dollars. nice start up money if you can get it, tax and interest free no less.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Super Minecraft!

Awesome thread, I hope it's as vivid as they claim, so many breakthoughs end up having to be undertweaked to be usable on things like my old rig.

Unless I like 20fps.

as opposed to 125. So as to not get motion sickness, not for jumping I might add.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
It will not kill polygons anytime soon. The thing is, that it will take then at least 2 extra years to reach the current visual level (i.e. Rage, Crysis 2 dx11, BF3) - 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 dx12 or even dx13 will be out with superb interactivity (destructible environments, dynamic tessellation, real time ray tracing and other stuff) and their 'unlimited detail' technology will look like # especially considering that in that time the polygon counts in games will increase at the very least (in about 3 years that will take to finish they software) 2x2x2=8 times (they say it doubles every year) and their unlimited detail will not look any better that the good old polygons.

Nothing to be excited about.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

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.


here's an example of an animation they did with it and apologized for the art being less than stellar



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
HOLY MOLY

Virtual reality, fleshlight, and scanned paid entertainers! Finally a revolution in technology, its been like us still usuing gasoline to power our cars.

good job!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


can you or anyone else find out if they have stock??



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Pumper
 




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
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"?
edit on 3-8-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

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 stuff
edit on 2-8-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: (no reason given)


Or you could actually click the link and read the whole article instead of just looking at the snippet then posting. That would make much more sense instead of him cutting down his snippet and it would make your post much more informed.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I would love to see this kind of technology in the next gen of gaming. I can't wait to see what designers do with this once it gets out. I can already see people getting scans of themselves to put into virtual reality, then manipulating it to make themselves look however they want lol. I wonder how long until this gets developed into a holodeck/virtual reality type thing.





new topics
top topics
 
170
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join