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 free_form'
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: stuffedit on 2-8-2011 by free_form because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by Akasirus
I think most people can grasp the physical limitations of rendering a crap ton of voxels. What if the developers found a way to only track and render the voxels that you are looking at? Also, at a great distance away you would need less voxels, just scale them up or down based on your distance. Maybe they found a shortcut to reduce the hardware requirements. Maybe they only track a limited number of voxels and predict the rest based on previously rendered voxels?
I personally have no experience in 3d rendering and voxels are new to me.
The described technology is definitely not possible and I am 100% sure this is a hoax. The average joe is just not able to realize it.
Unlimited Detail eschews the usual polygon shape construction for a point-cloud construction for his virtual environments. But an infinite number of 3-D atoms would require an infinite amount of computing power to render. Even a small number of detailed point-cloud objects would require tons of computational wherewithal.
Originally posted by BIGPoJo
This thread reminds me of the old sprites are better than polygon debate because its not practical for consumers to render such objects. Back in the day we could put up more sprites than polygons, just saying.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
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
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Pumper
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
edit on 3-8-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)