It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
170
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
This is all bull****, these people are cherry picking hardcore. They have avoided talking about all the flaws, this is nothing but a pipe dream.

None of this is new and there is a good reason why none of this caught on years ago.
The requirements for this technology makes it impractical.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Very similar if not the same thing as voxels. It was only a matter of time before the voxel took over the graphics world. Polygons are just too cumbersome for processing units. It took awhile for our GPU's to completely utilize the voxel idea and I think it is finally coming to surface. There was also a small company about 3-5 years back messing with the same technology, I wonder if they sold out? I remember part of their presentation explaining that their engine only loaded objects in view and referred to a cache to load objects as they came into view. Everything not on your screen was not being rendered. I think this might even be the same group. They have been talking about this for awhile, so I'm wondering how much weight this video and announcement hold. The other thing they have to combat is the status quo of the industry. Everything is going to have to be changed in Graphical Game design. New IDE's and development tools. New learning for current designers. Revamping of GPU's to handle this idea properly. It'll take some time, but if it is the real deal it will increase the beauty of every rendered environment. Exciting times to be a nerd!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I nerded everywhere.

In seriousness though, I can't wait to see this used in a game.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spike Spiegle
WOW!!!


This is great,i've been a gamer for over 15 years and have seen games go from 2d to 3d.

Dukenukem3d,Quake1,etc.

I can't wait to see what games are made with this tech.

Fun fact: Duke Nukem 3D had voxel technology in its updated versions, but it wasnt used (it was used in later games based on the engine). Someone made some voxel model mods for it. I believe it was also experimented with in Quakes predeccessor, Doom.
edit on 3-8-2011 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Segador
This is all bull****, these people are cherry picking hardcore. They have avoided talking about all the flaws, this is nothing but a pipe dream.

None of this is new and there is a good reason why none of this caught on years ago.
The requirements for this technology makes it impractical.



Well, could you provide us an example of these "flaws?"



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

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.


Graphics continue to get better using polygons and are realistically not at the limits. Don't get me wrong, there is a use for voxels - they are already being used in some games like Crysis to do some of the terrain and also the id tech engine 6 is rumored to use voxels, for good reason, however they also have disadvantages - animations for example are difficult to do with voxels, as is things like anti-aliasing. It may also have high hardware requirements. The best approach for the future seems to be a hybrid engine taking advantage of both.


Also pixel shading would also be used with voxels, there's no reason for it not to be.


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


But there isn't a lot of proper artists working with it because the technology also has many disadvantages which perhaps you missed.


The problem is (like many different industries these days), nobody is going to support this.

If it was good enough and ready, they would. But it isn't. Some games use a little bit of voxels, some more than others. Delta Force which came out almost a decade ago used voxels, for example. It's not some new approach that was just discovered, and this was a marketing[i/] video after all.


There is already big dollars behind the current, expensive methods of rendering.

Expensive? I highly doubt using thousands of essentially volumetric particles generated essentially real-time is more efficient than using flat polygons.


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.

And how exactly did you come to that conclusion? They seem like they would be suited to a new graphics card rather well given the compute power of them.
edit on 3/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



Do you work for nVidia or something? Tessellation is completely different to the concept presented by the OP

I don't think you understood what I was saying. The video in the OP showed a bunch of existing games that apparantly have low poly 3d models, but I don't think this is fair as tessellation improves the situation a great deal and removes the blockyness from 3d graphics.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Lol no polygons aren't dead. Just because the current technology has been developed for them for more than twenty years.

What makes a game realistic is not the model, but the material and the lighting. The only real problem are plants and particles, those are horrible. Other than that, when you are moving, you don't notice anything.

I still would like to see animations and physics with this Unlimited thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this engine is still rendered in polygons, right? I mean, GPU renders in polygons.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Spinotoror because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Seems like this tech has a few drawbacks to it that the developers are not showing. I hope this tech does work and further evolves though as I work in 3D and love gaming too.

Source "It’s a scam!"



Perhaps you’ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking “unlimited detail” rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: www.youtube.com...

Well, it is a scam.

They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That’s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic.

So obviously, it’s not made up of that many unique voxels.

In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you don’t need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine.

Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It’s possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it’s not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do.

It’s a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it’s been done several times before.

There’s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: www.youtube.com...

Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: www.youtube.com...

And there’s more: www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com...

They’re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It’s a scam. Don’t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen.

edit on 3-8-2011 by OwenGP185 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
A problem is modern day engines is that the artist would like to use more polygons, but the game engine
takes a performance hit, so there's usually a visual trade off vs performance on the base spec platform..
They claim that the engine is running 20 FPS - without physics and other game state machines ?
Also I don't see any animations done on these objects. You can bone polygon meshes and get nice animations.
Can you do this with this?.
I guess the dataset is compressed but how would they decompress it and do transforms on the data?
It just looks like any other voxel engine to me with the usual over hyping that goes behind an aggresive marketing campaign.

To be honest it doesn't look anything special to me and it is littered with over hyped claims.
I would like to see some boned animated models running as well as decent physics integration.

Limbo

EDIT

www.youtube.com...
I also read that the engine is not based on Voxels.


edit on 3-8-2011 by Limbo because: Added some contra points to my statements.

edit on 3-8-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OwenGP185
 




That is problery why they are STILL working on it and will stay silent for a period of time again right? - Read the thread?

Anyway nice stuff you posted but that could be nVidia marketing talking? - We simply cannot know for sure...



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Deebo

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Deebo
Very cool stuff.. But as far as running on a "weak" computer, you can bet that Nvidia, Ati, Intel, and all the rest will make damn sure that you will need the latest card/hardware to run a game in this detail. Kinda like cars that run on water, and the oil industry. Will put them out of business, and that wont happen. Still neat though.


Deebo

AMD or nVidia could knock out a tech demo like this "unlimited detail" stuff without breaking a sweat. Enough if the ridiculous conspiracies, if it was viable tech then the industry would have leaped on it already.


Umm okay. So I wont need to pay 400 bucks for a new card with this tech, my on-board crap video will run it, Nvidia and amd would love that. Its not a conspiracy at all.


Deebo
edit on 3-8-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)

What? Are you seriously suggesting that having to pay for hardware developments is all part of some conspiracy? Or that advancements in the field of CG are being held back by hardware manufacturers? You clearly have no idea how the industry works. This thread is rife with unsubstantiated, uninformed opinions. it's beggars belief.


New cards come out all the time, the hardcore gamer wants the newest fastest card to run their games in the highest resolution with all the eye candy turned on. With this tech, they would not need to get another card. If you want speed and graphics, you pay for it, this tech eliminates that need, therefore making Nvidia's new cards worthless in a sense. Why pay for one when you can run it all just fine with what ya got? I do know how the industry works, supply and demand, etc, this tech takes all the demand out. Wish you would understand.. Like, if Iphones were free for all of us, would you go out and buy one? If your 20 dollar prepaid phone could do all an Iphone can do and more, would you go pay 100+ for one?


Deebo



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

New cards come out all the time, the hardcore gamer wants the newest fastest card to run their games in the highest resolution with all the eye candy turned on. With this tech, they would not need to get another card. If you want speed and graphics, you pay for it, this tech eliminates that need, therefore making Nvidia's new cards worthless in a sense.

And how exactly does generating thousands of volumetric particles real-time negate the need for a fast graphics card? It reinforces it.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Please go back and read all of the thread again and also the source.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hilltaker
reply to post by OwenGP185
 




That is problery why they are STILL working on it and will stay silent for a period of time again right? - Read the thread?

Anyway nice stuff you posted but that could be nVidia marketing talking? - We simply cannot know for sure...


I agree im not myself calling this a scam, its just an article that brings up some seemingly valid points that I thought I'de share. I'm also curious as to what kind of hardware they are using, I mean if they are using powerful computers and getting around 20fps then it could be a while before this ends up at the hands of the consumers.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hilltaker
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Please go back and read all of the thread again and also the source.

Thank you.


I did. I also read several other several page threads on several other websites.

Have previous voxel based games such as Commanche 4 and Delta Force negated the need for a fast graphics card? The answer is no.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Hilltaker
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Please go back and read all of the thread again and also the source.

Thank you.


I did. I also read several other several page threads on several other websites.

Have previous voxel based games such as Commanche 4 and Delta Force negated the need for a fast graphics card? The answer is no.


Ok I get that.

However, since they are claiming, so far it is a claim, that it will not need that my guess as a professional would be that they might plan to work more with Intel and incorporate it with Intels CPU based gfx?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
This may be fake. LOOK here->

notch.tumblr.com...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
look here


It’s a scam! Perhaps you’ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking “unlimited detail” rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: www.youtube.com... Well, it is a scam. They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That’s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic. So obviously, it’s not made up of that many unique voxels. In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you don’t need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine. Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It’s possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it’s not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do. It’s a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it’s been done several times before. There’s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: www.youtube.com... Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: www.youtube.com... And there’s more: www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... They’re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It’s a scam. Don’t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen. posted 19 hours ago


This is possibly not true. please read above and go to link.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hilltaker

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by Hilltaker
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Please go back and read all of the thread again and also the source.

Thank you.


I did. I also read several other several page threads on several other websites.

Have previous voxel based games such as Commanche 4 and Delta Force negated the need for a fast graphics card? The answer is no.


Ok I get that.

However, since they are claiming, so far it is a claim, that it will not need that my guess as a professional would be that they might plan to work more with Intel and incorporate it with Intels CPU based gfx?


CPU's are pretty slow with massively parallel type stuff like graphics - what you really need is some form of hardware specifically designed to process the graphics. Modern intel processors have graphics processors processors integrated into them - however they are rather slow - designed mostly for decoding movies and not much more than windows aero. Intel was also working on a dedicated fully programmable General Purpose GPU called Larrabee but as far as I know, it was shelved.

I don't see Intel becoming a player in graphics for at least several years.
edit on 3/8/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by enament
 


I already posted this a couple of posts above mate.




top topics



 
170
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join