open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked No Polygon LIMIT (GAME CHANGER - LITERALLY)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

igRaVeN
Amarr
Drunken Wookies
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:18:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: igRaVeN on 02/08/2011 01:20:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4


Lithalnas
Amarr
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:26:00 - [2]
 

this is one of those "wait and see" things. The methodology is sound, the problem is probably implementation.

Darveses
Fantastulousification Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:27:00 - [3]
 

Thats quite amazing - will be interesting to see how it plays out, and what kind of rig you need to run it.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:32:00 - [4]
 

Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.

Ill see it when I believe it in front of me on my own screen.

Here's to hoping though.

Sarah DeMerchant
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:34:00 - [5]
 

This technology could make the Incarna door look amazing.


On a serious note, it all depends on cost to implement vs. income potential. Some things are great in theory, but too impractical to actually make real. We'll see where they go from here and if the hardware is able to catch up and stay ahead of the software.

Digital Messiah
Gallente
N7 Corporation
PandaMonium.
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:50:00 - [6]
 

How does it get the data to build all these objects? And how big is each models file size?

VAsh Ozuwara
Posted - 2011.08.02 01:58:00 - [7]
 

this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.

point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.

sometimes its good to sit back and question why Wink


igRaVeN
Amarr
Drunken Wookies
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:04:00 - [8]
 


Andr Katelo
Caldari
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:05:00 - [9]
 

Its all nice looking, but its static.

I want to see it in motion, with physics and movement. If it cant do those, interaction with environment is impossible and therefor this is completely useless to the current gaming industry.

VAsh Ozuwara
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:12:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Andr Katelo
Its all nice looking, but its static.

I want to see it in motion, with physics and movement. If it cant do those, interaction with environment is impossible and therefor this is completely useless to the current gaming industry.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlMCToxlt1c

from march last year. note how ****ty the frame rate and rendering is in real time with minimal panning motion.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:15:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15
bah,

thats like saying a recording of a professional studio trumpet player on a modern digital device is better than a recording on a primative device of Louis Armstrong jamming.

Content is king. The resolution is a very very very very low priortiy for me...

In fact lower resolution can have better artistry than higher resolution at times... at least its largely irrelevant.

Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.

A sharper resolution medium isn't going to bring us a better game... probably will even distract from the real focus in many cases.

A mmo is very much a work of art.. maybe more like a movie.. but still its a creatively inspired environment with reaction of viewers minda a major element.

JC Ferguson
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:27:00 - [12]
 

Looks great. Melts any PC not a supercomputer. 15-20 years from now games will be like that (if the global economy doesn't crash and burn before then) but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.

tl;dr It's a lot easier to program ultra hardware-intensive crap than to make the hardware that can run it.

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:34:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: JC Ferguson
but for now I'm happy with my Internet Spaceships.




Oh...

The irony

Chopper Rollins
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:30:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15
Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a painting holds no water.



Before them, the perfection of the image (in purely technical terms) was what art was seen as being all about. Those Roman ststues were painted in an attempt to make them seem real, not clever representations.
Along came the camera and wrecked that for painters. They had nowhere to go but abstraction or some version of it. The immediate reaction was that Impressionism was degenerate garbage, remember?
I read about a series of panels drawn on an altar where halfway through the series, the artist had been shown how to draw with perspective, different from that mediaeval flatness before it. The artist didn't go back and modify the previous panels though, nor did he sign his work. Technical improvements push everything else aside.

So yeah, resolution isn't a big deal, but we're in the earliest days here, of immersion in entertainment that will be indistinguishable from 'real life', ho ho. Total immersion was predicted in the 80's, as many things were, but since then people have lost their expectations.

tl;dr for livestock: gamers won't often refuse more or better anything.


Jada Maroo
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:54:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jada Maroo on 02/08/2011 04:14:36
This is a method I've been thinking about for years, after remembering some of the old voxel games (like the Commanche series).

I wasn't aware of this project, but about a year back I did some google searches on voxels and why they weren't used in games. Now, that was voxels, which are similar but I suspect very different than what's used in the linked demo, but some of the problems might be the same.

Some of the problems mentioned were real time shadows (the demo briefly mentions shadows but doesn't say whether they are real time or pre rendered), real time lighting (same deal), and collistion detection. You would almost have to have an undrawn polygon wrap around the collideable objects else you'd have horrendously complex collision detection. You can imagine a character running around and the hardware having to determine how it interacts with each grain of dirt and how that would be handles via physics too - very difficult. I also didn't see anything moving in that demo.

But there are huge benefits if they can overcome those hurdles. You can imagine the effects on item destruction. Shoot a wall with a machine gun and chew it away bit by bit or with a rocket launcher and blow a hole through it realistically. You could also have different physical properties depending on the type of material. That is, the "atoms" that make up a wooden wall when shot at would react differently than the atoms that make up a metal wall. One would shatter apart, the other would bend and rupture. The artist could set the kind of material used as an item property and the atoms would have a different level of cohesion and mass. Same for fluids and viscosity.

I hope this company has managed a way to overcome all the problems. I'd love to see cames go this direction. It would be great for games like Eve where art wouldn't have to be updated continuously to live up to modern standards.

Oberine Noriepa
Posted - 2011.08.02 03:59:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Oberine Noriepa on 02/08/2011 04:02:57
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara
this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.

point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.

sometimes its good to sit back and question why Wink



Incorrect. Point cloud rendering is used in a lot of high-end CG production. The main reason as to why you don't see this kind of tech used in the gaming industry is because most if not all rendering engines are polygon based. Implementing point cloud rendering would require some extensive effort for implementation or rewriting. There are also other elements to deal with, such as animation, lighting, and physics.

VAsh Ozuwara
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:09:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Oberine Noriepa
Edited by: Oberine Noriepa on 02/08/2011 04:02:57
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara
this is from like 2 years ago even if it was reposed in april.

point cloud, voxles. people keep talking them up but no one uses it.

sometimes its good to sit back and question why Wink



Incorrect. Point cloud rendering is used in a lot of high-end CG production. The main reason as to why you don't see this kind of tech used in the gaming industry is because most if not all rendering engines are polygon based. Implementing point cloud rendering would require some extensive effort for implementation or rewriting. There are also other elements to deal with, such as animation, lighting, and physics.


sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.

Magnus Veyr
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:20:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara
sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.


That's a problem of inertia; people needing to be convinced that their "NEED MOAR POLYS" mantra may actually be wrong, perhaps even a shift of focus in video cards.

I'm very excited to see what they can come up with.

Iggy Stooge
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:35:00 - [19]
 

You call this a Game Changer, it isn't. All it would change is how games look, but the games would remain the same old stuff. I'd be more impressed if game companies showed some imagination in gameplay, rather than rehashing the FPS/RPG/tank-healer-mage cliches.

VAsh Ozuwara
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:49:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Magnus Veyr
Originally by: VAsh Ozuwara
sorry i was referring to games, and the fact they dont do well in the requirements for them.


That's a problem of inertia; people needing to be convinced that their "NEED MOAR POLYS" mantra may actually be wrong, perhaps even a shift of focus in video cards.

I'm very excited to see what they can come up with.


scalability > detail.

polygons have been developed over the past 20 years to a point that they can give a great visual representation and can still scale well to different hardware capabilities. these point clouds need more computation power just to render static. if you bothered to watch the demo from last year i linked you will see why this really is not viable for real time rendering, not yet at least.

i dont mind the guy trying to be innovative, but he is literally trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to games.

Naran Eto
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:54:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Chopper Rollins
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
Edited by: Diomedes Calypso on 02/08/2011 02:16:15
Monet and Manet , and Serat moved away from the more realistic style of a Rembrant or Vemeers. And saying a photograph is better art than a painting holds no water.



Before them, the perfection of the image (in purely technical terms) was what art was seen as being all about. Those Roman ststues were painted in an attempt to make them seem real, not clever representations.
Along came the camera and wrecked that for painters. They had nowhere to go but abstraction or some version of it. The immediate reaction was that Impressionism was degenerate garbage, remember?
I read about a series of panels drawn on an altar where halfway through the series, the artist had been shown how to draw with perspective, different from that mediaeval flatness before it. The artist didn't go back and modify the previous panels though, nor did he sign his work. Technical improvements push everything else aside.

So yeah, resolution isn't a big deal, but we're in the earliest days here, of immersion in entertainment that will be indistinguishable from 'real life', ho ho. Total immersion was predicted in the 80's, as many things were, but since then people have lost their expectations.

tl;dr for livestock: gamers won't often refuse more or better anything.




I wouldn't say "better", i would more say "realistic" and it's been proven time and again that realistic is not always better, just look at minecraft, that has a huge following and is a aimple block game, yet there are thousands of people clammering to play it and it's not even finnished development.

Quality of gameplay over realism for me any day.

Zagdul
Gallente
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:59:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Zagdul on 02/08/2011 07:59:12
Originally by: Jada Maroo
Edited by: Jada Maroo on 02/08/2011 04:14:36
This is a method I've been thinking about for years, after remembering some of the old voxel games (like the Commanche series).

I wasn't aware of this project, but about a year back I did some google searches on voxels and why they weren't used in games. Now, that was voxels, which are similar but I suspect very different than what's used in the linked demo, but some of the problems might be the same.

Some of the problems mentioned were real time shadows (the demo briefly mentions shadows but doesn't say whether they are real time or pre rendered), real time lighting (same deal), and collistion detection. You would almost have to have an undrawn polygon wrap around the collideable objects else you'd have horrendously complex collision detection. You can imagine a character running around and the hardware having to determine how it interacts with each grain of dirt and how that would be handles via physics too - very difficult. I also didn't see anything moving in that demo.

But there are huge benefits if they can overcome those hurdles. You can imagine the effects on item destruction. Shoot a wall with a machine gun and chew it away bit by bit or with a rocket launcher and blow a hole through it realistically. You could also have different physical properties depending on the type of material. That is, the "atoms" that make up a wooden wall when shot at would react differently than the atoms that make up a metal wall. One would shatter apart, the other would bend and rupture. The artist could set the kind of material used as an item property and the atoms would have a different level of cohesion and mass. Same for fluids and viscosity.

I hope this company has managed a way to overcome all the problems. I'd love to see cames go this direction. It would be great for games like Eve where art wouldn't have to be updated continuously to live up to modern standards.
+1

I look forward to seeing where this tech goes.

A company looking to release a SDK means that they're far from an actual release of a demo or game. Just proof of concept type thing which could potentially get them funding and raise the eyebrows of hardware developers to start catering to their ideas instead of polygon calculations for physic engine development.



Ciar Meara
Amarr
Virtus Vindice
Posted - 2011.08.02 07:59:00 - [23]
 

Interesting technology, if they are able to to animation as well as they claim I don't see how firms won't be wanting to use this tech.

Naran Eto
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:05:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: igRaVeN
Edited by: igRaVeN on 02/08/2011 01:20:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4




Looks pretty good but as he says himself in the video running 4 or 5 objects will run fine but it's in no way going to be able to run as a game, we need to wait for hardware to catch up with the software before this can happen.

More importantly, why is he trying to do a poor impression off Lloyd Grossman?

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:12:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Did say unlimited but on what hardware? We could have more polygons as is...just requires 32 gigs of ram and 4 enterprise type VGAs.
They said it was all done in SOFTWARE, not hardware.

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Ill see it when I believe it in front of me on my own screen.

Me too.


I think there are two big problems: 1) Good lightning and 2) Animations

If they can overcome those solutions, then they have won :-)

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:19:00 - [26]
 

As someone who's used Maya in the past but was frustrated over how limited I was in what I could make, I am seriously looking forward to this, thanks for the link! :)

dexington
Caldari
Baconoration
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:51:00 - [27]
 

At the moment no one knows if the technology is real, they have only released two videos which really don't prove anything. It would not be the first time some new great technology turn out to be a scam, i'll not expect it used in games before they produce are a more convincing demonstration.

Naran Eto
Posted - 2011.08.02 08:57:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: dexington
At the moment no one knows if the technology is real, they have only released two videos which really don't prove anything. It would not be the first time some new great technology turn out to be a scam, i'll not expect it used in games before they produce are a more convincing demonstration.


I don't think it's a scam as such, more likely wishful or very forward thinking thinking from the developer, it can be done, and has been done for years, just take a look at CGI films, they use 500 times more polygons than a game already, the problem here is that the software may be able to do it, but to actually put it into a gaming environment will mean the end user would have to have some meaty hardware just to process it.

RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:09:00 - [29]
 

minecraft FTW

Nemesis Factor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:16:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Naran Eto

I wouldn't say "better", i would more say "realistic" and it's been proven time and again that realistic is not always better, just look at minecraft, that has a huge following and is a aimple block game, yet there are thousands of people clammering to play it and it's not even finnished development.

Quality of gameplay over realism for me any day.


That's the correct conclusion but your example is far from evidence. In my mind Minecraft is enjoyed and loved by many in SPITE of it's graphical drawbacks. Sure it has it's charm, but what percentage of the playerbase would be upset if the graphics could be scaled up to modern FPS levels?

Increased fidelity is never a bad thing, it just isn't a necessary component for a good game.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only