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

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:26:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: RaTTuS
minecraft FTW


Oh god yes, they could do minecraft really detailed with this sort of technology :D

Naran Eto
Posted - 2011.08.02 09:54:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Originally by: RaTTuS
minecraft FTW


Oh god yes, they could do minecraft really detailed with this sort of technology :D


But would it have the same charm as it does now?

There's something about the simplicity of the graphics in minecraft that kind of draws you in, it's hard to explain.

And to the guy who said that if the graphics were updated people wouldn't complain, yes you're right they wouldn't, but more realistic graphics wouldn't make it a better game, it would just make it more pleasing to the eye. i would take a game with terrible graphics and great gameplay over a game with awesome graphics and terrible gameplay any day of the week.

Barbelo Valentinian
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.08.02 10:30:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Barbelo Valentinian on 02/08/2011 10:30:54
I agree about the point re. art, but at the same time photorealism has to be "done" too, there is obviously a want for it (otherwise developers wouldn't be progressing it, and almost sacrificing gameplay in the pursuit).

I should think a majority of people would like to play games that look exactly like real life, but for the addition of things that don't exist in real life (dragons, "Magic", s-f paraphernalia, etc.).

Tech looks very interesting - but it's not totally new is it? Isn't it just a new, clever way of doing voxels (and, shrewdly, having them imitate polygons, because that's what artists and modellers are used to)?

There was a great game from a few years ago called Outcast, which showed something of the potential of voxels - a whole, alien world which, at the time, was pretty impressive in its scale and depth. Unfortunately, like many other good games at the time, it was overlooked because of the (then) new Quake/Voodoo revolution.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.02 13:27:00 - [34]
 

Frankly, I would like it better if someone figured a way to use procedural membranes rather than polygons or voxels, specially for organic characters. Membranes would make it way easier to render clothing and skin...

GavinCapacitor
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:10:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
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.


Literally reta rded.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:10:00 - [36]
 

It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..

Basically, folks want more proof.


Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:36:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..

Basically, folks want more proof.



Indeed, once they can show that system with animated objects I will become a believer.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:45:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Iggy Stooge
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.

Aren't game environments, especially if they are destructible, limited by the polygon count? Removing those limits would probably aid in creating better, more varied gameplay.

Brit Green
Posted - 2011.08.02 14:52:00 - [39]
 

I thought that was a great tech demo and will follow the technology with interest. The luddites in this thread should just smash their computers and go back to playing board games.

Naradius
DEATHFUNK
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:04:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: GavinCapacitor
Originally by: Gnulpie
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.


Literally reta rded.


This...all software has a hardware overhead.

Also, this is vaporware.

Also, also - gameplay and story telling beat graphics beauty hands down...this is why "Toy Story" was more popular than "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", for example.

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.08.02 15:17:00 - [41]
 

i believe it when i can run a techdemo on my machine, rather than watching a prerendered video.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:02:00 - [42]
 

I just found something that may interest you guys, I'm not as enthusiastic anymore :( as long as they put out some proof though I'd be sold, Notch put this post in this blog about this video.

Notch argument

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:13:00 - [43]
 

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




Oh...

The irony


Laughing

Uninhabited
Caldari
Apocalypse Now.
Posted - 2011.08.02 17:47:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Uninhabited on 02/08/2011 17:50:11
Edited by: Uninhabited on 02/08/2011 17:49:17
l'll give you my target weld when you take it from my cold, dead hands

cold and DEAD

that goes for array, bevel, bridge, chamfer, loop, connect and turbosmooth!!!

Bienator II
Posted - 2011.08.02 18:00:00 - [45]
 

nothing revolutionary in it. Its an instanced voxel engine. Just press stop if they show the ground -> they are only a handfull of different grass or stone shapes. It is impossible to load more voxel based shapes into mem since there is simply not enough of it.

Even the id tech 5 engine is far more impressive since it allows at least unique looking textures on *current* hardware.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/02/notch-vs-unlimited-detail/

Toanfoal
Posted - 2011.08.02 18:07:00 - [46]
 

From Notch:

"Itís a scam!

Perhaps youíve seen the videos about some groundbreaking ďunlimited detailĒ rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

Well, it is a scam.

They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. Thatís cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Letís 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, itís 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 donít 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. Itís 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 itís not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do.

Itís a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but theyíre carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and theyíre pretending like what theyíre doing is something new and impressive. In reality, itís been done several times before.

Thereís the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y

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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw

And thereís more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc

Theyíre hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. Itís a scam. Donít get excited.

Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen."

Tzarkan Tzeench
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:27:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Tzarkan Tzeench on 02/08/2011 19:29:54
Originally by: Iggy Stooge
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.

two words: destructible environment.

imagine putting a row of bullet holes through a plank of wood in a shooter like BFBC2. currently the wood just "shatters" in a predetermined pattern, but with this system the bullets could "destroy" specific "molecules" of the wood, and leave persistent bullet holes through the object in an infinite number of ways. this in turn could be tied to some sore of structural integrity system, and once it is compromised the physics engine breaks it in a realistic and complex(and probably 100% unique) way. this allows the realistic destruction of environment, instead of the prescripted stuff current destruction uses.

edit: damn should have finished the thread before posting.

Trini Soren
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:39:00 - [48]
 

Hi

I'm new and don't know what things looked like before. But when I am in my cabin thing and I look at myself, I look pretty darn realistic. So I guess what I'm thinking is that things are fine like they are. No need to up the polygon count or whatever.

Rasz Lin
Caldari
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:48:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: stoicfaux
It's being discussed on slashdot and folks are skeptical due to no animation, they're using other people's research (sparse tree voxels,) etc..

Basically, folks want more proof.



Indeed, once they can show that system with animated objects I will become a believer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qkne-EOG8

he has a second vid with small game, car driving around leaving tire marks

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:48:00 - [50]
 

What Notch thinks

I don't know what to think, however.

Ammzi
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:52:00 - [51]
 

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




Oh...

The irony


Laughing


I laughed out loud ... very loud.

Gallente Citizen 86639136
Posted - 2011.08.02 19:55:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.




I'm going to agree with everything you said except that bit. Photography is a better art form than paiting

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.08.02 20:07:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Gallente Citizen 86639136
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
And saying a photograph is better art than a paiting holds no water.




I'm going to agree with everything you said except that bit. Photography is a better art form than paiting


Yeah lol I'm a terrible speller , terrible typist, and my non-linear way of thinking relating one complex concept to a corralary concept often leads to some strained grammar and rethinking of directions I'm going mid sentence.

...

Back to the subject...

I DO want progress with programming.. but the stuff I'd year for would be AI in a more verbal sense perhaps, and the ablity to maybe even talk with npcs using your voice eventually (Not a game priority of mine, but I think it would be sort of exciting to me the way people seem excited about better rendering)

I'd also love to be able to control the facial emotions , gaits , gestures etc of our Eve avatars. I'd prefer a cartoon that could wink and frown without just a packaged /emote..

In the characte editor , while trying to take a snap shot of a character their pupils contract and facial muscles make subtle changes giving shifts between wry smiles, impatience, disdain, boredom etc. Certainly some emotes in many games incorporate those sorts of things.. but again packaged.

It would take a heck of a lot of creativity to come up with a easily managable UI to quickly do that sort of thing on the fly...what would be really cool is is you could control the avatars expressions by having them mirror facial expressions you make sitting in front of the computer.

Xirin
Posted - 2011.08.02 20:25:00 - [54]
 

I don't see this panning out in the near future...I mean, eve can't even get polygon collision working (everythign's an oval or sphere). I seem to recall the reason was "less computing power needed server(or was it client...)-side for spheres." Now imagine what they'd say if we said we wanted collision mechanics based on the radius of little spheres at a density of several thosuand per cubic millimetre...

Architects and engineers might purchase it though, if they can get a physics engine to run in real-time with all those little specks (lol good luck). Anyone who knows anything about CFD or FEM will understand why that kind of sounds absurd.

Barbelo Valentinian
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.08.04 00:03:00 - [55]
 

Thought people might be interested that Carmack has weighed in on this, on Twitter:-

Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.

I vaguely recall that Carmack has long been interested in the potential of voxels, and there's a little bit of voxel tech in the Rage engine IIRC.

Gwenywell Shumuku
Posted - 2011.08.04 01:19:00 - [56]
 

Stop hyping this...its not new, its not doable on todays hardware, and its not even fully done yet (no animation, no water, no lighting, no real shadows yet, bad performance even on static content, games we play today would need petabytes...).
They talk about 2-3 months...we will see. They didn't make much progress in 1 year, still the same stuff.


Mspaine
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:36:00 - [57]
 

Am i the only one who needs a change of pants?

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:58:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Mspaine
Am i the only one who needs a change of pants?


Nah. What I saw was impressive for a static image with lots of repetitious art and shapes. I'm not saying what they propose and have developed isn't impressive but, I have my doubts.

If you looked at the rendering we had dynamics of perspective. I.E. You're POV moves and the image changes. However, the sky, water, even the grains of dirt stayed in one place. Why didn't we have changing skies or waves rippling across the water? Could it be that animating billions of particles times however large your play map is might be a bit....um.....processor intensive?

Even though they addressed the lackluster artistry of their scenery you'd think a technology company would be eager to hire an artist to make their creation shine. But, no, from the sounds of their narration they want the gaming industry adapt the technology and make it shine. *shrugs* IDK.


Ghoest
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:45:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Ghoest on 04/08/2011 05:46:13
This is all very silly.

Who cares if you have a system that can make use of a fantastic number of data points?

Creating and storing the data points is ultimately much much harder and more important.

Reeno Coleman
Posted - 2011.08.04 06:57:00 - [60]
 

They are frauds.

Computer graphics is more than just a polygon mesh or point cloud. Artists need light, shadow and transparency, animation and physics, fog, depth of field, a particle system, etc, etc. Infinite Detail just has colored dots with badly working hacked shadow maps.

And by the way, they can only make it run on their machines, because the data is for a big part procedurally generated (that's why their island looks like minecraft) and not real unique architecture.

They have been looking for big game investors (Nvidia, Intel, AMD and the like) for three years now, but everyone is just laughing at them; which is not surprising at all, 'cause they are just taking existing technology for scientific visualization and trying to sell it as their idea of a game engine.

Bleh, shameful company!


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