|
I stumbled on a youtube video today and I was really impressed by what they explained and how they explained it. My knowledge of the subject is very limited and I'd like to know if I'm getting fooled or if this really is the future of graphics in games.
+ Show Spoiler [youtube vid] +
What they say in the youtube video is that game graphics are made of polygons, lots and lots of them. The more they have, the better the quality. The people of this little company have discovered a way to use 'atoms' instead of polygons making game-environments way smoother and prettier. Normally this would use too much cpu, but apparently they found a way around that. A year ago they came with this idea and it was seen as a hoax, but seeing that they returned with it this year, is it actually true?
I think it would be a big step in videogaming if we could make our graphics as realistic at that, especially for shooter games as CoD and Crysis. I don't really see other type of games (perhaps racing games) use that kind of graphics.
What I don't understand though, is how they can 'import' rocks/cacti from reality. Do they just scan and figure out where the atoms are to recreate it in their simulation? It looked really impressive though.
official site
|
|
|
the problem with this is they cant render it in real time, or animate for that matter.
|
It looks awesome. But everything in the demonstration was standing still. Wouldn't it tax the hardware a lot more when you try to animate stuff? I don't know too much about it myself, but I would imagine that rendering still objects are much easier than when they are moving.
|
If they can make it as useable as the technology we use today - damn! Can't wait for more info, hope this isn't fake too good to be true. 
|
United Arab Emirates874 Posts
Hmm Looks great. Doubt it'll be used for some time though.
|
The claims of 'unlimited' are just stupid, especially for someone who claims to work in the technology industry. Like WniO said, this could be used to create great pre-rendered locations, but would have a lot of shortcomings when it comes to animation and physics. That pretty water? Just a flat surface. Those little balls of dirt or leaves on the palm tree? Ain't budging an inch. Polygons will always be needed at the very least to determine collision detection until the processors get to the point of stupid where polygons get so small they might as well be atoms.
I also find it kind of disingenuous that one of its claims is that it only renders what is visible on the camera, considering that's exactly how current game engines work.
|
Can't listen to the video atm since i'm at work, but it reminds me of the old Voxel Technology (Old meaning: DOS Games used it) => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel .
The first game that used it iirc was "Comanche" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_series)
The problem with infinite detail is, it requires infinite disk/memory space while polygon technologies just requires 3 coordinates per polygon, which reduces the required memory space a lot. This is why we will for some time still have polygon based games (though who knows, when quantum computing is widely accessible... 2111 maybe...)
|
I really hope this is true, but it almost sounds too good to be true
|
It seems this is a long way off being available at a commercial level because of the blatant requirement for beastly hardware.
|
That is insane, I would love to see this develop more. I can't wait for the day I can play a shooting game in this quality.
|
Looks amazing. Hopefully it's something that you will find in all games within a 3-4 year period
|
I remember when the first vid was released a year ago. At the time, everyone was like "wtf no wai". Today, I mean, sure. The breakthrough had to happen sooner or later.
|
This video is hilarious  I wouldn't mind if they'd prove me wrong but I highly doubt it
|
They used the word "unlimited" a little to often for me to buy ít. Unless they expect people to have unlimited computer resources then there is no chance that their technique can deliver unlimited anything.
If they built their 3d models with small particles (atoms) then the stored representation of those models would need to know the position of each of those particles. Unless we have unlimited storage space then we will quickly run into storage problems.
I also have a hard time imagining how the 3d engine works if it can handle unlimited number of objects with a CPU/GPU only able to perform a limited amount of operations.
|
This is bullcrap, sadly. It's even harder to render than tessellation.
Best proof that this is a hoax is the voice they used for the video, that alone is enough to tell you they're not serious about it.
|
This looks good, but I can't help but wonder about the capability for realistic physics with this. How are they going to do collision detection for example, without requiring a supercomputer?
It seems too good to be practical.
|
If they can make it so that you can run these in reasonable settings and at the same time find a way to animate and procedurally generate stuff.......
holy jesus moses buddah
|
On August 02 2011 01:07 Thrill wrote:
This is bullcrap, sadly. It's even harder to render than tessellation.
Best proof that this is a hoax is the voice they used for the video, that alone is enough to tell you they're not serious about it.
Isn't the voice Australian?
Euclideon Receives a Commercialisation Australia Grant of $1,984,652
http://www.euclideon.com/pr_9_may_11.html
|
Very interesting indeed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
