|
On August 02 2011 20:20 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 19:48 valaki wrote:
Yeah it looks nice on paper but what happens when you try to move something with a billion particles? Yeah, nothing. In the video everything is static. It's not harder to move a billion particles than one particle for a computer, since it isn't going to actually move every single particle one at a time. It just calculates a point. An analogy in 2d works: what's faster for the computer to render in a 2d game? A 1 red pixel box moving over the screen, or a 128x128 sprite of many colors? Answer: Doesn't matter unless the game is specifically programmed to optimize either solution. The game will still rewrite the whole scene with every sprite every frame, doesn't matter if the big sprite is in position 0,0 in one shot and 453,621 in the next.
Then how come they never show animated stuff?
Am I allowed to remind you that they already came up with that about 2 years ago? With a very, very similar video?
I'm telling you:
They try to scam investors. They never showed anything against what people criticized years ago(or was it 1 year? I dunno exactly.)..., nothing has changed, it's all the same.
|
On August 02 2011 20:36 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 20:20 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 19:48 valaki wrote:
Yeah it looks nice on paper but what happens when you try to move something with a billion particles? Yeah, nothing. In the video everything is static. It's not harder to move a billion particles than one particle for a computer, since it isn't going to actually move every single particle one at a time. It just calculates a point. An analogy in 2d works: what's faster for the computer to render in a 2d game? A 1 red pixel box moving over the screen, or a 128x128 sprite of many colors? Answer: Doesn't matter unless the game is specifically programmed to optimize either solution. The game will still rewrite the whole scene with every sprite every frame, doesn't matter if the big sprite is in position 0,0 in one shot and 453,621 in the next. Then how come they never show animated stuff? Am I allowed to remind you that they already came up with that about 2 years ago? With a very, very similar video? I'm telling you: They try to scam investors. They never showed anything against what people criticized years ago(or was it 1 year? I dunno exactly.)..., nothing has changed, it's all the same.
As others have said, the camera moves, which is enough to prove that moving static objects is a non-issue. As for whether or not this is a hoax, I have no idea. It could very well be prerendered. I'm just speaking about the theoretical technology.
|
On August 02 2011 20:45 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 20:36 KeksX wrote:On August 02 2011 20:20 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 19:48 valaki wrote:
Yeah it looks nice on paper but what happens when you try to move something with a billion particles? Yeah, nothing. In the video everything is static. It's not harder to move a billion particles than one particle for a computer, since it isn't going to actually move every single particle one at a time. It just calculates a point. An analogy in 2d works: what's faster for the computer to render in a 2d game? A 1 red pixel box moving over the screen, or a 128x128 sprite of many colors? Answer: Doesn't matter unless the game is specifically programmed to optimize either solution. The game will still rewrite the whole scene with every sprite every frame, doesn't matter if the big sprite is in position 0,0 in one shot and 453,621 in the next. Then how come they never show animated stuff? Am I allowed to remind you that they already came up with that about 2 years ago? With a very, very similar video? I'm telling you: They try to scam investors. They never showed anything against what people criticized years ago(or was it 1 year? I dunno exactly.)..., nothing has changed, it's all the same. As others have said, the camera moves, which is enough to prove that moving static objects is a non-issue. As for whether or not this is a hoax, I have no idea. It could very well be prerendered. I'm just speaking about the theoretical technology.
You do realize that animation and manipulating the world and projection matrizes is not the same?
EDIT:
It might work for statics, but thats it. Without proper animation possibilites and shadows it won't work for games or anything productive.
|
I don't know why everyone seems to be complaining so much about where you store all the data, the maximum capacity doubles every year. The maximum capacity of memory nowadays is 2^10 or 1024 times the maximum capacity of ten years ago. So following this logic, in ten years the maximum memory capacity should be 4TB, more than enough for any animation that would be needed by something developed now.
On the subject of it only having still objects and no real time animation, any new technology takes time to develop, this style of rendering only came about a few years ago, it's gonna take a while to get up to speed.
|
On August 02 2011 20:49 geethy wrote:
I don't know why everyone seems to be complaining so much about where you store all the data, the maximum capacity doubles every year. The maximum capacity of memory nowadays is 2^10 or 1024 times the maximum capacity of ten years ago. So following this logic, in ten years the maximum memory capacity should be 4TB, more than enough for any animation that would be needed by something developed now.
On the subject of it only having still objects and no real time animation, any new technology takes time to develop, this style of rendering only came about a few years ago, it's gonna take a while to get up to speed.
Again, this technology came out 19 years ago. They only improved it, but the old constraints still are the same and were the reason why it was abandoned in favour of polygon technology.
|
dont see how this wouldnt rape a CPU and GPU
|
On August 02 2011 20:49 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 20:45 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 20:36 KeksX wrote:On August 02 2011 20:20 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 19:48 valaki wrote:
Yeah it looks nice on paper but what happens when you try to move something with a billion particles? Yeah, nothing. In the video everything is static. It's not harder to move a billion particles than one particle for a computer, since it isn't going to actually move every single particle one at a time. It just calculates a point. An analogy in 2d works: what's faster for the computer to render in a 2d game? A 1 red pixel box moving over the screen, or a 128x128 sprite of many colors? Answer: Doesn't matter unless the game is specifically programmed to optimize either solution. The game will still rewrite the whole scene with every sprite every frame, doesn't matter if the big sprite is in position 0,0 in one shot and 453,621 in the next. Then how come they never show animated stuff? Am I allowed to remind you that they already came up with that about 2 years ago? With a very, very similar video? I'm telling you: They try to scam investors. They never showed anything against what people criticized years ago(or was it 1 year? I dunno exactly.)..., nothing has changed, it's all the same. As others have said, the camera moves, which is enough to prove that moving static objects is a non-issue. As for whether or not this is a hoax, I have no idea. It could very well be prerendered. I'm just speaking about the theoretical technology. You do realize that animation and manipulating the world and projection matrizes is not the same? EDIT: It might work for statics, but thats it. Without proper animation possibilites and shadows it won't work for games or anything productive.
Like I explained before, there can easily be systems which allow proper animation possibilities. If you can move one static object in relation to the camera, connect two objects and move them together = animation. Make a car object, put a wheel object on it, rotate wheel object. Move car forward. A moving car animation.
It would be very hard to do certain things, definitely.. for example, making a leaf bend in the wind. Rotating a wheel would take almost 0 computer power, dynamically calculating a few hundred thousand atoms movement based on a force? That would be insanely heavy. Overall, moving objects should be easy, and a big object can be animated by splitting it into many smaller objects. The problem is when the animation needs to actually change objects themselves since then actual work on individual atoms would be needed.
Who knows what smart programmers can come up with though.
|
On August 02 2011 21:02 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 20:49 KeksX wrote:On August 02 2011 20:45 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 20:36 KeksX wrote:On August 02 2011 20:20 Tobberoth wrote:On August 02 2011 19:48 valaki wrote:
Yeah it looks nice on paper but what happens when you try to move something with a billion particles? Yeah, nothing. In the video everything is static. It's not harder to move a billion particles than one particle for a computer, since it isn't going to actually move every single particle one at a time. It just calculates a point. An analogy in 2d works: what's faster for the computer to render in a 2d game? A 1 red pixel box moving over the screen, or a 128x128 sprite of many colors? Answer: Doesn't matter unless the game is specifically programmed to optimize either solution. The game will still rewrite the whole scene with every sprite every frame, doesn't matter if the big sprite is in position 0,0 in one shot and 453,621 in the next. Then how come they never show animated stuff? Am I allowed to remind you that they already came up with that about 2 years ago? With a very, very similar video? I'm telling you: They try to scam investors. They never showed anything against what people criticized years ago(or was it 1 year? I dunno exactly.)..., nothing has changed, it's all the same. As others have said, the camera moves, which is enough to prove that moving static objects is a non-issue. As for whether or not this is a hoax, I have no idea. It could very well be prerendered. I'm just speaking about the theoretical technology. You do realize that animation and manipulating the world and projection matrizes is not the same? EDIT: It might work for statics, but thats it. Without proper animation possibilites and shadows it won't work for games or anything productive. Like I explained before, there can easily be systems which allow proper animation possibilities. If you can move one static object in relation to the camera, connect two objects and move them together = animation. Make a car object, put a wheel object on it, rotate wheel object. Move car forward. A moving car animation. It would be very hard to do certain things, definitely.. for example, making a leaf bend in the wind. Rotating a wheel would take almost 0 computer power, dynamically calculating a few hundred thousand atoms movement based on a force? That would be insanely heavy. Overall, moving objects should be easy, and a big object can be animated by splitting it into many smaller objects. The problem is when the animation needs to actually change objects themselves since then actual work on individual atoms would be needed. Who knows what smart programmers can come up with though.
Well since I didn't work with their technology I can't tell if that is true,
but I can imagine that it is not possible. Why would they work on it for more than 12 months and then don't show at least SOME animation?
Yes in theory what you say is right, but this is why the standard consists of polygons and not atoms. If it was possible to do so with their technology, why don't they just show it? Apparently, they know how to use modelling programs, so they can easily make a few animations.
|
Again, this technology came out 19 years ago. They only improved it, but the old constraints still are the same and were the reason why it was abandoned in favour of polygon technology.
Well the same thing happened for TV, it took years to become big. Of course any new technology is going to take a while, as the saying goes 'Rome wasn't built in a day'.
Unfortunately I don't really know much about CPU's and GPU's over the past ten years since there are so many different models for each new design, but today's graphics card's are a hell of a lot better than the old ones.
|
The lack of animation is an obvious concern. Like everyone has already posted, this is not a new thing. These guys have been around for ages and yet everything still looks the same.
When they release an actual example I'll believe.
|
Well, as unrealistic as it seems to incorporate this sort of stuff into video games, I sure hope it can be!
|
It looks cool, but honestly, graphics dont make the game at all. However i think that it will help shooting games a lot, because it will help immersion and creating an atmosphere.
|
On August 02 2011 03:36 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 03:24 Valashu wrote:
Be true dammit! I want minecraft in infinite powah mode! Isn't the charm of Minecraft the fact that it's blocky and it leaves a lot to the imagination? You know, the thing people pine for from video-games prior to the 2000s?
Better graphics can't hurt a game, right?
imagine...infinite power minecraft blocks! *nods*
|
Wow this looks amazing, I wonder how long it will take for our hardware to get to the standard to be able to handle this technology smoothly.
Also I will be quite interested to see whether this will be priced like our midrange hardware today or if its going to be very expensive at first.
What are your thoughts on this forum?
|
Carmack comments on Twitter:
Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.
high poly models isn't everything in a videogame, there's so much behind the scenes that all need to be working with this new technology, a whole lot needs to be built up from scratch
|
I have been working with both programming and graphics for a while now. And i see one limit with this.
It is fine that they have created a engine that can convert vast amounts of information on "atoms" into polygons for rendering, and they are optimizing so the polygon count is higher for near objects.
But how to you handle the fact that if an artist create a 3d environment that is so detailed that it requires thousands of TB of data just to store.
I don't want to have my game delivered in a truck full of blu rays, or download for 10 years via the internet to get it.
It is ok to be able to render it fast, because you have an algorithm that can reduce the source material to a limited number of polygons for a given camera angle, bit how can consumers be expected to have the hardware to handle and process the data from the source before rendering.
The reason why it works in the example they give, is that even though the details for the individual objects are really high, they are re-using the same source data for multiple objects in the world, as you can see in the video. This will reduce the source material size.
I am not saying that you cannot use this technology, but it is certainly not a new idea, and if they have some new good algorithms then its fine.
But this is not ground breaking, nor a new idea in the academic world.
|
|
|
@6:46 their island looks pretty blocky to me.....
|
This looks pretty cool, but this is definitely the future of graphics and there is no way we can utilize this with current technology limitations.
|
I'd love to see this technology in a version of minecraft lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
