EPTSure, it sounds pretty damn exicting, but they could have done it on a super computer, who knows.
We can only dream of a game with that technology though. Doubt we will see one while alive.
(sorry for my bad english~~)
The future of graphics in games - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nayas
Canada33 Posts
Sure, it sounds pretty damn exicting, but they could have done it on a super computer, who knows. We can only dream of a game with that technology though. Doubt we will see one while alive. (sorry for my bad english~~) | ||
|
DoraTheExploreHer
10 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On August 02 2011 03:18 Nycaloth wrote: The real problem with computer graphics in gaming, imho, is that the spectacular advances in hardware and software technology combined with marketing efforts have made it acceptable, yes even common place, to produce games with shoddy mechanics and poor to nonexistent storytelling, just as long as the graphics look really really shiny. hope this is not too far OT. Absolutely agree with this- a blog I follow (Shamus Young) constantly rants on these sorts of things. All of the AAA game companies constantly are pushing the edge of graphics sky-rocketing development prices while putting far too little effort into mechanics, solid gameplay and something other than mind-numbing stupid storylines. Even something like procedurally generated content has largely been abandoned. And here comes yet another near photo-realistic fps game or zombie apocalypse with washed-out colours. I'll admit this could be impressive, but the graphics revolution has sprung so far ahead that there's a lot more that could be reasonably be explored to catch up. Rather than the endless graphics breakthrough that are super more realistic graphics than the more realistic graphics. Maybe I'm just bitter. edit. ^What the... | ||
|
SnetteL
Belgium473 Posts
I do want to state that some people trying to calcute the amount of memory needed for this technology shouldn't oversimplify this. In theory you only need the surface(-points, -voxels, whatever) to be different from another (those are the only ones visible for the eye) and even those won't differ a lot from eachother (probability for a point next to a brown point being brown as well will be higher for example). This means A LOT of the points/voxels/data will be the same which allows for some huge compressing (even if the points/voxels in the body of an object are not void). TL;DR: With proper coding the big amount of data can be reduced a ton. | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
TolEranceNA
Canada434 Posts
| ||
|
NIIINO
Slovakia1320 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 02 2011 05:04 Dragom wrote: + Show Spoiler + Holy jesus, on one hand, Games will look a lot more realistic and we wont have wierd problems that result from module lag(for example, if you try to fly a super fast plane in gta 4, sometimes you will notice that a building just appeared from nowhere in fornt of ur face, killing you. However, the problem is is that the average computer jsut cant handle this huge leap. If we think about Moore's law, we will notice that it will take decades for the average computer/gaming machine to adjust to this. As the video said, you can run 5 of these real objects, but a computer wont easily handle a entire game of these objects. As the above posts said, you need polygons or else dealing with collisions would cause major lag, now just think about a sword penetrating armor.... + Show Spoiler + The search thing may be good for casual gamers, but for pros who are constantly using the camera to scroll around with almost 0 predictability(of course, we humans would know why he may have the camera face this way, but a machine cannot) this will cause lag for the things that yet rendered because they forgot to count that when switch to one view to another direction, you also have to delete the first view from the physical memory. Edit: ummm, in the first video, around 11 seconds, you see some of the stuff switch from one module to the next... its a tech demo, so throughout the demo they turn up and down the tessellation they also do things like turn off textures etc to show off what's being done. It's probably best understood in a presentation with someone telling you when something is being done. http://www.geforce.com/GamesandApps/apps/endless-city-demo http://downloads.guru3d.com/Stone-Giant-Public-Demo-download-2526.html Tech demos usually show off hardware feature sets etc, most games aren't nearly so specialize in their programing because they try to really support legacy stuff form 4 years ago so their games can sell after all what good is a nice looking game if you can't move a product because no one can buy it and adding in more details cost more money. | ||
|
Liveon
Netherlands1083 Posts
On August 02 2011 04:52 Wr3k wrote: Yeah I often feel that the general forum should be labelled reddit reposts. I actually did not get this from reddit. My brother posted it in IRC and I know he doesn't visit Reddit, a pure coincidence  | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
| ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On August 02 2011 05:19 DoraTheExploreHer wrote: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THERE WILL BE NO FUTURE! SEVERAL HIGH CLASS GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE HAVE ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING REPTILIAN INCLUDING BUSH HIMSELF AS WELL AS VERY IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. STAY INFORMED AND BE AWARE, THEIR TIME IS COMING. Wasn't the thread recently closed? Why are you even posting this. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11547 Posts
On August 02 2011 05:13 Jetaap wrote: Looks like mostly bs, they don't explain why their approach is more efficient than the polygon based approach. I mean, look at movies: it's pretty easy to have ultra realistic details with the current technologies, the problem is to be able to do it real time. ps: the so called "moore's law" is not true anymore since a couple of years. edit: lol it's so obvious that it's a scam that it's not even worth arguing. I pity the guys who put money in this if there are any. Well, if it is a scam it should be pretty obvious once they run away with the 2 mio $ they got from the australian government. | ||
|
DeLoAdEr
Japan527 Posts
"Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging." so maybe it's not a fake after all. | ||
|
Latedi
Sweden1027 Posts
| ||
|
sCfO20
176 Posts
I THINK. I don't know for sure. I'd love to see it though. | ||
|
khanofmongols
542 Posts
If this is the case then animation won't be possible but idk. | ||
|
Looky
United States1608 Posts
| ||
|
hellsan631
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
Z3kk
4099 Posts
On August 02 2011 06:34 KimJongChill wrote: Wasn't the thread recently closed? Why are you even posting this. Edit that out of your quote  I actually remember this....still looking forward to what this might entail. It seems like it's fake, but what they've displayed looks amazing. This could get scary, though, if the game companies want to acquire this technology in due time. | ||
|
R3m3mb3rM3
Germany954 Posts
On August 02 2011 08:16 hellsan631 wrote: They explained the methodology in one of their previous videos. What they do is calculate what "atoms" are going to be viewed by the player, and render only those "atoms". Its a neat little trick that can make something like this possible. It still needs a bit more computing power and a video game or two to back the engine, but nothing is or has really come close to geometric level of detail in scenes and what not. that trick is already done in normal games, if you play crysis your computer only renders what you see and not the whole island im really sceptical and cant imagine how a computer would handle so much data | ||
| ||
