EPTThe future of graphics in games - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
| ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
man if we can have unlimited polygons the future of gaming would be so beautiful | ||
|
Krallin
France431 Posts
On August 02 2011 06:06 iGrok wrote: The real issue is ANIMATING such objects. Take for example LA Noire, which had a lot of emphasis on facial animation - how do you do that with point-based objects? Animating a billion points is where the real hardware issues are going to pop up Indeed. I don't know they're going to handle shades. Games usually use pretty poor techniques such as mapping, but how are you supposed to calculate the shades when you have trillions of thousands of billions of hundres of thousands (c) polygons? They seem to have it OK with clipping, and argue that shades are going OK, so they probably have something up their sleeve. Last thing I don't get is why theyr couldn't get a few actual artists to work on this to provide us with what they claim to be stunning graphics - I've done some computer modeling and while I don't call myself an artist by any means, I think that they've been pretty lazy on this part. I mean, their lightning kinda blows it completely. I'll be convinced once I see this running. | ||
|
ScouraE
Canada28 Posts
| ||
|
Deadeight
United Kingdom1629 Posts
| ||
|
Duka08
3391 Posts
| ||
|
Logros
Netherlands9913 Posts
I know algorithmes can do some crazy stuff so maybe they stumbled upon something good. | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
| ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
| ||
|
Frigo
Hungary1023 Posts
Sounds like (procedurally generated? interpolated?) voxel models with level of detail and some fancy rendering. Doesn't sound too bad, though I'm concerned about physics (e.g. collision detection) and lighting (the relative lack of shadows in the demos for example). It was kind of ironic that they claim they have unlimited detail, yet they never zoom into a rock or a piece of grass, or even the ground. By the way, I believe computer graphics in games reached a satisfactory level at about 2002 (I'm thinking of Arx Fatalis), they should improve other aspects of games, with a heavy emphasis on gameplay and playtesting. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
 | ||
|
cdpham
United States41 Posts
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/unlimited-detail-3-d-graphics/ Seems too good to be true; how're you going to be able to animate this? The coordinates for the voxels have to be stored somewhere right? Although maybe my understanding of the process is poor it seems like he just found a way to speed up the "coordinate data" -> "screen render" rate but what happens when the coordinate data is changing due to animations? | ||
|
GranDim
Canada1214 Posts
On August 02 2011 01:19 DeLoAdEr wrote: interesting results for a software renderer, but the video only shows static geometry. I wonder if they're even able to handle animated objects.. and they mention the scene consists of more than 21 trillion points, lets say they store 4 byte for each point (color information, position, etc.) this would be ~100 TB of data right? so there must be some good compression going on there. ;p The technique seems to be well fit for compression however, lots of atoms will be identical and position can also be grouped. | ||
|
japro
172 Posts
1. They use the word "infinite" too much. It's obviously not possible to have "infinite" unique detail simply because there is only a limited amount of memory available. You can produce an infinite scene in the minecraft sense. I.E. there isn't actually an infinite scene that someone designed but just a deterministic rule to extend the detail procedurally whenever needed. So if you generate a world procedurally with a pseudo random number generator you could call it "infinite" for practical purposes since those generators have obscenely large cycle lengths, but that is more of a gimmick than actually useful for game design. What is interesting for game designers is the possibility to have a large amount of created unique content. Not just repeating the same tree/texture over and over in the scene or having some fractal generating a lot of fake detail. This is a nice example of actually useful technology that tries to adress this kind of problem (also this apparently runs on a XBox360): 2. They seem obsessed with polycounts when that isn't really that much of an issue anyway. The raw power of modern graphics hardware pretty much allows you to plaster the whole screen with pixel sized polygons. But what actually creates immersion Isn't absurdly detailed models, it's effects and post processing. Lights, shadows, reflection, indirect illumination, particle systems etc. How often do you actually feel the urge to examine single pebbles on the ground in a game? Is that relevant to gameplay? That just isn't the main contributor to the atmosphere. The reason why you need powerful hardware for modern games is because they run multiple passes of expensive shaders and not because there are so many polygons. | ||
|
Bigpet
Germany533 Posts
oh wait. Too much hype talk, too little actually useful tech to games. This looks like a very nice tech for navigatable data visualization but using this in games is at most feasible in a hybrid tech that uses polys for the animated objects and this stuff for some highly instanced objects. | ||
|
x2fst
1272 Posts
| ||
|
Bigpet
Germany533 Posts
On August 02 2011 09:34 x2fst wrote: seems like this sort of thing might be good for animated movies and certain types of games? i was told about some friend of a friend who makes animated porn for a living, this guy is convinced that that industry is going to get big due to this sort of thing, they'll be able to do all sorts of weirdo fantasy stuff without taxing the viewer's suspension of disbelief too much have you seen any animation in their Videos? They don't show it because that's nearly impossible. The only way they can draw so much geometry is that they have it nicely sorted in their data-structure if they were to animate stuff they'd have to sort their millions of moved point again. I'd love to see them do that in real-time with a normal PC. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
No doubt this is just a way of only drawing the right amount of polygons at each magnification. | ||
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
They should have picked something other than a rock for their example though because a rock in itself isn't the most interesting object lol. | ||
|
Z3kk
4099 Posts
As to the animation...that remains to be seen, I guess. Perhaps their current announced absence is attempting to fix this. | ||
| ||
