I might miss something, but in the end it is still a cloud of little dots the GPU has to connect with lines, right? The amout of details is still limited by the amount of "atoms". So, uh, where's the innovation? Or what am I missing? Edit: That youtube comment is interesting: Well, if this island is made of 21 billion "atoms", then each of these will have to be stored whith a position-data, propably float values with 4 bytes. That means for all 3 dimensions: 21billion atoms*4*3=252billion bytes -> 252GB in storage, which is massive. If each atom holds a color value it is much more. So if you want do display the entire map, your system needs to transfer many, many GB of information which is currently impossible. So please, enjoy this technology with caution... Nikoneo1 vor 1 Stunde 37
yeh your right, that stays unexplained :? And good god that guy has an annoying voice! I just couldnt keep listening to him
lol, even the air would be atoms then. having gas atoms, liquid, solid etc. dunno, but to me it sound like the vidoecard needs a big upgrade 5000 GPU chips, and 100 TB ram on it. to hold 1 cubic meter of map.
The sky's are just skyboxes....skies aren't the problem btw... it are polygons that are pretty flat, with low detail from upclose. anyone saw the vid completely actually ? Its just that polygons arent the way to go for high end gaming....(only gaining 25% more detail on each generation) Euclideon are very secretive about there programming cause its very high tech, sponsored by the Australian government. The annoying voice is just Australian.... Other ideas are gigavoxels [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HScYuRhgEJw[/youtube] Ofcourse Its not compatible to this generation of PC hardware thats why its THE FUTURE of gaming :roll: @ morrolan...other post (you fast blogger )
Yes, I watched the video completely. However, the way they made it sound like is that not the "slow" increase in polygoncount is why this new technology is that much better, but that it's better performance wise. Or, in other words: Why not just stay with Polygons? I don't see the main difference between these two techniques, in the end it's just a cloud of points, and the amount of detail is _still_ limited by the amount of points, be it atoms or polygons.
On the youtube comment they are partly right, it will be getting bigger, but not that big thats just absurd... thats why the program isnt rendering the whole scene completely but in 3D meshes, just the part thats in your view and will be altered to the distance you are in a descending order....(I'm assuming this) In comparison to polygons: where they use an other more higher detailed model when you come up close (like you see in just cause 2) and get a shifty effect of buildings appearing and looks shitty upclose. This technique is already in the movie business where we work more with 3d model meshes then with polygon models... If you need detail form various depts you use Meshes...this means you can zoom in unlimited without getting pixelated. But we dont need to live render so for games this is harder...vectors vs pixels but then in a 3D environment. EDIT: Ok maybe I was a little to enthousiastic, the video doesnt give a right idea...They repeat a lot: so that makes it easier to render.... voxels is the way to go like the gigavoxel video...but it has it flaws at the moment: animation (what is pretty important in gaming. You cant move them easily cause the whole data has to be rewritten and takes up a lot of work and space...but pretty interesting dho
"It’s a scam! Perhaps you’ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking “unlimited detail†rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4</a> Well, it is a scam. They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That’s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s 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, it’s 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 don’t 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. It’s 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 it’s not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do. It’s a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it’s been done several times before. There’s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y</a> 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: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw</a> And there’s more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc</a> They’re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It’s a scam. Don’t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen. posted 21 hours ago" AS SAID BY NOTCH! ITS A TRAP
Maybe post the source. Part 1: <a class="postlink" href="http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam</a> Part 2: <a class="postlink" href="http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802 ... not-a-scam</a>
Just like I said...Voxels is the way to go Dont get between the Scamwar between Markus Persson (minecraft) and Bruce Dell(Euclideon), Persson text has a nice title "SCAM" but uses it totally out of context. They dont try to scam (Fraudulent business scheme...), they even tell you it isnt finished yet and has still some flaws (wanne see other companys do this: buy Nike, but its made with underpayed good for nothing 15 year olds) His judging is quite fiercely and has got a lot of feedback from it...He is making conclusions about a technology that isnt finished yet...thats like saying to an unfinished Ferarrichassis that it doesnt work because it doesnt drive....off course not it isnt finished yet. I am not pro or contra I just give some perspective in your text, before jumping to conclusions (and oh yeah we like it to proof something is bad) Lets just wait and see before jumping into conclusions. and to be a "scam", then the Australian government would be very idiotic to trust this "scam"
Well, you do have to admit that in this video they don't bother to say anything about the limitations of their engine. Now for whatever reason they do this, it certainly doesn't enhance trust in their technology.