I hope this isn't a repo, but if this is real then err... wow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4
Printable View
I hope this isn't a repo, but if this is real then err... wow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4
I don't buy it.
If it's real, they'd be filing for patents, and then they'd have to make the detail available. This sounds a lot like the old infamous Bitboyz ggraphics card that was supposed to blow ATI and Nvidia out of the water, all based on "new" technology and methods.
Hmm, they say Graphics have a polygon limit but their atoms are made of polygons, wonder how that's supposed to work and whether things might look a bit grainy from certain angles etc.
If it's true, it does look good though, but one has to wonder whether gaming companies will pick this up(may make them dependent on the aussie company etc.).
Oh and they forgot to include raytracing. ~;)
Dunno, I've seen their demo's and talks a year ago: http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/home.html And personally I'd love to be able to play with such tech if it ever becomes available since it will fix a lot of the current visual bugs in games.
It also doesn't sound too far fetched in the sense that point cloud data and voxel rendering techniques are used in fairly mainstream applications, however not in consumer devices, and in the sense that the resolution of the average PC is far far lower thus the rendering engine would have much less of a workload than it would have for the current “typical” applications. (E.g. aforementioned medical imaging equipment and also in 3d animation studios)
Looks promising, but there's one thing that's not clear to me yet. Are they using more polygons or converting polygons into something else? because if it's the former, then how will an average graphics card render it all?
The latter.
All right...and if you don't mind explaining a bit more, what is that something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
http://notch.tumblr.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by india
He has two posts on the subject. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck. This is BS.
I understand their claims about numbers to be in terms of generator functions which generate more or less output points depending on how close the camera is. This is nothing new either, it is being done in typography (outline fonts) for ages. Bezier curves and splines need relatively little data yet are capable of scaling indefinitely. I also don't think that the criticism that they use a lot of repetitive architecture or models is entirely valid: this is par for the course. I have yet to see any relevant game where each object was genuinely unique.
What is relevant, though, are the questions of how much repetition is required in this model, and how lighting works (especially with moving light sources).
It's real, but the practical application is limited. Voxels aren't a new idea, and you don't see anyone rushing to make a game based on this technology. They're a real pain to animate, because you have to move a bunch of points, not connected polygons, for one.
More info on why this is overhyped; http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011...il/#more-68317
CR
Thanks for the insights CR and Tellos!