Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
William Dogood

Polygons A Thing Of The Past?

Recommended Posts

While really impressive, I read some comments suggesting these models would be really difficult to animate - future of gaming looks pretty sweet~

Share this post


Link to post

Well then, in a couple years when new games start coming out with this implemented, will they essentially be photo-realistic?

 

How intensive is this tech on current graphics processors?

 

What kind of an effect would this have on physics processing?

 

For non-realistic games (tf2, mario, what-have-you), would this actually be practical to use?

 

At any rate this is amazing stuff

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Talk about your hyperbole. Memory bandwidth would literally be destroyed if this wasn't pre-rendered or them using the same handful of objects over and over again nor has the "technology" improved from their last year old video. Not to mention this technology is not new at all nor is it theirs. Look up "Voxels" and you will see what I mean.

 

It is possible to animate with Voxels but it has its own set of issues. Only really bypassed by slapping on an underlying polygon mesh to animate from.

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl6PE_n6zTk

Share this post


Link to post

I've already seen it.

 

it seems too perfect and also kinda exagerated. also, if it's so good why it hasn't been out for developers?

Share this post


Link to post

It kinda reminds me of voxels.

 

 

It reminds you of voxels because it is voxels.

 

Also, this video seems like it could very easily just be pre-rendered.

Share this post


Link to post

It's so beautiful. I can't wait until we start to see some actual stuff with this, whether it's a game or a tech demo with more variation (lighting like was mentioned, and maybe variety in the models).

Share this post


Link to post

But wait. What are the atoms made up of?

 

Electrons, neutrons and protons :U

Share this post


Link to post

Notch calls the video out as some of us already have in this thread.

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:

 

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:

 

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:

 

And there’s more:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Well didn't they address that in the video? The said they weren't a game company, they were showing off the basics and proof of concept. So they didn't bother putting in all the effort to adding a ton of variety just as they didn't worry about the lighting.

Share this post


Link to post

They did say in the description they had animation =/

(Yes grumpy forum people, we do have animation, but you'll just have to be patient.)

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...