Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Unlimited Detail Technology

Author
Message
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 00:41
Link
But how would you shape the landscape?

That's one thing I pointed out on a Minecraft server. Notch could make smoothed hills and such, but when you remove a segment, how's that gunna work?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 01:36 Edited at: 18th Aug 2011 01:38
Link
Quote: "They are all scared this technology is going to make their newest video cards practically useless. And forget about needing multiple video cards for better performance."


Why would this make graphics cards useless or reduce the advantage of multiple cards?
1) They're going to make it use the graphics card.
2) Any extra processing time will be used for higher resolutions, more effects, etc. etc.
3) Having parallel graphics cards would be more effective for this technology than for polygons.
4) He still hasn't shown any decent animations, even on a small scale, and I don't believe the same quality of animation can be acheived without massive speed increases in hardware. If quality animation is needed it will have to be done using polygons. (Which can be integrated VERY easily with this technology)
5) Even if this completely changes the way graphics cards need to work to get best performance, it's still going to be the same graphics companies making the cards. They're not just going to fail because they need to do things slightly differently...

Also he says he's not using raytracing, when that's precisely what he is doing. He's running a search algorithm to find the "atom" visible at each pixel on the screen, ie. he's casting a ray out of the screen and seeing what it hits. Just because it has some secret algorithm to make it faster doesn't change what it is. TBH, I'm more interested in their 3D scanner than the actual rendering engine.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 01:45
Link
You're right...that is ray-tracing isn't it?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 03:42
Link
@ Diggsey:

True, they did say they'd use the graphics cards but the way it runs right now they don't need a modern graphics card. So a cheap card that's only $10 bucks on Ebay will be able to have unlimited detail.

He did show a 7 year program that had what appeared to be skeletal animation he just didn't want to show what they have right now.

True they'll stay in business but once they adopt this new method they'll have something else (like colors) that there's no point in trying to make better. One of the major selling points of all the cards is the amount of polygons they can handle. Without that what would be the measure of a video card?

I found this video that talks about a 3D scanner and something I've been wanting since HP said they'd be able to sell one for under 100 bucks... a 3D printer.



Back to top
Profile PM Email
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 03:58
Link
Quote: "He did show a 7 year program that had what appeared to be skeletal animation he just didn't want to show what they have right now."


That only appeared to have bone weights of 0 or 1, nothing in-between. The skin didn't smoothly deform.

Quote: "One of the major selling points of all the cards is the amount of polygons they can handle. Without that what would be the measure of a video card?"


Screen resolution, antialiasing level, frame-rate. Post-processing methods such as motion-blur will also dramatically slow down the engine too. Believe me, there's no shortage of things to spend processing time on!

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 04:15
Link
Quote: "That only appeared to have bone weights of 0 or 1, nothing in-between. The skin didn't smoothly deform."


We of all people should be forgiving of somebodies past programming attempts... especially 7 years ago.

Quote: "Believe me, there's no shortage of things to spend processing time on!"


I can see resolution and motion blur but it didn't look like frame rate would be a problem and does it really need anti-aliasing when the detail is so great already?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 04:59
Link
Quote: "anti-aliasing when the detail is so great already?"


let's say you are running on 800x600pxs, then iam rather much very sure you would want anti aliasing
or 1280x800

and for the record, I am a man.

Back to top
Profile PM
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 18th Aug 2011 10:54
Link
It looks good on a low quality youtube video and even then it's running at only 15-20 fps, and that's just for rendering. Also, because his search algorithm runs once per sample point, having twice the resolution in each direction will make it 4x slower and using AA with 4 samples per pixel will make it another 4x slower. AA can't be optimised either. With polygons you can get it to only do extra samples down the polygon edges. With this system you have no idea where the "edges" are, but since it's always 1 atom for every sample point you will still need multiple sample points per pixel to avoid aliasing.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 00:35
Link
Quote: "Let's be honest, you can't improve Minecraft's graphics without damaging the functionality of the gameplay. I mean, how else would it work other than with blocks?"

Imagine minecraft in unlimited detail!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 00:50
Link
A minecraft game would probably be ideal for this engine. Not many blocks, repeated on a fixed 3D grid, no terrain, blocky animation. It would look amazing and ironic .

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 00:56
Link
I'm not the only person who thinks scraping out a mine atom-by-atom would be on a similarly enthralling level as sniffing wallpaper paste?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 01:00
Link
Quote: "I'm not the only person who thinks scraping out a mine atom-by-atom would be on a similarly enthralling level as sniffing wallpaper paste?"

I was thinking more like several billion at a time in a big explosion!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 12:59
Link
I didn't mean atom by atom - considering that UD is not even capable of that!

I meant using UD blocks instead of cubes, and the way UD 'probably' works would be good for minecraft. Rather than lots of cubes, you'd have lots of UD point clouds, super detailed cubes if you like. UD uses point clouds, not voxels, it isn't capable of destruction on an atom level. Really, I wish people would decide on what they are assuming this engine is.

Memory is not a problem but it's capable of destruction? = Impossible!

UD is repeating point cloud data, like instancing it at different locations - those blocks are not unique, that data is not stored in each location, that is how it can cope with all that data, that is why it would work on a limited engine like for minecraft. Can you imagine if all that point data was unique?
UD will take each screen pixel and work out what geometry is in front if it, then calculate the pixel colour based on the point cloud data from the source object, not the instance - so these instanced objects cannot be changed without the memory footprint growing exponentially.

Put this way, again... A minecraft block might be about 1 cubed meter, and if the voxel system was at a resolution of 1mm, and lets be generous and say that each voxel is just a byte, maybe relating to a colour palette. Now, that cube would take up 1 gigabyte of memory. Technology is nowhere near that sort of detail, and won't be for years. Repeating geometry is the key to UD - it's the only way that it can operate efficiently. There is no real way to have destruction on an 'atom' level without ending up with something like Voxelstein. The bigger the area, the bigger the atoms - that's why that destructable voxel system has such a small area, because it's rooted in reality unlike UD.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Isocadia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:15 Edited at: 19th Aug 2011 19:16
Link
But what if you took minecraft, and make each block consist of 16x16x16 points, since the textures are only 16x16 there's no need for more points that can be coloured, then you can instance ( or whatever other method ) each block type, therefor saving alot of memory. Also, how about not filling the object, just putting a tiny layer over the geometry, just enough to never see holes. I honestly don't feel like doing all the math, but 16x16x6x3 so we have 3 layers of points, where each voxel is 1 byte, you can easely fit it all on a harddisk. Now more than ever, since you can get 2 2TB HDD's in RAID 0 for less than 200 euro's. For other games it might be more of a problem, but the way I see it, minecraft would run perfectly fine.

This all asuming that the atom size isn't fixed and can be upscaled to the size of 1 pixel on a minecraft block.
Back to top
Profile PM
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:23
Link
It's not HD space though, it's RAM space. Anything you're working with in realtime and querying/reading each loop really has to be in RAM. Therefore you only have a few GB to play with on most machines.

Back to top
Profile PM
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:35
Link
Adding to Fallouts message:

And the computer running the real-time demo on the video BiggAdd posted only has 8gigs of RAM and a 500gig hard drive.

Here's the computer:
http://www.amazon.com/G53SW-XA1-Republic-Gamers-15-6-Inch-Gaming/dp/B004X5XL3Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1313771317&sr=1-3

And the stats for the lazy:


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Isocadia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:36
Link
Well, currently, if you get a setup with 16gb, a game like minecraft should run perfectly in UD, even though you would never use the unlimited part. You would only use points that are needed, and a quick guess tells me that minecraft would, in it's current setup, need a max of 16x16x6x3 points per block, and since we have a max of 256 blocks i believe ( from which some are torches, tracks etc which use less ), you only need to load each block once ( if thats how instancing works ). Then you can also not render 90% of the points max used because it's either air or hidden underground. Frankly, even if RAM is the problem, it's so damn cheap nowadays that I find it sad when people who buy a new system only get 4GB because 8 costs too much.
Back to top
Profile PM
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:39 Edited at: 19th Aug 2011 19:46
Link
actually phew its been a while since I was on this thread... but I finally have something to contribute to it...

Virtual memory is held on local disk to compensate the physical RAM's overheads so technically applications access both physical memory and virtual memory which is stored on HDD an avid computer user specially one on an x64 system can figure out how to allocate 64GB+ to virtual memory as I have >.< once before

However some applications I believe can be designed to specifically access the Physical Memory for speed... believe this can be specifically done in OOP languages and I believe C++ etc fall into this area too. I wonder if we can do this in DBPro using inbuilt commands? I have STYX... Peek Poke? anyone got any help on this please let me know as i would be interested in this... btw guys always set your Virtual Memory to triple your recommended memory size if physical memory is 7GB (7168MB) windows 7 tells you to set Virtual Memory as 10750MB so set the initial to that and for max set it as triple this figure so 32250MB
if need any help with this... just ask

EDIT
the above was replying to Fallout's message
Quote: "It's not HD space though, it's RAM space. Anything you're working with in realtime and querying/reading each loop really has to be in RAM. Therefore you only have a few GB to play with on most machines.
"


Back to top
Profile PM
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 19:51 Edited at: 19th Aug 2011 20:06
Link
Remember the elephant statue in the video said it had 530,906 polygons and in some sections there were 3 in a row... that's 1,592,718 polygons in just those not counting the dirt, rocks, leaves, grass, and trees. The sheer numbers are staggering and 99% done in software alone. The limitations we're used aren't going to be a problem at all with this system. Even if the Minecraft blocks are 1 million polygons each it doesn't matter with this system because it's unlimited. The only dots it has to worry about are the number of pixels it takes to fill the screen.

Edit: I just re-watched the first video and he said (as it zoomed in on dirt) they convert polygons to 64 atoms per cubic millimeter which is 1 million atoms per cubic inch. So there are about 15 million converted polygons in every square meter of dirt. Just looking at the dirt in a small area has more polygons than any game out now.

Isn't it mind blowingly amazing that they can get that many converted polygons in a small section of dirt?... something we just walk over and don't even notice in games.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 19th Aug 2011 21:10 Edited at: 19th Aug 2011 21:11
Link
Quote: "So there are about 15 million converted polygons in every square meter"


Cubic meter actually. So 15 million polygons in about 50 layers of meter square ground (assuming the dirt layer was 2cm)


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 00:40
Link
Quote: "The limitations we're used aren't going to be a problem at all with this system. Even if the Minecraft blocks are 1 million polygons each it doesn't matter with this system because it's unlimited. The only dots it has to worry about are the number of pixels it takes to fill the screen."


That data has to reside somewhere, it also has to be stored and retrieved otherwise it wouldn't exist, if it didn't exist, then we wouldn't be able to see it. UD still has to abide by the laws of physics, just like the rest of us.

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Airslide
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2004
Location: California
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 04:06
Link
I'm with Van B on that one. "Unlimited" and computers are not words I generally put together. Perhaps if they didn't make that sort of claim, I'd be less skeptical.

As for the video with the interview - I really dislike how Bruce Dell talks. Really dislike. Does anyone else get that vibe?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 04:21
Link
Quote: "I really dislike how Bruce Dell talks. Really dislike. Does anyone else get that vibe?"


Really. They come out with evidence of their system's existence and you nitpick their voices. Haha. Wow.

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
Back to top
Profile PM
Airslide
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2004
Location: California
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 05:01 Edited at: 20th Aug 2011 05:20
Link
It isn't just his voice. It's his manner of speaking. I have trouble believing him, it sounds like he's trying to sell me something that doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it doesn't, although I'm still skeptical of the "unlimited" notion. "Ridiculously high" or "practically unlimited", but truly, absolutely unlimited?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Plystire
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Feb 2003
Location: Staring into the digital ether
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 05:46
Link
When they describe how it works, referencing the "search algorithm-esque" method of displaying things... I couldn't help but think to myself, "Isn't that how we've always rendered things?"

Maybe I'm not as knowledgeable about rendering stuff on screen as I thought I was. It seemed to me that it'd be a completel and utter waste of time to draw something that would never be seen. I figured the rendering engines took this into account and that's why it ran so fast. Or maybe they're running FASTER than I imagined and are actually just being super inefficient!


~Plystire

A rose is only a rose until it is held and cherished -- then it becomes a treasure.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Isocadia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 09:22
Link
Also, he says that the engine can give you unlimited points, doesn't mean you have to use unlimited points. It's like saying hat your engine is capable of handling unlimited amounts of polygons, but you will still be restricted by hardware ( though with polygons it's seems you are limited alot sooner than with points ).
Back to top
Profile PM
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 10:51
Link
Even if it made technical sense for the engine to be capable of rendering unlimited detail, there's no way for an artist or content creator to make such a thing. You can even see in the video that there is a limit to the amount of detail shown in the object, after a certain point there are visible solid areas of color.

The only way that any degree of "infinite" detail could be rendered is through, you guessed it, procedural generation. There is no way to define infinite detail by an artist or scanner. This procedural generation could be in the form of tessellation, cubic interpolation like NURBS, or even linear interpolation in the way the triangles today are currently rendered.

I wish they would just say "we made a really cool voxel engine that might come in handy" rather than "we've revolutionized computers more than the transistor did." And the guy's voice is annoying, but its less annoying when I see him speak in the video where it comes off as less snobbish.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 20:53 Edited at: 20th Aug 2011 20:57
Link
I imagine when they say "unlimited" it's just because of the limitations we have with polygons and with their system that limitation is gone.

One of the things I'm curious about is that if we make a simple box with polygons and move the camera into the box we can see right through the box because usually there aren't polygons on the inside of the box. With their system moving the camera inside such a box would probably reveal the inside walls instead of being able to see right through the back side of the polygons.

Really though I don't see why a lot of people are against it.

Of these sets which is better for the games we make?

1) A tree that has many rounded curves that looks like a real tree.
2) A tree with only 8 sides that looks like a big squareish straw.

1) Grass that's 3D on all sides.
2) Grass that disappear at certain angles because it's just a flat plane.

1) When pulling the camera back each object stays the same regardless of distance.
2) When pulling the camera back each object must be reloaded with an object with less polygons to compensate for the distance/frame rate.

1) Using objects at all times with no slowdowns.
2) Tricking the players by substituting sprites for objects to make the game faster.

1) The ability to have as many objects as you want on the screen at one time without slowing the desired frame rate.
2) A limited amount of objects on the screen because the more objects the slower the frame rate.

1) Being able to make a 3D scan of a real rock in your backyard and put it into your game then get 100 other things you own and scan it into your game in about a day.
2) Hiring a professional graphic artist to make you a rock then keeping him working for the next 5 months making 100 other things.

If you answered 1 to everything then your number 1 choice should be Unlimited Detail Technology. As programmers we should embrace this new technology because it's going to make our games better looking than anything that anybody has ever done before. I don't care if it's voxels or magic fairies that make it happen the fact remains that we saw the demo working live on that last video so we know it's not a scam. How much better do you think Darkbasic Pro would be if we weren't limited by object numbers or polygon count on those objects?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 20th Aug 2011 22:43
Link
Quote: "Of these sets which is better for the games we make?

1) A tree that has many rounded curves that looks like a real tree.
2) A tree with only 8 sides that looks like a big squareish straw.

1) Grass that's 3D on all sides.
2) Grass that disappear at certain angles because it's just a flat plane.

1) When pulling the camera back each object stays the same regardless of distance.
2) When pulling the camera back each object must be reloaded with an object with less polygons to compensate for the distance/frame rate.

1) Using objects at all times with no slowdowns.
2) Tricking the players by substituting sprites for objects to make the game faster.

1) The ability to have as many objects as you want on the screen at one time without slowing the desired frame rate.
2) A limited amount of objects on the screen because the more objects the slower the frame rate.

1) Being able to make a 3D scan of a real rock in your backyard and put it into your game then get 100 other things you own and scan it into your game in about a day.
2) Hiring a professional graphic artist to make you a rock then keeping him working for the next 5 months making 100 other things.

If you answered 1 to everything then your number 1 choice should be Unlimited Detail Technology. As programmers we should embrace this new technology because it's going to make our games better looking than anything that anybody has ever done before. I don't care if it's voxels or magic fairies that make it happen the fact remains that we saw the demo working live on that last video so we know it's not a scam. How much better do you think Darkbasic Pro would be if we weren't limited by object numbers or polygon count on those objects?"

I couldn't agree more. I don't know that people are necessarily "against" Unlimited Detail though... It's more just that people are skeptical that it truly exists. Obviously every one would much rather have choice 1 on every one of those if it were truly possible. But it's just that... If it's possible.

When I look at those trees in Unlimited Detail, I couldn't hope anymore that we start seeing graphics like that. I'm someone that is considered a graphics whore. I can't stand playing games that are visually awful. And it's always driven me crazy looking at square trees lol. Not that a square tree is visually awful; graphics are still absolutely, incredibly amazing even without the idea of Unlimited Detail. I would just much rather EVERY single item in a video game world be as realistic looking as possible.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Isocadia
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 09:34
Link
But honestly, if animation is that hard ( if they use something like indexing ) then lets just make the static world in points, and distribute all the polygons we gain from that ( which are rendered on the GPU therefor there would still be a need for a GPU ) to the moving models, making all the animated models rounder ( in terms of edges ) and the world just perfect.


Though I have to agree, I strongly believe this can be pulled off, but bloody hell if they would just release a demo....
Back to top
Profile PM
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 19:15
Link
Quote: "1) Being able to make a 3D scan of a real rock in your backyard and put it into your game then get 100 other things you own and scan it into your game in about a day."


And I imagine your plan extends to inventing an alien hoverjet before you can scan it into your game? Or hiring a US marine for the day to scan him into your CoD parody?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 19:20 Edited at: 21st Aug 2011 19:22
Link
Did Epic release public demos of Unreal Engine 3 before it was ready? No, but they did release teaser videos for years before the actual realease.


Quote: "And I imagine your plan extends to inventing an alien hoverjet before you can scan it into your game? Or hiring a US marine for the day to scan him into your CoD parody?"


So, you model him in Silo or something high detail and never have to worry about putting too many details into your object.

The need for an artist will never go away, but as he said in the video it may be more traditional methods of art. They might scan in an actor dressed up as a space marine, or make a model or sculpture of the spaceship.

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
Back to top
Profile PM
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 20:14
Link
... clay modelling which is what they do in car design


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 20:28 Edited at: 21st Aug 2011 20:29
Link
Quote: "Did Epic release public demos of Unreal Engine 3 before it was ready? No, but they did release teaser videos for years before the actual realease."


Are Epic a reputable development company? Yes. Thus we can trust that their teaser videos represent technology that actually works.



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 20:30
Link
I'm sure there's nothing to stop people scanning in models today and then simply converting them to polys, then reduce detail accordingly. I'm guessing the reason why it isn't done is it probably doesn't look as good, is less time efficient, or most likely, because it's impossible to scan in an object with concave parts.

I'm guessing to scan in a person, you'd have to scan in legs, arms and other parts separately because they obscure each other when doing a 360 degree pass. You'd then have to reconnect the objects together, remove seeming and blend colours etc. Some things would be impossible to scan too, such as the inside of a box object (microwave, over, cupboard, etc).

I think it's possibly the limitations and difficulties with scanning technology that is stopping it being used, and not it's incompatibiliy with polygon graphics.

Back to top
Profile PM
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 20:58
Link
3D scanning is possible and has been done already two ways that I know of that work with any shape:
1) The earlier one I saw was a robotic arm with a scanner on the end that could be moved around freely. The arm had sensors in so it could detect exactly where the scanner was and where it was pointing. It then built up a virtual 3d model of the environment. (in triangles )

2) The newer one I saw was using the Kinect. Some software could detect where the kinect box was by tracking its movement using the camera and depth information. It then built up a virtual 3d model of the environment. (in triangles )

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 21:06 Edited at: 21st Aug 2011 21:06
Link
Interesting Diggsey! With that in mind, I wondered why more people don't use that tech then. I guess the point is, you can't scan in the majority of what makes up a world. You can't scan in a house or a multi-story car park. It's probably more expensive and complicated to get permission to scan an M60 from a military armoury with a massive robotic arm too. Easier to just model it! You could maybe scan yourself or other people, but then you need to source costumes, rather than model them. So the only things you could really scan with ease would be mundane objects like a chair or a rock, and those objects are so easy to model by hand, it probably makes it fairly pointless.

So I would guess the tech is great for unique items that you want for specific scenarios (e.g. scan your own face to use as an avatar in a game), but not useful or cost effective for most game models.

Back to top
Profile PM
Diggsey
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 21:27 Edited at: 21st Aug 2011 21:28
Link
http://www.inavateonthenet.net/article/44200/Microsoft-unveils-3D-scanning-tools-at-Siggraph-2011.aspx

Check that out. It starts off as fairly impressive, and ends with incredible

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 21st Aug 2011 22:30 Edited at: 21st Aug 2011 22:32
Link
wow, you found a site which uses Microsoft's plugins
oh, it's from microsoft


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Agent Dink
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 01:25 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2011 01:41
Link
I think you guys are missing the point of all their talks about scanning items in.

They're simply saying you can do this if you like, because despite how many millions of polygons get scanned in, once they're converted to their point cloud engine it doesn't matter. All the potential detail is retained.

You don't have to scan things in. You can still model your characters or your items and convert those over to the unlimited detail engine.

Quote: "Are Epic a reputable development company? Yes. Thus we can trust that their teaser videos represent technology that actually works."


Yeah, sure, Epic is reputable, but Euclideon hasn't really given anyone any real reason to believe they're anything but sincere. If anyone still thinks it's a hoax or a scam, then you're being ridiculous and you're resistant to change. They have obviously developed this technology, the company exists, they have an office, the engine has been demonstrated live, and it obviously works in every instance that they've shown us. They aren't showing you animation, shaders, environmental destruction, or actual playable games because the tech isn't there yet.

Give it time, sit back, relax, and just think about how awesome games might look when this is ready.

@Diggsey. That video is amazing! Nice find!

http://lossofanonymity.wordpress.com
Back to top
Profile PM
DJ Almix
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Location: Freedom
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 02:20
Link
Quote: "wow, you found a site which uses Microsoft's plugins
oh, it's from microsoft "


Microsoft plugins are lame.

also...

Apple products still suck

Back on topic

How long has this company been around, does anyone know?

[center]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 08:29 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2011 08:31
Link
Quote: "Yeah, sure, Epic is reputable, but Euclideon hasn't really given anyone any real reason to believe they're anything but sincere. If anyone still thinks it's a hoax or a scam, then you're being ridiculous and you're resistant to change. They have obviously developed this technology, the company exists, they have an office, the engine has been demonstrated live, and it obviously works in every instance that they've shown us. They aren't showing you animation, shaders, environmental destruction, or actual playable games because the tech isn't there yet."

I haven't been reading anyone's posts really... But who here is actually saying it's a hoax or scam? I haven't really seen anyone say that--course I haven't been following really.
Because honestly I wouldn't expect anyone to think it's a scam or hoax. It's obviously a real piece of technology and they are obviously a legitimate company... It's getting the technology to actually work exactly how the company claims it will that is causing the skepticism. At least that's what I am skeptical about, getting unlimited detail to work exactly how it's claimed and to be the future of graphics.
People are simply being stubborn and honestly just being ignorant if they honestly think this whole thing is a hoax. Technology is never going to stop and this software does NOT sound entirely unreal. I have my doubts as it seems like such an insane jump in graphics, but that's generally how technology works anyways.

Quote: "Apple products still suck"

Dude, come on, don't start with that crap here lol.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 08:56 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2011 09:06
Link
@ RedneckRambo:

Thanks. You're probably right that it's not "against" but just skeptical of the technology.

I regularly read Popular Science so when they had an article many years ago titled "Bendable Concrete" and showed a picture of a small slab of concrete that's bending without breaking it may seem "impossible" to anyone that hears just the term "Bendable Concrete" but I know it's possible and actually exists. I guess Unlimited Detail is so revolutionary that it is a problem for people to accept that it's real. I for one read about "impossible" things becoming real almost every month so I accepted Unlimited Detail easily after seeing the videos.

http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html


@ CoffeeGrunt:

Yeah I'll scan an ironing board for the base, some vases for jet exhaust pipes, a tall lamp for a control rod, and a beanbag for an ergonomic alien chair. Put them all together and one alien hoverjet done.

I don't really like war games so it's a no on hiring the US Marine.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 09:59 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2011 10:03
Link
At first I thought it was a hoax, because of the "too much data issue". Then they showed that realtime demo. Now I no longer think it's a hoax. However, the data requirements which I initially think made it impossible are still present, and still haven't been explained, so I now upgrade it from a hoax to a scam. It may work, but it is not unlimited. It cannot be unlimited.

DUDES! I MEAN DUDES, COME ON!!! You all work with computers! You cannot frequent a programming forum and not understand it's impossible to have unlimited 3D data in a storage device. It's limited by the size of the storage device. In realtime apps, this is the size of RAM (I know we have swap files, but they're not fast enough for realtime apps, though a dungeon siege "load on the fly" would be possible, but then draw distances would need to be taken into account).

I think this is all based on instanced point cloud data (as the real time demo shows) so we can have amazing worlds made up of the same repeated meshes over and over. A very limited application scope currently, but the more RAM we have, the more useful it will become. I just wonder if the Aussy government agency who funded them understood this concept, or understood that this makes it much less practical for games (at least, they'd never have the detail show in the real time demo). If they didn't, it's kind of a scam!

Back to top
Profile PM
MrValentine
AGK Backer
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 11:03
Link
is it safe for me to come in here and mention... VERTEX DATA?

{just wondering if this was mentioned earlier I have been reading the emails just quickly... but today I was doing some code and missed out a cmaera position and DBPro threw up a vertex data error... and I remembered something they called Vertex Graphics or something...

Any insight into this guys? possibly related?

Back to top
Profile PM
RedneckRambo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Worst state in USA... California
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 11:31
Link
Quote: "DUDES! I MEAN DUDES, COME ON!!! You all work with computers! You cannot frequent a programming forum and not understand it's impossible to have unlimited 3D data in a storage device. It's limited by the size of the storage
device. In realtime apps, this is the size of RAM (I know we have swap files, but they're not fast enough for realtime
apps, though a dungeon siege "load on the fly" would be possible, but then draw distances would need to be taken into
account)."

The word "unlimited" really has people caught in a bubble. You are all missing the entire point IMO. The engine is capable of running smoothly regardless of how much data there is in it. That does NOT mean there is actually going to be "unlimited" data in video games with this engine. Obviously we are limited to storage space. Games will just have much, much, much better performance regardless of the amount of data.

At least that's what I think this thing does lol.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 13:18
Link
Quote: "Games will just have much, much, much better performance regardless of the amount of data."


But it looks like crap.



Support a charitable indie game project!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 14:44 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2011 14:46
Link
Quote: "Obviously we are limited to storage space."


Ok, I agree that must be what they mean by unlimited, but essentially that's limited in the same way polygon graphics are, just for different reasons.

This is way I see it now. This engine has three possibilities:
1 - Massive world with lots of variety to the terrain and objects, only possible with very low-res point cloud data, otherwise there isn't enough storage, so would look rubbish.
2 - Massive world, with very detailed objects, looks great, but requires masses of repetition (instanced objects) to be possible, looks very very samey like their demo.
3 - Tiny world, all completely unique objects, very detailed, would suit only very compact game worlds. Reminds me of that other voxel engine - atomage was it? Just without the cool physics.

Scenario 1 would be done better by a polygon engine. Scenario 3 would be done better by something like Atomage (or whatever it was called). This engine appears to just suit scenario 2, from what we know of it and can guess from it. I don't see the value of this scenario.

Again, all speculation, but that's where I am at the moment.

Back to top
Profile PM
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 16:03
Link
you'll have to believe that their claims on data compaction are true (it's called compression, but ok).

Besides, repetition happens in today's games, take a look at a game with mod tools and you'll start to see how few pieces can make up a world (see fallout 3)


Not Spanish, Not Eight, Just Ocho

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2011 16:15
Link
Yeah, Dungeon Siege has a clever tile system too. It's not height maps, it's just prefab meshes (with lots of variety), placed over and over to make huge, seemingly varied worlds. But if this is just prefabs repeated like all other games, it becomes far less special and again, very limited.

Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-24 09:26:24
Your offset time is: 2025-05-24 09:26:24