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 in games

Author
Message
Phaelax
DBPro Master
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 04:07
I know we've discussed this before I believe, so it's not new. But whatever came of this? I still have a hard time believing this is real and not some joke. They show great detail, but only running at 20fps they say. And very simple 2-shade shadows. But they say they have another version running much higher frame rates (but don't say how high) and with much better shading. It's like "here's a demo, just imagine a better one but we can't show you that yet".



"You're not going crazy. You're going sane in a crazy world!" ~Tick
RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 04:45 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 04:47
If I recall, the resounding opinion was that they aren't achieving "unlimited detail", they're achieving "unlimited instances of a small set of high quality voxel models". So although it seems like they're going through a vast world full of this unlimited detail, if you pay attention they're really just going through a world of cookie-cutter voxel models that just keep getting repeated in various patterns.

Notch had some tweet or something explaining why it's fake, been a while since I've read it but here it is:
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 04:52 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 05:01
@Phaelax-

Oh, yeah? I remember this stuff. I think everybody kind of gave up.

Here's the facts. Sure, in the future there will be no point in polygons because there will be a bunch of little 3D points and stuff. But, right now everybody just sort of uses polygons. Thing is, you could have like a voxel particle cloud with smooth edges, but human video game players are idiots and they think that sharp pixelated polygons look better. So, we use sharp pixelated polygons.

The problem is that our computers aren't nearly powerful enough yet to render all of those little "3D atoms" shown in the "unlimited detail" videos. Of course, maybe if it were a static environment and it could all fit in RAM, you could have some small area with the "unlimited detail". I don't know, I think we'll be alright with just all the polygons and stuff, but if dynamic objects make their way into this "unlimited detail" and computers are fast enough to handle 3D math on hundreds of thousands of little points at a decent framerate (like 50 FPS) then cool! Otherwise, we don't need this "unlimited detail" right now.

And by the way, I'm not sure if these guys ever got back to us on this BS. It reminds me of the whole "Infinity Universe" thing. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

EDIT:

I read the thing written by that Minecraft loser. Actually, he makes the technology sound pretty cool. So, you can transform the objects in "unlimited detail" just like polygon objects? Well, why can't game developers use this technology? "SVO"s or whatever. You could just precompute the animated voxel models based on some morph algorithm and then have full animation that looks better than all of this polygon crap. Who needs polygons? If our computers are so fast nowadays that they can render a bunch of complex voxel objects at once then we can safely abandom the whole polygon paradigm.
RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 04:56
@Fluffy Rabbit

No, computers are powerful enough to render the data, the main issue is the size of the data itself.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 04:59
And the video sounds like an infomercial. They keep saying "oh, the ground looks repetitive because we're not artists", to which I say "hire some artists then". If they're really trying to impress people, they need to export their so-called unlimited detail scene to an executable and distribute it so people can use it on their own machines,


Senior Developer - CBS Interactive Music Group
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 05:02
@RUCCUS-

Instancing is fine by me. As you drive down the highway, you see the same chunks of road, the same trees, the same grass. Who needs variety? Haven't you ever played an RPG Maker game?
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 05:09
If they want variety then an artist is still going to have to make all the different varieties of objects. The cost will be artists' time and the hard drive space required to hold all of the objects in the so-called "unlimited detail atomic" format.


Senior Developer - CBS Interactive Music Group
RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 05:16
@Fluffy

No, you seem to be misunderstanding the problem. The issue is not with the instancing itself. The issue is the fact that they can only use a small number of unique models for the instances. If you're making a game that only features a highway, telephone poles and some shrubs, then sure, the engine would work, because the terabyte of space required to hold the voxel data for a road, telephone pole and shrub might just fit on the machine. But then, if this is all the game features, then do you really need to see the telephone pole's atoms?

Change the game to include a city and you can no longer use the engine because the machine running the game doesn't have enough space to hold all of the data for the city.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 05:56 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 05:56
@RUCCUS-

So, you decrease the resolution a little. What's the big deal? You only need about 100 unique objects.
Kezzla
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 06:27
I think all they'd need to do is compile an exe of their island and let us explore it for ourselves. With such a massive claim it would be the obvious thing to do. They would have backing in a heartbeat.

I'm not a complete idiot -- Some parts are just missing.
Hodgey
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 08:11
They posted this video a while back:



It's a little more convincing but as Kezzla said, an example we can explore ourselves would be much better.

Neuro Fuzzy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 08:59
Quote: "And by the way, I'm not sure if these guys ever got back to us on this BS. It reminds me of the whole "Infinity Universe" thing. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

Infinity-universe is planning a kickstarter for this year. Don't you compare it to this! (could still possibly turn into vaporware, but still lightyears more credible than these guys!)

mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 12:18 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 12:20
I don't see a connection between unlimited detail and better gameplay. Jeez, I would like to see a bunch of polygon awesome games than this. It's more like another Crysis demonstration. Pff.

Plus, unlimited details mean that game development definetely would cost a huge waste of money! It means not 100 but 10 games a year*. Sounds pretty fascinating, eh?

*approx.

P.S. and don't forget how many giant companies are going down these days... THQ, Sony, etc etc. WHO would make us such expensive games?

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 12:38
Quote: "
Plus, unlimited details mean that game development definetely would cost a huge waste of money! It means not 100 but 10 games a year*. Sounds pretty fascinating, eh?"


Explain that will you dearie? We are completly removing retopo and baking process here. How is that making for LONGER and more EXPENSIVE process?

given, animation will probably be a bit harder, but still.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 12:44
I'm no more convinced that when this was first discussed. Really, there should have been more news by now, maybe Notch has to have a pop at them again.

The thing that concerns me are the 2 things that we haven't seen, and it's 2 things that every game relies on (probably) - Collision detection, and animation.
If animation is using the same voxel geometry, then that would be a massive burdon on memory and processing. I don't buy into that crud about compacted memory - no algorithm out there can allow unlimited memory, or even compact with much efficiency with the complexity of that data. We aren't talking WAV to MP3 or BMP to JPG here, we are talking about lossless compression and it's rare to see it compact more than 50% with real data. A modern game character might have thousands of frames of animation data.

Even if they don't use a unique model for each frame, lets say they have some sort of bone system - well the data footprint would be increased exponentially as well, due to each point needing to be assigned one or more bones with strengths. Then, to calculate all the interpolated positions, well there's a reason why animated models tend to have fairly modest polygon counts.

These are my same concerns, and nothing anyone has said on the matter has reduced my concern. It doesn't help that the first thing the interviewer says is that the developer is a vegetarian who funds an orphanage.... yeah, this is going to be a frank and honest interview! - developer seems like a douche, interviewer is definately a douche, and sadly there's nothing more to go on than that.

I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more memes.
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 13:13 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 13:17
@Quik

That's too obvious to explain. Do you know what is a production cost is?

And that is the video how to sculpt pro a tree like with unlimited detail. Note: it lasts an hour, and it's one of the many.



I dont think that we can expect for example Call of Duty with such a detail for a very long time, srsly. Just because that's non profit stuff.

EDIT: even Nvidia still not released ther real physx hair, what can we say about any physics with those atoms...

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 13:26
"Unlimited" detail doesn't mean infinite. You can limit yourself and spend less time making crappy low-poly objects to save on your so-called "production costs". If you don't like the heat, get out of the sun.
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 13:37 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 13:40
1. That's like making tic-tac-toe on Frostbite. Pointless.
2. There is too many restrictions and limitations now to use that just for increasing poly count.
3. I have not seen crappy low-poly objects since Shiny's Messiah and Sacrifice; PSOne (edit: and Nintendo LOL)

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 13:43
@mr Handy-

You want to see crappy low-poly graphics? Check out Dark Survival 2!

Also, what is the Frostbite engine?
Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 14:04
Frostbite is the engine used in Battlefield3. That's a good point actually, Frostbite has the best terrain render distance pretty much - it's not the prettiest terrain, but you never see the end of it, and the maps are massive.
How would Unlimited Detail tackle a decent sized terrain?

Also, I'm pretty sure unlimited means the same as infinite. Unlimited = no limits = potentially infinite. Stop splitting hairs just for the sake of it Fluffy.

I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more memes.
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 14:15
Quote: "And that is the video how to sculpt pro a tree like with unlimited detail. Note: it lasts an hour, and it's one of the many"


this is still no different than today - today we almost always makes sculpts for everything - and then it needs to be retopoed and baked.

This REMOVES the two later steps, once again - how is that incresing production time and cost?



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 14:40
I am very impressed with these guys, it takes a lot of guts to step outside conventional wisdom and go against the grain of the whole industry.

It's a simple concept, for a 1600x900 resolution screen you only need to do 1,440,000 calculations, no matter how detailed the world is. Obviously looking up each pixel is the hard part and is the bit they claim to have something unique.

Conventional wisdom says, and I have no reason to doubt it does not apply here, that it can be very quick to look up static information, but at the expense of changing the information being very slow. Or you can have dynamic changing information, but it takes longer to look up any one piece of data.

I don't see animation as an issue, I would say the issue is movement in general, if you can do movement then you can do animation. Are their algorithms as efficient when stuff is changing position and orientation? almost certainly not.

I don't see collision detection being an issue, the collision/physics engines keep very simple versions of objects and it would be exactly the same here, a box with 10,000,000,000 voxels is still represented as a simple box with 8 points in the collision simulation.

Van B
Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Oct 2002
Location: Sunnyvale
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 15:15
Quote: "
I don't see animation as an issue, I would say the issue is movement in general, if you can do movement then you can do animation. Are their algorithms as efficient when stuff is changing position and orientation? almost certainly not.

I don't see collision detection being an issue, the collision/physics engines keep very simple versions of objects and it would be exactly the same here, a box with 10,000,000,000 voxels is still represented as a simple box with 8 points in the collision simulation.
"


Movement is not as complex as animation. Take your body, even just 1 part of your body, your arm as a voxel model. Now, it can move on XYZ quite easily - now how does it bend? - well probably has to work just like skeleton animation. Each vertex or voxel would have to move according to the bones in the arm, a bone at the elbow would have 2 bones to worry about. But usually this is done with a couple of thousand polygons, not a couple of hundred thousand... which would be the case with a voxel model. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that the graphics card tends to handle animation these days.

As for collision, well for movement collision they could use a low poly version, just like they do already with traditional games. But what about accurate collision? - what about bullet collision, and the sort of collision response needed for a physics engine. It's one thing to take a screen pixel with precalculated normal and work out what to render - raytrace systems have done that for decades - but it's another matter altogether to search all that data and check for collision, with no handy screen index.

Mostly though - did you see how nervous the developer got when it looked like the interviewer was gonna collide with the elephant. No collision detection in the demo, no animation, and the fact that we haven't seen either of these in a new demo, well I think we can safely say they are posing more of a challenge than they thought they would.

I also noticed that they haven't shown any tilting - I wonder if tilting is a problem for the render system.

We don't know for sure, because these guys won't release any more details in case someone pokes a hole in their whole system, and that would affect funding. Sorry but I just don't trust these guys, we should trust our gut feeling, even if it is pure scepticism.

I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more memes.
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 15:26
@Van B - I take your point about bone animations, this could cause big problems. That does not rule out animation though, although I still think moving objects around will hit their FPS in a big way.

I still don't see any problem with physics or collision, the physics engine would still use standard polygon shapes that wrap the objects at any detail you feel desirable.

Even if this tech does not replace all of todays rendering technologies they still may have something very useful for certain applications.

RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 17:16 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 17:34
Quote: "Stop splitting hairs just for the sake of it Fluffy."


I'll second that. The entire point of this engine is to have "infinite detail". If all of your responses to our points are "well you could just use less detail" then the entire point of the engine is bunk. "Using less detail" is akin to using polygons.
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 17:24
This project was abandoned after Notch correctly pointed out that even if there was a way to render an unlimited amount of detail, there is certainly no way to describe it. Unless you are using procedural generation, which we already have. So either you "decrease the resolution a little" (???) and get very finite, limited detail that looks no better than polygons, or use polygons.

There are some pretty good voxel engines out there, all of them created by smart people who know the limits of the technology. It's entirely possible and would be cool to see voxel engine stuff in modern games, but this unlimited detail stuff is not it.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 17:58
Quote: "This project was abandoned"

No it wasn't. Notch doesn't know any more about this project than anyone on here and he certainly isn't an authority on computer graphics technology.

A few people seem to be caught up on the word "unlimited": of course it's not really "unlimited", just as the frostbite engine doesn't actually give you frostbite!

Honestly you guys are acting like a bunch of kids watching a magic trick, you either assert it's impossible if you don't know how it's done or you complain that it's not "real magic" if it IS possible!

They've taken a new approach to creating a voxel engine and it looks good. We don't know any more about it, and while that's a shame, we're not in a position to assess it properly.



"I am a big dumb babby! " - TheComet
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 18:06
Quote: "this is still no different than today - today we almost always makes sculpts for everything - and then it needs to be retopoed and baked.

This REMOVES the two later steps, once again - how is that incresing production time and cost?"


Quik, i think you even can't see a difference between painting character unwrap texture in 128*128 and 4096*4096 sizes. It needs more skills, more details, more time = more money.

Unlimited details means that USERS (players) will demand super-quality voxel objects, regardless on copmpany's budget. To make an action game with that quality is very RISKY, because money loss can lead to company's end. Okay?

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 18:13
mr handy, if you are not making sculpts top notch - for a regular polygon game, then you are not doing it properly. Most of the sculpts I have seen for games - even for League of Legends, have been top notch and perfectly viable for this engine.

I definitly still do not see your point in how it makes it more expensive to create the assets.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 18:18
Quote: "Unlimited details means that USERS (players) will demand super-quality voxel objects, regardless on copmpany's budget."

Rubbish. People don't expect every game to have Crysis-levels of polygons, so why would that change when we move away from polygons?
This is the same kind of reaction people had to the advent of CD-ROMs.



"I am a big dumb babby! " - TheComet
RUCCUS
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 18:22 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 19:49
Quote: "of course it's not really "unlimited""


The makers of the engine explicitly state that there is no limit to the amount of detail they can render. While this is true in the sense that they may have created an algorithm for sorting an unlimited amount of data and rendering it at a consistent frame rate, the fact remains that the data itself is limited to the available space of the machine running it, and is therefor not unlimited.

My only argument against the validity of this engine is that of the way they try to present it. If I can render 20 amazing looking models all the way down to their individual hairs and wrinkles, that is little more than a tech demo akin to the amazing cars you see at a car show but know will never be practical. If I am required to cut the detail of the models down that I am using in the engine just so I can include enough models in the game to make it an actual "game", and in doing so am losing so much detail that I might as well stick with polygonal models in the first place with the added benefit of using matured software to create and animate the models, then there isn't much point in the engine at all.

Yes, they've created a nice piece of technology. Yes, I'm sure they have created great compression and rendering algorithms. No, I don't think they have created a viable option for a game engine to create games that have a need utilize to their technology.
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 19:22
Quote: "A few people seem to be caught up on the word "unlimited": of course it's not really "unlimited", just as the frostbite engine doesn't actually give you frostbite! "


I guess we're thrown off by the fact that they constantly use the words "unlimited detail" and "the detail is unlimited" in their videos and text, and the fact that this project's one feature that supposedly sets it apart from literally every other voxel engine in the history of the world is that it can render and process unlimited detail.

Quote: "Honestly you guys are acting like a bunch of kids watching a magic trick, you either assert it's impossible if you don't know how it's done or you complain that it's not "real magic" if it IS possible!"


This isn't really less admirable than being the kid that sees a magic trick and thinks "it must be magic!"

Benjamin
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 19:46
Quote: "And the video sounds like an infomercial. They keep saying "oh, the ground looks repetitive because we're not artists", to which I say "hire some artists then". If they're really trying to impress people, they need to export their so-called unlimited detail scene to an executable and distribute it so people can use it on their own machines,"


Exactly. If it's so revolutionary they won't mind investing in some good artists to demonstrate it.

You're signature has been erased by a mod
Phaelax
DBPro Master
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 20:01
After watching Hodgey's video, I'm no more convinced either.

They show a skeletal animation and then say how terrible it looks but it's 7 years old and we've improved since then..... SO SHOW US! Stop telling us how much better the system is over the demos you show and just show us what's actually better.

15-25 fps? Really? That's all you can get? He seemed pretty adamant about controlling the camera himself and not letting the interviewer look around for himself.

And I don't care if the CEO is a vegetarian who sponsors an Indian orphanage. He sounds rather full of himself anyway.


One thing I did notice was that as they zoomed out, you don't see anything jump to a lower-quality object. In COD4, this annoys me a lot since models switch when I'm still rather close. And the switching even at distance is so obvious that I often mistake it as enemy movement and it draws my attention towards it needlessly. Maybe newer games are so bad with this anymore (i know cod4 is a bit out of date).

"You're not going crazy. You're going sane in a crazy world!" ~Tick
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 22:37 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 22:57
Quote: "Rubbish. People don't expect every game to have Crysis-levels of polygons,"

If the game says that it is made on cry engine people will expect high quality graphics.
If the game says that it is made on unlimited detail engine people will expect to see unlimited detail.

I don't know any people that would set graphic settings on low and be statisfied when they know that *there is* high preset.

EDIT: well, I change my mind about voxel game production. I was thinking about games like Crysis or FarCry 3, but I forgot about "indie" games. They are made with the other way, the other than AAA games.
So Quik, you're right, production difficulty depends on what the game itself is.

And of course, now I expect to see Minecraft on that engine, as now it is seems to be possible to do (with new shadow system).

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Kevin Picone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 23:00
If the approach works as suggested and is truly a new way of tracing such scenes in real time, then they'd crazy to publish any demo's without suitable patent protections. To them, the value is all in the licensing, they wouldn't be making apps/games in-house.

Quik
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 23:04
now you completly lost me.. I was indeed talking about high end "quality" production games..



Whose eyes are those eyes?
DevilLiger
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2003
Location: Fresno,CA,USA
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 23:41 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 23:51
For all I know maybe in 100 years this technology "might" take off, but for now we don't have the power to run this tech and have it look, play better, and as fast as any modern game.
Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 23rd Jan 2013 23:47 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2013 23:50
This popped up on youtube

I'm assuming they have some kind of scanners set up around that box.



"I am a big dumb babby! " - TheComet
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 00:43
Great find Obese87.

Pity the link is dead, hope it is from Euclideon and not just someone filming a box

That gives a good idea of what a game could look like if this technology becomes a reality for gamers.

This video is miles ahead of anything we have seen so far, with lighting etc looking perfect. Makes me doubt a little, but I remain mostly optimistic that this is Euclideon.

mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 08:49
Now I am sure that this engine is for indie.

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
TheComet
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 10:29
Loads of questions are unanswered for me.

* Problems

Rendering the atoms. A "search algorithm" that "only needs to pick one pixel", and they're doing it with 300 trillion atoms. They even claim that there "is no limit" to how many atoms the "search algorithm" can handle. How is this possible, and why should I believe that one person in his garage can produce something like this, where the industry with all of its money cannot?

Holding the atoms in RAM. Again, with such quantities of atoms, it's impossible to hold all of that information in RAM, even with the best compression (and I'm being optimistic with 10%). They need to be stored somewhere, right?

Saving the atoms. The hard drive may just be able to store the map presented in the video, but we've all seen how large MineCraft maps get, and those are voxel based as well.

Animation. Perhaps the cookies aren't ready to eat, but I can't imagine how it will be possible to reposition millions of atoms every frame, all while simulating skin stretching as we know it with weighted bone animation, and not to mention recalculate lighting and shadows.

Dynamic lighting & shadows. I might actually believe this is possible. If their claim for a fast "search algorithm" works, and assuming they calculate lighting and shadows only for the "found atoms", this may be possible.

* suspicions

Repeating models. The world they demonstrate is always the same. In fact, I think it's only composed of about 20 different models. Copying and pasting the same data everywhere would resolve the memory issues.

TheComet

http://blankflankstudios.tumblr.com/
"Man being a noob sucks! " - OBese87
mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 11:53 Edited at: 24th Jan 2013 11:56
Quote: "* Problems
Rendering the atoms. Holding the atoms in RAM. Saving the atoms."

I think that they used crossover between MegaTexture and BSP, if you know what i mean.

Quote: "Animation."

I think first version of animation will be classic - no bones, just limbs (rotation, move, scale).

Quote: "Dynamic lighting & shadows."

I think first version vill be classic - baked world and projection shadows from characters only


EDIT: why nobody mentioned fake water and nes-style tiled ground?

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
Matty H
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2008
Location: England
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 15:03
I think we should also keep in mind that techniques for bone animation, lighting, water etc have all been developed and advanced by thousands of developers over many years, with hardware being designed specifically to solve issues with rendering polygons.

I agree with mr handy, the first versions of this tech will be missing many things, but hopefully will provide some good things, like we see in these vids.

mr Handy
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 24th Jan 2013 18:58
Oh those russians!

Vangers, a 1998 voxel rpg racing game with open world.

*** Merry Chuckmas! ***
_Pauli_
AGK Developer
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Posted: 25th Jan 2013 09:14 Edited at: 25th Jan 2013 09:17
...and don't forget about the genius Ken Silverman's Voxlap Engine (used for example in Voxelstein 3D).

But I wouldn't expect a pure voxel based usable game engine that looks anything like what these Unlimited Technology guys claim in the next 5 years.

I think the Atomontage Engine has more potential, which mixes voxels with polygonal models and has physics already working. It also uses some techniques like Bloom and Depth Of Field wisely to hide individual voxels.

Libervurto
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 25th Jan 2013 19:17
Here's a nice two-part video of Atomontage with commentary. He goes into some detail about the benefits of voxels and why we should move away from polygons.


Meanwhile...
CoffeeGrunt
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 25th Jan 2013 20:46
Oh no, this again?

Show me something tangible and I'll believe it. Otherwise, I'll categorise it with unlimited, carbon-free power, and calorie-free chocolate fudge cake.

Plus, anyone saying that they should limit the detail is ignoring the entire pitch of an "Unlimited Detail" engine. There's obviously flaws, and they're obviously hiding rather than being honest with them. First thing a game company does with a shiny, new engine is release a game showcasing it, a la every Crysis game, Unreal Tournament 3, Half Life 2, etc, etc.

Game engines and the first game normally go hand-in-hand, because a game creates a format to test the functions in every way, and releases it in a pleasing and presentable manner to the end user once finished. What's here is like CryEngine 3's demo, without the sky detail, model variety, shaders, lighting, collision, gameplay, AI...

It's a game engine with no game.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-20 22:30:24
Your offset time is: 2025-05-20 22:30:24