Maximum PC

I liked his style of advertising his software - he made some (what i thought) were good points.

100,000 times funner? i would want to jump on that. They should make games. not only is it good for textures, but facial expressions would benefit a whole lot more, especially when "scanned in" to port to virtualization in the software. hopefully what i said makes sense, and i did watch the entire video.

That would be very fun. Hope that I can try it soon!

Oh,really cool ~~

vaporware

and seriously... who trusts a guy that sounds like a surfboard aussie with a head cold?

Haha , the voice is the only thing throwing me off

Is it me, or did that island look like it was made in Minecraft for some reason? Just looked like those blocky cubes that you build in to. Other than that, I'm pretty sure that if graphics are capable of those many polygons, then how would the framerate be? We would need more than the 8-core CPUs to match up with those GPUs to handle this... Not to mention at least 16 - 32GB RAM, possibly...

Didn't you hear him say, they aren't artists... like 10,000 times. lol

Almost as annoying as him saying the word "unlimited". Seriously, should make a drinking game and take a shot for every time he says "artists" and "unlimited". I'm pretty sure someone is going to go to the hospital after that 10 min demonstration.


And technically, the engine they use doesn't actually use polygons. It uses atoms or particles. Its very similar to the modeling software used for simulations for physics, fluid dynamics and some other CGI/CAD programming. The biggest issue with trying to adapt such a system to gaming is the lack of interactions with the environment and assigning animations to those "atoms" or particles as a group.

I'd have to find that one thread about the video on the one tech forum that went into full detail about it from last year, but they bring up a lot of issues on the technical side that explains the limitation of such an engine. If I remember correctly, they basically ripped the engine from a CAD program.

farcry/2 looks better.

I still haven't opened my farcry 2 box; I've had it for like 2 years now and got it on sale for $5. lol

you are missing out, great game, great graphics. completely open, go anywhere you want do anything you want. its a very long game, you will not finish it in a day or two. unlike the cod series that you can finish in 6 hours.

I've played it a few times on my friend's computer when it first came out, but nothing more than a few hours. I've been going back to playing some older games that I haven't finished like fallout3, NV and stalker series. Always get side tracked or just get bored and go to a different game.

I'm going to take a chance with the mods here and post in what is effectively a zombied topic.

So here's why this is just another group trying to siphon money out of a would-be investor and produce what is essentially vaporware.

• Point cloud rendering, if this is really what the guy is talking about, is no different than if an artist sat down with Maya or 3dsmax and made his or her own model. A point cloud is the result of a high resolution laser scanner, they did this with Erta Ale. Except, at the end of the day, you're just connecting the dots and making polygons. Which is exactly what polygonal rendering is today.
• If it's a voxel based system, such as with point sprites or something, then it's very inefficient for today's needs. We would need a metric ton of memory and processing power. The only real benefit is that you could break something off without having to generate new content.

And also, we have the ability to generate "unlimited detail" anyway with tessellation. It just needs some tweaking to get it to a point where the GPU can interpolate off the displacement map with procedural generation. And since we're also mimicking how our eyes or cameras work, there's a point where you get close enough to an object where you just don't care about detail anymore. And then there's the point where... do you really care about that much detail anyway? Do you care about millimeter sized grains of sand? Ultimately, if you were to play a game with the Samritan demo level of detail, how long would it woo you with graphics before you get so used to it, it doesn't matter?

From what I've heard online, voxel based worlds like in this video can look better, but they take SO much more memory. For example a simple polygon plane that's say 1 square meter big will consist of 2 triangles, each with 3 vertices, that's 6 vertices, each is 16 bytes large (x and y coordinates, assuming highest floating point precision, and no compression), that that's 96 bytes.

If you try to draw the same plane with voxels, that has... say 100 voxels per meter, that's 100*100 voxels per square meter. Each voxel has to store it's coordinates (8bytes for x, 8bytes for y, 4 bytes for color), that's 2.56 MB!

Of course, there is an upside too - in voxels, you can have that plane deform any way, and it'll still be 2.56MB, while the amount of triangles in the polygon world would increase.

That's why the video you saw above is very repetative - trees look great, but all trees are the copies, rocks look great, but all rocks are clones, and so on.

For now it's just not practical to use voxels to draw "pretty" graphics. But once we have 10TB DDR20 video cards, voxel worlds will definitely be the best solution.

P.S. Oh, Minecraft is technically a voxel graphics game too. They just have 1 voxel per meter density.

and also the fact that setting animations would take up even more space and quite some powerful computers with some tricky programming.

I don't think voxels are the way of the future for man-made images to be honest. Look at 2D animators, most of them have gone from "raster" (by hand, with a pen) to vector animation because it saves time to do things like morphing the image or something.

Well considering a number of them use the 3d video capturing to capture lifelike animations then tweak them, its a much different workflow than vector animations; at least for humans and a few objects like cars. It's a cool way to capture points but still very new in the industry.

I just don't see a benefit to voxels aside from not needing to create new material when you want to break it apart. Also, polygonal graphics are infinitely scalable, voxel graphics are not.

I wouldn't say infinitely scalable, there is a limit mostly due to the graphics engine abilities.

Either way, polygons are floating point, voxels are integers.