Unlimited Detail Technology
How easy would it be to create models for this? (I know easy is subjective) Would it take longer than creating a polygon mesh?
You'd probably use existing DCC tools and then convert the hi-poly to a voxel representation.
How easy would it be to create models for this? (I know easy is subjective) Would it take longer than creating a polygon mesh?
I don't think we're really seeing point cloud data; it looks more like the geometry is defined by discrete formulas, hence why a curve remains curvy no matter how much you zoom in. I would expect the process to involve parameterized curves and noise algorithms (i.e. detail is procedurally calculated, not approximated).
How easy would it be to create models for this? (I know easy is subjective) Would it take longer than creating a polygon mesh?
any way you want, as it is easy to convert all kind of data into voxel. you can have scanned 3d data like the famous budda and dragon model, you can have parameterized models like the utah teapot, usualy triangle meshes, or tessellated meshes like I do now. you can use distancefields that you edit or simulation data (e.g. SPH fluids). (and it would take far less time, in theory, you could use that Transforms 2 movie model, voxelize it and convert it down to a degree that runs nice on your target platform, including LODs)
if I had the time (or money) to create tools, I would probably import rough meshes as solids (beside the obvious box/sphere/cone/etc. models) into an editor and allow ppl to create levels with basic boolen operations at first. then they could draw on top of those geometry, either inking colors (or stamping or whatever) or creating real geometry information, zbrush alike.
Like john carmack said, the really nice thing about it is the ease of use for artist. with voxel data they cannot fuck up that much, they can mostly concentrate on doing art, this lowers costs (as artist can work faster) and rises quality (as you don't have to burn artist half the time to uglyfy art to make it faster).
(that's just the tool side of it, I see way more possibilities that barely can be done with nowadays tech)
[quote name='helloBenjamin' timestamp='1301947923' post='4794346']
they're sitting on a pretty hot technological breakthrough, so they can't even afford to post an executable or reveal anything that could lead others to reproduce those results.
Any well-off graphics company could EASILY reproduce the results.
[/quote]
Yep, successful middleware is almost universally based of making tools, even the big engine licenses like UE3 mostly make their sales off good tools.
Speaking of which, the demonstrations of animations have me wondering if this will indeed be the future. No need for base meshes and displacement or normal maps, and that Lionhead demonstration already shows art tools that could take advantage of such. My main question is what sort of disk space is going to be taken up by these models. Higher profit margins means digital distribution is going to be quite popular on the next generation of consoles, but few will want to download a fifty gig game.
[/quote]
We already have bitmap compression. And computers are getting so powerful, why not procedurally generate the details on the fly?
Yep, this is one thing that makes them seem pretty removed from reality. They're completely ignoring all of the prior art and pretending that their work is unique.[/quote]
Now that's what I'm talking about!
Voxels are much better than this "Unlimited Detail Technology" crap. Although, I would really like like to see parts of it used in voxel rendering technology.
Some of these voxel engines use data instancing to get around the space problem and procedurally storing the data (ie turn the data into a field equation where u can solve for at runtime).. Voxels being discrete u can easily do destruction, clipping, volume calculations, collision, etc.. Voxel and ray tracing go well together, one of the earliest method to render voxels was just a simple ray casting algorithm..
-ddn
-ddn
Don't the unlimited detail guys mention that they're using voxels in the videos?
Voxels are much better than this "Unlimited Detail Technology" crap. Although, I would really like like to see parts of it used in voxel rendering technology.
Don't the unlimited detail guys mention that they're using voxels in the videos?
[quote name='helloBenjamin' timestamp='1302027948' post='4794700']
Voxels are much better than this "Unlimited Detail Technology" crap. Although, I would really like like to see parts of it used in voxel rendering technology.
[/quote]
nah it's point cloud data.
Don't the unlimited detail guys mention that they're using voxels in the videos?
[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1302049456' post='4794836']
[quote name='helloBenjamin' timestamp='1302027948' post='4794700']
Voxels are much better than this "Unlimited Detail Technology" crap. Although, I would really like like to see parts of it used in voxel rendering technology.
[/quote]
nah it's point cloud data.
[/quote]
voxel are just one way of representing point data. when I started with voxels, I actually was into point rendering for quite a time and quite some books suggest to use voxel trees to manage point-clouds in a memory efficient manner, as use them to at least accelerate point rendering.
[quote name='owl' timestamp='1301890935' post='4794051']
[quote name='Sirisian' timestamp='1301890150' post='4794046']
[quote name='D_Tr' timestamp='1301855020' post='4793896']
The closest thing to this I've heard about is the sparse voxel octree raycasting technloogy. John Carmack has stated that he is experimenting with this technology for possible use in a future version of idTech. There is also an interesting discusion in this thread http://ompf.org/foru...t=904&hilit=svo. The main problem with these kinds of technology is dynamic geometry. The SVO techlology I referred to was to only be used for the static geometry. I watched the video you linked to and two more videos from the same guy and i didn't hear him say something about animation (did he?). Animation is vital to a really lifelike environment... But even for static geometry like buildings this kind of technology is interesting...
You can do animation with SVO data sets by using boundary objects and performing ray transformations at the boundary into the AABB space of the data set. This is quickly mentioned in Laine's Nvidia paper on SVO. It's not that dynamic geometry isn't possible, it's just that it's not researched much at all.
The Euclideon guys have videos showing off animation.
[/quote]
This guy claims to have done it.
[/quote]
I haven't looked at it, but here is the source code to it: http://bautembach.de/wordpress/
[/quote]
I've read the paper last night, it looks to me like just bending the ray, not really animating something freely. Or did I missunderstand it? (used the fast forward reading approach
)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
