Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

[Theory] Unraveling the Unlimited Detail plausibility


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
168 replies to this topic

#161 Pottuvoi   Members   -  Reputation: 268

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:43 AM

One thing I would love to see in their next demo is a perfect quad around 1km in size tilted on every axis while keeping the spatial resolution.
If memory/disk consumption of this object is still 8% of it's polygonal counterpart I'm impressed.

I'm pretty sure that he also said their engine didn't have LoD.
No LoD on geometry or surface color/normal information is a sure way to get aliasing hell.
We prefilter our textures for a reason and would prefilter geometry if it would allow it. (like voxels do..)

Edited by Pottuvoi, 09 May 2012 - 11:44 AM.


Sponsor:

#162 pinknation   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:50 AM

try thinking more outside the box guys, unlimited detail isn't something that Bruce Dell found in some PDF file on rendering unlimited detail. He invented it, basically going against all other current techniques for rendering point data;

My gist of all this, is that the entire world(not just individual models and objects in the world), are sliced into 2D layers, and converged into cartesian coordinates; these coordinates are then during run-time almost magically reverse transformed to their proper screen-space coordinates after already being sorted through some unknown function;

Don't like that approach? We'll octree's have not been able to yeild those results in real-time either; So, lets try and take down the number of cycles, and complicated maths and leave it more simple, that's the only way he could process that much information in such a small amount of time. Accept it and move towards that; Computational Theory;

I'd also say that ray-tracing is really not the answer here as he states Thinking outside the box might be an example of this based on the cartesian idea, that is the screen-space may not be nothing more then some normals right, and just like when righting a script to do reflection, and refraction, you're no more moving a few pixels in the direction of that normal. So lets transform our cartesian coordinates with some dot product to our screen-space normal; what might happen then? Magical reverse transformation of the exact "atom" we need for that point on the screen. Without a lot of cycles; Or math.

This guy's been developing this thing for a long time, and deserves more respect for not having stuck to standards, and simply accepting the PDF's or Tutorials they find on GameDev as their ultimatum.

He went around and beyond, I say you stop fighting it, and embrace it; Just because he hasn't decided to populate it yet, does not mean that it isn't there. Give him time to perfect it, and make some affiliations with physics companies, who can then compute on the GPU while all graphics processing is being done on the CPU. This type of co-proccessing is what is going to make next-gen games next-gen; Be patient;

#163 pinknation   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:57 AM

To my above post which I cannot edit, I ment to say convert the 2D layers to radial, oh geeze I've been confusing those two a lot lately;

#164 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2956

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:15 AM

As long as he doesn't tell anyone how its done, its utterly useless for anyone.

Skeptical people does not believe because someone comes along telling they have done something. They want you to show it and will immediately ask "how?".

If you claim something extraordinary, you should expect a barrage of tough questions.

And if you answer those questions with snake oil claims that it will solve all your problems and put silly words like "unlimited" into it, then you can expect to not be taken very seriously.

#165 Krypt0n   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2685

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 24 May 2012 - 05:01 AM

there are some paper about perfect hashing of UV sets, to map positions of voxel to texture coordinates etc. (as you'd otherwise have quite a lot of data).

In theory, you could render a box and based on the UV of a particular face + view direction, you could address a voxels using this kind of perfect hashing. It would of course suck in extreme amount of memory, but would really allow that constant time voxel lookup.

#166 ProfL   Members   -  Reputation: 575

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 25 May 2012 - 12:21 PM

there are some interesting paper about this, indeed.
best so far that I've found: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/hoppe/perfecthash.pdf

#167 Rhetorician   Members   -  Reputation: 115

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:33 PM

Thank you for sharing! This is very interesting. :)

#168 Frenetic Pony   Members   -  Reputation: 1407

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:50 PM

I've been thinking about this, and despite all the talk of how parallel this stuff could even get you'd need to solve the problem of storing hi-rez point clouds to begin with, modern games take more than enough room already without the terabytes and zetabytes you could get into with point cloud stuff.

But of course there's been talk of procedurally building/rendering stuff (whatever you want to call it, not directly artist authored). And to my thinking the best looking procedurally rendered stuff today is also the stuff that is hardest to impossible for anyone to render in games, which is small repetitive details.

So, assuming then that some sort of "sparse voxel octree/point cloud dark magic" could be rendered well enough in parallel, what would people think of using such to render individual hairs/leaves/blades of grass/etc. All of which would take way too many polys to actually render just using geometry, wouldn't take almost any storage, and wouldn't really suffer from the usual procedurally rendered problem, i.e. looking highly repetitive. I mean, one strand of hair on someone's head looks like any other strand of hair on that same persons head after all.

#169 Rhetorician   Members   -  Reputation: 115

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 June 2012 - 04:33 PM

@Frenetic Pony

(whatever you want to call it, not directly artist authored)


The essence of procedural generation has no fundamental relation to artists' involvement.

So, assuming then that some sort of "sparse voxel octree/point cloud dark magic" could be rendered well enough


By rudimentary function, Unlimited Detail seems to render quite well. The problem is how these systems lack explicit mechanisms for any procedural abstraction. In this sense, Unlimited Detail is surely limited. Polygons win because they are so malleable and have much further limits. This greatly helps with both of the most identified issues of voxels: non-atomic dynamics (animation) and definition (impractical memory consumption for game maps etc). For example, in animation, rather than applying a transformation to a set of some geometric vertices (which mostly just define the spatial character of a model, and little else), you must apply it to the entirety of a Euclidean-regular volume, which requires a comparably greater mass of "points" to be manipulated, than the polygonal geometry.

what would people think of using such to render individual hairs/leaves/blades of grass/etc. All of which would take way too many polys to actually render just using geometry, wouldn't take almost any storage


Okay. A rule-of-thumb (which I hope Euclideon holds): with large masses of data, its best to take advantage of loops, recursion, hierarchy and all such forms of procedure ( procedural! :D ); and avoid algorithmic approaches which would otherwise target atomic manipulation (SIMD's envy).

I mean, one strand of hair on someone's head looks like any other strand of hair on that same persons head after all.


Problem: each individual hair still has an elusive curvature.

Edited by Reflexus, 06 June 2012 - 08:50 PM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS