In both their website and the movie you can download, they spend most of the time explaining to a novice how an ordinary 3D engine works (with triangles). I really wonder why they do that.
I think most people here on this forum don't need that explanation. But I'd also think the customers of their engine normally wouldn't need that explanation either.
"Unlimited Detail"
this isnt new to me, i know computers can render this now.
The problem is people think you cant animate your terrain even though its so detailed.
It takes huge hard drive store and good streaming speed to do it, but yes it is possible, you can go about a small demo yourself, just render a giant star field and you will see its possible.
Also, even once the systems in place, you still need artists to handle the workload of actually making these super detailed worlds, the other thing you have to take into account.
The problem is people think you cant animate your terrain even though its so detailed.
It takes huge hard drive store and good streaming speed to do it, but yes it is possible, you can go about a small demo yourself, just render a giant star field and you will see its possible.
Also, even once the systems in place, you still need artists to handle the workload of actually making these super detailed worlds, the other thing you have to take into account.
I don't have time to read this whole thread, but that technology looks pretty sweet! Like Ysaneya (Man, you have a tough name to pronounce ;P) said though, if there's no room for it to go procedural and be truly interactive, it's just a great concept for the present day that will most likely not do well. But hey, I'm sure procedural techniques and interactivity can be implemented! I think it looks pretty awesome. Hopefully they release a demo! (Btw: Orbital Fan? Love the name :D)
I need more convincing that this is anything new / what the real world constraints might be. It might be point cloud rendering where they've blown an astonishing amount of memory on just a few meshes (hence the massive use of instancing in the screen shots) or that could just be a lack of art content.. humm...
Before I get excited about the possibility of this being a new technique (Kudos for trying though!) I'll wait until I see either:
1. More explanation of the technique
2. A game world running (where I can zoom right up to any feature)
The Atomontage voxel engine looks encouraging as well.
[Edited by - Martin on January 4, 2010 10:52:39 AM]
Before I get excited about the possibility of this being a new technique (Kudos for trying though!) I'll wait until I see either:
1. More explanation of the technique
2. A game world running (where I can zoom right up to any feature)
The Atomontage voxel engine looks encouraging as well.
[Edited by - Martin on January 4, 2010 10:52:39 AM]
Wait a a weeks. A link will go up where you can INVEST in this amazing technology! Just like the Phantom, OnLive, those flying cars, that super fast internet black box, etc...
Quote:Original post by rouncED
The problem is people think you cant animate your terrain even though its so detailed.
The problem is that the creators of this technology (in the original link) are making the case that this takes the place of all polygonal rendering. The issue here is animating animated game objects. Each frame. In real-time. How do you go about animating an object composed of millions of particles? Translate millions of particles or one point representing the object and then reconstructing the millions of particles? Which is faster? [looksaround]
Quote:Original post by rouncED
It takes huge hard drive store and good streaming speed to do it, but yes it is possible, you can go about a small demo yourself, just render a giant star field and you will see its possible.
The largest of star fields in any game would not compare to the number of particles needed to make smooth, gap-free, in-game objects.
Animation is a problem with a lot of these non rasterization techniques, sparse voxel tree traversal etc..
Hybrid rendering ftw!
Hybrid rendering ftw!
Another problem than animation: If it's unlimited detail (assuming some sort of fractal/procedural detail generation for decreasing scales) then it's not bandlimited and you cannot properly antialias it--it's the same with all the 3D fractal renderings--they look like shit since any practical antialiasing approach is mathematically invalid--you'd need an infinite number of samples in the supersampling.
Well... I guess that using approximations to make things practical is a given, and since no screen can display in ultimate resolutions, they don't neccessarily lower percieved quality by any amount worth mentioning. This would, contrary to the problems with dynamic objects, be pretty much a non-issue.
You'd rarely render a fractal with infinite iterations, would you? ;)
You'd rarely render a fractal with infinite iterations, would you? ;)
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
