I wish we got a modernized but old fashioned delta force...
I doubt it'll happen with the current state of the industry. The only chance is basically kickstarter or indiegogo.
Hah beat that notch! :v:
[QUOTE=maurits150;39585271]Hah beat that notch! :v:[/QUOTE]
Minecraft doesn't use voxel geometry, just voxel style.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39584839]Didn't Delta Force 1 and 2 use this?[/QUOTE]
Yep, outdoors were amazing and kept going forever (althought in a repeating pattern).
What's the downside to this? it just seems to good to be true.
They eat tons of memory and are hard to animate.
It's kinda cool how some shots look almost like they were taken from google earth.
[QUOTE=Stopper;39585563]Minecraft doesn't use voxel geometry, just voxel style.[/QUOTE]
What does that even mean?
Was wondering when these guys would come out with a new video, it looks fucking awesome. I wonder how far off they are with handling deformation but not destruction
[QUOTE=Phaselancer;39586188]It's kinda cool how some shots look almost like they were taken from google earth.[/QUOTE]
Because the textures from the ground probably are from google earth.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;39586707]Voxels aren't drawn in the same way polygon graphics are by a GPU, you could build a fake "voxel" with 12 polygons like Minecraft does, its horribly inefficient.[/QUOTE]
It's not horribly inefficient; GPUs are designed for processing triangles rather than voxels. Voxels may outperform triangles in raycasting, given a sufficiently good implementation of the raycaster (and a data structure which can make the most of it, e.g. a sparse octree for voxels), but the fact remains that with small data sets like in Minecraft, rendering the visible terrain as polygons is the fastest option available.
[editline]14th February 2013[/editline]
Doesn't mean that voxels that are rendered as polygons are not voxels. They are.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;39587261]It's not horribly inefficient; GPUs are designed for processing triangles rather than voxels. Voxels may outperform triangles in raycasting, given a sufficiently good implementation of the raycaster (and a data structure which can make the most of it, e.g. a sparse octree for voxels), but the fact remains that with small data sets like in Minecraft, rendering the visible terrain as polygons is the fastest option available.
[editline]14th February 2013[/editline]
Doesn't mean that voxels that are rendered as polygons are not voxels. They are.[/QUOTE]
So a polygonal cube is a voxel?
I don't think that's correct.
[QUOTE=paul simon;39587360]So a polygonal cube is a voxel?
I don't think that's correct.[/QUOTE]
The data structure they're stored in (points on a grid, each having certain properties like a texture) essentially makes them voxels, they're just rendered as cubes made of polygons because it's easy to do and looks good.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;39586832]Because the textures from the ground probably are from google earth.[/QUOTE]
judging by the credits and that watermark that was on the top left, the photos were taken by an airship club of some sort. Would explain how they had much more detail on items on the ground, as well as images of the sides of buildings that wouldn't be visible from streetview
From what I remember, voxels are pretty much a 3 dimensional array, so yeah Minecraft blocks would fall into that category.
[B]Edit:
[/B][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel[/url]
[QUOTE]A [B]voxel ([I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric"]volumetric[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel"]pixel[/URL] or [I]Volumetric Picture Element) is a volume element, representing a value on a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_grid"]regular grid[/URL] in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_computer_graphics"]three dimensional[/URL] space.[/I][/I][/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Fatman55;39589198]From what I remember, voxels are pretty much a 3 dimensional array, so yeah Minecraft blocks would fall into that category.
[B]Edit:
[/B][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]Minecraft has popularized the voxel aesthetics, becoming a global phenomenon. [B]It is not technically made of voxels.[/B][/quote]
Same page.
the data in which minecraft's blocks are stored is voxel style, though the data isn't presented using voxels- it's only interpreted from the storage to present actual geometry with more use than being points-in-space.
[QUOTE=nessman;39591545]Same page.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't have a reference and in the talk page there is disagreement. Don't take everything you read on wikipedia as fact, check for references and look at the talk page.
I kind of want Ace of Spades (the old one) on this engine.
does anyone know if he rendered medical images?
[QUOTE=nessman;39591545]Same page.[/QUOTE]
The simple definition doesn't include any specific rendering style.
Just the way they're stored makes them voxels.
I remember seeing one of this guy's tech demos a few years ago. I'm super happy he was able to continue his work.
[thumb]http://2mybff.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/snoopy-happy-dance.jpg[/thumb]
voxel anything is amazing news really
[editline]15th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;39586832]Because the textures from the ground probably are from google earth.[/QUOTE]
easy map creation, just use google earth for the terrain / layout and then make all everything proper
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39586085]What's the downside to this? it just seems to good to be true.[/QUOTE]
You pretty much need a 1TB hard drive to hold a game the size of Skyrim with voxel geometry and/or a massive amount of RAM (I pulled this number out of my ass, but you get the idea). They aren't as effecent at doing post-processing and other fancy effects that polygon-based engines can do (HDR lighting, dynamic lighting, ambient occlusion, etc) at the moment. It's difficult to animate since that would be like trying to animate a photoshop image pixel by pixel (aka, imagine doing sprite-based animations... except with something that is 3D, and composed of thousands of pixels instead of hundreds/dozens).
I'm pretty sure this is how that one "Infinite detail" tech demo thing similarly works. It requires hardly any processing power to run at any resolution and detail level, but you need a massive amount of storage space, read speed, and memory to hold all the information.
[QUOTE=KorJax;39600914]You pretty much need a 1TB hard drive to hold a game the size of Skyrim with voxel geometry and/or a massive amount of RAM (I pulled this number out of my ass, but you get the idea). They aren't as effecent at doing post-processing and other fancy effects that polygon-based engines can do (HDR lighting, dynamic lighting, ambient occlusion, etc) at the moment. It's difficult to animate since that would be like trying to animate a photoshop image pixel by pixel (aka, imagine doing sprite-based animations... except with something that is 3D, and composed of thousands of pixels instead of hundreds/dozens).
[/QUOTE]
Voxels can be attached to bones and rigged just like polygons, you know. Looks really weird though...
[QUOTE=Tark;39607163]Voxels can be attached to bones and rigged just like polygons, you know. Looks really weird though...[/QUOTE]
Can be seen in voxelstein 3d.
And it indeed looks weird. The animated models look really grainy.
I saw a video of this a few years ago, I was afraid they'd stopped working on it.
edit: here's the old video
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE[/media]
The cool part starts a few minutes in, when the truck is actually leaving ruts in the ground as it drives.
I want my Atomontage Demo goddamnit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
