Euclideon Island demo - General

[media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4[/URL][/media] Fucking sexy if you ask me.

My keyboard is flooded with cum I remember the original video, it seemed like one of those things you never hear about again so good to see them coming back with more I want a playable demo though.

Well fuck, my mother is a virgin and this is some ungodly ownage going on there. But still, I don't see any possibility in how this can run fast on an average computer. First there's this load of atoms to store in memory, and then you need a considerably powerful processor to actually render this madness. Or am I missing something? I assume this technology is amzaing, but would probably be only usable once everyone's computer is powerful enough to actually run this booby.

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31472479]Well fuck, my mother is a virgin and this is some ungodly ownage going on there. But still, I don't see any possibility in how this can run fast on an average computer. First there's this load of atoms to store in memory, and then you need a considerably powerful processor to actually render this madness. Or am I missing something? I assume this technology is amzaing, but would probably be only usable once everyone's computer is powerful enough to actually run this booby.[/QUOTE] If you saw their last video from a while back you'd know how their system works. Unlike any other engine which uses point cloud data, the one Euclideon are developing works much like a search engine, it picks out only the bits of data you want to see, so if your screen resolution was 800x600, you would only see a small window of the atoms, essentially a snapshot. This overall makes it manageable on a computer to pick out and render these points of data because it's only rendering what you will see, nothing else, this in technical terms is culling. A standard mid-end dual core would most likely be able to run this quite well at a manageable framerate because of this method they are using. However don't quote me on that as they've not released what hardware they are using for the tech demos.

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31472479]Well fuck, my mother is a virgin and this is some ungodly ownage going on there. But still, I don't see any possibility in how this can run fast on an average computer. First there's this load of atoms to store in memory, and then you need a considerably powerful processor to actually render this madness. Or am I missing something? I assume this technology is amzaing, but would probably be only usable once everyone's computer is powerful enough to actually run this booby.[/QUOTE] That's my concern. I've already given up on playing current games with my below-average computers. It looks beautiful, but I don't want to play a game only to give up frustrated by the massive amount of lag.

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31472479]Well fuck, my mother is a virgin and this is some ungodly ownage going on there. But still, I don't see any possibility in how this can run fast on an average computer. First there's this load of atoms to store in memory, and then you need a considerably powerful processor to actually render this madness. Or am I missing something? I assume this technology is amzaing, but would probably be only usable once everyone's computer is powerful enough to actually run this booby.[/QUOTE] No you're missing something. As far as I understand it, and from what I can remember of the previous video from a year a go, the only things rendered are the things the view port can see, that is to say if it's not on screen as far as your computers concerned it doesn't exist. I'm not really sure though, In mind even if that's what's happening it shouldn't work [I]that[/I] well. When I saw the video a year a go I thought the technology was cool, but I wasn't sure it would ever be practical. I was thinking "Sure you can do this, but how hard is it for artists to create something using this technology, this is surely too much effort for them to be worth it". I thought this was so different probably wouldn't run on standard DirectX cards, and the whole world isn't going to replace it's hardware for this. This new video clears up all of those points. This really is here NOW and it's huge. Also these guys are rich.

[QUOTE=Sastion;31472695]No you're missing something. As far as I understand it, and from what I can remember of the previous video from a year a go, the only things rendered are the things the view port can see, that is to say if it's not on screen as far as your computers concerned it doesn't exist. I'm not really sure though, In mind even if that's what's happening it shouldn't work [I]that[/I] well. When I saw the video a year a go I thought the technology was cool, but I wasn't sure it would ever be practical. I was thinking "Sure you can do this, but how hard is it for artists to create something using this technology, this is surely too much effort for them to be worth it". I thought this was so different probably wouldn't run on standard DirectX cards, and the whole world isn't going to replace it's hardware for this. This new video clears up all of those points. This really is here NOW and it's huge. Also these guys are rich.[/QUOTE] So does it run on standard graphics cards? Because he was talking that it was in software.

I have the feeling this won't work very well for a physics engine.

I remember back when 3D first emerged. I am so fucking excited!

[QUOTE=sparky28000;31472960]So does it run on standard graphics cards? Because he was talking that it was in software.[/QUOTE] It will do yes. It's still heavily under development.

.....but is the gameplay good?

[QUOTE=EragonRulez;31473012]I have the feeling this won't work very well for a physics engine.[/QUOTE] I just can't imagine how difficult it would be for them to implement physics in such an environment, and how many resources will it require to calculate and render for the client. But who cares, you can zoom into a horse shit and see all the fungi!

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31473145]I just can't imagine how difficult it would be for them to implement physics in such an environment, and how many resources will it require to calculate and render for the client. [/QUOTE] How about under the layer of points you make the objects and surroundings out of invisible polygons that serve only as collision detection. Bam, you can have your unlimited detail barrel roll on your unlimited detail floor without giving a fuck about every atom colliding with another.

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31473145]I just can't imagine how difficult it would be for them to implement physics in such an environment, and how many resources will it require to calculate and render for the client. But who cares, you can zoom into a horse shit and see all the fungi![/QUOTE] Not really. You wouldn't be simulating physics on a per atom level, obviously that's just insane and not going to happen. You just group stuff together and physics is performed on that object. Give objects lower detail physical boundaries and I don't see it being very intensive at all. [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] Ninja'd and worded better

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31473186]How about under the layer of points you make the objects and surroundings out of invisible polygons that serve only as collision detection. Bam, you can have your unlimited detail barrel roll on your unlimited detail floor without giving a fuck about every atom colliding with another.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that in order to implement physics in a map that is going to be run on this engine, you need to create 2 maps - one for the show and one for the physics, as well as create 2 versions of each prop too. Seems like too much work for just a few good looking details. EDIT: I might be wrong but I think that the rendering of the atoms alone would be pretty intensive. If not CPU intensive, then hugely affecting memory. But then you add physics with its own boundary objects and calculations - and it will need even more computer power. I guess there is really no point discussing this because none of us really knows how this works, all we can do now is wait for the developer updates.

[QUOTE=FreezingStorm;31473138].....but is the gameplay good?[/QUOTE] Yes, the gameplay on tech demos are always amazing

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31473332]So what you're saying is that in order to implement physics in a map that is going to be run on this engine, you need to create 2 maps - one for the show and one for the physics, as well as create 2 versions of each prop too. Seems like too much work for just a few good looking details.[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken a lot of engines already do this..

I cant even imagine what games will look like in 10 - 20 years from now... I bet the way game graphics are going I am sure we will have something similar to a Holo Deck in the next 30 years, maybe even less.

Question is, can they animate it?

oh my god oh my god

That guy has a really goofy voice.

[QUOTE=Mr Kirill;31473332]So what you're saying is that in order to implement physics in a map that is going to be run on this engine, you need to create 2 maps - one for the show and one for the physics, as well as create 2 versions of each prop too. Seems like too much work for just a few good looking details. EDIT: I might be wrong but I think that the rendering of the atoms alone would be pretty intensive. If not CPU intensive, then hugely affecting memory. But then you add physics with its own boundary objects and calculations - and it will need even more computer power. I guess there is really no point discussing this because none of us really knows how this works, all we can do now is wait for the developer updates.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that making a textureless environment matching what is already there would take much work.

[QUOTE=EragonRulez;31473012]I have the feeling this won't work very well for a physics engine.[/QUOTE] The polygons would have to be as close together as possible or else you'd get disk shattering crashes when things collide :v:

Pebble physics Fuck yeah [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] Too bad it'll never happen

With this technology, would this make destruction even more realistic?

[QUOTE=FreezingStorm;31473138].....but is the gameplay good?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4[/media]

I dunno why people keep saying running physics will be impossible. Nobody ever said every little atom has to be thrown into physics calculations. It's not like every dirt particle will be ran through the physics engine and whatnot. Nothing says you can't just make the dirt models ignore physics, it could be just as static as grounds are in games today. There doesn't have to be atom-by-atom simulation when a bullet strikes a tree, perhaps there could just be "decals" of sorts so the area that was hit is replaced by a set of points that form an indention. Just like in games today, physics would be as demanding as the creators want them to be.

I thought they were gone forever. After the last video they released I just assumed that they were assassinated by some Nvidia CEOs or something. Good to see them bringing some innovation to gaming technology.

My only hope is, that the first game that uses this software is not Modern Warfare, or any modern shooter, and if it's not too much trouble: let it be Valve.

i really hope it isn't valve anyways that guy's voice was annoying