I watched their video on youtube and for the most part it seemed real. I just hope devs take this tech into account if it does work.
That scanning feature would be good for weapons and cars indeed.
Valve needs to buy this out.
[QUOTE=IplayAspy;31484108]Valve needs to buy this out.[/QUOTE]
And make us wait an unspecified but delayed amount of time? No thanks.
[QUOTE=IplayAspy;31484108]Valve needs to buy this out.[/QUOTE]
God no, I want this to be USED in games.
[QUOTE=paul simon;31484151]God no, I want this to be USED in games.[/QUOTE]
It won't be. Game companies have already investigated and discarded it from what I've heard.
Geometry of that detail would take up an insane amount of memory, the point cloud data has to be rendered as a flat surface (EG poygons) for texture mapping, and lighting would have to be some kind of raytracing which is stupidly processor intensive, I highly doubt this is real.
[QUOTE=chrishind10;31484235]Geometry of that detail would take up an insane amount of memory, the point cloud data has to be rendered as a flat surface (EG poygons) for texture mapping, and lighting would have to be some kind of raytracing which is stupidly processor intensive, I highly doubt this is real.[/QUOTE]
I still don't understand how their system works, but I'm not about to go calling this a fake yet. They seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this whole thing.
Now add physics simulation to all those atoms.
[QUOTE=chrishind10;31484235]Geometry of that detail would take up an insane amount of memory, the point cloud data has to be rendered as a flat surface (EG poygons) for texture mapping, and lighting would have to be some kind of raytracing which is stupidly processor intensive, I highly doubt this is real.[/QUOTE]
Why not set color per atom?
Virtual atoms. Its like something out of a scifi novel, worlds within worlds.
[quote]Apparently they’ve been doing it since at least 2003. With the same demo LOL
[url]http://imgur.com/g0gXt[/url][/quote]
Says a comment, and if you see their youtube account it seems like the same video was posted twice.
I'm not going to go as far as to call this a scam, but I'll remain skeptical until i see some real examples.
[QUOTE=Cookies114;31484679]Why not set color per atom?[/QUOTE]
The surface still has to be rendered as a flat object. Otherwise you would just get point cloud graphics.
Seems way too good to be true, I mean just the simple fact that they aren't using polygons boggles my mind
I like my polygons as they are. If I were a game developer and could get my hands on this technology, I would use the part of it, that renders only what is needed to get a better performance. In terms of details, I'd make parallax occlusion mapping the new standard (what is normal mapping right now). It can make everything detailed enough as well and doesn't need a whole lot of geometry.
I remember this from last year..
[QUOTE=IplayAspy;31484108]Valve needs to buy this out.[/QUOTE]
That's why they're making these videos. They're waiting to be bought out.
[QUOTE=DasMatze;31485020]I like my polygons as they are. If I were a game developer and could get my hands on this technology, I would use the part of it, that renders only what is needed to get a better performance. In terms of details, I'd make parallax occlusion mapping the new standard (what is normal mapping right now). It can make everything detailed enough as well and doesn't need a whole lot of geometry.[/QUOTE]
But that's stupid, why just make Occlusion Mapping when you can just do the whole thing?
Also you got rated dumb by garry :v:
[QUOTE=garry;31485152]That's why they're making these videos. They're waiting to be bought out.[/QUOTE]
Hey you've got unlimited bags of money, buy these guys out
Didn't they say they had some kind of algorithm that finds which dots need to be rendered based on each pixel on your screen or something?
Still, I don't really care about it until i see working physics and animations in this engine of theirs.
I really do not like the poor execution of their presentation, this is the second time already. It seems unprofessional, downright cocky and immature on opinionated ideas, presentation style and commentary.
[quote]We also have another piece of technology that isn't graphics, but does something game related that's also pretty clever, but we'll keep that secret for now.[/quote]
Although the technology does look interesting I worry that they're not presenting areas such a physics for a reason just yet. Well it seems like they have something else in store for now so we'll wait and see.
I suppose they don't have the money to hire anyone to actually design things. It would be great if someone would back them just to see if it takes off or not.
Dident they get millions from a grant last year from the austrailian govt?
I absolutely loved the narrator.
"If you're still not sure how small that is, THESE
ARE GRAINS
OF DIRT"
[QUOTE=chrishind10;31484235]Geometry of that detail would take up an insane amount of memory, the point cloud data has to be rendered as a flat surface (EG poygons) for texture mapping, and lighting would have to be some kind of raytracing which is stupidly processor intensive, I highly doubt this is real.[/QUOTE]
They could be running the sim on a computer that calculates in Floating Ops. Per Second.
IBM RoadRunner, the future of computer gaming.
[QUOTE=leach139;31485211]Hey you've got unlimited bags of money, buy these guys out[/QUOTE]
No, they want millions. I don't think garry is a millionere.
[QUOTE=Fatman55;31485208]But that's stupid, why just make Occlusion Mapping when you can just do the whole thing?[/QUOTE]
Because it's less memory intensive? I just did a test: An untextured object with 1 million polygons takes like 40MB of space while an uncompressed 1024x1024 heightmap is 110kb big. That's why you see the same models copied and pasted over and over again in the demonstration videos.
Also as has been mentioned before: the collisions, the physics, the animation and maybe lighting seems to be another problem. It's an astonishing discovery and the rendering of points instead of whole objects has a lot of potential but I don't think the super high-detail-point cloud thing has a future in gaming. At least not in the next years.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;31485929]No, they want millions. I don't think garry is a millionere.[/QUOTE]
He is, he sold over 1000000 copies of GMod
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
