Euclideon Island Demo 2011 - Games

I get the feeling this is some sort of investment scam

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;31471211]There just has to be some catch to this.[/QUOTE] Just like with the technologies for cars that run without oil they will be bought and the project will be hidden in archives, because this would stop the need for making new video cards and big companies can't let that happen. Capitalism. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31471575]What about physics? Or shaders? Or pathfinding? Or any sort of AI? Or decals? Or effects? They've shown us a wonderful sightseeing engine. Congratulations. But it's no where near a game.[/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. And this was never meant to be a game.

The whole concept seems amazing and I love the implementation but they still haven't mentioned anything about animations. The whole world is static in that video, there's nothing moving at all. Same with the last one from a year ago. [editline]4:37PM[/editline] I have been shown who is the boss

[QUOTE=C0linSSX;31472989]The whole concept seems amazing and I love the implementation but they still haven't mentioned anything about animations. The whole world is static in that video, there's nothing moving at all. Same with the last one from a year ago.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TheServer;31472621]Animation! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8[/media][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Milkyway M16;31471096][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4[/media] Older video from last year, explains how their technology works a bit better.[/QUOTE] Both videos show possibility of animation. In the video I posted, 1:46 shows it.

[QUOTE=Overv;31472269]Not really, actually. The way modern graphics cards are designed, they can be used as powerful parallel processors for a variety of tasks. They haven't really explained how the technique works yet, but if it is indeed based on raytracing, it can easily be hardware accelerated with current generation graphics cards.[/QUOTE] Explanation from Wikipedia: [quote] It is currently being developed by Euclideon who claim that it works by determining which direction the camera is facing and then searching the point cloud to find only the points required to be displayed on the screen with unneeded points not being touched.[/quote] I agree, graphics card companies are going to be able to focus more of things like physics, increasing resolution, etc. The Goal with this technology would be to maximize resolution, improve physics, shading, etc. The system allows for much greater performance on the same hardware, but we're still constrained by our monitors. [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Overworld;31472838]I get the feeling this is some sort of investment scam[/QUOTE] As much money as the Australian Governemnt seems to have given them, I can't imagine that there wouldn't have been a bit of investigating before hand into validity.

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;31471537]AMD and Nvidia will be really pissed.[/QUOTE] Why do people keep thinking this will make Hardware cards obsolete? They said it ran at 20 FPS software and they had hardware options not quite finished yet. GPUs will never be obsolete since their SMID architecture allows them to preform some tasks better then a CPU. A scalar/superscalar (cpu) architecture does not appear to me to be what this type of rendering technique would be taking advantage of.

I would love to work with this company, just to make better videos.

oh my fucking god

[img]http://i.imgur.com/8hf5J.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31471575]What about physics? Or shaders? Or pathfinding? Or any sort of AI? Or decals? Or effects? They've shown us a wonderful sightseeing engine. Congratulations. But it's no where near a game.[/QUOTE] This is simply a render engine. None of that has anything to do with them. 1) Physics require a entirely different engine. That's why for example, sources uses the HAVOK physics engine. 2) Shaders are not something you start with. Most post effects are done after the render engine is mostly complete. They are the dessert to a render engines full meal day. 3) Pathfinding and AI are not part of a render engine. These are engineers not game markers or artists. They are giver the artists a medium in which to give you your game.

I would love to see this combined with, say, DMM or Euphoria.

Apple will buy this and make it Apple Exclusive.

I'm guessing they will try to make this run on current consoles so as long as you have something as powerful pc wise you should be able to use it.

As an inspiring PC game developer, I can definitively say...this is the hottest. shit. EVER. Edit: But I'm not holding my breath. We've yet to see any proof of real-time rendering, animation, etc.

There must be huge catches with this since noone has yet considered financing them. What probably is the problem : -> Data space - these 'atoms' eat huge amounts of resources compared to polygons ++> Needs loads of RAM or really fast Hard Drives. -> Animation - unlike Polygons, 'atoms' cannot be slightly stretched to create a smooth motion on ragdolls of human bodies when you fling them around ( for example )

Thing is, polygons are one thing. But you still have lighting, physics, textures and other simulations so shit still require quite some processing power

[QUOTE=FlyingAlien;31474643]There must be huge catches with this since noone has yet considered financing them. What probably is the problem : -> Data space - these 'atoms' eat huge amounts of resources compared to polygons ++> Needs loads of RAM or really fast Hard Drives. -> Animation - unlike Polygons, 'atoms' cannot be slightly stretched to create a smooth motion on ragdolls of human bodies when you fling them around ( for example )[/QUOTE] There is a video of an animation with it, so that won't be the problem. They explained in the videos why it doesn't that loads of ram or fast hard drives. They also explained why it doesn't require too many resources.

[QUOTE=pal670;31470462]Sounds AMAZING. Imagine the physics capabilities with each atom modelled.....wow.[/QUOTE] Modelling is one thing, simulating movement & collisions is another thing...

My penis gained more polygons while watching this video.

[QUOTE=Manatee Cat;31474739]There is a video of an animation with it, so that won't be the problem. They explained in the videos why it doesn't that loads of ram or fast hard drives. They also explained why it doesn't require too many resources.[/QUOTE] The animations they showed were just completely seperate parts that were moving independently from eachother, which is the point that I was mentioning about polygons being able to stretch while atoms cannot. Magic can't come from nowhere, they have to be making up giant overstatements in some areas since it's pretty unimaginable that a computer can process something without processing it. As long as there's no demo you can try for yourself, I won't believe anything I see there. What I also just thought about is that you probably can't make ANY dynamic objects made of the atoms since that would mean moving every single's atom on every 'tick' of the game, which is a huge amount of calculations. Polygons could have trouble being in another rendering pass because the engine will have trouble deciding on whether polygons are infront or behind or even inside atoms (not to mention that 'bad bad bad' polygons don't fit in a 'infinite' detail environment).

If implemented in the way they claim, this would be fucking revolutionary. I feel like there must be some sort of gimmick to it, but I keep hope that this is everything they say it is. FUNFACT: The new trailer is undoubtedly the first time I've got an erection from seeing dirt in a graphics engine.

This looks promising I can't wait to see this finished, also I wonder if this will be used for every new 3D game

[QUOTE=Marlamin;31470736]how the fuck does this work I'm not saying this is fake but it does seem too good to be true. WTB live tech demo.[/QUOTE] It works by only drawing certain atoms. There are tons of atoms in objects, (I think the video said something like 60 per sq. millimeter, which means that this will be as detailed as you could possibly want it. The way it works is by not loading all of those atoms at the same time. Due to limited monitor resolutions, loading 2 atoms that are next to each other 1 mile away would be pointless, because you wouldn't be able to see both of them, your resolution is just not detailed enough. Therefore, the engine loads more atoms based on how close you are to the object. In simple terms, this means if you're a mile away from something it will only load one atom every foot, as opposed to if you're staring at a wall 2 feet away from you, the game will load 10 atoms every millimeter. It's kind of like real life, what's the point of having something be super detailed if you're only going to see it from a mile away? Except this engine makes it so that you don't have to swap between different models that vary by levels of detail. It's all just one model, and the engine figures out just how many atoms it has to load for it to look good.

Correct me if i'm wrong but couldn't you just combine this tech with current polygon tech and have the best of both worlds? I mean from what it seems you would be able to afford more polygons because everything else wouldn't be so you wouldn't loose much detail there. However that's only if you can have the both of which i have no idea what i'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Number-41;31474837]Modelling is one thing, simulating movement & collisions is another thing...[/QUOTE] That's why I think no one is investing in this. The amount of processing power it would take to move billions of atoms would be ridiculous. This is nothing more than a really nice modeling suite.

If its a success I wonder what games already almost completed will do. I mean will they release the game or spend time putting there game through this engine. [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RopaDope;31475675]That's why I think no one is investing in this. The amount of processing power it would take to move billions of atoms would be ridiculous. This is nothing more than a really nice modeling suite.[/QUOTE] But if it only moves the atoms you can see (as in your not zoomed in) it shouldn't have too much of a problem.

This effects artists in a good ways and a bad ways. Although it can be looked at in many ways. Since I am planning to become a 3D game artist I can already see this tech being advantageous. Pros: -Small props that are a pain and generally consume development time can be scanned in -Artists have unlimited artistic freedom -Real life sculpting/Modeling then scanning in Cons: -Objects can be just scanned in, minimizes present 3D artists skill set -Are current machines powerful enough? Changed my mind a bit, it's seems a bit rough.

My nipples hardened in excitement whilst watching the video. I am also now reading all the posts in this thread in the narrator guy's voice.

[QUOTE=zerosix;31471395]why don't they just drain all of the water in loch ness? surely they can just do that and have a poke around to see if he's down there :iiam:[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that would completely destroy the ecosystem.

If they can scan objects in, well I'm not saying they should do this but... Maybe they could hire a model to be scanned in the game, to show human characters can have unlimited detail. Maybe a Lara Croft model. Then they could show Lara Croft rendered with polygons vs their unlimited detail molecule version. Both would have to be naked of course, the technology is not far enough along to show clothing. Then to prove it'll work in a game, they have the model move around a little. I'm thinking some jumping should do it, maybe some slow motion running. As the technology improves they could have her wrestle with another girl, to show that even adding another game character doesn't slow things down.