Euclideon Island Demo 2011 - Games

Yeah okay great too bad nobody has voxel based graphics cards.

[QUOTE=Lizzrd;31480895]Yeah okay great too bad nobody has voxel based graphics cards.[/QUOTE] Then how are they rendering it right now? How did they render it on a laptop with one cpu in use and no special 3d hardware?

[QUOTE=MadPro119;31480435]Like others have said, hybrid between the two will be the best of both worlds. -Static Unlimited Atoms- Buildings Terrain Rocks Tree Trunks etc. -Animated Polygons- Tree branches Grass etc. Right?[/QUOTE] Because you totally can't animate point cloud data even though they've shown it in the previous videos (???)

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;31480979]Because you totally can't animate point cloud data even though they've shown it in the previous videos (???)[/QUOTE] I didn't say you couldn't animate the atoms. That was just in case. They have shown animation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31480793][img]http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/516688_front.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] Hey I liked the first fable. I didn't hear about it until after it came out though so I guess I don't know how hyped it was.

And Red Faction series was cancelled recently Talk about bad timing.

I love how even though they have video evidence of their incredible feat and government funding, somehow you all are finding ways to deny it's existance. Makes me wonder, did we really go to the moon? :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=maqzek;31481045]And Red Faction series was cancelled recently Talk about bad timing.[/QUOTE] Fuck man I didnt know that. I actually feel bad.... I have so many good memories with my brother building tunnels in the original. Anyway...

Well I know what we'll need to run this. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpAcanUJX7s[/media]

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;31481077]I love how even though they have video evidence of their incredible feat and government funding, somehow you all are finding ways to deny it's existance. Makes me wonder, did we really go to the moon? :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] The government gave them an award + money. I should believe it but still I don'tish.

Okay is it just me or does the narrator sound like a total douche?

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31481030]Hey I liked the first fable. I didn't hear about it until after it came out though so I guess I don't know how hyped it was.[/QUOTE] yeah, me too however it didn't have trees growing in real time [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DanTehMan;31481077]I love how even though they have video evidence of their incredible feat and government funding, somehow you all are finding ways to deny it's existance. Makes me wonder, did we really go to the moon? :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] I am not denying it's "existance". I'm saying that they haven't proven it to be practical. The animation that I've seen that they made looked absolutely wretched and didn't show enough to tell anyone with a professional interest what can be done with it. Their videos are childishly written(OH THEM POLYGONS GUYS LOL WHAT RETARDS), vague, and clearly aimed at a popular audience that has no idea how technology actually works. IE: they spend all of their time trying to "wow" you rather than telling you how they've accomplished what they've accomplished, or at the very least what the limitations of such technology have to be. And don't tell me "it's because it's a secret project". You can tell me what a program does without giving me its source code.

Neat, thought these guys died.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31481652]yeah, me too however it didn't have trees growing in real time [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] I am not denying it's "existance". I'm saying that they haven't proven it to be practical. The animation that I've seen that they made looked absolutely wretched and didn't show enough to tell anyone with a professional interest what can be done with it. Their videos are childishly written(OH THEM POLYGONS GUYS LOL WHAT RETARDS), vague, and clearly aimed at a popular audience that has no idea how technology actually works. IE: they spend all of their time trying to "wow" you rather than telling you how they've accomplished what they've accomplished, or at the very least what the limitations of such technology have to be. And don't tell me "it's because it's a secret project". You can tell me what a program does without giving me its source code.[/QUOTE] Well, they can't really tell much of the tech except what they already told us, else why be secretive at all. So what do they have left to tell? Indeed, explaining the tech to simple crowd and potential investors/interested parties. I mean, this isn't game engine and it's not a technical documentation of it. You make it sound like they have a engine right there that you can just start making game in and asking for a preview of engine possibilities. It's just a tech and I bet their engine, whatever it is, isn't even that good to showcase their idea in full perspective. It could help them big time if someone from any of the big game studios would hire them and try to incorporate this tech in either own engine or make it some sort of open standard, OpenGL style.

Seems to me that physics and animation would wok by grouping "atoms" together and moving sections. and the potential of this technology is mind blowing, proper unlimited terrain deformation, photo-realistic graphics. unless its a bloody fortune, I am buying this technology in a few months. And I think there video isn't that brilliant is because there showing off to everyone not just people like us who know how all the polygons work but to people who will be like, "omg black ops 2 is gonna be sweet with this". This video was more of a demonstration than a technical walk through. and normally you would do a demo to grab peoples interest and then a tech walk through to show off and sell the technology.

[QUOTE=Super Saiyan Yerbs;31481923]This video was more of a demonstration than a technical walk through.[/QUOTE] Those are almost the same thing.

[QUOTE=Valnar;31480868]Not necessarily, they aren't necessarily showing every atom that exists in a spot you are looking at. I assume that they only show enough atoms that would matter for your resolution.[/QUOTE] He says rather plainly only what you can view is generated from the table of availability. All they have to do is take a discrete chunk of whatever memory to determine the "size" of the table they can use; the more you have, the more can be tabled.

[QUOTE=maqzek;31481908]Well, they can't really tell much of the tech except what they already told us, else why be secretive at all. So what do they have left to tell? Indeed, explaining the tech to simple crowd and potential investors/interested parties. I mean, this isn't game engine and it's not a technical documentation of it. You make it sound like they have a engine right there that you can just start making game in and asking for a preview of engine possibilities. It's just a tech and I bet their engine, whatever it is, isn't even that good to showcase their idea in full perspective. It could help them big time if someone from any of the big game studios would hire them and try to incorporate this tech in either own engine or make it some sort of open standard, OpenGL style.[/QUOTE] Why would any respectable studio partner up with someone who won't explain what their technology can do or how it works? You might as well team up with a group of druids who promise to magic your game into existence. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Super Saiyan Yerbs;31481923]Seems to me that physics and animation would wok by grouping "atoms" together and moving sections. and the potential of this technology is mind blowing, proper unlimited terrain deformation, photo-realistic graphics. unless its a bloody fortune, I am buying this technology in a few months. And I think there video isn't that brilliant is because there showing off to everyone not just people like us who know how all the polygons work but to people who will be like, "omg black ops 2 is gonna be sweet with this". This video was more of a demonstration than a technical walk through. and normally you would do a demo to grab peoples interest and then a tech walk through to show off and sell the technology.[/QUOTE] Except it's been a year and all they've done is jerk off over a fly through while talking about how cool they are. Which is fine, if you actually have something substantive behind it. Which they don't. Are you people really just going to take a claim as extraordinary as this at face value?

Imagine GTA6 with this. Imagine hitting a wall, and little tiny bits shatter off from the vehicle and wall, and are not just particles, as well as pieces of the building being gone.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31480793][QUOTE=Quillink;31479214][QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;31479141]It's all fine and dandy except for the fact that it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Oh my Facepunchers, we have someone on the inside! Tell us more of your forbidden knowledge. Seriously though, what does a company have to gain by building massive hype for something they can't deliver? Nothing but a bad reputation.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.digitalbattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/project-natal-milo-2.jpg[/img] [img]http://static.rarbg.com/posters2/e/e6f1a224ac59cec3c64c886b8edc13197e27b9b9.jpg[/img] [img]http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/8/516688_front.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.gemaga.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/daikatana_win_eidos_205_11210.thumbnail.png[/img][/QUOTE] You made a good point, but I was addressing the pessimistic types who watched the video and concluded that Euclidon must've made a bunch of zillion-polygon-models and run it on a supercomputer in order to make a tech demo likely more expensive than faking the moon landing. The games you listed had empty promises, sure, but they were still a game.

[QUOTE=zombini;31482297]Imagine GTA6 with this. Imagine hitting a wall, and little tiny bits shatter off from the vehicle and wall, and are not just particles, as well as pieces of the building being gone.[/QUOTE]It's hard to tell if physics can be implemented at all on individual particles. I say don't get your hopes up and just look at the pretty video.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31482234]Why would any respectable studio partner up with someone who won't explain what their technology can do or how it works? You might as well team up with a group of druids who promise to magic your game into existence. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] Except it's been a year and all they've done is jerk off over a fly through while talking about how cool they are. Which is fine, if you actually have something substantive behind it. Which they don't. Are you people really just going to take a claim as extraordinary as this at face value?[/QUOTE] I just like a healthy dose of optimism, it's not like I'm gambling my life on this thing working. :v: They're secretive now for the obvious reason that they don't want anyone else sliding in and stealing their tech. I hate to bring the moon landing thing up, but all the secrecy around the shuttle development was for the same reason. Leaked tech can be fast-tracked to release, and the first one out the gates will win most of the cash. These guys are being safe. When their tech is ready to be used they'll obviously release much more information to game devs and the like. They're not magical druids, they're the usual businessmen keeping their product to themselves. (My automerge :suicide:)

[QUOTE=Alex141;31475773]Cons: -Objects can be just scanned in, minimizes present 3D artists skill set[/QUOTE] If your going to model a gun, why would you look at 20 reference pictures to copy the exact same thing you could replicate in a few minutes with better accuracy. The ability to copy real life objects would give the artists more time to work on fantasy objects.

[QUOTE=Unreliable;31480835]SO that would mean, 1 byte = 1 atom, 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte, 1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte. most decent computers have at least 2 gigabytes of memory. Though, they'd have to store color and location or something along the lines. The point is that it you won't run out that fast.[/QUOTE] Wasn't 1 kilobyte 8 bytes?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;31482462]Wasn't 1 kilobyte 8 bytes?[/QUOTE] No 1024 bytes

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;31481077]I love how even though they have video evidence of their incredible feat and government funding, somehow you all are finding ways to deny it's existance. Makes me wonder, did we really go to the moon? :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Welcome to Facepunch! Internet bastion of wisdom and knowledge that the greatest minds in the world flock to in hordes! Sometimes, I have to wonder why I stay here.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;31482388]If your going to model a gun, why would you look at 20 reference pictures to copy the exact same thing you could replicate in a few minutes with better accuracy. The ability to copy real life objects would give the artists more time to work on fantasy objects.[/QUOTE] Yeah its not going to be like this... Guy - We need the Empire state building for this level. Modeler - Alright I assume thats 3D Scanner size 746,852? Guy - Yep. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Unreliable;31480835]SO that would mean, 1 byte = 1 atom, 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes = 1 megabyte, 1024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte. most decent computers have at least 2 gigabytes of memory. Though, they'd have to store color and location or something along the lines. The point is that it you won't run out that fast.[/QUOTE] They are compressing bytes. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] Also I just thought it would be kinda cool to think that you don't have to make models in a modeling program. Get some clay and form a rock, a statue, a geographical feature and just scan it.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31482479]No 1024 bytes[/QUOTE] Sorry I was thinking of bits.

[QUOTE=Quillink;31482302]You made a good point, but I was addressing the pessimistic types who watched the video and concluded that Euclidon must've made a bunch of zillion-polygon-models and run it on a supercomputer in order to make a tech demo likely more expensive than faking the moon landing. The games you listed had empty promises, sure, but they were still a game.[/QUOTE] That's [I]exactly what I'm saying.[/I] I'm not saying they faked the video; that's ridiculous. I'm saying they're overstating it's ability and applicability.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;31482495]Yeah its not going to be like this... Guy - We need the Empire state building for this level. Modeler - Alright I assume thats 3D Scanner size 746,852? Guy - Yep. [/QUOTE] Imaging is the main use for nowadays hightech drones, there are easy as fuck ways to scan buildings, landmarks, anything.