[QUOTE=uitham;31470659]The funny thing is, this will be on PC first.
Console fanboys will suffer.[/QUOTE]
If/when this tech gets to the game devs, then no console will suffer, no PCs will suffer.
With this tech, EVERYONE will win. I'm a PC gamer, but this here will END the graphical front of the PC/Console war in a draw. Consoles are just simplified PCs, same hardware. This will change EVERYTHING.
This technology is being developed with today's hardware. that means that in the future, if this tech takes root, the more advanced hardware won't go more towards making things LOOK better, they'll go towards making things PLAY better.
This is absolutely incredible and I cannot WAIT to see a game get released using this technology.
[QUOTE=Quillink;31482351]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]
So why isn't every engine showcase like that?
Why is it when they showed off Unreal Engine 3 they didn't say "This will totally be awesome and is way better than everything else", they said "The engine is capable of X. It is compatible with X. It's being worked on in tandem with X manufacturer to make it more efficient. And it's awesome."
of course the moment they did that every other company was able to reverse engineer it and make an exact copy so i see why they're so reclusive this time around
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
You people are just making shit up at this point. I feel like I'm butting in on a bunch of 9 year olds pretending to be Power Rangers.
[U][I][B]UNLIMITED EVERYTHING[/B][/I][/U]
I can't goddamn wait to get my hands on a game with this.
If this fails we still have Unreal Engine III..
Voxels take up disgusting amounts of memory. There's a reason developers moved over to polygons.
Even if they found a way to make it run decently, voxelbased maps will take ages to load into an engine. All those little particles have to be loaded in separately.
Magic
[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]
terrorist simulator 2011
[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]
I agree with that and think thats a great thing, but as a possible con, if more things are being scanned in, some artists are probably going to lose their jobs. That, or games are just going to become bigger and more imaginative :P
This tech is truly incredible though.
[QUOTE=monkey11;31483332]some artists are probably going to lose their jobs[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt that, you've really got to consider practicality, you will not be able to find everything you want to be in your game in the real world without spending a lot of money having people track down the items and then transport them to the scanner, and if you're going for a specific art style with stylised proportions or even just a specific look, you're going to need artists to make those post-scanning changes. At most time consumed making clutter assets would be seriously reduced, I don't think anyone would lose their job over a scanner though.
I don't know. As soon as you want to simulate damage with this you have to calculate with particle properties and then you are into physical simulations that not even supercomputers can do nowadays.
[QUOTE=Killuah;31483427]I don't know. As soon as you want to simulate damage with this you have to calculate with particle properties and then you are into physical simulations that not even supercomputers can do nowadays.[/QUOTE]
You can still have them separated into chunks so its not such a toll.
Besides it would be easier this way then with polygons.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;31483451]You can still have them separated into chunks so its not such a toll.
Besides it would be easier this way then with polygons.[/QUOTE]
Then you are calculating chunks. Defined areas of a certain property.
That's how they currently do it.
[QUOTE=Killuah;31483476]Then you are calculating chunks. Defined areas of a certain property.
That's how they currently do it.[/QUOTE]
This isn't about physics though? This is about polygons. Who care if they cant make damage look nicer. Everything else is looking brilliant so far.
Looks like we're gonna use ZBrush a lot more often in the future.
[QUOTE=Kecske;31483707]Looks like we're gonna use ZBrush a lot more often in the future.[/QUOTE]
Oh that will be amazing.
The fact that he states their tech demo of static models only ran at 20 FPS, along with the fact that they have shown neither animation nor physics leaves me to believe that Unlimited Detail will provide me with unlimited disappointment.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Yes, everyone on the internet is a "respectable studio" and they should just put all tech documentation in the open or else no one would talk to them.
Pretty sure if someone from any game company contacted them, they would explain it better.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31482234]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]
So they should just release alpha tech which would probably be a nightmare to implement in game engines and lots of unsolved problems would be fine, since that would make them look like they are not jerking off, right? They are doing this however they think is better for them. It's not like this is something simple, so they are taking this slowly to make everything right.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31482665]So why isn't every engine showcase like that?
Why is it when they showed off Unreal Engine 3 they didn't say "This will totally be awesome and is way better than everything else", they said "The engine is capable of X. It is compatible with X. It's being worked on in tandem with X manufacturer to make it more efficient. And it's awesome."
of course the moment they did that every other company was able to reverse engineer it and make an exact copy so i see why they're so reclusive this time around[/QUOTE]
Which part of "This is not a game engine" do you not get?
[editline]2nd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=benaq;31483899]The fact that he states their tech demo of static models only ran at 20 FPS, along with the fact that they have shown neither animation nor physics leaves me to believe that Unlimited Detail will provide me with unlimited disappointment.[/QUOTE]
Try running any recent game without a GPU, on just CPU, with that detail.
You can just restart PC now, I saved you the trouble.
[quote]Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.[/quote]
As told by John Carmack.
[QUOTE=Quillink;31479214]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]
ahahaah holy shit how the fuck can you be so naive
they're trying to trick investors into giving them fuckloads of money
Anyone with any questions read this first. its very informative.
[url]http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/description.html[/url]
[QUOTE=benaq;31483899]The fact that he states their tech demo of static models only ran at 20 FPS, along with the fact that they have shown neither animation nor physics leaves me to believe that Unlimited Detail will provide me with unlimited disappointment.[/QUOTE]
If you tried to run something that detailed on a modern PC using polygons you would get like 1fps, are you dumb or what
We discussed this in the programming forum, it is completely possible, albeit skeletal animation is hard to do.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1112925-Unlimited-Detail-real-or-FAKE-!/[/url]
[QUOTE=Str4fe;31484536]Anyone with any questions read this first. its very informative.
[url]http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/description.html[/url][/QUOTE]
This doesn't explain shit. It just says"we are doing it differently"
The search algorithm they explain is raytracing.
[QUOTE=Killuah;31486636]This doesn't explain shit. It just says"we are doing it differently"
The search algorithm they explain is raytracing.[/QUOTE]
The search algorithm they use is called SVO (Sparse Voxel Octrees). In two dimensions, this is roughly how their algorithm only has to touch the points it needs to touch.
[img]http://www.flipcode.com/archives/article_introtooctrees04.jpg[/img]
Additionally they don't need to access data beyond a certain depth, because the difference won't be noticed at that distance. For instance, a single plant in the far distance only has to be a green pixel. This has been done many times before, as seen in the demos below:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YPL4wyvaBA[/media]
Imagine surgery games with this kind of technology
The technology is used for medical shit
[url=http://notch.tumblr.com/]Notch posted something about it on his Tumblr[/url]
Expect that it isn't voxels.
I hope it doesn't turn out just to be another voxel engine, this has potential if it isn't.
This thread is pretty clearly beyond reason, you all want this to be real so bad it hurts.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/g0gXt.jpg[/img]
[quote]The developer admitted that he has been working in a vacuum for the last 10+ years - so he knows very little about how current renderer's work. (Which was very apparent during a Q&A) It appeared that the demos used DX8 to do blitting to the screen. It was also stated that the demos were single core and written in plain non-optimized C, so someone who knew what they were doing could make it run much, much faster. (was a bit distressing to did not know what a memory cache was however)[/quote]
[url]http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1144873&postcount=21[/url]
This is from 2008, he pops up every year or whatever and nothing ever seems to come from it. The fact that he has a government grant (about $2,000,000) means there are people (and investors) out there that know even less about game development than facepunch users.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
