Until there is a game or demo using this technology, it all makes for an interesting video, but nothing more.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;46026419]Until there is a game or demo using this technology, it all makes for an interesting video, but nothing more.[/QUOTE]
It's probably gonna end up looking something like a [url=https://www.youtube.com/user/wendyvainity]wendy vanity[/url] video.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
well assuming the guy talking is gonna make the games
[img]http://zwieracz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/u2008rwalk02.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.3d-test.com/images/unlimited_detail_technology/unlimited_detail_1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/04/unlimited-detail.jpg[/img]
[img]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/244444/ShareX/2014-09/2014-09-20_03-04-03.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;46027049][img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2010/04/unlimited-detail.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
I still can't get over the fact he's trying to sell on being able to see 'grains of dirt' and has all these proxy objects just kind of floating around in a huge badly tiling pattern
Sure the dude is terrible at advertising, but his tech is genuine.
I'm sure the animation / game reveal will be interesting.
Also, comparing it to the fox engine is stupid. There appears to be zero post-processing in the Euclideon video. It's not comparable.
Was really painful listening to that guy work his way towards the incredibly obvious twist. It didn't even fool me for a second. Not impressed at all.
lol, I'm surprised he showed a picture of Leica's Lidar, it's mostly for land surveying and stuff like that. Kinda silly to even suggest that. You import that into Civil3D and bam, bunch of points. It is a cool technology though.
Here's a better-resolution picture from P.T., click for bigger version.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/KrhdC3a.jpg[/t]
Unless I missed a post, I'm surprised nobody pointed out the blatantly obvious screen tearing straight down the middle of the video. That was annoying the shit out of me.
There isn't even any lighting in his renders / scenes. It's all textures mapped from the scans.
I can see this being a neat walk-around thing for, say, the Oculus Rift, but put an actual model in there, and you will now have a problem.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;46027875]Here's a better-resolution picture from P.T., click for bigger version.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/KrhdC3a.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Woah hold up a second, this is from a game? This is next level shit right here. 11/10 would buy if I wasn't a pussy
[QUOTE=Killer monkey;46028579]Woah hold up a second, this is from a game? This is next level shit right here. 11/10 would buy if I wasn't a pussy[/QUOTE]
A lot of the realism is with the... "skewmorphism" (I think that fits). All of the aberrations and artifacting to hide the perfectly clean nature of it. The digital color noise, the chromatic aberrations on the sides of the image, the overly done barrel distortion, the lens flaring, the way the light fades oddly when it gets bright. Most of that is just done in post processing I'd imagine but it can go a long way to feeling more familiar.
[url]http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam[/url]
not sure how accurate this is but imagine believing these Euclideon guys lmao
all hype and nothing to show
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;46027875]Here's a better-resolution picture from P.T., click for bigger version.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/KrhdC3a.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I saw this posted in the general games media thread, and the guy who posted it said it is touched up to look even more real
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
[t]http://www.senpaigamer.com/sites/default/files/news/sony/2014/08/14-pt-silent-hill-ps4-4.jpg[/t]
not touched up image, though without the woman
This guy has gotten millions in grants from the australian government and other investors but apparently he can't afford to get a new fucking microphone because he's been using the same for the past 4 years
[QUOTE=Hiccuper;46025229]I fucking despise the intonation he uses in every sentence, a lot of British people on telly seem to use it. Like, at the end of [B][I]every[/I][/B] sentence he goes in pitch from low to high and finishing on low. His voice was the reason I stopped watching. If the whole thing was done in Microsoft Sam I would have gotten further.[/QUOTE]
And now I read everything in his voice. Thank you.
I greatly dislike Euclideon. They are setting an awful example of what 3D technology like 3D scanning is capable of and what it is used for.
"Why design a level on Mars when you could just scan the surface of Mars yourself and put it in your game!? It's so much easier and gets you better results!"
MGS5 is using 3d scanning too but they know what they're doing:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruj3oeDnXTY[/media]
The hundreds of artists making games aren't involved so much in making the games look real, but rather giving them adequate and consistent art style and setting up the atmosphere, scenes. Realistic rendering is completely useless without artists to make use of it (not every real world scene looks interesting to play in a videogame), but good artists can make pleasant interesting image with any rendering engine.
Maybe we should stop pushing graphics and start pushing stylized artstyles?
[QUOTE=Tobin;46029750]Maybe we should stop pushing graphics and start pushing stylized artstyles?[/QUOTE]
that or just less shitty games that exist to look pretty
[QUOTE=Tobin;46029750]Maybe we should stop pushing graphics and start pushing stylized artstyles?[/QUOTE]
I don't know.. I like stylized games but I don't think the gaming industry should stop striving for realism at the same time. Realism pushes technology to the limits and I don't think we should draw a line and say "Well the graphics are good enough, lets stop making realistic games"
You guys need to realize that this dude isn't an artist, he's just made a really efficient dot-matrix renderer. THE most efficient, even.
This is a large breakthrough for the geo-spatial industry where stuff like this is often used, but is very slow and requires powerful computers (and also looks bad).
Since it's so damn efficient, games are a market that could be fit for it, as it allows you to render wayyy more geometric detail than previously possible. Up until now it's even been running on the CPU only, which means there's a LOT of headroom for calculating other effects.
I've been following the development of this as closely as possible, looking at every piece of material that's come out about it.
Here's a little Q&A about the most common questions:
[B]Q:[/B] [I]Does it do actual shadowing based on the geometry?[/I]
[B]A:[/B] Yes, this was shown in one of the island videos around a year ago. He said their method was fast and accurate. (and implied that some kind of real-time AO was also in the works)
[B]Q:[/B] [I]Does it do animation?[/I]
[B]A:[/B] Bruce Dell has stated that it supports skeletal animation. And as he says in this video, the next video will be sort of a reveal of that.
[B]Q:[/B] [I]What about collision detection?[/I]
[B]A:[/B] Games tend to have invisible collision meshes across everything, I don't see why it would be any different or cause problems here. The renderer is separate from the physics engine.
[B]Q:[/B] [I]3D scanning is stupid, why leave out the 3D artists?[/I]
[B]A:[/B] You could use 3D scanning or you could manually create assets and convert them with their in-house converter. What that means is that you can create your assets with no polygon budget at all.
The 3D scanning tech I'd say is more interesting for the geo-spatial industry.
Anyhow, I'm sure that the 3D scanning is useful for some props if you want it done fast.
[B]Q:[/B] [I]Space requirements?[/I]
[B]A:[/B] Absolutely no idea. They apparently do have an efficient compression algorithm, but there's been no numbers revealed.
And here's an actual interview with Bruce Dell and sort of a look around his studio (8:25 and onwards is especially interesting):
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA[/media]
Bruce dell is terrible at advertising and he's not a good artist. I guess you can call him eccentric or childish? He's an oddball for sure.
However, the tech he has created is potentially a breakthrough for the entire 3D industry, it just needs to gain some traction.
Haven't they been claiming it's a large breakthrough for half a decade at this point?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46030259]Haven't they been claiming it's a large breakthrough for half a decade at this point?[/QUOTE]
Because it still is. No one else is doing this exact thing, and certainly not this efficiently.
[QUOTE=paul simon;46030196]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA[/media]
[/QUOTE]
Levels of Distance
[QUOTE=mastersrp;46030423]Because it still is. No one else is doing this exact thing, and certainly not this efficiently.[/QUOTE]
Which I think is saying something about the usefulness of this tech, nobody else wants to replicate it.
-snip guess i'm dumb-
[QUOTE=paul simon;46027451]Sure the dude is terrible at advertising, but his tech is genuine.
I'm sure the animation / game reveal will be interesting.
Also, comparing it to the fox engine is stupid. There appears to be zero post-processing in the Euclideon video. It's not comparable.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;cF8A4bsfKH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8[/video]
[QUOTE=Buck.;46030646]Levels of Distance[/QUOTE]
He mixes up some words. Literally hitler.
[editline]20th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;46030723][video=youtube;cF8A4bsfKH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8[/video][/QUOTE]
Great argument. An old video that no longer represents the state of the tech :v:
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;46030723][video=youtube;cF8A4bsfKH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8[/video][/QUOTE]
He also stated in one of his videos that they used to do skeleton animation, but that was no longer the case. This video doesn't really demonstrate anything?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46030658]Which I think is saying something about the usefulness of this tech, nobody else wants to replicate it.[/QUOTE]
Or no one else cares to put this much effort into attempting to replicate it, when there's loads of documentation and papers on doing what has been done in the past 20 years. Why change that, when you know people pay for it?
Well, it doesn't inspire innovation to just do what everyone else does, but it does pay.
[QUOTE=Shotz;46030719]UE4 looks extremely better than this:
[video=youtube;UwEuSxAEXPA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwEuSxAEXPA[/video][/QUOTE]
Static scenery, lightning baked in. What are you trying to say?
They still do skeletal animation, but they certainly do it a bunch better now. (next video will shed some light on it I imagine)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
