Euclideon Island demo - General

[QUOTE=rrunyan;31475185]My only hope is, that the first game that uses this software is not Modern Warfare, or any modern shooter, and if it's not too much trouble: let it be Valve.[/QUOTE] Minecraft [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/downs.gif[/img]

So anything you don't see, for your computer don't exist? Didn't they already do that previously? Only that can make such unspeakable madness run on an average computer?

Hnnnng. I can't wait to play this in the future on my super fast computer, with unlimited polygons.

I see people talking about it being hard to implement physics or something into engines using this technology and that has me kind of worried. I would rather have great ingame physics with bad graphics than great graphics and bad physics. But then again I don't have a very good idea of what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=abananapeel;31475783]I see people talking about it being hard to implement physics or something into engines using this technology and that has me kind of worried. I would rather have great ingame physics with bad graphics than great graphics and bad physics. But then again I don't have a very good idea of what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] The physics engine will be separate and shouldn't really be that hard to implement as long as they aren't trying to give every sand particle weight.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31474192]I wouldn't say that making a textureless environment matching what is already there would take much work.[/QUOTE] You don't even have to do that. All the models can be converted to polygons.

I don't think there would be anything wrong with using a conventional hitbox type system, collision models, etc. As far as I understand a low resolution collision model is hardly processing or memory intensive, so just pair them together and work from there. Either way I'm glad to see they've come this far, I can't wait to see what's next.

Someone screenshot this thread to show when this shit has finally revolutionized graphics

I'm not necessarily pessimistic about physics. I'm more interested in animation and environment dynamics. I've yet to see any large-scale and realtime rendered movement in that engine of theirs.

[QUOTE=Clavus;31477075]I'm not necessarily pessimistic about physics. I'm more interested in animation and environment dynamics. I've yet to see any large-scale and realtime rendered movement in that engine of theirs.[/QUOTE]Should be easy, and work like any other animation system.

This is very interesting, I remember seeing the old vid and it certainly has come a long way since then. I was worried back when the first vid came out it was simply vaporware and we would never hear of it again, never been happier to be wrong.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;31477272]Should be easy, and work like any other animation system.[/QUOTE] The way it's implemented doesn't make it easy, it's designed for static geometry. Luckily polygons and this can be freely mixed.

Can't wait to be able to convert all of Half Li- Brushwork :( I guess you could propper it all and try.

Hmm. Even if they can't make animations with it the fact that the environment will take a lot less power means that the polygons will have more room for looking nice.

If this becomes mainstream I'll personally suck the creator's dick.

The real question on everyone's mind is: can it run Crysis?

[QUOTE=Slight;31477881]The real question on everyone's mind is: can it run Crysis?[/QUOTE] can an engine run a game?

[QUOTE=Micr0;31477860]If this becomes mainstream I'll personally suck the creator's dick.[/QUOTE] Please take your queue number.

I am highly skeptical of this whole thing. Unless this thing does interpolation/procedural generation on the models then 21 trillion points would require 252 terabytes of storage assuming they use 32 bits for the coordinates. That is simply the positions of the atoms and not any other data. I'll believe it when I get a tech demo to play with. [editline]1st August 2011[/editline] Also, around 2:05 they seem to have shadows and lighting functional on a static scene. Why are they not rubbing that in our face? This looks more like a rendered scene than real-time.

Witch!

So, what's the catch?

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;31478878]So, what's the catch?[/QUOTE]Nvidia or ATI will buy them out and put the technology in their archives because they can't afford a stop in graphics rush.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;31477272]Should be easy, and work like any other animation system.[/QUOTE] Actually if anybody had bothered to read the description they said that they have animation and it'll be in the next video.

[QUOTE=Fatman55;31483224]Actually if anybody had bothered to read the description they said that they have animation and it'll be in the next video.[/QUOTE] which takes another year :v: no, I really am amazed by this.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31483035]Nvidia or ATI will buy them out and put the technology in their archives because they can't afford a stop in graphics rush.[/QUOTE] This wouldn't surprise me :v:

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;31483035]Nvidia or ATI will buy them out and put the technology in their archives because they can't afford a stop in graphics rush.[/QUOTE] If I don't hear anything about this in a few months I'm going to guess thats what happened. Hopefully they will understand that they will make even more money if they go through with this in the long run.

i can't wait to play games that look as realistic as movies

[QUOTE=EragonRulez;31473012]I have the feeling this won't work very well for a physics engine.[/QUOTE] Individual polygonal hitboxes for the objects? Maybe the engine itself could generate optimized hitboxes

21 trillion, 62 billion, 352 polygons at 20 fps with no level of detail. This is some sick shit right there, forget about tesselation, developers, you need to use this technology instead.

Also, raytraced reflections is apparently very easy to achieve when using this technology.