[QUOTE=Laserbeams;31485985]He is, he sold over 1000000 copies of GMod[/QUOTE]
What about taxes, bills and Valves cut in on the profit which is something like %50
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;31486279]What about taxes, bills and Valves cut in on the profit which is something like %50[/QUOTE]
Should still be way more than a million
This reminded me of the "Samaritan" tech demo from this year's GDC (Unreal technology upgrades etc)
[img]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/115/1153284/gdc-see-what-next-gen-games-will-look-like-20110302082142810.jpg[/img]
[img]http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/115/1153284/gdc-see-what-next-gen-games-will-look-like-20110302082144966.jpg[/img]
Future of gaming people. Now all I want iare soft-bodies and those graphics, so that I can relieve my stress.
All I can say is the same as when the last videos came out.
Seems nice but it's a bit suspicious that they've not said anything about the specs of the computer they're using. I'm not going to believe it until I can have the demo to run on my computer.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;31486290]Should still be way more than a million[/QUOTE]
ask garry, I have no clue.
[QUOTE=DasMatze;31485980]Because it's less memory intensive? I just did a test: An untextured object with 1 million polygons takes like 40MB of space while an uncompressed 1024x1024 heightmap is 110kb big. That's why you see the same models copied and pasted over and over again in the demonstration videos.
Also as has been mentioned before: the collisions, the physics, the animation and maybe lighting seems to be another problem. It's an astonishing discovery and the rendering of points instead of whole objects has a lot of potential but I don't think the super high-detail-point cloud thing has a future in gaming. At least not in the next years.[/QUOTE]
It's like not a one of you have read it.
The lighting has smoothing now, it just wasn't in that video, and animation they said they already have done and it will be in the next video.
Also I'm just saying, their system they have said several times that it doesn't use polygons, so I really don't know how they render.
At this point I'm almost POSITIVE they're using the old trick companies used to use in their rendered demo videos, they set everything as high as possible and record it at whatever fps it happens to be, usually between 15 and 24, and then speed it up so that it looks like it's running smoothly.
[QUOTE=IplayAspy;31484108]Valve needs to buy this out.[/QUOTE]
Infinite quality Hats, cool!
Oh, wait you wanted a game, what a shame.
From previous videos this is what I get about how it works:
Basically the engine manages to learn what parts of the point-cloud data need to be rendered (where the camera is looking and the range of view it has) and only renders that. Also manages to know what objects cover others and doesn't render those objects even if in range. That way, it manages to keep rendering at high FPS with low end hardware.
They describe it as a point cloud data search engine.
Animation is possible, they have shown it in past videos, but they are still working on it.
I can see they have made progress with shading, in the first videos shades looked buggy and rough, now it looks smoother.
It looks real, but I won't get my hopes too high. I don't want to believe yet.
[QUOTE=garry;31485152]That's why they're making these videos. They're waiting to be bought out.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm fairly sure they're more interested in generating investment interest so stupid rich people will first invest, and then they'll sell it.
I call bullshit, even if one voxel was one kilobyte, wouldn't it take hundreds of terabytes of memory to store one map with those "limitless" amounts coordinates?
[QUOTE=kaine123;31496795]I call bullshit, even if one voxel was one kilobyte, wouldn't it take hundreds of terabytes of memory to store one map with those "limitless" amounts coordinates?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't use voxels.
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
And one Gb can hold a billion points by that logic.
In case you missed it, Notch calls them out on the practicality of it.
[url]http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam[/url]
Also a followup his points, [url]http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam[/url]
Its too bad notch talks about voxels.
When Euclideon doesn't use voxels.
[QUOTE=Laferio;31504490]Its too bad notch talks about voxels.
When Euclideon doesn't use voxels.[/QUOTE]
First point on the second link.
I find his voice so annoying.
It likely can't run well on below average PCs. I think our technology needs to advance more before we ever see this implemented. Likely somewhere around 5-10 years it'll be implemented into PC games. About 10-15 years for consoles since it's already been several years since the 360 and PS3, and it's not likely to be implemented into the WiiU, and considering how weak consoles are compared to your average gaming PC.
Boy this must be hilarious
Wait, what I'm getting from this is they're using these (voxels?) to render the entire object inside and out. Why not just use them to only render parts that you will actually see?
[QUOTE=caesium;31503991]In case you missed it, Notch calls them out on the practicality of it.
[url]http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam[/url]
Also a followup his points, [url]http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam[/url][/QUOTE]
Since Notch is an expert on Engines.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;31512876]They're not using voxels, this is literally the 50,000th time we've said this.[/QUOTE]
You keeping count?
Thanks to Notch, there are now thousands of peasants bashing these guys and not thinking for themselves.
I like Notch, but it's not like he's suddenly the Einstein of videogames because of Minecraft. There are thousands of people like him and smarter out there who get no recognition at all.
All I'm saying is, it was a pretty arrogant move from Notch to come public with an opinion like this, like he wouldn't know what would happen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
