- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,257
isnt lod used over tesselation simply because its better to waste extra memory on lod models instead of wasting processor power on polygon merging?
Unlimited Detail Tech blahblah
- Thread starter Fraz
- Start date
isnt lod used over tesselation simply because its better to waste extra memory on lod models instead of wasting processor power on polygon merging?
Pretty much what I was thinking. The amount of disk space, let alone RAM, required, for even a rather small level, would be immense.
I guess that's why for now, polygons will be the main tool for games. We manage to get them rather cheaply these days. And frankly, it doesn't look half bad.
We don't want to REPLICATE reality in games, we want to SIMULATE it.
- Dec 28, 2008
- 944
- 1,152
Ehh, that other thing he mentioned (Atomontage Engine) uses less than 1 bit per voxel (just over half a bit by compression for each voxel) then you combine that with any other way they can save memory (I'd assume each tree/model is cache'd or instanced or something to save on space) and assuming they have some sort of system similar to a LOD system (where they could merge voxels or something the further you go away? I don't really know) then you could probably be talking less space than people first think. Sure not practical for a game, but no way 512 petabytes. (To put that into perspective, the film Avatar used over 1 petabyte of local storage; WoW uses 1.3 petabytes for storage; and Steam delivers 30 petabytes of content monthly.) So no way will it take up 512 petabytes. I'd expect they'd have it somewhere in some amount of gigs. Also, could people /please/ stop calling voxels "atoms"? It's annoying me, because that's what they are voxels, not atoms.
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
One way to save on the storage is to make the models defined procedurally, and then only use voxel storage to store differences. So a floor is defined symbolically as a surface with a certain noise function for grittiness and height, and any footprints or bulletholes cause extra data to need to be stored about what voxels are destroyed or translated.
The very conditions in the videos are extremely biased to avoid all the well-known and still-not-solved weaknesses in the technique.
Sure, if the snake-oil really cures cancer and whitens your teeth, why not use it?
Can't tell if language fanboy or just trolling...
So what? Given the unusual constraints of a single object in the same lighting and orientation, even polygonal systems can draw it a kerbillion times.
The very conditions in the videos are extremely biased to avoid all the well-known and still-not-solved weaknesses in the technique.
Sure, if the snake-oil really cures cancer and whitens your teeth, why not use it?
Can't tell if language fanboy or just trolling...
Last edited:
I'm just going to put this here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5w7Gh7WBjw
similar technic, rendered in real time (the .exe blew my mind). not interactive of course.
that just shows what an artistic mind can do with the tech. animations are possible but the proccessing cost grows exponentially high with higher detail
(they almost trick us into thinking they have a full rigged character but that's just some coding voodoo)
they did have a decent 2d animation tho. gives a good idea of the current limits of the tech. overall awesome demo
(60mb executable btw, fairly reasonable)
edit: or this one by the same group http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcybC0MhOBQ (80mb executable, still realtime)
the lack of animations doesn't mean you can't have a very dynamic world (hell, if anything, not relying on animations makes your world more dynamic). it's just that the video game industry is very bad at being creative nowadays.
have a little faith in the tech. we really could use different rendering technics.
that video from Euclideon was bullshit tho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5w7Gh7WBjw
similar technic, rendered in real time (the .exe blew my mind). not interactive of course.
that just shows what an artistic mind can do with the tech. animations are possible but the proccessing cost grows exponentially high with higher detail
(they almost trick us into thinking they have a full rigged character but that's just some coding voodoo)
they did have a decent 2d animation tho. gives a good idea of the current limits of the tech. overall awesome demo
(60mb executable btw, fairly reasonable)
edit: or this one by the same group http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcybC0MhOBQ (80mb executable, still realtime)
the lack of animations doesn't mean you can't have a very dynamic world (hell, if anything, not relying on animations makes your world more dynamic). it's just that the video game industry is very bad at being creative nowadays.
have a little faith in the tech. we really could use different rendering technics.
that video from Euclideon was bullshit tho.
Last edited:
http://kotaku.com/5827192/euclideon-creator-swears-infinite-detail-is-not-a-hoax Suddenly a wild interview appears. According to this it was real :|
Mr. Wimples
L6: Sharp Member
- Jan 27, 2010
- 276
- 226
I still don't understand the unreal amount of bashing this tech is getting. If you really think that this is a sham, then fine, just don't invest money in it and let it flop. Unless you can somehow influence how this tech is developed, why not just keep an eye on it and see what happens? No harm done if it succeeds, no harm done if it flops.
- Jul 31, 2009
- 1,590
- 410
Let me put it this way.
Suppose someone is pushing some sort of vague geothermal-power technology. Every year they put out the same press-release, and each time they completely gloss over known issues and weaknesses. They never give enough detail to really judge whether they have something revolutionary or not, and all their demonstrations are conducted in a way which looks cool to laypersons but shows nothing which is actually interesting to anybody who knows about the current state of the industry.
Bashing those people and their claims is not the same as "bashing geothermal".
Last edited:
I like how he didn't address anything about the memory issue. I likes it a lot.
Mr. Wimples
L6: Sharp Member
- Jan 27, 2010
- 276
- 226
Point taken.
Still going to watch it and see what goes down, will be interesting for sure.
- Sep 28, 2009
- 3,075
- 2,778
What does that have to do with it? CUDA is about processing, not storage. My statement is about the fact that a non-repeating world should/would take up immense amounts of data with that many "atoms" being involved.
I still feel like i don't understand this technology entirely and any skeptisism would be based on that fact. If i don't understand it i can't properly compare it or it's potential.
The demonstration was fairly convincing, at least for a static environment. But my question is thus:
Polygon technology may not be perfect but it's sufficient, everyone understands it and is able to utilise it. We're at the point where polygon technology is so convincing it's hard to realise we're staring at triangles. Is this really a necassery evolution. Infinite detail just seems like overkill and something people got over quite recently what with the demonstrations of the latest next generation games: Especially with current shader technology.
I'm supposing it's a matter of efficiency in terms of production... but still. Lots of questions, very few answers.
The demonstration was fairly convincing, at least for a static environment. But my question is thus:
Polygon technology may not be perfect but it's sufficient, everyone understands it and is able to utilise it. We're at the point where polygon technology is so convincing it's hard to realise we're staring at triangles. Is this really a necassery evolution. Infinite detail just seems like overkill and something people got over quite recently what with the demonstrations of the latest next generation games: Especially with current shader technology.
I'm supposing it's a matter of efficiency in terms of production... but still. Lots of questions, very few answers.
Last edited:
- Sep 28, 2009
- 3,075
- 2,778
Space may be a factor, but only on a small account. You can store ridiculous things in small spaces these days.
Did you read Notch's doubt post about it? That's what Kotaku referenced when they said the Eulcidion guys were answering a lot of the doubters on the internet. Which I then made my snide comment about. Notch had the math in there for 1 byte per atom, which is less than could be useful. I'm sure there would be some reusable data, but the island is way more repeated than is allowable in a real-world usage of the tech.
- Sep 28, 2009
- 3,075
- 2,778
You only really need to initialize each individual object in your world a single time, then can call multiples up as a cluster. Effectively, you should have less than one byte per atom. I really wouldn't trust Notch as a residential expert in this tech.
I'm not trusting him, I am merely agreeing with his train of thought and was referring to his post for the numbers.
I know you can do the multiple object stuff like that, polygon engines already do it, Source can render multiple copies of a prop faster than a single prop with equal polygons. But each one of those objects will have to be tremendously larger amounts of data to handle with that many atoms. In the end, I'm not saying it is impossible, but in my mind that is the biggest hurdle to overcome and yet it is the one that isn't addressed. I simply won't care or believe anything will come of this until they can show me how the data is handled.
I know you can do the multiple object stuff like that, polygon engines already do it, Source can render multiple copies of a prop faster than a single prop with equal polygons. But each one of those objects will have to be tremendously larger amounts of data to handle with that many atoms. In the end, I'm not saying it is impossible, but in my mind that is the biggest hurdle to overcome and yet it is the one that isn't addressed. I simply won't care or believe anything will come of this until they can show me how the data is handled.
Sel
Banned
- Feb 18, 2009
- 1,239
- 2,570
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA
Found this today, few months old, but it wasn't posted here. Was pretty interesting, has a real time demonstration about halfway through.
Near the end he suggests that maybe this will allow game artists to go back to go back to traditional art such as clay sculptures. Really found that line very neat since I hadn't really thought of that before.
Found this today, few months old, but it wasn't posted here. Was pretty interesting, has a real time demonstration about halfway through.
Near the end he suggests that maybe this will allow game artists to go back to go back to traditional art such as clay sculptures. Really found that line very neat since I hadn't really thought of that before.
Last edited: