Unlimited Detail Tech blahblah
- Thread starter Fraz
- Start date
Ice Crystal
L2: Junior Member
- Feb 28, 2013
- 78
- 91
I honestly think this would be a lot better received if the guy in all the videos didn't sound like such a dick.
I bet getting real time lighting working with this would be hellish. Imagine trying to get radiosity to run efficiently, or even at all without predetermined lightmap-style groups of "atoms". Animating would be slow, physics would probably still use hitboxes and artists would probably just export high poly models into the tool anyway. Considering how much time and money goes into AAA graphics already, while this is cool and probably viable, I don't think it's the best step forward right now. Or perhaps there could be some hybrid where certain priority models get it, like viewmodels and characters.
I bet getting real time lighting working with this would be hellish. Imagine trying to get radiosity to run efficiently, or even at all without predetermined lightmap-style groups of "atoms". Animating would be slow, physics would probably still use hitboxes and artists would probably just export high poly models into the tool anyway. Considering how much time and money goes into AAA graphics already, while this is cool and probably viable, I don't think it's the best step forward right now. Or perhaps there could be some hybrid where certain priority models get it, like viewmodels and characters.
Last edited:
I like how barely anyone replied after Sel bumped this thread, despite the new videos being way more impresssive than the old videos. Probably because most people never saw the new videos... because most people never check the previous page of unread posts. Says a lot about forum browsing habits.
So I'm going to bump this in protest. These are them btw
So I'm going to bump this in protest. These are them btw
Last edited:
I honestly doubt that their technology improved, they just made this video to show "hey, we got good art assets this time". they still have not adressed the main issue as far as gaming goes, 0 interactivity.
I mean, there's very little to discuss about these new videos. they don't bring anything new to the table. just my 2 cents
Last edited:
that geoverse thingy does look very impressive. What they're doing is less interesting as a game engine but more useful for displaying static information, which is exactly what that geo-thingy is. For that area, they've set themselves up perfectly.
Basically, they're going to become the Google of geo-scaping... hmmm...actually, imagine google earth and street view using this technology. taking a virtual tour of new york via the internet using the geosphere technology on google earth, with embedded links to more information of important buildings, areas, etc. double plus good.
As for gaming, i personally never took them seriously with the whole animation of points/voxels/atoms being so difficult and resource-intensive, and that they could only display static objects in ridiculous amounts of detail. However, having said that, the fact that they can display objects with such amount of detail raises the question if their technology could be used to support traditional polygon engines by rendering (indestructible) static objects with incredible amounts of detail: rocks, boulders, concrete buildings, statues, wall engravings, etc. they're focusing on the strengths of their technology (displaying static data in real time) instead of wasting resources on getting animated voxels into their engine. that isn't a bad thing, that's exploiting the strengths of their technology. forget the technology as a gaming engine.
I can also see the technology becoming very wide-spread for architectural purposes, particularly presentations.
Basically, they're going to become the Google of geo-scaping... hmmm...actually, imagine google earth and street view using this technology. taking a virtual tour of new york via the internet using the geosphere technology on google earth, with embedded links to more information of important buildings, areas, etc. double plus good.
As for gaming, i personally never took them seriously with the whole animation of points/voxels/atoms being so difficult and resource-intensive, and that they could only display static objects in ridiculous amounts of detail. However, having said that, the fact that they can display objects with such amount of detail raises the question if their technology could be used to support traditional polygon engines by rendering (indestructible) static objects with incredible amounts of detail: rocks, boulders, concrete buildings, statues, wall engravings, etc. they're focusing on the strengths of their technology (displaying static data in real time) instead of wasting resources on getting animated voxels into their engine. that isn't a bad thing, that's exploiting the strengths of their technology. forget the technology as a gaming engine.
I can also see the technology becoming very wide-spread for architectural purposes, particularly presentations.
Last edited: