Archive: 157 posts

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4 http://gifsforum.com/images/image/mind%20blown/grand/mind_blown.jpg Mobile link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4) Edit - Important update! It's a scam! Perhaps you?ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking ?unlimited detail? rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4 Well, it is a scam. They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That?s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let?s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic. So obviously, it's not made up of that many unique voxels. In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you don't need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine. Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It's possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it's not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do. It's a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they?re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they?re pretending like what they?re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it's been done several times before. There?s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw And there?s more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc They?re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It's a scam. Don?t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen.

2011-08-01 23:09:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

Ow... That's gotta hurt! EDIT: Woah! I never saw that coming. If they could make thtat in lbp, couldnt that remove the thermo basically?

2011-08-01 23:12:00 Author: StaticLinuxpro Posts: 482

---

Ow... That's gotta hurt! Did you even watch the video?

2011-08-01 23:15:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

Oh, I read it on my iPad. It won't let me watch it...

2011-08-01 23:26:00 Author: StaticLinuxpro Posts: 482

---

You... may want to alter the thread title to better document what is actually in the thread, I believe that the contents of said thread would be enough to provoke your current topic title in each and every one of us, and I think this is too amazing to be hidden under the wrong title. Now... yeah, if this is true, it looks amazing. Hopefully the technology to do such a thing isn't super expensive that only a game with a budget over 10 million can do it... They didn't really say how expensive, time consuming or difficult doing this was... just that the end result was amazing. Still, bout time something good came out of Aust/sniped

2011-08-01 23:40:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

Things evolve. I'm pretty used to it.

2011-08-01 23:41:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391

---

You... may want to alter the thread title to better document what is actually in the thread, I believe that the contents of said thread would be enough to provoke your current topic title in each and every one of us, and I think this is too amazing to be hidden under the wrong title. Now... yeah, if this is true, it looks amazing. Hopefully the technology to do such a thing isn't super expensive that only a game with a budget over 10 million can do it... They didn't really say how expensive, time consuming or difficult doing this was... just that the end result was amazing. Still, bout time something good came out of Aust/sniped Agreed, is the slight change better?

2011-08-01 23:48:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

Could you provide a direct link to the video for those with iPad and mobile ooh-ahh devices?

2011-08-01 23:49:00 Author: Plasmavore Posts: 1913

---

Agreed, is the slight change better? Kinda, though I'd personally think it should be something like "Revolution in Graphics Coming". Just saying "The Graphics" implies that it may be the graphics of one game, whereas the point of this video is more along the lines of our own conceptions of good graphics are about to be flushed out the window. edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4 for mobile peepz while you wait tfor theswweet

2011-08-01 23:50:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

It's nice and all but it won't happen. You cannot possibly store and retrieve an infinite amount of information on a discrete computer with a finite amount of RAM and a finite amount of disk space. You can decrease the resolution down to 128 voxels for mm^3, or 1024 voxels, or 4 billion pr mm^3 given you have that much RAM and disk space.... but it's still a computer. And a computer cannot have an infinite amount of RAM and Disk space. You also have to take into account that they showed no physics and/or animations. If this was ever implemented into a game, and it had amazing animations and physics... You'd need to have a super computer. And even then I don't think it would run at a smooth 60 + FPS. EDIT: I mean it's amazing no doubt about that but I don't see this being implemented at least not for a while. I hope I eat my own words though.

2011-08-01 23:56:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Kinda, though I'd personally think it should be something like "Revolution in Graphics Coming". Just saying "The Graphics" implies that it may be the graphics of one game, whereas the point of this video is more along the lines of our own conceptions of good graphics are about to be flushed out the window. edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKUuUvDSXk4 for mobile peepz while you wait tfor theswweet Title changed

2011-08-01 23:59:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

I find this hard to believe but if it's true then awesome.

2011-08-02 00:00:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

My face... Before: http://myfacewhen.com/images/44.jpg After: http://myfacewhen.com/images/4.jpg

2011-08-02 00:04:00 Author: Testudini Posts: 3262

---

Nice, I don't know why people don't believe it., it's not like tech doesn't evolve... & this is it. Hopefully it dosn't take too long for it to get to developers.

2011-08-02 00:13:00 Author: IAmChavez Posts: 142

---

The thing is, I didn't realise how bad polygons looked until I saw that video, now I want this to come as quick as possible. Dang.

2011-08-02 14:49:00 Author: kirbyman62 Posts: 1893

---

Neither did I, imagine the possibilities! *imagines the possibilities*

2011-08-02 14:59:00 Author: Plasmavore Posts: 1913

---

holy balls, thats a good idea, if its true. He seems way too inthusiastic about it, just shouting at times. Plus, when they showed Crisis 2's tree, compared to their tree, i think Crisis 2's was better....

2011-08-02 15:15:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I nerd'd all over the floor! (When Jump_button tweeted this) http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/149/753/tumblr_loenghbTaG1qfl43jo1_500.gif?1310932055

2011-08-02 19:37:00 Author: Nurolight Posts: 918

---

The thing is, I didn't realise how bad polygons looked until I saw that video, now I want this to come as quick as possible. Dang. polygons are not in anyway a bad thing, it all depends on the polygon "budget" that you have to work with. Point cloud data has the same problem, it's all about the limitations. The reason this is amazing is not because it uses point cloud but because they some how found a way to have "infinite" point cloud and even made a converter for polygon to point cloud. I am excited yet a bit skeptical at the same time.

2011-08-02 19:44:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Holy **** indeed. Those are probabably the first CGI graphics I've seen that I can see are truly photorealistic rather than "approaching photorealism". I'm telling you, this si the future.

2011-08-02 20:37:00 Author: Veyneru Posts: 115

---

This is exactly what came into my mind after watching that video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjqsYzBrP-M NOTE: The quality of the video does NO justice for the game's actual quality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hJMxw126A&feature=related

2011-08-02 20:45:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

...well (notch.tumblr.com) It's a scam! Perhaps you?ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking ?unlimited detail? rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4 Well, it is a scam. They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That?s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let?s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic. So obviously, it's not made up of that many unique voxels. In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you don't need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine. Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It's possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it's not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do. It's a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they?re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they?re pretending like what they?re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it's been done several times before. There?s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1eMC9Jdsw And there?s more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUe4ofdz5oI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHIUC4LNFE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9CiGJiZuc They?re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It's a scam. Don?t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen.

2011-08-02 22:05:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

I'm happy with polygons right now. I can wait.

2011-08-03 00:48:00 Author: Amigps Posts: 564

---

This is exactly what came into my mind after watching that video. I'm hoping Bethesda are the first to use this in their next game... Which is likely Fallout 4 (5?)

2011-08-03 01:21:00 Author: Nurolight Posts: 918

---

...well (notch.tumblr.com) Called it.

2011-08-03 03:01:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

...well (notch.tumblr.com) The scam wasn't surprising, but Notch actually dissing it was! Indie rants FTW!

2011-08-03 03:55:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Holy fake graphical power, Batman!

2011-08-03 05:37:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

Holy fake graphical power, Batman! How is it fake? They didn't lie, they just didn't mention the limitations. It's normal advertising

2011-08-03 05:42:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

How is it fake? They didn't lie, they just didn't mention the limitations. It's normal advertising Holy unviable graphical power, Batman!

2011-08-03 07:31:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

Holy at least AT LEAST 2-3 generations of consoles graphical power, Bat-Rob.

2011-08-03 14:29:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Rebuttal (http://kotaku.com/5827192/euclideon-creator-swears-infinite-detail-is-not-a-hoax) against Notch Anti-Rebuttal (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam) from Notch Yesterday we posted a video from Euclideon ? a Australian company that claims it can revolutionise video game graphics, increasing visual fidelity by 100,000. This morning we spoke to Euclideon's CEO Bruce Dell ? the man Markus Persson calls a "Snake Oil Salesman" ? to ask a few questions regarding Euclideon's ?Infinite Detail' technology. "I think what I would like to make clear is that this is not the finished product," says Bruce Dell, CEO of Euclideon. "We feel like a mother who put cookies in the oven, and now everyone is surrounding the oven chanting ?are they ready yet? Are they ready yet?' "Give us time and the cookies will taste just fine!" Instantly we recognise the voice - it's the voice from that video. The voice that claimed Euclideon could revolutionise video game graphics, the voice that claimed a new technology called ?Infinite Detail' could increase visual fidelity by a factor of 100,000. The man Markus ?Notch' Persson, the creator of Minecraft, openly called a "Snake Oil Salesman". It's 9am in Brisbane, and we've just woken said Snake Oil Salesman up. "No! No, this isn't a hoax," Bruce Dell laughs, in response to our first, obvious question. "If this was a hoax then we've convinced the Australian government it was a hoax. We've convinced our board of directors and investors it's a hoax! "We have a government grant ? so no, it is not a hoax! We have real time demonstrations." The response to Euclideon's demonstration video, which we posted yesterday was instantaneous and fairly mixed. Some were cynical, some called it a hoax, others were more receptive ? but it was hardly a convincing demonstration. Markus Persson, writing on his own personal blog, was perhaps the most scathing in his criticism. "They're hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding," wrote Persson. "It's a scam." But if it's a scam, then the Australian Government is the mark, having invested 2 million dollars into Euclideon and its technology. LOOKING FOR SNOW WHITE We asked Bruce to explain the technology and how it worked. "Well, basically anyone who is technical is going to say you can't run that many polygons," he began, "but in the past we were trying to explain it in simple terms so people could understand. "A good analogy would be this: imagine you go to a library to find a book - say? Snow White. Imagine you go to a library and those books aren't on the shelf; they're all lying on the ground. At the moment systems that run point cloud data are doing that, they're putting every point on the screen and there is no order to it. Now imagine you go to a library and all the books are on the shelf and in order ? you go to the ?S' Section, then look for ?SNO' and it isn't long before you've found the book you need. "One system is looking at thousands of books," he continues, "and the other system is looking at ten labels. That's the basis of a search algorithm like Google or Yahoo ? they sort through all the knowledge in the world really quickly because it's categorised. "We made a search algorithm, but it's a search algorithm that that finds points, so it can quickly grab just one atom for every point on the screen." According to Bruce Dell, it's all about efficiency. "So think about the difference," he says. "If you had all of the points you are seeing on the screen, like in our demo, it's going to take forever. You'll be waiting for a long time. But if you're grabbing only one for every pixel on the screen, then you don't have a trillion dots, you have? well, pick a resolution and do the maths! "That's the difference. In layman's terms that's how we're doing what we're doing. The workload is so small that at the moment we're running software just fine with real time demonstrations and we're still optimising, because we keep finding more efficient ways to do this." That appears to be all well and good, but most criticism from the games industry has come from the detail Euclideon has been a little more coy on: animation, physics ? "[V]oxels are horrible for doing animation," wrote Markus Persson in his aforementioned blog, "because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It's possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it's not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do." According to Bruce Dell, the reason no animations have been shown is simple ? Infinite Detail is still a work in progress. "We have animation," claims Bruce, confidently. "We're certainly going to do a lot more work in that area. I have faith that you'll find our animation quite satisfactory, but we have no intention of releasing anything in that department until it looks absolutely 100% because if we release it now, I assure you that no-one will take it as ?that's where we're up to and we're still working on it', they'll just scream ?it's not perfect yet! They can't make it perfect! This can't compare to polygons!'" THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK We spoke to an Australian physics engine developer with experience of Bruce Dell and Euclideon. His company dealt with Bruce Dell years ago, when Euclideon was seeking funding for the Infinite Detail project. Said company declined to fund the project, citing issues with memory management, particularly when it came to animations. According to him any live demonstrations given by Euclideon featured poor art and assets, so it was difficult to gauge precisely how hardware intensive Infinite Detail actually was. The developer in question asked not to be named, but his primary concern wasn't with the ?Infinite Detail' tech itself, which he claimed could work with adjustments ? the issue was the toolset and the investments required to move an entire industry across to a new standard. Currently every game developer in the world is using tools dedicated to polygons ? convincing an entire industry to toss years of investment and research would be a difficult task indeed, especially with an unproven technology. Bruce Dell disagrees with that assertion. "I see comments from people saying the games industry will never use this," he begins. "Well, this industry isn't quite so old and stubborn. The games industry is actually quite open and we're in contact with quite a lot of players in that industry." According to Bruce, the sheer efficiency of his technology will win developers over. "The present polygon system has got quite a few problems, but not in terms of graphics. Polygons are not really scalable between platforms ? if I were to make a character on a PlayStation 3, I can't put him on the Nintendo Wii because he uses too many polygons, so I have to completely rebuild him. Imagine we weren't doing a polygon game, say we were doing a 2D game, if I drew a character on the PlayStation, he's just a bitmap image ? this can easily be rescaled. You could do it in Microsoft Paint! ?Infinite Detail' data is like a 2D bitmap image in that rescaling its size is easy, whereas polygons can't scale like that. "The big thing is ? if you make a game using the present polygon system, you have to rebuild it to rescale it. You don't have to do that with Unlimited Detail. "The industry's response was, basically, what you have is really good, you do not understand that the industry is used to using polygons and our tools are very good. I took a look at those tools and thought yes, they are very good. We want to get things to the stage where the artists don't have to change anything, just that now they're using unlimited detail." Not all developers have openly dismissed Bruce Dell and his ?Infinite Detail' technology, but even the most optimistic have opted for a ?wait and see' approach. John Carmack, for example, mentioned Euclideon briefly on his Twitter account claiming that "production issues would be challenging" but wondered if the tech might viable "a couple of years from now". Even Bruce Dell himself admits that he needs time. Come back later, he says, perhaps sooner than we think, and we might get the final product. "Basically we're in the middle of a trilogy and this is like our Empire Strikes Back," he explains. "We disappeared for so long that I think everyone thought ?oh, they're dead'. So we thought we'll release a one year report, tell everyone we're alive and then disappear again. "The intention is to come out again, once we've finished, and then we'll be releasing real time demonstrations." --- ?But Notch, it's NOT a scam!? I've been getting a bunch of feedback that my last blog post is wrong for various reasons, and I?d just like to say that I would absolutely LOVE to be proven wrong. Being wrong is awesome, that?s how you learn. If you want to read my reasoning behind various assumptions, click ?read more?. Why I assume it's voxels and not point clouds: * Voxels store only the information about each point, and their positions are implicit in the location of where the voxel is stored. Point cloud data stores both the information about each point and the position of each point. * They mention ?64 atoms per cubic millimeter?, which is 4*4*4 points per mm^2. While it's possible they only refer to the sampling frequency for turning polygonal structures into point data, the numbers are just too round for me to ignore as a programmer. * All repeated structures in the world are all facing the same direction. To me, that means they aren?t able to easily rotate them arbitrarily. About the size calculation: * I was trying to show that there was no way there was that much UNIQUE data in the world, and that everything had to be made up of repeated chunks. * One byte per voxel is way lower than the raw data you?d need. In reality, you?d probably want to track at least 24 bits of color and eight bits of normal vector data per voxel. That?s four times as much data. It's quite possible you?d want to track even more data. * If the data compresses down to 1%, it would still be 1 700 three-terrabyte hard drives of data at one byte of raw data per voxel. Animated voxels: * Holy crap, people sent me videos of this actually being done! * I was wrong! * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkn6ubbp1SE * (But please note that just that single animated character runs at 36 fps) Why it's a scam: * They pretend like they?re doing something new and unique, but in reality a lot of people are researching this. There are a lot of known draw-backs to doing this. * They refuse to address the known flaws. They don't show non-repeated architecture, they don't show animation, they don't show rotated geometry, and they don't show dynamic lighting. * They invent new terminology and use superlatives and plenty of unverifiable claims. * They say it's a ?search algorithm?. That?s just semantics to confuse the issue. Sparse voxel octrees is a search algorithm to do very fast ray casting in a voxel space. * They seem to be doing some very impressive voxel rendering stuff, which could absolutely be used to make very interesting games, but it's not as great as they claim it is. The only reason I can see for them misrepresenting it this bad is that I assume they?re looking for funding and/or to get bought up. If these guys were being honest with the drawbacks and weaknesses of their system, I?d be their biggest fan. As it is now, it's almost like they?re trying NOT to be trustworthy. All this said, voxels are amazing. So is raytracing and raycasting. As computers get more powerful, and storage gets faster and cheaper, we will see amazing things happen. And a final word to the engineers who worked on this: Great job, I am impressed! But please tell your marketing department to stop lying.

2011-08-03 18:04:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

I hope the irony of Notch calling someone else a scammer isn't lost on him.

2011-08-03 19:29:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

lol. I love minecraft... good thing I bought it so long ago when it was cheeeeap

2011-08-03 19:31:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Rebuttal (http://kotaku.com/5827192/euclideon-creator-swears-infinite-detail-is-not-a-hoax) against Notch Anti-Rebuttal (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam) from Notch Ah, but did it seem like a hoax when 3D models in games was possible back then? Was it unbelievable to have motion control gaming? I'm still rather "cautious" of these people's claims. I hardly believe a game console can render that much data without crashing. However, maybe they are coming close to finishing this. Maybe this is a breakthrough. While I'll probably have no interest in this until a couple of more years, I say "why not"? Is it wrong to hope for something new, unbelievable, and helpful? Who knows, maybe PS4 might handle this new graphics engine.

2011-08-03 21:36:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Like I said. Doesn't seem like a breakthrough, just seems like this will take years before something happens. I mean that single animated character was moving at 36 FPS. That is horrible. Imagine an entire scene in a game.

2011-08-03 21:37:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Like I said. Doesn't seem like a breakthrough, just seems like this will take years before something happens. I mean that single animated character was moving at 36 FPS. That is horrible. Imagine an entire scene in a game. Battlefield 3?

2011-08-04 01:28:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Battlefield 3? Battlefield 3 is not unlimited. Look at the ground. It's a picture. ._. And Battlefield 3 runs at 30 FPS on console. =/

2011-08-04 02:25:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Battlefield 3 is not unlimited. Look at the ground. It's a picture. ._. And Battlefield 3 runs at 30 FPS on console. =/ I was talking about the 30fps. http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/479178/thats_the_joke.jpg

2011-08-04 04:11:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I was talking about the 30fps. http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/479178/thats_the_joke.jpg Had a feeling that was what you meant, can't be too sure nowadays. ._.

2011-08-04 05:43:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

So Notch, another of the people freaking out over that bill that "would kill the internet" is now calling this a scam? Ha! I don't have much credibility on him tbh, he seems to have as much knowledge as a common person nowdays honestly... Besides, what would HE know about good graphic anyways? Even tho I myself won't believe it until I see it implemented in games and such, I still won't go along with notch either, his reasons just seem...odd, yes? Eh, but that may just be me not liking Notch that much anymore, not since what he did in the indie Bundle 3... What I find it funnier is that a while back I posted about a "supposed" cancer cure and everyone was like "meh, fake, no way, not real, not happening", they post about a "supposed" way of incrementing graphics in videogames and everyone's all "ZOMG, NO WAI!!!, AWESOME, Incredible, total breakthrough, no way its fake!" lol, just shows the priorities people in this site have, and I just find that hilarious. xD Mostly because people didn't doubt it at all more than anything unless a "game maker" (if you can call him that) tells you to doubt.

2011-08-04 06:55:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

So Notch, another of the people freaking out over that bill that "would kill the internet" is now calling this a scam? Ha! I don't have much credibility on him tbh, he seems to have as much knowledge as a common person nowdays honestly... Besides, what would HE know about good graphic anyways? Even tho I myself won't believe it until I see it implemented in games and such, I still won't go along with notch either, his reasons just seem...odd, yes? Eh, but that may just be me not liking Notch that much anymore, not since what he did in the indie Bundle 3... What I find it funnier is that a while back I posted about a "supposed" cancer cure and everyone was like "meh, fake, no way, not real, not happening", they post about a "supposed" way of incrementing graphics in videogames and everyone's all "ZOMG, NO WAI!!!, AWESOME, Incredible, total breakthrough, no way its fake!" lol, just shows the priorities people in this site have, and I just find that hilarious. xD Mostly because people didn't doubt it at all more than anything unless a "game maker" (if you can call him that) tells you to doubt. I doubted it way before Notch talked about it. Notch's reasons don't seem odd. In fact they are the exact same reasons I had in doubting this to be real. He has proof. The fact that it states in the video that the island is one km^2 and assuming the island is 8 meters high (which it's not, it's much higher) with 64 atoms per cubic millimeter you'd come out with a total of 512 petabytes, which in 3 terabyte hard drives, would be 170,000. These are not made up numbers, they are facts. There is no single computer out there that can hold that much information, and this is when all of the information is still, not moving, same size, same direction, same color. If you were to add lighting, physics, variety and animations to the list, ALL while sending and receiving information in real time... Well, use your imagination. It's just not likely. Notch is right, it is a scam, at least from what we have seen. The company doesn't tell us a single flaw from this "break-through". It tells us all the good, not the bad. Which is how advertising works but still. Also, in replying with this "cancer" topic you have brought up... Technology evolves every single day. A few decades ago you wouldn't believe that you could have a mobile phone, fast forward a few years and not only do we have cellphones the size of a kit-kat bar, but we can have an operating system on that said phone. Cancer, unfortunately, has been around for AGES. And there have been hundreds of these so called "cures" for it. All of them failing. Now tell me, which one seems more likely? The fast evolving, everyday growing technology? Or this cancer we've been fighting for years and years. Need I remind you? This is the internet, we don't believe anything until we see it with our own eyes, and even then we might not believe it. And why diss on the dude? He's made more money than the majority of an average human. He's only 32. He's made millions of dollars off of Minecraft and the game has won many awards and is still chugging along very nicely, and it's only in BETA (granted it's been in BETA for a while now but still). Did he not make a game? Was this game not successful? He's not only a game maker, he's a hell of a good one at that. Now tell me Silver, what have you done in the past week?

2011-08-04 08:00:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino Posts: 5250

---

Wow Silver, looks like someone just got BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNED!!!

2011-08-04 09:42:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Sora. HIGH FIVE! Badda Bing

2011-08-04 12:42:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Wow Silver, looks like someone just got BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNED!!! But I haven't seen Burnvictim in a while... Oh, you were talking about Silver, nevermind :/ Anywho... I was excited, but now it seems unlikely. Thus, in the meanwhile, I will try to forget this exists. If it is real, it will come to fruition whether or now I get excited about it. If it does not exist, then I will not be disappointed. Whee, I use my logic to solve the problem.

2011-08-04 15:39:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

IMHO, polycounts are generous enough. I mean, the PS4, XB3, WiiU etc, are going to look fantastic if the leap from last gen to current gen is any indicator (which it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change) So I don't think we are going to have to deal with these "atoms" as polygons are easy to work with, the industry is used to them, Accelerating change is a real thing, etc. Rest assured we will get that level of detail soon enough, but it will come from polygons.

2011-08-04 15:46:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Well, the usual polygon technology is almost coming to perfection (real life graphics) and so is processing power. I say at least in 2-3 generations, and that's being modest.

2011-08-04 17:42:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

Thing is... will it mean better games? No. That's the one thing that is getting worse as graphics get better. Retro-Games are still around because they have that certain something called "game-play". They are fun to play. We also see less variety in games, because it's much harder to contain all of the different texture information that you need in order to create lots of different environments. If a dev starts to sacrifice things like - level size - game length - amount of characters etc - all because it'd take to much time to render them with "photo-realistic" graphics.. then what's the point? All you'll have is half a very pretty game - instead of a full 'decent' looking game. I would sooner have a game twice the size and half the prettiness... than a game half as big and twice as pretty

2011-08-04 18:54:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Thing is... will it mean better games? No. That's the one thing that is getting worse as graphics get better. Retro-Games are still around because they have that certain something called "game-play". They are fun to play. We also see less variety in games, because it's much harder to contain all of the different texture information that you need in order to create lots of different environments. If a dev starts to sacrifice things like - level size - game length - amount of characters etc - all because it'd take to much time to render them with "photo-realistic" graphics.. then what's the point? All you'll have is half a very pretty game - instead of a full 'decent' looking game. I would sooner have a game twice the size and half the prettiness... than a game half as big and twice as pretty That is an excellent point, kind sir. Now if I may present a rebuttal? http://media1.gameinformer.com/images/site/pages/p2/PortalHubBanner.jpg -has better graphics -longer gameplay -one of the funnest puzzle games ever There is still hope for us after all.

2011-08-04 20:31:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

There is still hope for us after all. I second that. You need to look at both sides of the coin. Graphics are improving, and the tech to make and run a game that it's both good-looking and playing is too.

2011-08-04 20:51:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

Wow Silver, looks like someone just got BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNED!!! lol, why? He just rebutted my point, simple as that, granted, he used me a bit as a straw man in the last points, but eh, that happens too often to really care about it. @Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaale: You're basically saying because he has money, he's good and I can't dislike him? I'm not saying he's unsuccessful, or that he doesn't do anything, dunno where you got that part, I just said I disliked him and disapproved of some of the stuff he's done lately, that's all, nothing about him not being able to do anything, I didn't say he didn't make a game, I said "game maker (if he can be called that") even tho yes, he did...kinda...I don't see Minecraft as much as a game, but rather a tool where the community makes most of the "game" part either with mods, amongst other things (yes kinda like LBP as well I know, I just happen to see them differently, but all that is personal opinion, yes I have an opinion, not my problem if it doesn't match yours.

2011-08-05 00:44:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

May have been posted but I can't be bothered checking. http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam Sorry to break it to you like this and all...

2011-08-05 01:56:00 Author: Unknown User

---

May have been posted but I can't be bothered checking. http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam Sorry to break it to you like this and all... And this, gentlemen, is a perfect example of why you should always read the OP first.

2011-08-05 02:39:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

That is an excellent point, kind sir. Now if I may present a rebuttal? http://media1.gameinformer.com/images/site/pages/p2/PortalHubBanner.jpg -has better graphics -longer gameplay -one of the funnest puzzle games ever There is still hope for us after all. Some rebuttal; It's a 4 hour game!! It exactly proves my point that we only get "half-games" now. I would have been perfectly happy to retain the graphics from Portal 1 (or even reduce the graphics) ; and have 100's puzzle rooms, instead of just a two dozen(if that).

2011-08-05 08:23:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Skyrim... Macnme, Skyrim! (none of the above words are real, according to my computer.)

2011-08-05 09:59:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Skyrim... Macnme, Skyrim! (none of the above words are real, according to my computer.) Skyrim will be less of a role-playing game than Oblivion - and Oblivion was less of a role-playing game than Morrowind. Gameplay/Scope is being reduced in order to make way for Flashy Graphics. They are more concerned with having a pretty screenshot (so they can fool people into buying it), than having greater depth to the actual game itself. They are dumbing the series down in order to appeal to a mass/casual/FPS audience - rather than focusing on pleasing the Hardcore gamers who made the series the success that it is. Thanks for proving my point even further

2011-08-05 11:26:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

And this, gentlemen, is a perfect example of why you should always read the OP first. I read the OP when it was posted. I didn't re-read it because that was too much effort at 2:40am. I prefer the embarassment of my mistake to extra effort

2011-08-05 12:42:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Skyrim will be less of a role-playing game than Oblivion - and Oblivion was less of a role-playing game than Morrowind. Gameplay/Scope is being reduced in order to make way for Flashy Graphics. They are more concerned with having a pretty screenshot (so they can fool people into buying it), than having greater depth to the actual game itself. They are dumbing the series down in order to appeal to a mass/casual/FPS audience - rather than focusing on pleasing the Hardcore gamers who made the series the success that it is. Thanks for proving my point even further Uncharted. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune was already an awesome game, nice story and gameplay. Uncharted: Among Thieves has way better graphics, a slightly longer story and deeply improved gameplay. Also a multiplayer mode was added. Can't say that with greater graphics always comes bad gameplay.

2011-08-05 17:40:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

Skyrim will be less of a role-playing game than Oblivion - and Oblivion was less of a role-playing game than Morrowind. Gameplay/Scope is being reduced in order to make way for Flashy Graphics. They are more concerned with having a pretty screenshot (so they can fool people into buying it), than having greater depth to the actual game itself. They are dumbing the series down in order to appeal to a mass/casual/FPS audience - rather than focusing on pleasing the Hardcore gamers who made the series the success that it is. Thanks for proving my point even further Actually, if you think about it, it's not a very good looking game. If you spend a minute on the Skyrim forums, you'll know because everyone is whining they aren't better Skyrim is apparently if Morrowind and Oblivion had a baby, so while there might be less role-playing than in Morrowind, there will be more roleplaying than in Oblivion. They are dumbing down some aspects though. /fanboy Also, the only reason why companies make graphics better is because, sadly, while you aren't alone in preferring gameplay over graphics, the graphics over gameplay group far outnumbers vice versa. Gaming is a business. All non-indie companies are in it for the money. Some are just better at hiding it then others

2011-08-05 17:44:00 Author: Testudini Posts: 3262

---

Uncharted is a "flagship" game designed to showcase the PS3. Some games do buck the trend - like Mario games for example. But they are the exception to the rule. Let's see what it's like on the PS4 - then I'll either agree or disagree.

2011-08-05 17:47:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

If only there was practical application for an advanced voxel renderer engine in next-gen gaming, then this might actually be worth getting excited for.

2011-08-05 23:22:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Edit - Important update! I'll just leave this here. (http://kotaku.com/5827192/euclideon-creator-swears-infinite-detail-is-not-a-hoax)

2011-08-06 12:58:00 Author: Veyneru Posts: 115

---

Even if this is true, I'm getting really worried that it may take longer/ be more expensive to make then current graphics. If it is substantially longer dev time, then we might get even shorter games... However, if it is more expensive to do this, coupled with dev times, I'm worried that a lot of games would not be made... I unno, I'm hoping that it would be both better and simultaneously easier on the developers :/

2011-08-06 16:05:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

All that can be said now is, "we'll see".

2011-08-06 20:35:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I am satisfied with polys for now. Once this is fully finished, they should show it off. Not keep showing unfinished projects.

2011-08-06 20:38:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Well when you've disappeared for years, it's probably better to pop up and reconfirm your existence, even if it means showing an unfinished product.

2011-08-06 22:07:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Then they shouldn't have shown it in the first place. We are gonna lose they wow factor once it is out

2011-08-06 22:20:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Or to the opposite effect, it will get so hyped and anticipated that when it comes out it'll be huge. That's what it looks like is happening. This thread's very existence points to that.

2011-08-06 22:43:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

True, but doing this may also drive away potential investors because of folks like Notch, who isn't a bad guy, he is just trying to "save" everyone from these false prophets. As I see it, at least.

2011-08-07 00:16:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

A very valid point. That's another reason they need to show an unfinished product; to get funding. If they show something that investors believe has potential, then they will get the funding they require, which is more important than hype.

2011-08-07 03:11:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Even if this is true, I'm getting really worried that it may take longer/ be more expensive to make then current graphics. If it is substantially longer dev time, then we might get even shorter games... However, if it is more expensive to do this, coupled with dev times, I'm worried that a lot of games would not be made... I unno, I'm hoping that it would be both better and simultaneously easier on the developers :/ And then games would be even more expensive.

2011-08-08 03:56:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Interview with Bruce Dell, the guy who talks in the 'Unlimited detail' video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc

2011-08-11 12:29:00 Author: Alec Posts: 3871

---

Interview with Bruce Dell, the guy who talks in the 'Unlimited detail' video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc Intradasting....

2011-08-11 13:34:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Interview with Bruce Dell, the guy who talks in the 'Unlimited detail' video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc Hmmm... with explanation of one atom per pixel, and this real-time demo, I'm starting to believe that this is actually feasible.

2011-08-11 20:10:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

It's either genuine - or one of the cleverest hoaxes in history. It raises some interesting prospects for the future of gaming. In that it'd be quicker/cheaper/easier for the designers to build either a diorama or film-set and scan it, rather than having a team of graphic artists. You'd have carpenters, joiners and interior designers etc building the game-world. The future of gaming would be alot more tactile... and imagine owning say - the actual set of armour used by a certain character in a game etc like owning a film prop. That rock may well turn out to be one of the most significant objects in game history

2011-08-12 06:34:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

It's either genuine - or one of the cleverest hoaxes in history. It raises some interesting prospects for the future of gaming. In that it'd be quicker/cheaper/easier for the designers to build either a diorama or film-set and scan it, rather than having a team of graphic artists. You'd have carpenters, joiners and interior designers etc building the game-world. The future of gaming would be alot more tactile... and imagine owning say - the actual set of armour used by a certain character in a game etc like owning a film prop. That rock may well turn out to be one of the most significant objects in game history I don't believe it will come to that. Small-scale objects will be modeled with clay or carved, etc. But any kind of scenery will likely still be modeled by graphics artists using (a LOT of) polygons, and then converted into atoms. Think about it; you can't fit a skyscraper into an office, and depending on how their scanners work, it might prove difficult to scan something that big. Then you have to think of fictional elements too--those will have to be modeled, since they don't exist.

2011-08-12 18:47:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I don't believe it will come to that. Small-scale objects will be modeled with clay or carved, etc. But any kind of scenery will likely still be modeled by graphics artists using (a LOT of) polygons, and then converted into atoms. Think about it; you can't fit a skyscraper into an office, and depending on how their scanners work, it might prove difficult to scan something that big. Then you have to think of fictional elements too--those will have to be modeled, since they don't exist. You're thinking too literally . You think they used to build real, life sized cities to destroy in apocalypse types movies before CGI? You think they actually built a life size Millennium Falcon and piloted through a life sized asteroid belt? No, they built small models and made it only seem they were life sized. So yes, they can't scan a REAL skyscraper or unicorn. but they could model a small one. It's not like the game would care it's not real. This is beginning to look a bit more real to me, so I'll just wait and hopefully it will be real AND make it easier as well as better. :kz:

2011-08-12 18:52:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

What's fascinating to think about is how this can impact the entertainment business. Actors get overpaid with millions of dollars, and some of them are crap. But now with this technology, games can be faster to manufacture so more people can play them. Soon, actors MIGHT be scanned into games and altered to create game characters, and the gaming industry can finally outshine the movie industry!

2011-08-12 22:12:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I think you are all missing the point here. Scanning is great for capturing simple things that have a lot little details in them, like those twigs and branches and rocks. Those things have a natural element to them that can be a bit of a pain to replicate. What scanning does for that is allow us to capture what is already made for us. It can also be useful for things like that statue or pottery. Most other things would just be a hassle to scan. Modeling things in 3D may look complicated (and it is, myself being an amateur) but it has become very stream lined, with a few clicks you can add bevel to every edge, you can mirror your creation cross any axis, erect a wall in seconds. It is faster and cheaper than making a clay miniature and then scanning it, only to have to edit it anyway. What is great about this is all that detail that was once only available for movie CGI is now feasible in gaming graphics and they were kind enough to make a converter. Scanning does bring a good amount of detail to the table, but now a CG artist can bring a lot more than any clay miniature.

2011-08-12 22:53:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

I think you are all missing the point here. Scanning is great for capturing simple things that have a lot little details in them, like those twigs and branches and rocks. Those things have a natural element to them that can be a bit of a pain to replicate. What scanning does for that is allow us to capture what is already made for us. It can also be useful for things like that statue or pottery. Most other things would just be a hassle to scan. Modeling things in 3D may look complicated (and it is, myself being an amateur) but it has become very stream lined, with a few clicks you can add bevel to every edge, you can mirror your creation cross any axis, erect a wall in seconds. It is faster and cheaper than making a clay miniature and then scanning it, only to have to edit it anyway. What is great about this is all that detail that was once only available for movie CGI is now feasible in gaming graphics and they were kind enough to make a converter. Scanning does bring a good amount of detail to the table, but now a CG artist can bring a lot more than any clay miniature. I think you're also missing the point. Let's say they wanted a gravel road in their game, and leaves, twigs, feathers, and grass to be added. Rather than designing each one, they could just scan those things and move on to the next thing needed. Now let's say they wanted that elephant statue in there. Instead of designing all the small details, they scanned it in there to avoid the hassle. Now yes, modeling is good for other things, like in example a laser gun or whatnot, but the whole point in scanning is to speed up production by skipping unnecessary modeling. So basically, we'll get a half and half of modeling and scanning.

2011-08-12 23:30:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I think you're also missing the point. Let's say they wanted a gravel road in their game, and leaves, twigs, feathers, and grass to be added. Rather than designing each one, they could just scan those things and move on to the next thing needed. Now let's say they wanted that elephant statue in there. Instead of designing all the small details, they scanned it in there to avoid the hassle. Now yes, modeling is good for other things, like in example a laser gun or whatnot, but the whole point in scanning is to speed up production by skipping unnecessary modeling. So basically, we'll get a half and half of modeling and scanning. I?m with CyberSora. I?ts easier to scan things using a 3D scanner. It is okay to try making things look better, but sometimes you prefer something that isn?t that realistic. Some guys say that a videogame with not realistic enough graphics won?t become popular... explain MineCraft then.

2011-08-13 00:49:00 Author: ALEXhatena Posts: 1110

---

You're thinking too literally . You think they used to build real, life sized cities to destroy in apocalypse types movies before CGI? You think they actually built a life size Millennium Falcon and piloted through a life sized asteroid belt? No, they built small models and made it only seem they were life sized. So yes, they can't scan a REAL skyscraper or unicorn. but they could model a small one. It's not like the game would care it's not real. This is beginning to look a bit more real to me, so I'll just wait and hopefully it will be real AND make it easier as well as better. :kz: Well, it's actually quicker to model a detailed, small model in a 3D program then to try to make an extremely detailed model in real life. Also, ever notice how movies nowadays used 3D rendering instead of those old models? It's because a real-life model looks terrible, and you can always tell it's not real.

2011-08-13 01:42:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I think you're also missing the point. Let's say they wanted a gravel road in their game, and leaves, twigs, feathers, and grass to be added. Rather than designing each one, they could just scan those things and move on to the next thing needed. Now let's say they wanted that elephant statue in there. Instead of designing all the small details, they scanned it in there to avoid the hassle. Now yes, modeling is good for other things, like in example a laser gun or whatnot, but the whole point in scanning is to speed up production by skipping unnecessary modeling. So basically, we'll get a half and half of modeling and scanning. ..lol uh...you just started by disagreeing with me, then rewording exactly what I said. I did indeed state that scanning is great for those things, but not for others. Some guys say that a videogame with not realistic enough graphics won?t become popular... explain MineCraft then. Well, while those guys are wrong, minecraft isn't a good example. Minecraft is popular because it is simple, easy to pick up, and easy to put down. It asks nothing of the player and basically just hands them their world to play with. It's the same reason LEGOS are so popular. Thing with video game graphics is we have a lot of freedom to make what we want. So it is a bit concerning to see lots of games in which they they try to imitate reality instead of inventing their own world.

2011-08-13 05:15:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

..lol uh...you just started by disagreeing with me, then rewording exactly what I said. I did indeed state that scanning is great for those things, but not for others. Well, if I completely disagreed with you, then I would have looked like a ****.

2011-08-13 06:55:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I don't ask for much in my games. I just want a real life working holodeck, like on star trek, where I can just say, "computer, um..Load Daytona 500" then I open the doors go inside and jump in my race car and start racing. But on a more serious note. I reiterate what someone said a few pages back. I don't think super realistic graphics make a good game. If that were the case, then why are "retro" games so popular. Some of the best games I've played, have crappy graphics compared to today's games. I just downloaded the newest version of Dosbox so that I can play my older DOS games like X-COM. One of the best games made. I still play roller coaster tycoon 1. I have roller coaster tycoon 3 but prefer the older one because I think the game play is better. Sure, RCT 3 is prettier but not as fun. Anyway, those are my 2 cents.

2011-08-13 07:35:00 Author: biorogue Posts: 8424

---

I don't ask for much in my games. I just want a real life working holodeck, like on star trek, where I can just say, "computer, um..Load Daytona 500" then I open the doors go inside and jump in my race car and start racing. But on a more serious note. I reiterate what someone said a few pages back. I don't think super realistic graphics make a good game. If that were the case, then why are "retro" games so popular. Some of the best games I've played, have crappy graphics compared to today's games. I just downloaded the newest version of Dosbox so that I can play my older DOS games like X-COM. One of the best games made. I still play roller coaster tycoon 1. I have roller coaster tycoon 3 but prefer the older one because I think the game play is better. Sure, RCT 3 is prettier but not as fun. Anyway, those are my 2 cents. Well of course graphics don't make the game. Nobody said the graphics make the game. All we're saying is just that new engine could improve the quality of our games nad assist developers in game making. Take Heavy Rain for example. The plot was excellent and the acting was great. However, its the graphics that make the whole game so wonderful. You look at it and think "Wow, I really do feel like I'm watching a movie". It's the combined elements of graphics and gameplay that make Heavy Rain such an amazing game. Now look at Red Dead Redemption. The gameplay was also outstanding there, but if you've ever looked at a sunset in the game (especially with your horse), you can see how much graphics makes a difference. It's one of those things that you really must try and appreciate rather than ignore completely.

2011-08-13 07:58:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

maybe it's because it's 2:30 am here or did you just contradict yourself? Nobody said the graphics make the game However, its the graphics that make the whole game so wonderful. um, yep. I love great looking games as much as the next person. And judging from these vids, I can't wait to see what a full scale game would look like. Just don't trade off gameplay for eyecandy. You list a couple of good games that have that whole package. But look at something like GTA IV. Beautiful game, but was just too short compared to say San Andreas. Whoa, that was weird. Just stared at the screen for like 5 minutes. I can't think coherently, I'm having to use backspace on every word, I'm going to bed.

2011-08-13 08:54:00 Author: biorogue Posts: 8424

---

maybe it's because it's 2:30 am here or did you just contradict yourself? Correction: I meant graphics don't make the game in general. If the removed the gameplay from Heavy Rain, then I would have been ****** that I wasted money on it. As for the second quote, I was trying to point out how beautiful Heavy Rain looks because of graphics. So yeah, it may look like a contradiction but it's actually a misinterpretation.

2011-08-13 08:59:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I don't believe it will come to that. Small-scale objects will be modeled with clay or carved, etc. But any kind of scenery will likely still be modeled by graphics artists using (a LOT of) polygons, and then converted into atoms. Think about it; you can't fit a skyscraper into an office, and depending on how their scanners work, it might prove difficult to scan something that big. Then you have to think of fictional elements too--those will have to be modeled, since they don't exist. Yeah, It'll obviously be Half & Half; the "Fiction" items mixed with the "Non-Fiction"; While the Unicorn might not be real (though it could be a "real" horse mixed with a "real" narwhal horn - Nature is better at making those things than artists) - the forest it dwells in might be. Also, like owning film props - the Clay Model that they used to scan into the game would be a real world object that you could actually own. Many texture graphic artists already scan in real world textures - because nature is better at that kind of thing - the "fine detail" - which is what this new graphics engine could really showcase. Extremely fine detail is incredibly time consuming to fake - but nature does it in abundance everywhere you look. And with the Skyscraper - the whole building might not fit in an office - but you could scan in the components that make the skyscraper - the windows, the concrete, the doors etc (right down to the screws, nails and hinges - flecks of paint and uneven brush-strokes as the paint was applied etc) - and then make your own Skyscraper from all of the 'real world' scanned objects. Though they already have laser scanners that can scan an entire room. Necessity is the mother of invention - if the impetus was there, I'm sure they could invent a "large Scale" scanner. ( Imagine they took the scan from Satelite - meaning you could have proper Real World Locations in a game) This engine provides the means to make that next graphical leap into proper "Film Quality" graphics. It's an exciting time to be a gamer again

2011-08-16 18:57:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Extremely fine detail is incredibly time consuming to fakeThat depends on the type of detail in question. Certain types of detail can be generated with advanced algorithms in seconds. As a 3D graphics artist, I've made a few fairly detailed objects in very little time. It's an exciting time to be a gamer again Agreed Let's just see where this goes.

2011-08-16 19:42:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I think you are missing the point. Lets just say this is good for some things, but not for others. Polygons will never disappear, just like pixels haven't disappeared yet...

2011-08-16 20:09:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Lets just say this is good for some things, but not for others. Polygons will never disappear, just like pixels haven't disappeared yet... The main difference here is that there hasn't been anything better to replace pixels yet.

2011-08-16 20:49:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

That depends on the type of detail in question. Certain types of detail can be generated with advanced algorithms in seconds. As a 3D graphics artist, I've made a few fairly detailed objects in very little time. Algorthms are a repeated pattern, procedurally generated. As human beings we are pre-programmed to recognise patterns. What I mean by fine details - is you could algorythmically generate a garden - all of the required things would be there to make it recognisable as a perfect garden. But what you could never properly reproduce is the imperfection of nature - that's the fine detail I'm talking about. One quick scan of a garden would capture all of the hundreds of thousands little bugs living in the soil - all of the randomness of the soil itself - each little bite that one of those bugs has taken out from a leaf - each leaf that didn't quite grow into a proper leaf. The time you would need to spend creating an algorythm that'd create a garden even 1/100,000th as detailed as an actual garden would be better spent creating faeries to live at the bottom of it And how much easier would it be to make those fearies - just dress someone up in a costume and scale them down, magnify some insect wings and you're done... all of that detail - each crinkle in the fabric and blemish on the skin, each blood vessel in the wings - captured in 64 atoms per square millimeter. Thats ALOT of detail. Polygons will die - I'm quite certain of it - the future is ATOMS!

2011-08-16 21:16:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Polygons will die - I'm quite certain of it - the future is ATOMS! Lies! We all know the future is electrons, because nothing makes an atom without electrons. Although Nintendo will probably cheap in graphics and settle for neutrons, the neutral graphics for indecisive gamers.

2011-08-16 21:25:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Of course, they'd still be using algorythms to generate landscapes and things. Only those landscapes would be populated with "real world" objects in all their gritty imperfect detail. I guess we'll have to wait and see... but they did say with the $2million grant they got from the australian government that they'd have more than enough money to complete the project. I can't wait to see what games designers do with it. That's why I think the future of gaming will be where CGI films are now - it's obvious to cross over these technologies - Green Screen Acting ; Film Style Sets for the game environment, they would probably use the film industry set designers for this (so there's already an industry 'built' around it) a mixture of real and CGI environments (just like they do now in the movies) - and a catalogue of props - both real and imagined scanned into the game, or created by 3D Graphics artists (ok using polygons ) and then procedurally populated throughout. So the vibe of your game will be determined by the Actors/Set/Props that you've captured/created. They've already been testing "CGI Actor" software in characters like Golem - LA Noir showcased it's own new "scanned actors" engine. Also, there's more money in the games industry than the film industry. I think we're going to see a massive convergence of the two forms of entertainment.

2011-08-16 21:43:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Algorthms are a repeated pattern, procedurally generated. As human beings we are pre-programmed to recognise patterns. What I mean by fine details - is you could algorythmically generate a garden - all of the required things would be there to make it recognisable as a perfect garden. But what you could never properly reproduce is the imperfection of nature - that's the fine detail I'm talking about. One quick scan of a garden would capture all of the hundreds of thousands little bugs living in the soil - all of the randomness of the soil itself - each little bite that one of those bugs has taken out from a leaf - each leaf that didn't quite grow into a proper leaf. Unfortunately you can't just shoot a laser at the garden in its entirety and capture all of its detail--at least not yet. The way they scan things now is 1 object at a time, and copy many objects several times over. To make a garden, they would scan individual flowers and plants. To get "all of the hundreds of thousands of little bugs", and the "randomness of the soil itself", would take just as long as trying to reproduce the imperfection of nature artificially in a manner in which the human brain cannot discern the difference. In the Euclidian demo video they used a lot of repeated objects because of this.

2011-08-16 21:58:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Right now it's 9 guys in some small offices. Their abilities are obviously limited. But If the multi-billion dollar games industry were to pick up this technology (and if it's claim that geometric graphic complexity will increase by a factor of at least 100,000 - compared to the 20% annual polygon count increase - they'd be mad not to) - theyd have the funds to do alot more. It's like the jump from 16 colour graphics to todays graphics. There are already lasers scanners that capture entire rooms. It wouldn't be so hard for a big company like Activision to hire a couple of landscape gardeners to create what-ever garden they wanted in a film studio and scan the whole thing. Especially if it'd be cheaper and the results 100,000 times better. They would obviously scan the individual plants aswell to give real detail where-ever they wanted, filling in the bits where it wasn't cheaper for the landscape artist to do (or repeating sections). This would be part of the "prop" budget. Necessity is the Mother of Invention

2011-08-16 22:10:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

I admire your optimism, however I doubt such scanners will ever be practical.

2011-08-17 00:20:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I admire your optimism, however I doubt such scanners will ever be practical. Plus the amount of storage that would require. >.>

2011-08-18 17:23:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

Plus the amount of storage that would require. >.> Obviously I'm just future speculating; But Full Room Scanners are current technology - not future technology - I'm just speculating on what these current scanners may be used for in the future. And from the tech demo that the journalist got his hands on - while it was relatively few objects repeated many thousands of times - the objects themselves were incerdibly high detail - The Elephant Statue or The Budda Statue alone represents more polygons than every major computer character currently on the market combined. And apparently it was running entirely from software - it wasn't even engaging the GPU (The GPU was only engaged to actually display the on screen picture - none of it was being "graphic processed") - and it was only a 1gb Laptop he was demo-ing it on. When you consider how powerful a Playstation 3 is - and consider that a PS4 will be even more powerfull - and the amount of storage on a blueray disk... there's plenty of storage space. Also, as this new graphics engine is essentially using a google search algorythm in order to decide which pixels to display - there is always the possibility that games companies will share a "Wikipedia" of graphical information - with all the rocks/trees/roads/buildings/clothes/faces/objects etc all stored online - and then referenced as and when they are needed and then sent to someones local machine to be displayed on screen. Meaning you would only be able to play the game while connected to the internet - many games are going that way already anyway, but none of the local storage space would be needed for graphical information - it would just be a string of "Atom Info" containing the position/colour/properties of each atom in the object being fetched from the online servers and then rendered on-screen. Does the internet have any problems with storage space? No it doesn't. It also means that it'd be very easy to just keep adding more and more scanned objects into the shared database of "Atomised" objects. For every technical problem there is a technical solution

2011-08-18 17:47:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

When you consider how powerful a Playstation 3 is - and consider that a PS4 will be even more powerfull - and the amount of storage on a blueray disk... there's plenty of storage space. I think he meant physical storage space.

2011-08-18 18:28:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I think he meant physical storage space. Why is that a factor? That entire 1 kilometer square island - with 64 atoms per square millemeter - was able to run off his rubbish little laptop. Do the math You guys are obviously still stuck thinking about polygons/texture files and draw distance - rather than a squared section of game environment filled with atoms - rendered with a google search engine to decide what pixels to display. It doesn't matter what properties the atom has - the storage requirements would be exactly the same for empty space as it would for the most highly detailed object you could think of - as there would always be the same amount of atoms within a Kilometer squared environment.

2011-08-18 18:47:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

I see where your coming from but I don't mean RAM. He could display that on his laptop because they were all repeated objects. There were probably no more than 20 distinct objects in the video. However... maybe I'm losing it but I'm pretty sure he said that these models are polygons that are rendered as atoms. This alone would save disk space.

2011-08-19 15:49:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

Why is that a factor? That entire 1 kilometer square island - with 64 atoms per square millemeter - was able to run off his rubbish little laptop. Do the math You guys are obviously still stuck thinking about polygons/texture files and draw distance - rather than a squared section of game environment filled with atoms - rendered with a google search engine to decide what pixels to display. It doesn't matter what properties the atom has - the storage requirements would be exactly the same for empty space as it would for the most highly detailed object you could think of - as there would always be the same amount of atoms within a Kilometer squared environment. Whoa whoa whoa. Let's back the ****** up now for a second. That laptop is an ASUS G73SW; that thing can jack s**t up when built correctly. When you say "rubbish little laptop", I expected an HP or Dell laptop. But an ASUS is a gaming laptop, so that automatically increases suspicions of power used. Then there's the fact that he could have lied and upgraded his laptop and installed a higher graphic card to make the whole thing look as fancy as possible. Now, I know a desktop is clearly the superior gaming machine, but I doubt this new engine is using as little space and power as he claims it is. I for one am hoping/looking forward to this technology. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize it first. If he can run that same demo on a cheap "on the go" or "for the kids" laptop like that HP I mentioned, then I'm sold.

2011-08-19 16:17:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

If he is telling the truth then the graphics card would not matter much because most of the rendering would be done in software. He would only the the graphics capability to display some 20 odd polygons. They're wasn't any animations either. This could probably be run on a netbook if it weren't for space. If modern games were to be run you would still want your SLI 580's because you still have the polygons to display. ^I'm just rambling... No idea whatsoever if that's how it works.

2011-08-19 16:23:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

^I'm just rambling... No idea whatsoever if that's how it works. Umm, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of rambling? ._.'

2011-08-19 16:46:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

Not really, lol. I don't think we'll see if for a while anyways. Not until storage is $100 a petabyte that is.

2011-08-19 16:59:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

Burning Bridges Before You Cross Them. Remember that 2 respected Graphics Industry Guru's dismissed the original tech demo as "A trick using existing technology" and "Not possible for another few years"; And then we have footage of a journalist exclaiming "This is the best graphics I have ever seen!" in a live hands-on. And the Journalist is not a stooge - he's from a reputable site - I doubt he would forsake his career and reputation to further a con-mans scam. I guess what I meant by "Rubbish Laptop" is "Standard Gaming Laptop" - it's not like it's a Top of the Range laptop (and according to everyone who knows better than the guy who designed it - even that wouldn't be enough to run the tech demo properly - but they've already been proven wrong) ; And back to burning bridges - You're assuming it's going to take zigabytes of information - because in order to do it with the current industry standard, that's what it would take. However, this is creating a new industry standard - that may actually DECREASE the amount of storage required (as there's no longer skins and texture files being loaded up as you get closer to the object - there's just Atoms) - An empty 1 meter squared box of Atoms will have the same amount of Atoms (64 per square millemeter) as one containing the most complex object you could think of. It'd still be 64 atoms per square millemeter. Does Google Earth not work because there's just "Too Much Info"? There's always a technical solution to a technical problem. If we went back to just before Google Earth was released and proposed "We'll have detailed street view maps for most streets in most countries - and detailed aeriel maps for the entire globe - complete in some cases with 3D maps" - we'd be told it's not possible - it'd take "too much memory"; And yet, here we are. Technology is always improving - it may be that we're seeing that improvement in technology here.

2011-08-19 18:52:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Burning Bridges Before You Cross Them. Remember that 2 respected Graphics Industry Guru's dismissed the original tech demo as "A trick using existing technology" and "Not possible for another few years"; And then we have footage of a journalist exclaiming "This is the best graphics I have ever seen!" in a live hands-on. And the Journalist is not a stooge - he's from a reputable site - I doubt he would forsake his career and reputation to further a con-mans scam. I guess what I meant by "Rubbish Laptop" is "Standard Gaming Laptop" - it's not like it's a Top of the Range laptop (and according to everyone who knows better than the guy who designed it - even that wouldn't be enough to run the tech demo properly - but they've already been proven wrong) ; And back to burning bridges - You're assuming it's going to take zigabytes of information - because in order to do it with the current industry standard, that's what it would take. However, this is creating a new industry standard - that may actually DECREASE the amount of storage required (as there's no longer skins and texture files being loaded up as you get closer to the object - there's just Atoms) - An empty 1 meter squared box of Atoms will have the same amount of Atoms (64 per square millemeter) as one containing the most complex object you could think of. It'd still be 64 atoms per square millemeter. Does Google Earth not work because there's just "Too Much Info"? There's always a technical solution to a technical problem. If we went back to just before Google Earth was released and proposed "We'll have detailed street view maps for most streets in most countries - and detailed aeriel maps for the entire globe - complete in some cases with 3D maps" - we'd be told it's not possible - it'd take "too much memory"; And yet, here we are. Technology is always improving - it may be that we're seeing that improvement in technology here. Well like I said, I'm not going to plunge into this without criticizing first. But you're right; technology is improving. I still remember when somewhat big 8 megabytes memory cards were used for PS2, and then when the small gigabyte memory sticks came out it was God-like. Now, it's coming to a point where we might start seeing terabytes in memory sticks (I have an external hard drive that's 1TB; it's big, but it's very useful for backing up my files).

2011-08-19 19:16:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

One thing I HAVEN'T noticed anyone question is... is he is REALLY using the laptop, or just using it as a monitor.

2011-08-19 19:30:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468

---

One thing I HAVEN'T noticed anyone question is... is he is REALLY using the laptop, or just using it as a monitor. That's what I've been wondering too. With so many wires around there, it's possible he could have slipped it in. http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7018/ohboyherewegov.jpg

2011-08-19 19:55:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

That laptop does not have any video inputs so could have modified it into a display only but I doubt they would of done that. I definitely see this as the new approach to graphics when quantum computing is the standard.

2011-08-19 20:58:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

One thing I HAVEN'T noticed anyone question is... is he is REALLY using the laptop, or just using it as a monitor. That was the first thing that I thought when I watched the Vid; But the Journalist got a hands-on and was piloting the cam in real time - so no, I don't think it's a monitor.

2011-08-20 15:22:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

That was the first thing that I thought when I watched the Vid; But the Journalist got a hands-on and was piloting the cam in real time - so no, I don't think it's a monitor. The controller could have been on wireless mode and simply controlled another PC. Of course, the part where he used the keyboard by accident pretty much debunks this whole monitor theory.

2011-08-20 16:18:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I was very skeptical at first - but after watching that 40 minute interview - most of my fears were allayed. If it is a scam - then with the amount of hours he's put into this scam - he deserves every penny he steals, considering he's got graphic engines going back 7 years (which by the standards of 7 years ago, were actually very advanced, even then) and was interviewed by the same journalist 4 years ago. He must also have a *really* good scam to con the money out of the Australian Government (wow, a government that actually supports the game industry?! - so unlike the UK gov ) I just like the idea of a complete outsider - with no formal training - turning the entire medium on it's head. It's like the Flautist Ian Anderson from Jethro Tull - his parents bought him a flute but he wanted to play the guitar, so he started playing the flute like a guitar - and he's now considered one of the most innovative flautists of all time.

2011-08-20 16:48:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Jethro Tull. My friend got detention in high school for wearing a Jethro Tull tee shirt. The teacher said it was because it was a stupid band. LoL.

2011-08-20 16:58:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Proof that teachers don't know everything

2011-08-20 18:24:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Proof that teachers don't know everything Some of my dorm mates are currently in developmental math classes at my college, and they said that their teacher tried to teach them our number system was binary. Yes, our 0-9 system. That's binary. She gave a list of reasons it seems, including the fact that you can only add two numbers at once. She's a professor... well, ok, she's teaching grade school math, but still, she should know that we use a decimal system, not binary >_> ... Anyway. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if this makes making games any harder, then... I'd be upset I guess, couldn't do much though. It really should either keep it about the same (which they say they're trying to, at least by making it more familiar to polygon artists) or even easier. Though, if they say they're reducing the limits, then the game devs wouldn't have to worry about these limits, so even if it's about the same then they could work faster in theory because they don't have such constraining walls... But yeah, the last thing I want is for this to make games even more difficult to produce, especially if they increase design time. A well, we'll see, won't we :kz:

2011-08-20 18:37:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

I thought it was hilarious though. The same teacher told me "I swear to God, I will ****ing tear your heart out if you don't take that ****ing Pink Floyd shirt off." He was a really cool guy with bad taste in music.

2011-08-20 18:43:00 Author: poorjack Posts: 1806

---

Would be funny if he ended up wearing it the next day.

2011-08-21 21:37:00 Author: tanrockstan34 Posts: 1076

---

I seen this a few years ago and it seems that it has progressed a lot. Estimates are that it should be ready sometime in 2012. Here`s an article from gameinformer: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/11/22/exploring-unlimited-detail.aspx?PostPageIndex=1 Video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA&feature=related It seems unbelievable and has been subject to a lot of criticism from people in the gaming industry. What are your thoughts?

2011-12-28 20:23:00 Author: SteveBigGuns Posts: 423

---

Well, as a 3D modeler I am very excited to see graphics take possibly one of it's greatest leaps. Maybe one day we won't have to re-topologize our lovely models ever again I eagerly await Euclideon's next update.

2011-12-28 21:06:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

What about moving objects as stated in the other thread? That would be a massive barrier

2011-12-28 23:24:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

What about moving objects as stated in the other thread? That would be a massive barrier Why would it be?

2011-12-28 23:37:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Estimates are that it should be ready by 2012. So ready by sunday? nice to know its so soon.

2011-12-29 00:27:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

I've been doing 3d since the mid 90's and have always hated dealing with the limitations of the polygon system. I got so frustrated with some of my programs having issues with some of my objects that I even learned how to hand code DXF files to fix some of my objects. If their claims are honest and true about what their system can do it will be amazing. My only concern is compatibility of their system with the way everyone has set everything up in the industry so far. But so far what I've seen looks great.

2011-12-29 01:22:00 Author: OutcastZeroOne Posts: 139

---

Oh, this again Well, while making games look better is all well and good... I'm more concerned about how this will affect the difficulty of making games. Games are costing much more to make and it is very difficult to do so and all that stuff... So, even if it does make games look better, if it makes gamemaking even harder... :/ Oh well. I'll actually read the stuff now, just wanted to say this before seeing any new updates.

2011-12-29 17:18:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

Why would it be? Well, assuming the fact that theyve only shown stationary objects, and games these days need to include animation at least sub-par in quality with the graphics, this could be extremely hard to animate every single bit of data stored in a character if you wanted unlimited detail AND good physics/ animation. Again, I know nothing about making games, so I could be completely wrong.

2011-12-30 15:01:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

Well yes and no. Animation is definitely possible, it has been done many times, but it is still a bit of a new thing so I would give it time. Now that point cloud models are viable, the better animation will come. As for physics, that is all done using invisible collision shapes. What we must keep in mind is that this engine is still very much unfinished. I admire Euclideon's actions so far, they are handling something of this nature as it should. Even through Notch's outrageous persecutions (although who HASN'T he raged at by now).

2011-12-30 22:42:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Merged threads.

2011-12-30 23:25:00 Author: warlord_evil Posts: 4193

---

woah something better then frostbite 2 unbelivavble

2012-01-01 14:54:00 Author: danger sackboy Posts: 177

---

woah something better then frostbite 2 unbelivavble Theoretically more advanced than any polygon based engine than most people can begin to comprehend.

2012-01-01 16:30:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Sadly guys.... this is really a fraud. a guy decided one day to make a lot of people happy when really he/the company had a lot of money OR is a 3D modelling company and decided to make something really amazing. It's completely fake. Sorry to bring the news to you guys, but i hate to see you dissapointed by a lie.

2012-01-03 18:01:00 Author: xtremesackboy Posts: 479

---

Sadly guys.... this is really a fraud. a guy decided one day to make a lot of people happy when really he/the company had a lot of money OR is a 3D modelling company and decided to make something really amazing. It's completely fake. Sorry to bring the news to you guys, but i hate to see you dissapointed by a lie. And you know this how? How exactly do you know it's a fake and that the guys making it are frauds? If you're going to definitively state that people are lying, you have to have some basis for slandering them >_>

2012-01-03 18:34:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

Sadly guys.... this is really a fraud. a guy decided one day to make a lot of people happy when really he/the company had a lot of money OR is a 3D modelling company and decided to make something really amazing. It's completely fake. Sorry to bring the news to you guys, but i hate to see you dissapointed by a lie. If that last statement was true, you wouldn't have come here. First off, you can't even identify the lead of this project(Bruce Dell). Secondly, you seem to lack knowledge of what they are claiming in the first place. Thirdly, your logic doesn't follow through. Last and most importantly, you have absolutely no source or evidence to back up your statement. Now if you want to express your enthusiasm/skepticism for this, you can go ahead and do that, but barging in with a claim like that won't do any good.

2012-01-03 22:50:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

I really hope this tech takes off. Having no retrictions on deatail means more focus on actual gameplay and other aspects. I want to see more focus on amazing art styles, story ideas, new types of gameplay etc, instead of how realistic a wall texture looks LOL.

2012-01-04 01:03:00 Author: SteveBigGuns Posts: 423

---

@Littlebigdude805 @RockSauron You want evidence? here it is in the perspective of a professional game programmer. (kinda geeky way to prove my point ) Journey Further Into the Topic I (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam) Journey Further Into the Topic II (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam) and in case you're wondering, i am not 100% sure of this. I just read it oh i don't know, 5 months or so ago. and also, if you are too lazy to take those links, here are key points from the links. Why it's a scam: * They pretend like they?re doing something new and unique, but in reality a lot of people are researching this. There are a lot of known draw-backs to doing this. * They refuse to address the known flaws. They don't show non-repeated architecture, they don't show animation, they don't show rotated geometry, and they don't show dynamic lighting. * They invent new terminology and use superlatives and plenty of unverifiable claims. * They say it's a ?search algorithm?. That?s just semantics to confuse the issue. Sparse voxel octrees is a search algorithm to do very fast ray casting in a voxel space. * They seem to be doing some very impressive voxel rendering stuff, which could absolutely be used to make very interesting games, but it's not as great as they claim it is. The only reason I can see for them misrepresenting it this bad is that I assume they?re looking for funding and/or to get bought up. If these guys were being honest with the drawbacks and weaknesses of their system, I?d be their biggest fan. As it is now, it's almost like they?re trying NOT to be trustworthy. All this said, voxels are amazing. So is raytracing and raycasting. As computers get more powerful, and storage gets faster and cheaper, we will see amazing things happen. And a final word to the engineers who worked on this: Great job, I am impressed! But please tell your marketing department to stop lying. All information obtained from "word of Notch", the developer of the Indie game "Minecraft." I have my points, its really hard to add links etc while on a mobile device on the road on a 2G network

2012-01-04 01:33:00 Author: xtremesackboy Posts: 479

---

Oh that is rich. The word of Notch is far from gospel my friend. Also, feel free to point out your original accusations anywhere inside those blogs. You should check out the responses on the Euclideon side.

2012-01-04 01:44:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Again, Notch is not exactly a competent programmer. If you want to say definitively that something is fake, you need to actually quote an actual expert the subject. The problem isn't that you think it's fake. The problem is that you waltz in and say that it is, 100% fake and the people making it are frauds while not knowing anything about the subject.

2012-01-04 03:17:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

I don't know if we're still on the topic of voxels, what with all these people talking about Notch, but I think that if this is real and gets publicity, we'll just end up seeing more generic FPSs and boring realistic games. And I noticed how they never showed anything dynamic in the OP's video. That could also bode as a problem.

2012-01-04 03:43:00 Author: Chdonga Posts: 388

---

Why don't you people read up on this stuff before posting here? :/ I'm just going to let people believe what they want, no matter how misinformed.

2012-01-04 03:54:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

I haven't seen any facts from someone who says it's real... Why dint you try to explain it? And I'm not trying to be rude or start anything here, clearly it seems both of you two are. I'm giving my two cents. Haven't seen yours unless I missed it somehow.

2012-01-04 22:41:00 Author: xtremesackboy Posts: 479

---

I haven't seen any facts from someone who says it's real... Why dint you try to explain it? And I'm not trying to be rude or start anything here, clearly it seems both of you two are. I'm giving my two cents. Haven't seen yours unless I missed it somehow. I never saidit was 100% real. Again, my problem is that you come in and say it is fake. If you had said it MIGHT be fake, then you would have been correct and there would have been no problem. But no, you came in and said it WAS fake despite knowing absolutely nothing of the subject.

2012-01-04 22:58:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

You want evidence? here it is in the perspective of a professional game programmer. (kinda geeky way to prove my point ) Journey Further Into the Topic I (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam) Journey Further Into the Topic II (http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam) Oh how I laughed.

2012-01-04 23:45:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

But no, you came in and said it WAS fake despite knowing absolutely nothing of the subject. I did indeed said it was fake, but i meant it was fraudulent. Sadly guys.... this is really a fraud. a guy decided one day to make a lot of people happy when really he/the company had a lot of money OR is a 3D modelling company and decided to make something really amazing. It's completely fake. Besides that fact, as i said: and in case you're wondering, i am not 100% sure of this. I just read it oh i don't know, 5 months or so ago. It's hard to know something about this subject when on the road with limited data and a memory of a night 5 months ago. What i meant by "fake" and "fraudulent" was that the people making the video were fake and making stuff up about this. It IS being researched therefore it is not impossible by any means. Don't twist my words please and if needed, behead me in private instead of here on the forums.

2012-01-05 02:12:00 Author: xtremesackboy Posts: 479

---

What i meant by "fake" and "fraudulent" was that the people making the video were fake and making stuff up about this. It IS being researched therefore it is not impossible by any means. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to render such a massive, detailed environment in realtime, even with the best graphics cards on the market. The only way it would be possible is if Euclideon is telling the truth. Are you implying that the massive island demoed in the video was a pre-rendered video?

2012-01-05 02:44:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

There's a interview in which both Dell and the interviewer navigate the very same island in real time. On a laptop of all things

2012-01-05 23:23:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

There's a interview in which both Dell and the interviewer navigate the very same island in real time. On a laptop of all things I was thinking of the exact same video when I posted. I wanted to see if xtremesackboy did in fact assume that it was pre-rendered, to which I would link the video in response.

2012-01-05 23:37:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I had a feeling you were baiting him XD Very sneaky :3

2012-01-05 23:43:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Baiting, perhaps, but only in the most innocent way possible. I did not intend to start any kind of confrontation, nor did I mean to 1-up anyone, but I also didn't want to flat out make assumptions on his or her position in the debate.

2012-01-06 06:05:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

That before and after picture someone posted just made me LOL! But yeah, this is pretty awesome stuff. Idk when this will happen, but be sure in the next 10-20 years all games will be photo realistic.. That much is certain.

2012-02-02 00:41:00 Author: Unknown User

---

They're back with a new video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8rsEJoh6mQ

2013-05-23 22:21:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

They're back with a new video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8rsEJoh6mQ Darn, looks like I missed it. "This video has been removed by the user."

2013-05-26 17:25:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls Here's it from the official peeps

2013-05-26 17:47:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

On the surface this looks lime an impressive tech demo, but it's applications are much too limited for it to be useful for video games or visual effects is slim. If you want to see something that might actually make our games look better, check out the demos of Pixar's OpenSubdiv API - that's a much better example of technology that might actually change the way games are rendered...dynamic tessaletion & realtime displacement mapping is a much better way to achieve the detail in these videos.

2013-05-26 22:43:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

Euclideon are no longer focusing on video games just so you all know.. They have totally ditched the animation part. Most likely because of the general lack of support from the industry.

2013-05-28 19:56:00 Author: VenemoX Posts: 197

---

On the surface this looks lime an impressive tech demo, but it's applications are much too limited for it to be useful for video games or visual effects is slim. If you want to see something that might actually make our games look better, check out the demos of Pixar's OpenSubdiv API - that's a much better example of technology that might actually change the way games are rendered...dynamic tessaletion & realtime displacement mapping is a much better way to achieve the detail in these videos. This man speaks the truth. Dynamic tessellation is a great breakthrough, and displacement maps are similar to normal maps, only they actually deform the geometry. TL;DR: All of the fake detail in current gen video games using tricks like normal/bump mapping will soon start becoming real detail.

2013-05-29 01:38:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

Euclideon are no longer focusing on video games just so you all know.. They have totally ditched the animation part. Most likely because of the general lack of support from the industry. I can see it being used to render the static part of the game world, whereas physics-enabled and dynamic assets run on good old polygons and textures. Only problem is, did I hear about a need for massive data storage mediums?

2013-05-30 03:23:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.