I wouldn't say its a scam...but it is very, very misleading. Numero Uno: No such thing as "unlimited" in computers. You're limited by many things: HDD space, RAM, processing power. Even applying a pseudo-random number generator to a sparse voxel tree would have finite space to work in. Applying animation or physics to voxel graphics? Pure and utter hell. It'd require massive amounts of processing power and RAM to get a decent framerate.
He speaks well. . Is that why some think he's a scammer? He seems open about the issues of the technology. And has apparently honest answers to the critics. (search Euclideon & Unlimited Detail - Bruce Dell Interview He's an aussie who is having a 'crack' (in the parlance). Polygons have had their day. I know that. When you are going way back to the foothils of paradigm change, all bets are off. Time limits; f%^&k off.
If he needs another lazy artist in his studio i'll be there.
ok how many of you guys are good scripters ? cause im going to make a game ok . a very very very high end game and i need alot of help ... pm me if your in
.... Liquids??? Must.. know.. if... liquids... flow.. realistically!!1!!!!!1!111 As well, I would like to know a little more about destruction capabilities, will it have DMM aspects? Like different materials acting how they should IE metal bends, wood snaps and splinters, etc? Please reply if it doesn't ruin your 'Secretive" standpoint.
It just hit me. Point sprites, look them up or get a copy of 3D Mark 01. Point sprites are pretty much this. A 10 year old rendering technique that ran just fine on hardware in 2001.
I see the point of the engine, and how it could work logically, even that animation and paritcle effects could look really cool, but I don't see how the pc or console would only ever need to process the particles directly visible on screen. For reflections, dynamic shadows, lightmapping and physics calcutaion many more particles would need to be calculated, pretty much all of them, in fact. otherwise a system would already be in place to calculate only the visible polygons.
ok but the sky box is a polygon. cause ud be wasting memory if you rendered 4000m way clouds and stars and atmpspheric details and some crap happening in space and aliens and a bunch of cells and u see the 3000th dimension.
SO..... Polygons are nessisary. Plus this was alredy done as a function in an nvidia toy soldiers graphics demo. My crappy intel video card ran dat a 24fps.
what we really need is super amazing computers and monitors with 100's of trillions of points, or rather pixels. so we render everything and see everything.
@Quipster99 fuck it nvm...just brain blast it. why have a monitor? also this super powerful computer must be smaller then an iphone. i say give it ten-twenty years.
It doesn't need to render every single point in an infinite world, instead, searches for what you need to see from your perspective and renders that at your given resolution, and disregards the rest. Why render a tree behind a tree if you can't see it anyways? Render what needs to make the visual believable. ( I actually think what they do is similar to a one point lighting render. Except, you're the perspective of the light. Quipster99, and I'm in the ballpark here?)
@TheCubasy More accurately, I was thinking they may be using a complex search based clipping algorithm. That's my best guess. But I realistically know nothing about computer graphics. I make videos. :P I am however excited to see the unveiling of this technology if it isn't just a rendered video. Hard to claim such a thing without showing it live right?
They aren't saying that the memory being used is "unlimited". They're saying that without polygons, that the detail availability is unlimited. This means that you can create an object without having limits to the number of polygons used. What I get from their demonstration is basically what you do when you render an edited video.
When he says unlimited, it means unlimited potential. The amount of intelligence some people possess. Also, this is clearly a separate system of processing than any of which we are familiar with, therefore you cannot claim it is bound to the 'laws' of polygons/voxels/etc. We have little knowledge of how exactly the system works, so don't go out bashing what you don't understand.
would be prevention of momentum transfer between point to point. So if throw a rock at statue, points rendered have "glue", or strong prevention of momentum, preventing them from chipping off. If fire bullet, this overcomes glue. Toy around with it to make realistic. Then tree object has different "glue" potential written in to coding. So instead of massive hard drive, small hard-drive, and point cloud rendering potential to limit of RAM, and physics potential to limit of processing speed.
easier rendering/data recording. Processing engine would have easier time rendering "connect dots location" based off of simple point memory, because it would only be rendering voxels, not fully drawn on polygons. Then have another game engine designed for simple particle physics interaction-I.e. when point hits another point, transfer of momentum, some sort of "glue" between different points(to simulate bonds on electrons) and glue is different intensity on different objects. Basically glue
Hmmm, I know virtually nothing about gaming engines, but what if, instead of recording all points on hard memory, you record a necessary few that is around a central point of object, and then have an algorithm that fills in rest. So you have one point, 0,0,0, then 20 points around it in shape of star, and that is what is recorded on hard drive. Then when world is rendered, use simple algorithm to "connect dots" and fill points on dot path for objects. You can also use repetitive objects for
@lte880305 I hate to say it but these are the same company. They decided to rename the company from unlimited detail to another name so it would be different than the software they are creating. Both Euclidion and Unlimited Detail are the same people. Notice the same accent and first/last name of the host speaking.
@lte880305 Notice between this video and the sample you gave. iun this video his name is Bruce Dell and in the other it is Bruce Robert Dell and they both have the same accent. It is the same company and as I said they just changed the name so the company name and the software name would be different.
i think i understand what this company mean by calling it "unlimited" it means that no matter how many detail you put into it the program it will still keep its good performance and will not slow down, the only limited thing is the harddisk space that ull need for the amount of details and all that
@pcgamer010 Sure they need to fix their lighting, basic shader technology, particle systems, material creation, and animation with this software. However, the reason why I do not think this will make it is due to the Data size. For a full game equivalent to modern polygonal AAA title this would consume about 3-4 petabytes of info. That's 3-4 K terabytes or over double the capacity of the human mind. If this is highly compressed it would still require massive power to decompress and run right.
the reasons why this project is going to flop guaranteed.
* the models you see arent unique, they are just duplications of the exact same objects
* the models all have their OWN level of detail, the only way he gets 64 atoms a millimetre is by SCALING SOME OF THEM SMALLER, the rest have SHIT detail.
* he cant paint his world uniquely like what happens in megatexture
* he cant perform csg operations, all he can do is soup yet more and more disjointed models together
Why would they try to advertise for games? This is no where being able to be used in games. Don't kid yourselves. IMO they should target the scientific communities, not games. Well, good luck.
Ha ha! I love how he uses lettuce as an example. Either way, I hope he's the next Steve Jobs of the gaming technology market, and I really hope to see this stuff implemented soon.
It's impossible to have unlimited amounts of "atoms". Your computer draws the line sooner or later. If it was to be truly unlimited, your computer's processors would have to infinitely stretch across the universe.
@Mynameisnotooo No, because although you could have an unlimited number (provided you had the MEMORY to hold it), the processor (using this guy's engine), only reaches out and displays the voxels that match up to each pixel on your screen. Thus if you're in 1680x1050, it only has to render that many of the voxels at a time MAXIMUM. Thus, the rest, although they exist, will not have to be processed (because you can't see them anyway so whats the point of processing them?).
I see a lot of people saying this is a scam, there wrong just because they don't know how to make it happen they think its fake. Well i'm a computer art and graphic designer. This is not a scam or fake, this can be done but there is other things to be done. Making low end pc's play these graphics will be hard to do but do able.
@Cataclysmacist i totally agree, look at the atari 2600, they didnt cared a fuck about graphics, blocks are all you blocks (made out of 6 polygons) and pyramids(made out of 4 or 5 polygons) is all you need.
SO I GEUSS THAT ALL OF THIS IS STORED IN RAM BUT DOSNT SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THERES NO MOVEMENT NO ANIMATION AND EACH POINT HAS ITS LOCATION IN SPACE AS A NUMBER BUT IF IT MOVES ITS NUMBER IS CHANGING SO THIS WOULD TAKE UP A SHIT TONE OF RAM AND COULDNT DO ANIMATION BUT COULD HAVE EXTREME DETAIL is that about what there doing here
@flamingarse1 See their newest interview, they said ''if you think about voxels as atoms, then yes, it is voxels...in unlimited quantity'', its an 41 minutes interview, but that part is said pretty early ;)
UD indexed their 'library' of 'atoms' using ingenius algorithm to search for the color of each 'atom' rendering only the resolution size. It is so fast that it can be considered 'unlimited'.
However there's a limitation, this will only work for non-movable objects. Yes, I've seen the animated scorpion but it's only 1 object. Imagine 1000+, you need to constantly update the 'library', very costly...
Certain 'atoms' may share same data thus there are compression methods.
it is still impossible to produce an unlimited-detail game engine; a world model with 1,000,000,000,000*6 (x, y, z positions, r, g, b values, so times 6) (1 trillion) voxels/point-cloud data (one point of all the point-cloud data being 6 bytes in size) would take up approximately 5722045.8984375 megabytes of hard disk space on your computer. 1 trillion being the minimum for a level. yeeaah.
@TheCubasy Except that the other 70% of his tech is dedicated to data compression. Under the new technology, what previous takes up say "100%" of your hardrive takes up only "8%". Look for some interviews, he talks about that.
@neverent alright, so 8%, that makes a 1 trillion atom object 715255.73 megabytes/698.49 gigabytes...... keeping in mind 1 trillion atoms is the minimum amount for an object...... still not satisfied.
@TheCubasy Sounds like you know more about the engine than the people who made it. Or you are speculating wildly and pulling numbers out of your ass without knowing how it works. There are limitations, but it obviously functions to the extent displayed.
@999newaccount it is 100% possible for something like this to be displayed, but it would take up lots of space on your hard drive. it would also need a lot of processing power for your computer to search through the "document" of points and their colors, because it would need to calculate what the scene looks like according to camera angles, light sources, shading, reflections, etc.
@TheCubasy ok genious. it is unlimited. and obviously this programming would be limited by available space on disk. but heres the thing if you had tons and tons of hard drive space then yes this program would work unlimited. obviously programmers realize that there is still limitations like hard drive space. so in theory it is unlimited but it is limited by other things such as hard drives. which are getting bigger every year
this technology made by a search script that duplicate dots when the only thing using the memory is the scripts...of course the models take disk space....but as they just duplicating dots with scripts that actually mean they are using less hard disk then any other game(3d...) so with 4g ram....thats like 4trillion scripts....
@zipper978 everything's unlimited, polygons, voxels, but because of RAM, VRAM, processing power, etc., we're not gonna see anything like this for a long long time.
this program still needs tons of processing power in order to search through a model file with 12-trillion letters in it, match it up with the camera angle and shadows and all that shit.
and I miscalculated. since it has a set of pixel data for every possible camera angle, it'll take up 750000000000 gigabytes, for a 1024*1024 monitor.
@stevenkDE there's no such thing as air or blank spaces in this engine... all this engine is is a series of damn bitmap images. it's just millions of image files that take up thousands of megabytes of hardware space. like pre-rendered backgrounds in resident evil, but trillions more. if you actually read the description then you'll understand. this engine's fake.
@TheCubasy dear smart mouth: I do understand how this engine works...the world is basiclly saved in a 3Dimensional array..and disk space is saved by not wasteing memory for air
@stevenkDE even if my theory isn't correct this engine has to save trillions of damn point data and there's no way you can compress that much data into a few megabytes of space. one rock alone has hundreds of thousands of points. this engine's inefficient. and don't call me names bro that's not gonna get you anywhere.
@TheCubasy That number can be reduced by just referencing point cloud points from a template. case in point, when they had these big pyramids of beasts that were around a billion points of data, they were probably referencing from one source model and repeating it over and over. Sure, it's going to take a good deal of memory storing all those point cloud data points, but with reused and repeated graphics like, say, grains of sand, it can be compressed to be a lot smaller than you'd think.
@hex37 rendering only pixels you can see would only consume more processing power of your computer to run through the gigantic model files with 1-trillion+ characters (letters, numbers, etc.) in it.
^skip to 23:00, it's being played on a standard looking laptop, and the interviewer is given controls to look around. I may not be able to explain it right, but seeing is believing, you know?
@TheCubasy I think the idea is that storage space is rapidly becoming so cheap and easy that storage space is not so much of an issue. As explained in the video, the engine uses a search algorithm to find and display only one point for each pixel on your screen. My understanding is that the search algorithm can sift through a near infinite amount of data quickly. It is not unlimited from the technical definition, but in practicality, if we are no longer limited by polygon count, it is.
@amdreallyfast like i said, this engine is basically just still pictures of an object taken from thousands of different angles. the bigger these "pictures" get (the closer you get to the object,) the game is going to suffer quite a big of lag. the system has to load up hundreds, possibly thousands, if different pictures at the same time, so it is going to lag horribly no matter what.
and i'm not guessing about the picture system; read the description, they said so themselves.
@TheCubasy "The Unlimited Detail engine works out which direction the camera is facing and then searches the data to find only the points it needs to put on the screen it doesnt touch any unneeded points..."
It searches for the points to display, not pictures to display. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems like you think this graphics engine uses a lot of still pictures. I just read the description and it uses point data, not pictures. You are correct about massive space though.
@amdreallyfast they said it themselves, what the engine does is save pixel data of what the object looks like from every possible angle. then in-game, the engine searches through the model file and pulls out the data it needs, according to what the camera's position and angle is. basically it's just many still pictures from thousands of different angles.
@TheCubasy Very well. Suppose they get the real-time rendering working as claimed. I want to know how object collisions will work. If the rendering doesn't kill today's common processors, as I have inferred from their videos, particle physics will unless they have some fancy way to make acceptable, non-elastic collisions.
@TheCubasy Well yeah because that was actually the comment I wanted to say and you already took it out of my mind. I swear, the company would just think that it would be cool to just make an engine that would be seriously realistic, and then stupidly forget about general system specs for the market, making it virtually impossible for anyone to handle.
@TheCubasy yeeaah. Ever heard of a thing called an algorithm? No need to store all the possible data in memory when you can use an algorithm to work out and fetch the specific point of data you require, keep that small amount on memory and replace when not needed any more. A crude example, just so you understand the concept, is the mandelbrot set; a mathematical calculation that produces an infinite pattern no matter how far you zoom in... and i'm sure the equation is only a few bytes in size
@andrewyaoauatauabaea The overall point i'm wishing to convey is to not be so close-minded. Just because you can't conceive of a way this can be possible doesn't mean it can't be done. There is almost ALWAYS a way to work around problems in programming, maybe not by you or i, but someone someday and i sincerely believe this problem will be resolved very soon if it hasn't already by these guys at Euclideon
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Of course you can't, but what i'm saying is it'll be implemented in a different way. You can't see it being possible, only because your method is all that you know. If i asked a man from the 17th century to calculate 435,786,234.0393267 / 8156.783276 in 10 seconds he'll tell you it's not possible. Ask a man with a calculator, it's a piece of pie. NOTHING is impossible with computers!
@andrewyaoauatauabaea No you can't do that. I'm not saying you can, i'm saying your method will not solve this problem, but a new method can solve it. Ask a man to solve 876,346,926.35789 / 567,123,873.3456 in 10 seconds he will tell you it's impossible. Give him a calculator and it's no longer impossible. Just because you can't perceive of a way it can be done, doesn't mean it's impossible; it's merely your method to solve the problem that is incompatible with a solution
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Why are we to assume it's a petabyte of data? Also, why is a compression algorithm out of the question here? It won't be a 'petabyte' of data. You're trying to squeeze a cube through a triangular shaped hole, it's not going to happen and i'm agreeing with that. But either find a triangular shape to push through or a square shaped hole.
Oh well, I will always have "yeeaah. Ever heard of a thing called an algorithm?" to laugh at. In fact that entire first comment was full of hilarious stupidity.
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Good to see you've finally conceded and resulted to ad hominem of a comment you've already addressed. Nothing else you could have done would have shown your pathetic desperation any less. Also, brush up on your sarcasm detection skills.
@TheCubasy Not if you apply texturing. Kind of how the eye perceives things; it only focuses on things that are moving; if they aren't, their sharpness begins to fade. If we can map these "points" together by adding physics to them, then we can take some of the strain off the video card and into the processor unit; kind of like having the processor tell the video card which points to sharpen and which to "fade out/texturize" as needed by whatever game you're playing/simulation running/etc.
@TheCubasy in my child time i got a HardDrive no clue how old i was but it had 20gb (2^30) i was the king of my town.. more space then all other... today its nothing!So my point is give them a bit more time (10Years?) then we have Exbibyte or Zebibyte HardDrive and we dont care the Disk-Space... really work able in future :)
@Naver36 see more of their vids and/or listen more carefully to this one. they say unlimited as a buzz word more than an actual value. there will always be a limited number in the viewable display. the better assertion was that it's unnecessary to count - as with the 32-bit color comparison.
@FluffyBlueCheese Or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 polygon models. Closer to atoms. Possible only with some kind of scanning tech (very accurate though, not what we have now). Or new way of making models, something that don't exist yet, or isn't effective enough yet.
@Naver36 it is unlimited. because they only need to calculate an "atom" for every pixel on the monitor. so it takes the same time and power to render a whole city as it would take to render a room. because the engine is displaying the same amount of points in every frame . your limited only by the amount of memory needed to store the point cloud data. very cool shit
You don't store the coordinates of each pixel or each atom in this case. You store information about an area and you use an algorithm to extrapolate how this area is constituted.
That's the point of 3D in real time, you process, you don't store static values.
in the end you still only have the resolution on your screen. They optimised that, so much that you only need small amount of atom per pixel. So you never have to set out average colour/material per section.
@TheCubasy No, not quite. You forgot about compression. (Or you're have no clue and are talking out of your ass from what you've read, so you don't even know how compression works.)
@TheNightExcessive no, i just dont really care about how compression works. and it's impossible to compress something that's bigger than your hard drive to something that's the size of a few megabytes.
@TheNightExcessive dude this engine's fake. and don't go around calling people pricks either. I meant I don't care about how compression works. but now that you mention it I don't really care about this engine, either.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: it's impossible to compress something the size of a one-terabyte hard drive to something thats only a few megabytes without really fucking up the voxel data.
@TheCubasy Yes, actually, it is. If it's something that repeats over and over you're generally only storing ONE byte for each thing instead of twelve bytes. Even less if you use something better than a very simple referencing compression. If you didn't care about this engine, you wouldn't still be commenting here.
@TheNightExcessive i can't just ignore all of your replies, either, or else you'd think i'm more of a prick.
anyways, it would be tons of bytes for each voxel, not just one. you'd need the x/y/z positions (values ranging from 1-13+ bytes each,) and it's color value, which is 9 bytes, 3 bytes for red, green, and blue values. so each voxel can't just be one byte, that's impossible.
@TheCubasy No, not quite. Each of the positional numbers are 8 bytes maximum (if they're using longs). RGB values would be one byte (a unsigned short, 0-255- if they even did colors that way). Compression would make pointers that point to datum for the different voxels, and a pointer can be 4 or 8 bytes. So a data would be 11 bytes and a each voxel would be 4 or 8 bytes. There are other ways to compress it further. (I doubt they even do it this way)
@TheCubasy ...but... what if.... games werent installed offline... what if games were "activated" online instead?
then your computer doesnt install anything - its all run offline.
lets be honest - EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is online... i think its gonna get to the point where you buy a pc - and you get Windows 11 Online - the whole PC is basically online, nothing works unless your online. You buy a game and get a code, no download, no CD, just an activation key, thats it.
Things in the real world aren't made of flat pieces of cardboard.
Soo.. A flat piece of cardboard isn't made out of a flat piece of cardboard?
Tawaxyon 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hedgehog Engine (From Sonic Generations PC Version) Vs. Unlimited Details. Hehe that be vary interesting to see.
Gabumon404 1 week ago
Comment removed
Gabumon404 1 week ago
Dont sell it to Snoy you bastards!! lol. Congrats btw
RIVALVIDZ 3 weeks ago
Fake. As a computer scientist, this is BS. Please stop trying to computers stupid people :(
MHardeman25 3 weeks ago
well a normal island map with this will take around 512 petabytes so...... my computer will melt
gono23 3 weeks ago
@gono23 GTFO, Notch fanboi
skating1611 2 weeks ago
@skating1611 who the fuck is notch?
gono23 2 weeks ago
@gono23 your gay boyfriend
skating1611 2 weeks ago
@skating1611 looks like someone is on her period...
gono23 2 weeks ago
@gono23 yeah. You got a problem with that?
skating1611 2 weeks ago
@skating1611 lol relax... what are you going to do? caps lock me to death?
gono23 2 weeks ago
@gono23 I don't understand how caps lock can kill a person BUT IF THAT'S TRUE THEN I JUST MIGHT!!!!
skating1611 2 weeks ago
"I've been given 5 minutes, NO MORE" -- look down, 0:06/8:05
Lawl
PhoenixKsE 3 weeks ago
Useless
BudzMcgr33n 3 weeks ago
This guy is so full of shit
fingerprint211b 3 weeks ago
I wouldn't say its a scam...but it is very, very misleading. Numero Uno: No such thing as "unlimited" in computers. You're limited by many things: HDD space, RAM, processing power. Even applying a pseudo-random number generator to a sparse voxel tree would have finite space to work in. Applying animation or physics to voxel graphics? Pure and utter hell. It'd require massive amounts of processing power and RAM to get a decent framerate.
Hagunemnon 1 month ago
@Hagunemnon Graphics Card also that some have 512MB or 1GB, and most games can't take advantage of all the cpu if you have more than 1.
Gabumon404 1 week ago
He speaks well. . Is that why some think he's a scammer? He seems open about the issues of the technology. And has apparently honest answers to the critics. (search Euclideon & Unlimited Detail - Bruce Dell Interview He's an aussie who is having a 'crack' (in the parlance). Polygons have had their day. I know that. When you are going way back to the foothils of paradigm change, all bets are off. Time limits; f%^&k off.
If he needs another lazy artist in his studio i'll be there.
CALL MEh
StringDeposit 1 month ago
Amazing! Can't wait to see it with colour!
TheGamerChick94 1 month ago
Did anyone notice the X-mass song in the background??
vincentvanzwieten 1 month ago
Comment removed
squarepusher303 1 month ago
Scam.
mrsquaredot 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS IS A SCAM
NOTCH CONFIRMED IT!
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS COMPANY!
KernelGaddafi 2 months ago
Wow, could you get any more Illuminati?
ElevateConcepts 2 months ago
1:47 see animations
richardcaoue 2 months ago
My GTX 560 will weap if i try this
gunnery18 2 months ago
@gunnery18 It's software based, so it isn't actually too hardware intensive and works on CPU power.
Wastenstine 2 months ago
@Wastenstine hardware intensive huh, please explain a bit more about this please?
gunnery18 2 months ago
@gunnery18 No it wont, i saw demo on laptop
1GTX1 2 months ago
ok how many of you guys are good scripters ? cause im going to make a game ok . a very very very high end game and i need alot of help ... pm me if your in
DaltonRay360 2 months ago
There is an interview of them showing that its is running in real time with animations, type in euclideon.
txkone 2 months ago
.... Liquids??? Must.. know.. if... liquids... flow.. realistically!!1!!!!!1!111 As well, I would like to know a little more about destruction capabilities, will it have DMM aspects? Like different materials acting how they should IE metal bends, wood snaps and splinters, etc? Please reply if it doesn't ruin your 'Secretive" standpoint.
bubbletanking 3 months ago
@bubbletanking I think the liquids would work i hav actually seen it work
thefantasticjames 3 months ago
what is "darta"
caqtv 3 months ago
Imagine God of War with this.
tahthedon 3 months ago
It just hit me. Point sprites, look them up or get a copy of 3D Mark 01. Point sprites are pretty much this. A 10 year old rendering technique that ran just fine on hardware in 2001.
xenol 3 months ago
I see the point of the engine, and how it could work logically, even that animation and paritcle effects could look really cool, but I don't see how the pc or console would only ever need to process the particles directly visible on screen. For reflections, dynamic shadows, lightmapping and physics calcutaion many more particles would need to be calculated, pretty much all of them, in fact. otherwise a system would already be in place to calculate only the visible polygons.
willjamesgodd 3 months ago
:D i saw WoW... i want point cloud data system on my WoW.
EpicLemi 4 months ago
ok but the sky box is a polygon. cause ud be wasting memory if you rendered 4000m way clouds and stars and atmpspheric details and some crap happening in space and aliens and a bunch of cells and u see the 3000th dimension.
SO..... Polygons are nessisary. Plus this was alredy done as a function in an nvidia toy soldiers graphics demo. My crappy intel video card ran dat a 24fps.
SafasoTV 4 months ago
what we really need is super amazing computers and monitors with 100's of trillions of points, or rather pixels. so we render everything and see everything.
upbeatanime 4 months ago
@upbeatanime Deep... 360 degree monitors... I like it XD
Quipster99 4 months ago
@Quipster99 fuck it nvm...just brain blast it. why have a monitor? also this super powerful computer must be smaller then an iphone. i say give it ten-twenty years.
upbeatanime 4 months ago
@upbeatanime Super amazing computers powered by rainbows and unicorns ...
argimenes 2 months ago 5
but you talked for 8min
TheBananaforce 4 months ago
do some animations with it
theawesomesausage 4 months ago 35
@theawesomesausage they are only a tecnology bussiness there not a game makeer
desiremyvids 4 months ago
@desiremyvids animations are also technology
theawesomesausage 4 months ago
@theawesomesausage yes but they have not got the good enough skills to make a good one
desiremyvids 4 months ago
@theawesomesausage 1:48 why don't you watch the fucking video before commenting.
BreckR 2 months ago
@BreckR calm down bro...
theawesomesausage 2 months ago
@theawesomesausage They did, 7 years ago
MagMag96 2 weeks ago
@theawesomesausage 1:43
d3tach3d 1 week ago
This will only improve geometry wich is only a part of
Shaders
Volumetric lighting
depth of field generation
ETC {there are like 50 more]
so its not 100000 betetr graphics , only the detail in geometry will improve
machielste1 4 months ago
my anus is unlimited
88MB88 5 months ago
at 3 min does anyone start singing classico by tenactious d?
xxdomoxxkunxx 5 months ago
It doesn't need to render every single point in an infinite world, instead, searches for what you need to see from your perspective and renders that at your given resolution, and disregards the rest. Why render a tree behind a tree if you can't see it anyways? Render what needs to make the visual believable. ( I actually think what they do is similar to a one point lighting render. Except, you're the perspective of the light. Quipster99, and I'm in the ballpark here?)
JubaJer 5 months ago
@JubaJer that's called backface culling, and it's already used nowadays.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy More accurately, I was thinking they may be using a complex search based clipping algorithm. That's my best guess. But I realistically know nothing about computer graphics. I make videos. :P I am however excited to see the unveiling of this technology if it isn't just a rendered video. Hard to claim such a thing without showing it live right?
JubaJer 5 months ago
They aren't saying that the memory being used is "unlimited". They're saying that without polygons, that the detail availability is unlimited. This means that you can create an object without having limits to the number of polygons used. What I get from their demonstration is basically what you do when you render an edited video.
JubaJer 5 months ago
Some people just don't understand...
When he says unlimited, it means unlimited potential. The amount of intelligence some people possess. Also, this is clearly a separate system of processing than any of which we are familiar with, therefore you cannot claim it is bound to the 'laws' of polygons/voxels/etc. We have little knowledge of how exactly the system works, so don't go out bashing what you don't understand.
Sryiforgotmyusername 5 months ago
Wait....don't CGI movies use this?... That's what it looks like.
AdamantSystems 5 months ago
@AdamantSystems i think CG uses raytracing.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
Comment removed
BigBrashy 5 months ago
Comment removed
BigBrashy 5 months ago
Seems simple enough to me. If I had any knowledge of programming language, visual graphics stuff, I could prolly make it myself give a little time.
mortclyde 5 months ago
@mortclyde no, you couldn't.
zenteoxero 5 months ago
would be prevention of momentum transfer between point to point. So if throw a rock at statue, points rendered have "glue", or strong prevention of momentum, preventing them from chipping off. If fire bullet, this overcomes glue. Toy around with it to make realistic. Then tree object has different "glue" potential written in to coding. So instead of massive hard drive, small hard-drive, and point cloud rendering potential to limit of RAM, and physics potential to limit of processing speed.
mortclyde 5 months ago
easier rendering/data recording. Processing engine would have easier time rendering "connect dots location" based off of simple point memory, because it would only be rendering voxels, not fully drawn on polygons. Then have another game engine designed for simple particle physics interaction-I.e. when point hits another point, transfer of momentum, some sort of "glue" between different points(to simulate bonds on electrons) and glue is different intensity on different objects. Basically glue
mortclyde 5 months ago
Hmmm, I know virtually nothing about gaming engines, but what if, instead of recording all points on hard memory, you record a necessary few that is around a central point of object, and then have an algorithm that fills in rest. So you have one point, 0,0,0, then 20 points around it in shape of star, and that is what is recorded on hard drive. Then when world is rendered, use simple algorithm to "connect dots" and fill points on dot path for objects. You can also use repetitive objects for
mortclyde 5 months ago
sorry, i don't have a 50 terribyte hard drive
cowratt 5 months ago
You went over 5 minutes.
Intronetz 5 months ago
/watch?v=8vGXqXL7zrI
darkblood626 5 months ago
Quipster99 - VERY BAD COLOURS IN VIDEO.
ANY BODY CAN SEE IT NORMALY ???
VitaliyHTC 5 months ago
blocked? cant defend yourself?
GTASA911 5 months ago
Didn't I saw these similar footages before from different "developer"?
Here why don't you take a look at this. /watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
This is so conclusive that these fuckers didn't even develop this.
lte880305 5 months ago
@lte880305 I hate to say it but these are the same company. They decided to rename the company from unlimited detail to another name so it would be different than the software they are creating. Both Euclidion and Unlimited Detail are the same people. Notice the same accent and first/last name of the host speaking.
danewheeler 5 months ago
@lte880305 Notice between this video and the sample you gave. iun this video his name is Bruce Dell and in the other it is Bruce Robert Dell and they both have the same accent. It is the same company and as I said they just changed the name so the company name and the software name would be different.
danewheeler 5 months ago
i think i understand what this company mean by calling it "unlimited" it means that no matter how many detail you put into it the program it will still keep its good performance and will not slow down, the only limited thing is the harddisk space that ull need for the amount of details and all that
21EC 5 months ago
but why won't you say it's just a voxel engine? BECAUSE IT"S A SCAM!
GTASA911 5 months ago
@GTASA911 Jumping to conclusions. Such a retarded thing to do.
You don't have to buy into it like a sheep but don't shout "IT'S A SCAM" when you don't know for sure. Idiot.
Blocked.
pcgamer010 5 months ago
@pcgamer010 Well like it or not, this is clearly a scam. Take a look at why I have. /watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
If this was created unique by this developers, why some other idiot has the same thing?
lte880305 5 months ago
@lte880305 Both videos are the same company lmfao.
pcgamer010 5 months ago
@pcgamer010 Sure they need to fix their lighting, basic shader technology, particle systems, material creation, and animation with this software. However, the reason why I do not think this will make it is due to the Data size. For a full game equivalent to modern polygonal AAA title this would consume about 3-4 petabytes of info. That's 3-4 K terabytes or over double the capacity of the human mind. If this is highly compressed it would still require massive power to decompress and run right.
danewheeler 5 months ago
damn, i have to buy a new computer to run this. Maybe in 2015 there will be one.
LinkLabel 5 months ago
But how are they storing them? 3 double-precision numbers and a RGB color? (= 28 bytes per point)
GisleAune 5 months ago
unlimited detail? perfffff... more like unlimited repetition.
rouncer81 5 months ago
I think 4:36 is the greatest moment of this video because it shows dynamic specular lighting and shadows.
swissassault 5 months ago
the reasons why this project is going to flop guaranteed.
* the models you see arent unique, they are just duplications of the exact same objects
* the models all have their OWN level of detail, the only way he gets 64 atoms a millimetre is by SCALING SOME OF THEM SMALLER, the rest have SHIT detail.
* he cant paint his world uniquely like what happens in megatexture
* he cant perform csg operations, all he can do is soup yet more and more disjointed models together
rouncer81 5 months ago
Why would they try to advertise for games? This is no where being able to be used in games. Don't kid yourselves. IMO they should target the scientific communities, not games. Well, good luck.
icoo44 5 months ago
Ha ha! I love how he uses lettuce as an example. Either way, I hope he's the next Steve Jobs of the gaming technology market, and I really hope to see this stuff implemented soon.
GeekingForJesus 5 months ago
It's impossible to have unlimited amounts of "atoms". Your computer draws the line sooner or later. If it was to be truly unlimited, your computer's processors would have to infinitely stretch across the universe.
Mynameisnotooo 5 months ago
@Mynameisnotooo OK, so it's only 30,000,000,000,000 atoms. Not infinite, but good enough for me.
GeekingForJesus 5 months ago
@Mynameisnotooo No, because although you could have an unlimited number (provided you had the MEMORY to hold it), the processor (using this guy's engine), only reaches out and displays the voxels that match up to each pixel on your screen. Thus if you're in 1680x1050, it only has to render that many of the voxels at a time MAXIMUM. Thus, the rest, although they exist, will not have to be processed (because you can't see them anyway so whats the point of processing them?).
neverent 5 months ago
Holy Shit, I can't wait for my lettuce to have UNLIMITED DETAIL!
stickmantribe 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see a lot of people saying this is a scam, there wrong just because they don't know how to make it happen they think its fake. Well i'm a computer art and graphic designer. This is not a scam or fake, this can be done but there is other things to be done. Making low end pc's play these graphics will be hard to do but do able.
DarionMograine1990 5 months ago
So anyways, this is obviously bullshit.
But yknow what, I'm fine with polygons anyway.
Now how bout we just focus on gameplay from now on?
Cataclysmacist 5 months ago
@Cataclysmacist Why is it obviously bullshit?
Badhabitsjay 5 months ago
@Cataclysmacist i totally agree, look at the atari 2600, they didnt cared a fuck about graphics, blocks are all you blocks (made out of 6 polygons) and pyramids(made out of 4 or 5 polygons) is all you need.
atmosphirplayer 5 months ago
'ive got 5 minutes' video is 8 mins long
pickupthePWN 5 months ago
@pickupthePWN 4:25 listen at what he says there ;)
gagagegegigigogogugu 5 months ago
Nothing is impossible impossible does not exist this is inevitable
DavidToddSchiesler 5 months ago
SO I GEUSS THAT ALL OF THIS IS STORED IN RAM BUT DOSNT SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THERES NO MOVEMENT NO ANIMATION AND EACH POINT HAS ITS LOCATION IN SPACE AS A NUMBER BUT IF IT MOVES ITS NUMBER IS CHANGING SO THIS WOULD TAKE UP A SHIT TONE OF RAM AND COULDNT DO ANIMATION BUT COULD HAVE EXTREME DETAIL is that about what there doing here
?
flamingarse1 5 months ago
@flamingarse1 Read description ;)
gagagegegigigogogugu 5 months ago
@gagagegegigigogogugu so this might as well be voxels with occlusion culling
flamingarse1 5 months ago
@flamingarse1 See their newest interview, they said ''if you think about voxels as atoms, then yes, it is voxels...in unlimited quantity'', its an 41 minutes interview, but that part is said pretty early ;)
gagagegegigigogogugu 5 months ago
Unlimited Static Power!
UD indexed their 'library' of 'atoms' using ingenius algorithm to search for the color of each 'atom' rendering only the resolution size. It is so fast that it can be considered 'unlimited'.
However there's a limitation, this will only work for non-movable objects. Yes, I've seen the animated scorpion but it's only 1 object. Imagine 1000+, you need to constantly update the 'library', very costly...
Certain 'atoms' may share same data thus there are compression methods.
Twinblad3r 5 months ago
I remember seeing this in 1996...was shit then, looks shit now
jeystonemusic 5 months ago
it is still impossible to produce an unlimited-detail game engine; a world model with 1,000,000,000,000*6 (x, y, z positions, r, g, b values, so times 6) (1 trillion) voxels/point-cloud data (one point of all the point-cloud data being 6 bytes in size) would take up approximately 5722045.8984375 megabytes of hard disk space on your computer. 1 trillion being the minimum for a level. yeeaah.
TheCubasy 5 months ago 25
@TheCubasy Except that the other 70% of his tech is dedicated to data compression. Under the new technology, what previous takes up say "100%" of your hardrive takes up only "8%". Look for some interviews, he talks about that.
neverent 5 months ago
@neverent alright, so 8%, that makes a 1 trillion atom object 715255.73 megabytes/698.49 gigabytes...... keeping in mind 1 trillion atoms is the minimum amount for an object...... still not satisfied.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy Sounds like you know more about the engine than the people who made it. Or you are speculating wildly and pulling numbers out of your ass without knowing how it works. There are limitations, but it obviously functions to the extent displayed.
999newaccount 5 months ago
@999newaccount it is 100% possible for something like this to be displayed, but it would take up lots of space on your hard drive. it would also need a lot of processing power for your computer to search through the "document" of points and their colors, because it would need to calculate what the scene looks like according to camera angles, light sources, shading, reflections, etc.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy ok genious. it is unlimited. and obviously this programming would be limited by available space on disk. but heres the thing if you had tons and tons of hard drive space then yes this program would work unlimited. obviously programmers realize that there is still limitations like hard drive space. so in theory it is unlimited but it is limited by other things such as hard drives. which are getting bigger every year
zipper978 5 months ago
@zipper978
this technology made by a search script that duplicate dots when the only thing using the memory is the scripts...of course the models take disk space....but as they just duplicating dots with scripts that actually mean they are using less hard disk then any other game(3d...) so with 4g ram....thats like 4trillion scripts....
DarkGlobus1OO 5 months ago
@DarkGlobus1OO
you have no idea how much space a model with that kind of detail takes, do you?
Well i do, i worked with scanned 3D data... its A LOT more than current meshes used in games.
Id even say 1 high res scanned object takes more space than an entire level of a current video game.
Capeau 5 months ago
@zipper978 everything's unlimited, polygons, voxels, but because of RAM, VRAM, processing power, etc., we're not gonna see anything like this for a long long time.
this program still needs tons of processing power in order to search through a model file with 12-trillion letters in it, match it up with the camera angle and shadows and all that shit.
and I miscalculated. since it has a set of pixel data for every possible camera angle, it'll take up 750000000000 gigabytes, for a 1024*1024 monitor.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy Well if you really think that the "air" of the world will also take space then you are right..
but you are a dumbass...the air will not use any space...
and the world prob consisty of 5% matter...so disk space shall be ok
stevenkDE 5 months ago
@stevenkDE there's no such thing as air or blank spaces in this engine... all this engine is is a series of damn bitmap images. it's just millions of image files that take up thousands of megabytes of hardware space. like pre-rendered backgrounds in resident evil, but trillions more. if you actually read the description then you'll understand. this engine's fake.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy dear smart mouth: I do understand how this engine works...the world is basiclly saved in a 3Dimensional array..and disk space is saved by not wasteing memory for air
stevenkDE 5 months ago
@stevenkDE even if my theory isn't correct this engine has to save trillions of damn point data and there's no way you can compress that much data into a few megabytes of space. one rock alone has hundreds of thousands of points. this engine's inefficient. and don't call me names bro that's not gonna get you anywhere.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@stevenkDE and im not counting air.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy That number can be reduced by just referencing point cloud points from a template. case in point, when they had these big pyramids of beasts that were around a billion points of data, they were probably referencing from one source model and repeating it over and over. Sure, it's going to take a good deal of memory storing all those point cloud data points, but with reused and repeated graphics like, say, grains of sand, it can be compressed to be a lot smaller than you'd think.
hex37 5 months ago
@hex37 if that's the case, it would still take tons of VRAM and processing power in order to render these objects composed of trillions of voxels.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy From what I understand it doesn't use voxels, it renders the points you can you see directly into pixels on your screen.
hex37 5 months ago
@hex37 rendering only pixels you can see would only consume more processing power of your computer to run through the gigantic model files with 1-trillion+ characters (letters, numbers, etc.) in it.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy
Actually, better way to put this:
/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc
^skip to 23:00, it's being played on a standard looking laptop, and the interviewer is given controls to look around. I may not be able to explain it right, but seeing is believing, you know?
hex37 5 months ago
@TheCubasy I think the idea is that storage space is rapidly becoming so cheap and easy that storage space is not so much of an issue. As explained in the video, the engine uses a search algorithm to find and display only one point for each pixel on your screen. My understanding is that the search algorithm can sift through a near infinite amount of data quickly. It is not unlimited from the technical definition, but in practicality, if we are no longer limited by polygon count, it is.
amdreallyfast 5 months ago
@amdreallyfast like i said, this engine is basically just still pictures of an object taken from thousands of different angles. the bigger these "pictures" get (the closer you get to the object,) the game is going to suffer quite a big of lag. the system has to load up hundreds, possibly thousands, if different pictures at the same time, so it is going to lag horribly no matter what.
and i'm not guessing about the picture system; read the description, they said so themselves.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy "The Unlimited Detail engine works out which direction the camera is facing and then searches the data to find only the points it needs to put on the screen it doesnt touch any unneeded points..."
It searches for the points to display, not pictures to display. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems like you think this graphics engine uses a lot of still pictures. I just read the description and it uses point data, not pictures. You are correct about massive space though.
amdreallyfast 5 months ago
@amdreallyfast they said it themselves, what the engine does is save pixel data of what the object looks like from every possible angle. then in-game, the engine searches through the model file and pulls out the data it needs, according to what the camera's position and angle is. basically it's just many still pictures from thousands of different angles.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy Very well. Suppose they get the real-time rendering working as claimed. I want to know how object collisions will work. If the rendering doesn't kill today's common processors, as I have inferred from their videos, particle physics will unless they have some fancy way to make acceptable, non-elastic collisions.
amdreallyfast 5 months ago
@TheCubasy I am seriously agreeing with you on this. This graphics technology is amazingly retarded to use.
OfficialMikaUSA 5 months ago
@OfficialMikaUSA finally someone agrees with me. -_-
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy Well yeah because that was actually the comment I wanted to say and you already took it out of my mind. I swear, the company would just think that it would be cool to just make an engine that would be seriously realistic, and then stupidly forget about general system specs for the market, making it virtually impossible for anyone to handle.
OfficialMikaUSA 5 months ago
@TheCubasy yeeaah. Ever heard of a thing called an algorithm? No need to store all the possible data in memory when you can use an algorithm to work out and fetch the specific point of data you require, keep that small amount on memory and replace when not needed any more. A crude example, just so you understand the concept, is the mandelbrot set; a mathematical calculation that produces an infinite pattern no matter how far you zoom in... and i'm sure the equation is only a few bytes in size
ItsTiedToAStick 5 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
Where does it fetch said data?
Yes, a mandelbrot set can have infinite complexity, in fact any fractal does.
This means that this does work as long as every 3d model you use is a fractal like you mentioned and they used in this video at 2:40
andrewyaoauatauabaea 5 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea The overall point i'm wishing to convey is to not be so close-minded. Just because you can't conceive of a way this can be possible doesn't mean it can't be done. There is almost ALWAYS a way to work around problems in programming, maybe not by you or i, but someone someday and i sincerely believe this problem will be resolved very soon if it hasn't already by these guys at Euclideon
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
"There is almost ALWAYS a way to work around problems in programming"
no, you cannot store a petabyte of data in 20gb.
See pigeonhole principle
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Of course you can't, but what i'm saying is it'll be implemented in a different way. You can't see it being possible, only because your method is all that you know. If i asked a man from the 17th century to calculate 435,786,234.0393267 / 8156.783276 in 10 seconds he'll tell you it's not possible. Ask a man with a calculator, it's a piece of pie. NOTHING is impossible with computers!
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea No you can't do that. I'm not saying you can, i'm saying your method will not solve this problem, but a new method can solve it. Ask a man to solve 876,346,926.35789 / 567,123,873.3456 in 10 seconds he will tell you it's impossible. Give him a calculator and it's no longer impossible. Just because you can't perceive of a way it can be done, doesn't mean it's impossible; it's merely your method to solve the problem that is incompatible with a solution
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
You just agreed that you cannot store a petabyte of data on 20gb.
Assume that this requires a petabyte of data and it must store it in a space 20gb large (A LOT OF RAM)
therefore it cannot be done.
"Just because you can't perceive of a way it can be done, doesn't mean it's impossible" , it is similar to saying Reductio ad absurdum is incorrect.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Why are we to assume it's a petabyte of data? Also, why is a compression algorithm out of the question here? It won't be a 'petabyte' of data. You're trying to squeeze a cube through a triangular shaped hole, it's not going to happen and i'm agreeing with that. But either find a triangular shape to push through or a square shaped hole.
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
It's a petabyte of data because of the original comment you replied to by @thecubasy, it's actually more than that.
No compression algorithm can or ever will be able to compress complex data such as this 50000 fold, let alone 10 fold.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Never say never. You'll eventually end up having to swallow your words.
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
Oh come on now, thats just low. You went from bullshit arguments to bullshit assertions when I countered those bullshit arguments?
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
Oh well, I will always have "yeeaah. Ever heard of a thing called an algorithm?" to laugh at. In fact that entire first comment was full of hilarious stupidity.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
Comment removed
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@andrewyaoauatauabaea Good to see you've finally conceded and resulted to ad hominem of a comment you've already addressed. Nothing else you could have done would have shown your pathetic desperation any less. Also, brush up on your sarcasm detection skills.
ItsTiedToAStick 4 months ago
@ItsTiedToAStick
You clearly conceded when you simply stated that I will eat my words and included no argument.
I don't see any sarcasm in any of these comments.
I simply was stating that you are dumb because you weren't presenting any argument.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
@TheCubasy Not if you apply texturing. Kind of how the eye perceives things; it only focuses on things that are moving; if they aren't, their sharpness begins to fade. If we can map these "points" together by adding physics to them, then we can take some of the strain off the video card and into the processor unit; kind of like having the processor tell the video card which points to sharpen and which to "fade out/texturize" as needed by whatever game you're playing/simulation running/etc.
:)
LordEyli 5 months ago
@LordEyli
He was talking about disk space, not stress on the graphics card or CPU.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 5 months ago
@TheCubasy
x,y,z,r, g and b would be more than *6.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 5 months ago
@TheCubasy in my child time i got a HardDrive no clue how old i was but it had 20gb (2^30) i was the king of my town.. more space then all other... today its nothing!So my point is give them a bit more time (10Years?) then we have Exbibyte or Zebibyte HardDrive and we dont care the Disk-Space... really work able in future :)
oXbOxr00X 5 months ago
@TheCubasy
+ You can't do Unlimited, because this is not a number. There is always bigger or more detailed stuff.
Naver36 5 months ago 16
@Naver36 see more of their vids and/or listen more carefully to this one. they say unlimited as a buzz word more than an actual value. there will always be a limited number in the viewable display. the better assertion was that it's unnecessary to count - as with the 32-bit color comparison.
imnok1 3 months ago
@Naver36 True, but the detail will most like be so much that it would be senseless to make it more detailed
like when you actually have polygons the size of atoms.
ps i wonder how long it will take to make these 100000 polygon models...
FluffyBlueCheese 3 months ago
@FluffyBlueCheese Or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 polygon models. Closer to atoms. Possible only with some kind of scanning tech (very accurate though, not what we have now). Or new way of making models, something that don't exist yet, or isn't effective enough yet.
Naver36 3 months ago
@Naver36 it is unlimited. because they only need to calculate an "atom" for every pixel on the monitor. so it takes the same time and power to render a whole city as it would take to render a room. because the engine is displaying the same amount of points in every frame . your limited only by the amount of memory needed to store the point cloud data. very cool shit
culliganbro1 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheCubasy
Then polygon games are also impossible.
You don't store the coordinates of each pixel or each atom in this case. You store information about an area and you use an algorithm to extrapolate how this area is constituted.
That's the point of 3D in real time, you process, you don't store static values.
insouciant94 5 months ago
@TheCubasy let's get to work then.... all the hard drives in the world would be enough?
tavi921 5 months ago
@tavi921 maybe a couple from NASA would do.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy
in the end you still only have the resolution on your screen. They optimised that, so much that you only need small amount of atom per pixel. So you never have to set out average colour/material per section.
mikeccuk2006 5 months ago
@TheCubasy No, not quite. You forgot about compression. (Or you're have no clue and are talking out of your ass from what you've read, so you don't even know how compression works.)
TheNightExcessive 5 months ago
@TheNightExcessive no, i just dont really care about how compression works. and it's impossible to compress something that's bigger than your hard drive to something that's the size of a few megabytes.
TheCubasy 5 months ago
@TheCubasy Then you don't care about one of the biggest concepts of a voxel engine. And are also an arrogant prick.
TheNightExcessive 4 months ago
@TheNightExcessive dude this engine's fake. and don't go around calling people pricks either. I meant I don't care about how compression works. but now that you mention it I don't really care about this engine, either.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: it's impossible to compress something the size of a one-terabyte hard drive to something thats only a few megabytes without really fucking up the voxel data.
TheCubasy 4 months ago
@TheCubasy Yes, actually, it is. If it's something that repeats over and over you're generally only storing ONE byte for each thing instead of twelve bytes. Even less if you use something better than a very simple referencing compression. If you didn't care about this engine, you wouldn't still be commenting here.
TheNightExcessive 4 months ago
@TheNightExcessive i can't just ignore all of your replies, either, or else you'd think i'm more of a prick.
anyways, it would be tons of bytes for each voxel, not just one. you'd need the x/y/z positions (values ranging from 1-13+ bytes each,) and it's color value, which is 9 bytes, 3 bytes for red, green, and blue values. so each voxel can't just be one byte, that's impossible.
TheCubasy 4 months ago
@TheCubasy No, not quite. Each of the positional numbers are 8 bytes maximum (if they're using longs). RGB values would be one byte (a unsigned short, 0-255- if they even did colors that way). Compression would make pointers that point to datum for the different voxels, and a pointer can be 4 or 8 bytes. So a data would be 11 bytes and a each voxel would be 4 or 8 bytes. There are other ways to compress it further. (I doubt they even do it this way)
TheNightExcessive 4 months ago
@TheCubasy ...but... what if.... games werent installed offline... what if games were "activated" online instead?
then your computer doesnt install anything - its all run offline.
lets be honest - EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is online... i think its gonna get to the point where you buy a pc - and you get Windows 11 Online - the whole PC is basically online, nothing works unless your online. You buy a game and get a code, no download, no CD, just an activation key, thats it.
so... yeah.
dannyday58218195 4 months ago
@dannyday58218195 Have you heard of Chromebook?
Abengoshis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dannyday58218195
Okay, get back to me when you have a terabit of bandwidth.
andrewyaoauatauabaea 4 months ago
It isn't unlimited. It has the same limits as polygon based approach, but maybe a bit faster.
It looks like they made something inbetween normal rasterization and raytracing.
devdri 5 months ago