@Destructor111 I think so many people have been talking out their ass calling him a snake-oil salesman and such that he's adapted the new tone just to troll them. It's the same tone I get when they think I can't make a shot in soccer or hockey.
I wonder if they tweaked it to something similar to the tesellation model. Instead of an artist modelling the slightest details what if this engine could use height maps to describe bumps and details by adding atoms to a model be it protruding detail or indentation etc. The artist could still make adjustments to results.
@DigitalPh0bia Could you explain it? I'm really interested in your opinion. Really. It only shows the detail of geometry, they can still add textures, maps and better lighting as well. For me the question is the animation, collosion, destruction of the meshes.
In the other video he said they had about 20 fps, and much more in some versions, so is that like during gameplay? If so, I would hire an artist to create or just laser-scan in a room and create a demo. Making it look realistic, since they aren't artists, would better show people what it's worth. Also, how does it work? Did he say that it runs using processing power? Does that mean it's a lot more efficient than what has been done so far to do with it being processor-based? Since it's just-
@KedViper -you floating around in the world, does that mean it would take an extremely huge amount of power to have something like an fps with explosions and everything or would it just need to be more optimized before shipping, because I heard that it's expected for the near-future. Anyway, I'm just very interested in all workings and I do understand a bit of technical lingo, at least something as simple as anti-aliasing and anisotropic-filtering.
I would love to see how humans look with this technology if it's real.. 'cause developers are always making objects look almost real enough for you to reach out and touch it.. but the humans (even if believable) never look completely real.. at best, it's like watching a CG movie when it comes to humans
None of this tech is feasible right now. You would need a huge amount of ram, cpu, gpu possessing power, and media storage to make a whole game out of this. This tech must be a total memory and storage hog too. Also using that level of detail in a game would take forever to develop a game for. That's why we use polygons, it's quicker but not nearly as detailed as this tech. This tech sounds great on paper but doesn't work in a real life situation.
this guys voice in combination with the chaotic background music is giving me a headache. i find myself trying to concentrate on the details but get distracted by the repetitive sounds of bells in the music!!! very poor choice if you were going for a complimentary feel there. =/
programmers won't change the current system. 1. polygons in the current system are easy to create. 2.creating intricate designs would take too long. 3. when well rendered and composed, polygons become virtually unnoticable accept to those who are looking for them.
Hmm, this is going to need a new method of creating realistic graphics, from an artists perspective, ie newer tools. or atleast if I could put it this way... the artists would need to be able to create Highly Realistic art without having to spend Hours just trying to get a perfect piece of hair coming out of a model.
Compare the ease of using ZBrush to create organic models compared to Maya.
@superkellerman8D This is for graphics only. Collision detection can be done on simpler, invisible polygon shapes. Current games do this already - collision detection is done on a low-polycount "mannequin" model, not on the complex rendered model.
"when professional artists get involved I'm sure your imagination can quickly project what it's going to look like" - umm... no - please show us how artists will create 1000x more art :D
Cool but it would have been far more impressive if the video was rendered higher than 480p and there wasn't that pinkish purpleish hue over everything.
1) Most above average computers/consoles today or indeed probably a few years into the future would not have a chance of processing this in any game to any playable level.
2) In all honesty most graphical elements in games are novelties at best. People will be all *ooh aah* for the first couple of minutes then get on with the game, almost oblivious to things like *the ground* and so forth whilst concentrating on playing the game in question.
So those objects are procedural programmed entities you say? Don't you agree on these are going to make nice additions but it can't be applied for anything that requires artistic look?
All those stuff scattered around on the terrain, the stuff people doesn't really care about, but it is strangely immediately looking bad if they aren't there... maybe buildings. But characters, and real looking organic stuff seems not YET, but forever impossible with this technique.
Its quite impressive, but it just look so extremely choppy and unclean compared to the real games. Also how are you going to render real time shadows if needs to render it on unlimited detail? Are you then going to have a extremely low res version of the terrain to project the shadow on? Also you sound like an asshole when you are constantly pissing on others work. Though i hope that the project will get success as we need more alternatives for 3d graphics :)
I love how this video's examples of Polygons are all from outdated, shitty graphical quality games. Also, when the HL2 video popped up it was running at about 3 frames per second.
They show a black and white game using regular graphics, then someone with an annoying voice says, "There's got to be a better way!" and whips out this shit.
the reason why this technology will have a hard time getting used is nvidia's and amd's monopoly, and they love current state of graphic cards because they can milk money on it
I've been quite interested in voxelation in the past, this kind of technology was used more in the past, ever since graphics cards became so hugely popular in the computer market its become much more rare, polygon rendering is much faster and less memory intensive I'm assuming. I don't think voxel rendering will ever make a return, it really makes more sense for supercomputer and science/health based projects, and polygons really can do just as much, it just takes a lot of optimization and work.
As a 3D modeler myself, I'm all for this ONLY if it uses the same techniques to create models as we currently do. If not, the years I've spent learning this amazing career will be for nothing.
@Toastynater , in another video, he said that when SDK is finished, you'll be able to make your models like you used to, and when you import them to UD SDK, you can convert from 3D Polygon to Point Cloud. Sounds sweet to me... :)
Now my question is how would this work with physics and collusion detection? wouldn't it be harder to detect which direction an object would move, say a non round item bouncing off the ground if the ground is so uneven with all the points in the cloud, same goes for the object hitting the ground?
I am not convinced till you guys show a scene that isn't static, but displays things like moving grass, and animated characters (and lots of them). Doesn't matter how bad it looks with your programmer art, fact is the engine isn't worth much for games if nothing can move.
You realize this isn't done, right? That'd be like if your mother was making cookies for you, and you took them out of the oven after 2 minutes of being inside, bit into one, and said, "MOM!! THIS DOESN'T TASTE RIGHT."
@KaneAmaroq Ugh, that's not the point. I'm just questioning if large scale movement is even possible with this sort of system. If they could even show a single scene where a lot of things are moving they'd convince me otherwise.
Ok, its a lot more powerful, but isn't it an absolute bitch to make all this? I mean, the complexity is so much higher, it must be much much harder to make, right?
@stickyktn This is not the same as voxelation. It is similar, but the innovation is not in how objects are made, but how it is rendered (the render speed is not affected by the amount of data in the scene).
@BigCheese00001 "the innovation is not in how objects are made, but how it is rendered (the render speed is not affected by the amount of data in the scene). " Yeah, just like I said, that's the concept behind VOXELATION. And I'm not being immature, I'm saying the simple fact that this technology is not new, and the uploader of this video isn't singlehandedly responsible for this amazing technology, that would be kind of narcissistic and pointless.
But it still has the same limitations, or not? Can you animate properly? Can you create a big city of which every part is unique, nothing copied but everything being extra data. Or is that also impossible?
@turtlehead12699 It already has been noticed by the game companies. These guys did not invent anything, this technology is OLD and has been abandoned by almost everyone who worked on it except for scientific or medical purposes. It is not a viable option for creating games in most cases.
These guys are just a bunch of bullshitters, THEY DID NOT DO ANYTHING NEW IN ANY OF THEIR VIDEOS. They are simply trying to resell old technology most people havent heard of to the mainstream.
@stickyktn ...maybe they are trying to find a way to make this technology not require a super computer to run it, rather a medium to high performance computer at best? just a thought
@stickyktn well i guess the development is still early on so i guess near-future the frames whilst actually interacting in a world using unlimited detail should be above 25 odd fps
@noobay Sadly this isn't my video, so I can't answer your questions. Chances are that lighting would have to be pre-baked. I can't imagine how they could implement it real-time without maybe approximating the shapes of the objects with less detail.
Isnt fast lighting and shadow usually rendered by getting a stencil from an unseen camera at the light position (IOW getting a silhouette of the shape from the light's point of view then projecting that on the ground/other surface)? Because if UD can render from any one position really fast, it would make that kind of fast realtime lighting and shadowing really fast too.
there are many many ways to render light. But they have succeeded with voxels before. so why shouldn't they be able to do it in a good way. but this looks like "fake light" when you color the voxels darker in the shadow. However i don't know how they have done it at this time
you obviously dont know much about graphics... This tech is a scam.
Hes not telling the truth. Notice how its all static, not intrestingly colored, and lighting and shading are static.
This tech is not net, its been known and used for years... the reason why its not been used mainly in games today is because the things i mentioned earlier.
wouldnt it take unlimated ram to load unlimated objects? unless you just load the same model over and over and over again?(which would still take alot of memory)
@buddysmithburg Watch the further description video. Basically they have made a algorithm that searches through all the data and only finds one bit for each pixel on the screen at any time, making the amount of ram and processing power needed significantly less.
@NabsterHax ive seen the extended. i understand the process but it doasnt add up. we could have done this 5 years ago (trust me stuff like this has been attempted forever). i swar theres a major flaw somewhere, or the demo guy isnt telling us something
@buddysmithburg yes, we could have done it 5 years ago but we didn't have the software. You ever thought that maybe someone has never thought of using their technique? Graphics are continually improving due to the evolution of hardware. It's so focused on hardware that no one spends time on software.
what's the differrence between voxel graphics and "3d atoms"? Anyways it looks like it would take huge ammount of calculating power, so would it sitll look much better if you wold just boost the polycon rate same amount. Anyways there is new effects in dx11 what makes it easier tho "cheat" objects and sufaces look more detailed. But sure whatever if your tecnology makes wii to blast better graphics than ps3 you surely revolutionize the whole industry. LOL
I wonder what the difference is between this method and sparse voxel octree, because that seems to be the buzz of the industry. nvidia has done concept demos of it, and id software is pursuing it for their next engine aka id tech 6
on modern hardware it should only be a matter of the drivers to get "unlimited detail" running, I think, because even polygon engines are also only projected on a unified shader models today. maybe it will be supported in new versions of opengl or directx?
this is amazing, just incredible. Cant wait for this.
Being a small company Id be worried they would get shot down by Nvidia and Ati though :P Think of what this will mean when it reaches its full potential!
The geometry algorithm coupled with advanced lighting and shadow effects seen in stuff like dx11 would be mean the end of the graphics race and finaly we wouldnt have to worry about spending hundreds of pounds/dollars on GPUs every few years :D
@tamenga88 The advantage of this is that you can display it with current cpu and graphics tech.
to run "extreme tessellation" you would need probably an extremely advanced quantum computer.
Also this is probably one of the first or second prototype which means it will have ALLOT of minors bugs and glitches. The models were also made by programmers and not artists which is why it doesn't look very good.
The thing that is missing from this good exposition is what kind of hardware requirements this kind of graphics process would need. Would current GPUs be enough for this, or are they looking into future monster GPU's to manage these millions of atom points?
According to their website, the demos they keep showing in this run on a laptop without a graphics card. The difference between their approach and polygon or plain voxel algorithms is that their algorithm has linear rather than geometric or exponential complexity.
What gives you performance lacks memory usage. Memory is cheap, but RAM surely isn't. To store that 'infinite atomic cloud' or whatever probably requires really big space and most of the games require some RAM themselves + operating system (like win7 requires I don't know 600 MB may b?) + other programs running on your computer. With an average ram like 3GB, you probably can't run multiple programs altogether and to handle all those processes including this would be a performance problem itself.
This is NOTHING like tesselation. This is not redundant because DX11 is released. You are missing the point which is that this technique can be used on almost ANY hardware to deliver far higher quality 3D environments.
I think this is going to be great! @DaMuncha great idea! I really hope they start to make this into games. The wii perhaps? that would be nice. I agree with Phaileen 001. Also, ConfusedMaster, It was a lot of ppls ideas, they just did it first :) I thought about this but dont really have the technology for it :/ but yeah this is gonna be great! i can FEEEEEEL it :)
well crysis was 2007 and im sure crysis2 will have a 3d ground and even if it not it will still have the best graphics and a really really cool and fun gameplay ^____^
Plus, why did I have to watch this for 9 minutes? Keep it short, leave the competition out (it makes your demo look bad), be honest about the limits of your system. Plus, there are a lot of repetitive patterns at large scale in your demo, much less in the games you compete with. For example it looks like each stepstone from the stairs is the same stone.
The music is terrible ;) The demonstration would be a lot more effective if there were less talk and more visual imagery with big zooms to show how detail is scale independent... repetitive mentions of "unlimited" and "infinite" don't excite me at all.
I think they should make thier own company, and sell licenses to thier technology to the other companys. They would remain in control of thier new ideas and prototypes adn this would legally keep thier ideas safe. While this is all good for them. As a gamer, that idea seems rather selfish and would hold this technology back from being able to enhance future games engines. So I say join Nintendo share the tech, and make lots of money.
@DaMuncha I think that'd be great if Nintendo used this technology (Assuming it's as good as it sounds). Nintendo has already made some surprisingly nice graphics on the GameCube and Wii considering the hardware. Imagine if they had this, no offense, but I don't think the 360 and PS3 could keep up any more. XD
Well it may be easier to sell the technology to Nintendo with there less powerful system then the competitors. After all if you can get the Wiis graphics up to the level of it competitors then suddenly Wii have all the edge and none of the drawbacks. Well almost. Of course ones the technology have been perfected and used on a system then others will be more open to use it to. You will likely see ether them branching out or others copying them.
wouldn't it be smarter to make this work with all systems? unlimited detail does not process physics better, so if it was on the 360 or PS3 it would be incredibly less handicapped than the wii. the way he says that at the end makes it sound like he wants to stick it to someone, and rather makes it sound a little fake, since if this was a groundbreaking technology you would want it to run on everything under the sun
The only problem is that modifying the engine to run on all platforms takes a lot of work and knowledge of each individual system, which would be hard for a non-sponsored company such as UD to do.
He says this thing is done in software (CPU only) so it shouldn't be that of a big problem porting this to all 3 current consoles.... Compatibility wise that is.
All 3 consoles have PowerPC compatible CPUs.
The porting problem will not come from the compatibility in code but the difference in speeds and threads for each console.
The PS3 and XBox 360 will have better graphics though compared to Wii.
@BigCheese00001 But if you found a way to efficiently make point could models, and when you fix all the bugs, maybe get a good artists to make something, im sure you would have no trouble at all finding sponsors.
@lansingone UD uses proprietary software that's apparently build ground up for PCs. If what they suggest is true this thing doesn't need much of a GPU at all to render scenes, rather relying on a central processor. It might be possible for the Wii to look just as good as a 360 might using the same technology.
oh Yeah I'm going to have unlimited graphics thanks to my unlimited Hard Drive ... oh wait
Ritrixone 4 days ago
hahahah you guys are all so stupid xD xD there obviously from the future
podgeLadd 1 month ago
His voice is totally different in the more recent Euclideon videos... what's up with that?
Destructor111 1 month ago
@Destructor111 I think so many people have been talking out their ass calling him a snake-oil salesman and such that he's adapted the new tone just to troll them. It's the same tone I get when they think I can't make a shot in soccer or hockey.
Regless 20 hours ago in playlist Euclideon
9 learn some math 2:19
richardcaoue 2 months ago
@richardcaoue He's right....... 6 polygons around. Like a hexagon.
TheClayPidgeon 2 months ago
does this mean we can finally have snow, dirt, mud, sand and water that truly reacts realistically?
zheffner666 3 months ago
@zheffner666 yes
DeathScytheBR 2 months ago in playlist Euclideon
@zheffner666 say it. And realistic sex scenes too.
Shainkov 1 month ago
@Shainkov
im an animator, not a porn creator.
zheffner666 1 month ago
@zheffner666 as an animator, you do what the client wants. if it wants porn, you have to do it.
Shainkov 1 month ago
@Shainkov
true story
zheffner666 1 month ago
This tech is possible he explains it well on other videos. Im really impressed, this is the beginning of a new graphics era
NZLMade 5 months ago 2
I wonder if they tweaked it to something similar to the tesellation model. Instead of an artist modelling the slightest details what if this engine could use height maps to describe bumps and details by adding atoms to a model be it protruding detail or indentation etc. The artist could still make adjustments to results.
Sh4un1r1k 5 months ago
138 People don't realize that this technology will NEVER be used in the future.....
DigitalPh0bia 5 months ago
@DigitalPh0bia Could you explain it? I'm really interested in your opinion. Really. It only shows the detail of geometry, they can still add textures, maps and better lighting as well. For me the question is the animation, collosion, destruction of the meshes.
zottypotty1 5 months ago
@zottypotty1 There is no CPU in the world that can run it.
DigitalPh0bia 5 months ago
@DigitalPh0bia I watched an interview where they tried the engine. And they explain the solution as well.
here is the interview: /watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA
They starting to play with it at 23:56
I think the proble is that this is just a static thing. Nothing dinamic.
zottypotty1 5 months ago
Cite the research.
shoseki 5 months ago
good background music
zottypotty1 5 months ago
easy to say that this is the future of game design
thatplankguy 6 months ago
stickyktn knows what hes talking about, anyone that backs these losers is gonna get let down with really shit games. THATS THE TRUTH.
rouncer81 6 months ago
In the other video he said they had about 20 fps, and much more in some versions, so is that like during gameplay? If so, I would hire an artist to create or just laser-scan in a room and create a demo. Making it look realistic, since they aren't artists, would better show people what it's worth. Also, how does it work? Did he say that it runs using processing power? Does that mean it's a lot more efficient than what has been done so far to do with it being processor-based? Since it's just-
KedViper 6 months ago
@KedViper -you floating around in the world, does that mean it would take an extremely huge amount of power to have something like an fps with explosions and everything or would it just need to be more optimized before shipping, because I heard that it's expected for the near-future. Anyway, I'm just very interested in all workings and I do understand a bit of technical lingo, at least something as simple as anti-aliasing and anisotropic-filtering.
KedViper 6 months ago
I really wished nintendo would've hired these guys.
troy1002x 6 months ago
Does your computer render this, or is this somehow similar to Onlive?
troy1002x 6 months ago
@troy1002x It's surely your computer.
KedViper 6 months ago
I thought Bioshock 2 looked better.
SIKShow 6 months ago
I would love to see how humans look with this technology if it's real.. 'cause developers are always making objects look almost real enough for you to reach out and touch it.. but the humans (even if believable) never look completely real.. at best, it's like watching a CG movie when it comes to humans
absiliomundus 6 months ago
the Mighty Notch Hath Spoken! tis a scam (read his blog if you doubt)
PeNdragon987654321 6 months ago
Looks good if only he didn't keep saying 'unlimited detail' I would take this more seriously
Jamushu21 6 months ago
Is it necessary to play a strange version of moonlight sonata in the background?
fox13617 6 months ago
all i see is snake oil
btnheazy03 6 months ago
Slave over every grain of sand, I don't give a shit, use slave labor from 3rd world shitholes. Just make this stuff happen!
Feralg33k 6 months ago
None of this tech is feasible right now. You would need a huge amount of ram, cpu, gpu possessing power, and media storage to make a whole game out of this. This tech must be a total memory and storage hog too. Also using that level of detail in a game would take forever to develop a game for. That's why we use polygons, it's quicker but not nearly as detailed as this tech. This tech sounds great on paper but doesn't work in a real life situation.
clover831 6 months ago
Oh shit, now my prayers are answered, my GROUND will be the most realistic looking part of my game.
gratedrawur 6 months ago
this guys voice in combination with the chaotic background music is giving me a headache. i find myself trying to concentrate on the details but get distracted by the repetitive sounds of bells in the music!!! very poor choice if you were going for a complimentary feel there. =/
7kyro 7 months ago
Comment removed
7kyro 7 months ago
Oh yeah, lets see some animation fuckers.
norien123 8 months ago
Unlimited unlimited unlimited point cloud "darter". ARGGGGGGGHHHHHH. Load of bollocks.
Discuss.
tacticlespasm 8 months ago
u use unnnnnnnnnnnlimited "N"s when u say "unlimited"
uNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNlimited
paranoyakavarel 8 months ago
programmers won't change the current system. 1. polygons in the current system are easy to create. 2.creating intricate designs would take too long. 3. when well rendered and composed, polygons become virtually unnoticable accept to those who are looking for them.
ROCKSTARGUY141 9 months ago
Hmm, this is going to need a new method of creating realistic graphics, from an artists perspective, ie newer tools. or atleast if I could put it this way... the artists would need to be able to create Highly Realistic art without having to spend Hours just trying to get a perfect piece of hair coming out of a model.
Compare the ease of using ZBrush to create organic models compared to Maya.
Nuerotronic 9 months ago
Wait- imagine doing collision detection on that!
superkellerman8D 9 months ago
@superkellerman8D This is for graphics only. Collision detection can be done on simpler, invisible polygon shapes. Current games do this already - collision detection is done on a low-polycount "mannequin" model, not on the complex rendered model.
HelgeHolm 8 months ago
lol. dota. zed.
superkellerman8D 9 months ago
wait... Unlimited right? ... Does that mean Real Life Rendering? ie.. Ultra REALISTIC GRAPHICS? in Games???
Like what you see when you go outside in real life?
Nuerotronic 11 months ago
@Nuerotronic Oh yes. It all depends on the artist.
superkellerman8D 9 months ago
UNLIMITED POINT DATAR
diediedie999 11 months ago
Why doesn't it look more real than Crysis/GTAIV?
matsis01 11 months ago
@matsis01 'Cause it's programmer art, not artist art.
superkellerman8D 9 months ago
dude waits until 2min59 (or thereabouts) to say that "this is geometry rendered by programmers, NOT artists"
i would've said that @ the start
lancsFrogger 11 months ago
"when professional artists get involved I'm sure your imagination can quickly project what it's going to look like" - umm... no - please show us how artists will create 1000x more art :D
zppz 1 year ago
I like the part where he said Unlimited
clifforj 1 year ago 12
@clifforj I like the part when he said data.
lordofgangstas 11 months ago
Cool but it would have been far more impressive if the video was rendered higher than 480p and there wasn't that pinkish purpleish hue over everything.
SirHenryHatsworth 1 year ago 3
this is amazing....just shows how far technology has gotten
desu4life 1 year ago
nice job i like what your doing games looks way more real with 3d =) im likin the vid
peterjack81 1 year ago
When he mentioned Nintendo, I instantly imagined a Zelda title using these graphics... awesome.
PhantomFrost428 1 year ago
wow this is amassing, how much? I also came from pbat
CartoonGaz 1 year ago
would love this in games. was here from pbats like
thecreeper27 1 year ago
Stop asking for thuumbs up OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGg
L3g3ndkill4 1 year ago
who else was sent by pbat?
cambo234 1 year ago 3
UNLIMITED.... pbat sent me
latrawr 1 year ago
Question: that could be used in a real game (an action one, for example), without any problems?
viviciuszn 1 year ago
Imagine Minecraft with this... （¯﹃¯ )
pbat sent me here...
tinytinysky 1 year ago 3
pbat probs liked it cuz he was like "holy fuck if minecraft had texture packs like this.....shieeeeeeeeeettttttttt"
ChEwYEnO 1 year ago 13
thumbs up if pbat bring you here
puppyjackjack 1 year ago
@puppyjackjack thumbs up whore...
Letonisawesome 1 year ago
It's a nice idea with 2 major flaws.
1) Most above average computers/consoles today or indeed probably a few years into the future would not have a chance of processing this in any game to any playable level.
2) In all honesty most graphical elements in games are novelties at best. People will be all *ooh aah* for the first couple of minutes then get on with the game, almost oblivious to things like *the ground* and so forth whilst concentrating on playing the game in question.
NosDemonic 1 year ago
PBat?............ o.o
KatekyoZero 1 year ago 4
most of dah plants had penis tips nd thumps up if PBat got yhuu here! :D
1babachicken 1 year ago
oh... now i get it
aaronrocks5r 1 year ago
This video would be a lot better without that background music looping every 5 seconds and that damn triangle *tinging* every 2 seconds.
ratiocinator 1 year ago
Dahtar!
d3vostation 1 year ago
So those objects are procedural programmed entities you say? Don't you agree on these are going to make nice additions but it can't be applied for anything that requires artistic look?
All those stuff scattered around on the terrain, the stuff people doesn't really care about, but it is strangely immediately looking bad if they aren't there... maybe buildings. But characters, and real looking organic stuff seems not YET, but forever impossible with this technique.
styber 1 year ago
Its quite impressive, but it just look so extremely choppy and unclean compared to the real games. Also how are you going to render real time shadows if needs to render it on unlimited detail? Are you then going to have a extremely low res version of the terrain to project the shadow on? Also you sound like an asshole when you are constantly pissing on others work. Though i hope that the project will get success as we need more alternatives for 3d graphics :)
andersblabla 1 year ago
New drinking game, take a shot every time he says "unlimited".
86Apex 1 year ago 4
This honestly looks shit. I personally reckoned the polygon examples looked much better than the UDT examples.
I love my polygons and I'm proud of it.
Toastynater 1 year ago 2
General MIDI orchestra LOL
pHr33kAcHu 1 year ago
I love how this video's examples of Polygons are all from outdated, shitty graphical quality games. Also, when the HL2 video popped up it was running at about 3 frames per second.
Toastynater 1 year ago
@Toastynater - It's like in infomericals.
They show a black and white game using regular graphics, then someone with an annoying voice says, "There's got to be a better way!" and whips out this shit.
cyborgtroy 1 year ago
the reason why this technology will have a hard time getting used is nvidia's and amd's monopoly, and they love current state of graphic cards because they can milk money on it
Good job tho, details are amazing.
mistvanic 1 year ago
I wonder how many times they said unlimited. lol
superbob24 1 year ago
I've been quite interested in voxelation in the past, this kind of technology was used more in the past, ever since graphics cards became so hugely popular in the computer market its become much more rare, polygon rendering is much faster and less memory intensive I'm assuming. I don't think voxel rendering will ever make a return, it really makes more sense for supercomputer and science/health based projects, and polygons really can do just as much, it just takes a lot of optimization and work.
stickyktn 1 year ago
The video may be good but your maths isnt, the video was not 12 minutes.
XANDERXXZ 1 year ago
Then again, the Cell is still more powerfull. If cell used this algorithm, it could be better on ps3.
Still, this is a system that basically can give too similar a result on any console likely. PS3 will just give it HD resolutions for clearity.
silenceofthehills 1 year ago
I hate the tast of sumple image.Why the all rocks are colored PINK?
anomalyanomaly 1 year ago
As a 3D modeler myself, I'm all for this ONLY if it uses the same techniques to create models as we currently do. If not, the years I've spent learning this amazing career will be for nothing.
Toastynater 1 year ago
@Toastynater , in another video, he said that when SDK is finished, you'll be able to make your models like you used to, and when you import them to UD SDK, you can convert from 3D Polygon to Point Cloud. Sounds sweet to me... :)
Player1yt 1 year ago
The top down zoom in bit blew my mind!
I would like to see this with more realistic objects, it's all a bit cartoonish and hard to compare with polygon games.
Libervurto 1 year ago
Well first I have to say it looks beautiful.
Now my question is how would this work with physics and collusion detection? wouldn't it be harder to detect which direction an object would move, say a non round item bouncing off the ground if the ground is so uneven with all the points in the cloud, same goes for the object hitting the ground?
WhiteFlare 1 year ago
has this thing gone any where besides what they've shown like A YEAR AGO?
hitlerimitation69 1 year ago
I am not convinced till you guys show a scene that isn't static, but displays things like moving grass, and animated characters (and lots of them). Doesn't matter how bad it looks with your programmer art, fact is the engine isn't worth much for games if nothing can move.
Joerdgs 1 year ago
@Joerdgs
You realize this isn't done, right? That'd be like if your mother was making cookies for you, and you took them out of the oven after 2 minutes of being inside, bit into one, and said, "MOM!! THIS DOESN'T TASTE RIGHT."
KaneAmaroq 1 year ago
@KaneAmaroq Ugh, that's not the point. I'm just questioning if large scale movement is even possible with this sort of system. If they could even show a single scene where a lot of things are moving they'd convince me otherwise.
Joerdgs 1 year ago
why do you use the most fucking annoying music ever goddamn i'd rather listen to fucking ICP then your shit
hunterwolf53 1 year ago
Ok, its a lot more powerful, but isn't it an absolute bitch to make all this? I mean, the complexity is so much higher, it must be much much harder to make, right?
WereRabbbit 1 year ago
ME LIKE.
intaler 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hope your company fails for assuming I don't know what voxel graphics are. And this 'product' will probably go nowhere.
stickyktn 1 year ago
@stickyktn This is not the same as voxelation. It is similar, but the innovation is not in how objects are made, but how it is rendered (the render speed is not affected by the amount of data in the scene).
BigCheese00001 1 year ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigCheese00001 "the innovation is not in how objects are made, but how it is rendered (the render speed is not affected by the amount of data in the scene). " Yeah, just like I said, that's the concept behind VOXELATION. And I'm not being immature, I'm saying the simple fact that this technology is not new, and the uploader of this video isn't singlehandedly responsible for this amazing technology, that would be kind of narcissistic and pointless.
stickyktn 1 year ago
@BigCheese00001
But it still has the same limitations, or not? Can you animate properly? Can you create a big city of which every part is unique, nothing copied but everything being extra data. Or is that also impossible?
GTASA911 6 months ago
@stickyktn So immature
BombSponge 1 year ago
@stickyktn when this starts getting noticed by game companies this will become huge.
turtlehead12699 6 months ago
@turtlehead12699 It already has been noticed by the game companies. These guys did not invent anything, this technology is OLD and has been abandoned by almost everyone who worked on it except for scientific or medical purposes. It is not a viable option for creating games in most cases.
These guys are just a bunch of bullshitters, THEY DID NOT DO ANYTHING NEW IN ANY OF THEIR VIDEOS. They are simply trying to resell old technology most people havent heard of to the mainstream.
stickyktn 6 months ago
@stickyktn ...maybe they are trying to find a way to make this technology not require a super computer to run it, rather a medium to high performance computer at best? just a thought
turtlehead12699 6 months ago
@turtlehead12699 Well they have to prove that they can, which they have yet to do.
stickyktn 6 months ago
@stickyktn well i guess the development is still early on so i guess near-future the frames whilst actually interacting in a world using unlimited detail should be above 25 odd fps
turtlehead12699 6 months ago
Fantastic! seen all of your videos and it looks unreal.
I have some questions,
what lighting algorithm/s were used in the demos?
and will your technology affect the way global illumination is applied?
would lighting affect the FPS at all?
noobay 1 year ago
@noobay Sadly this isn't my video, so I can't answer your questions. Chances are that lighting would have to be pre-baked. I can't imagine how they could implement it real-time without maybe approximating the shapes of the objects with less detail.
BigCheese00001 1 year ago
@BigCheese00001
Isnt fast lighting and shadow usually rendered by getting a stencil from an unseen camera at the light position (IOW getting a silhouette of the shape from the light's point of view then projecting that on the ground/other surface)? Because if UD can render from any one position really fast, it would make that kind of fast realtime lighting and shadowing really fast too.
farrenh 1 year ago
there are many many ways to render light. But they have succeeded with voxels before. so why shouldn't they be able to do it in a good way. but this looks like "fake light" when you color the voxels darker in the shadow. However i don't know how they have done it at this time
timonix2 1 year ago
@noobay
you obviously dont know much about graphics... This tech is a scam.
Hes not telling the truth. Notice how its all static, not intrestingly colored, and lighting and shading are static.
This tech is not net, its been known and used for years... the reason why its not been used mainly in games today is because the things i mentioned earlier.
Capeau 6 months ago
If this wouldve been sold to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. How would things be?
Will Nintendo rise from the ashes with greater games? Or are already the advanced games sticking to Sony and Microsoft?
Sell it to Nintendo my friend. I woudnt mind having this type of graphics on a ds.
GameDragon99 1 year ago
wouldnt it take unlimated ram to load unlimated objects? unless you just load the same model over and over and over again?(which would still take alot of memory)
buddysmithburg 1 year ago
@buddysmithburg Watch the further description video. Basically they have made a algorithm that searches through all the data and only finds one bit for each pixel on the screen at any time, making the amount of ram and processing power needed significantly less.
NabsterHax 1 year ago
@NabsterHax ive seen the extended. i understand the process but it doasnt add up. we could have done this 5 years ago (trust me stuff like this has been attempted forever). i swar theres a major flaw somewhere, or the demo guy isnt telling us something
buddysmithburg 1 year ago
@buddysmithburg yes, we could have done it 5 years ago but we didn't have the software. You ever thought that maybe someone has never thought of using their technique? Graphics are continually improving due to the evolution of hardware. It's so focused on hardware that no one spends time on software.
NabsterHax 1 year ago
what's the differrence between voxel graphics and "3d atoms"? Anyways it looks like it would take huge ammount of calculating power, so would it sitll look much better if you wold just boost the polycon rate same amount. Anyways there is new effects in dx11 what makes it easier tho "cheat" objects and sufaces look more detailed. But sure whatever if your tecnology makes wii to blast better graphics than ps3 you surely revolutionize the whole industry. LOL
sdry 1 year ago
This is funny, working with 3-d models for a short time allows me to see things in wireframe, an ironic ability.
GideonIon8 1 year ago
as you think who will purchase etu technology ATI OR NVIDIA?
magnum38ukraine 1 year ago
I wonder what the difference is between this method and sparse voxel octree, because that seems to be the buzz of the industry. nvidia has done concept demos of it, and id software is pursuing it for their next engine aka id tech 6
Ashtree81 1 year ago
When will they start using this system in games?
PaXx 1 year ago
on modern hardware it should only be a matter of the drivers to get "unlimited detail" running, I think, because even polygon engines are also only projected on a unified shader models today. maybe it will be supported in new versions of opengl or directx?
dailydols 1 year ago
Whats with the "Eye" in the logo lol ?
concujak 1 year ago
this is amazing, just incredible. Cant wait for this.
Being a small company Id be worried they would get shot down by Nvidia and Ati though :P Think of what this will mean when it reaches its full potential!
The geometry algorithm coupled with advanced lighting and shadow effects seen in stuff like dx11 would be mean the end of the graphics race and finaly we wouldnt have to worry about spending hundreds of pounds/dollars on GPUs every few years :D
gordon1201 1 year ago
Unlimited point cloud Data (aka Voxels) will have to compete with Extreme Tessellation.
And from what I see with Unigine Heaven 2.0 this technology got it's work cut out.
watch?v=axMAtpYphLA
I like the Extreme Tessellation method better because it doesn't look fuzzy or bad when you do a closeup.
That's the downside of Voxel based geometry.
tamenga88 1 year ago
@tamenga88 The advantage of this is that you can display it with current cpu and graphics tech.
to run "extreme tessellation" you would need probably an extremely advanced quantum computer.
Also this is probably one of the first or second prototype which means it will have ALLOT of minors bugs and glitches. The models were also made by programmers and not artists which is why it doesn't look very good.
TheRealPerson 1 year ago
@TheRealPerson
The Problem with this is with closeups.
It's worse than Polygons especially if you try to create smooth, glossy and curved surfaces like car bodies.
You need an algorithm to keep the voxels at screen resolution size when you do closeups by subdividing them (Like Tessellation).
If the voxels grow bigger than a pixel of your screen than the objects start to look fuzzy and crappy.
And not even artists can mask this deficit to voxels.
tamenga88 1 year ago
@TheRealPerson
Id is experimenting with Voxel based geometry but even they admit that the Hardware doesn't exist yet (ID Tech 6).
Voxels have one advantage over polygons and that's why they have been used to display organs in medicine.
They can contain Volumetric values in contrast to polygons that are just surface based.
To apply material physics like DMM to advanced voxels, the possibilities will be infinite. (ID Tech 6?)
Unfortunately the hardware isn't there yet.
tamenga88 1 year ago
The thing that is missing from this good exposition is what kind of hardware requirements this kind of graphics process would need. Would current GPUs be enough for this, or are they looking into future monster GPU's to manage these millions of atom points?
AndrosForever 1 year ago
According to their website, the demos they keep showing in this run on a laptop without a graphics card. The difference between their approach and polygon or plain voxel algorithms is that their algorithm has linear rather than geometric or exponential complexity.
KickAssClown 1 year ago
What gives you performance lacks memory usage. Memory is cheap, but RAM surely isn't. To store that 'infinite atomic cloud' or whatever probably requires really big space and most of the games require some RAM themselves + operating system (like win7 requires I don't know 600 MB may b?) + other programs running on your computer. With an average ram like 3GB, you probably can't run multiple programs altogether and to handle all those processes including this would be a performance problem itself.
ACMetan 1 year ago
Whay do your "infinite detail" examples use so few models? They are just repeated over and over. Like the flowers, the rocks, etc.
mygaffer 1 year ago
@mygaffer because they're programmers, not map designers.
rayonius 1 year ago
This is NOTHING like tesselation. This is not redundant because DX11 is released. You are missing the point which is that this technique can be used on almost ANY hardware to deliver far higher quality 3D environments.
qoole33 1 year ago 19
@qoole33
Your not really understanding the concept then if you say that.
TheRealPerson 1 year ago
@qoole33 Yep, actually, it's completely software.
superkellerman8D 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lol, someone missed the fact that DX11 came out. This is now redundant. Also it looks rather terrible IMO.
GreatGodSajuuk 1 year ago
I think this is going to be great! @DaMuncha great idea! I really hope they start to make this into games. The wii perhaps? that would be nice. I agree with Phaileen 001. Also, ConfusedMaster, It was a lot of ppls ideas, they just did it first :) I thought about this but dont really have the technology for it :/ but yeah this is gonna be great! i can FEEEEEEL it :)
mastertoxophilite 1 year ago
well crysis was 2007 and im sure crysis2 will have a 3d ground and even if it not it will still have the best graphics and a really really cool and fun gameplay ^____^
free4fire 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah this is basically tessalation lol
decepti0n 1 year ago
what about tessalation?
keenis 1 year ago
if graphics will look like this in every future game, it will take 10 years per game to develop. i dont want that.
Kamelot19 1 year ago
Plus, why did I have to watch this for 9 minutes? Keep it short, leave the competition out (it makes your demo look bad), be honest about the limits of your system. Plus, there are a lot of repetitive patterns at large scale in your demo, much less in the games you compete with. For example it looks like each stepstone from the stairs is the same stone.
paniq303 1 year ago
The music is terrible ;) The demonstration would be a lot more effective if there were less talk and more visual imagery with big zooms to show how detail is scale independent... repetitive mentions of "unlimited" and "infinite" don't excite me at all.
paniq303 1 year ago
please put this on every console, instead of just the wii, which has no good games btw XD
Randumbthoughtspro 1 year ago
Please put it on the Wii!
Phaileen001 1 year ago
this technology might have been my idea :)
ConfusedMaster 1 year ago
I think they should make thier own company, and sell licenses to thier technology to the other companys. They would remain in control of thier new ideas and prototypes adn this would legally keep thier ideas safe. While this is all good for them. As a gamer, that idea seems rather selfish and would hold this technology back from being able to enhance future games engines. So I say join Nintendo share the tech, and make lots of money.
DaMuncha 1 year ago 4
@DaMuncha NOES!! not Nintendo join a company that actually make good games like blizzard! :P
RoMMeL1337ak47 1 year ago
@DaMuncha I think that'd be great if Nintendo used this technology (Assuming it's as good as it sounds). Nintendo has already made some surprisingly nice graphics on the GameCube and Wii considering the hardware. Imagine if they had this, no offense, but I don't think the 360 and PS3 could keep up any more. XD
kai001 1 year ago
Well it may be easier to sell the technology to Nintendo with there less powerful system then the competitors. After all if you can get the Wiis graphics up to the level of it competitors then suddenly Wii have all the edge and none of the drawbacks. Well almost. Of course ones the technology have been perfected and used on a system then others will be more open to use it to. You will likely see ether them branching out or others copying them.
Cythil 1 year ago
wouldn't it be smarter to make this work with all systems? unlimited detail does not process physics better, so if it was on the 360 or PS3 it would be incredibly less handicapped than the wii. the way he says that at the end makes it sound like he wants to stick it to someone, and rather makes it sound a little fake, since if this was a groundbreaking technology you would want it to run on everything under the sun
lansingone 1 year ago
The only problem is that modifying the engine to run on all platforms takes a lot of work and knowledge of each individual system, which would be hard for a non-sponsored company such as UD to do.
BigCheese00001 1 year ago 2
@BigCheese00001
He says this thing is done in software (CPU only) so it shouldn't be that of a big problem porting this to all 3 current consoles.... Compatibility wise that is.
All 3 consoles have PowerPC compatible CPUs.
The porting problem will not come from the compatibility in code but the difference in speeds and threads for each console.
The PS3 and XBox 360 will have better graphics though compared to Wii.
tamenga88 1 year ago
@BigCheese00001 But if you found a way to efficiently make point could models, and when you fix all the bugs, maybe get a good artists to make something, im sure you would have no trouble at all finding sponsors.
TheRealPerson 1 year ago
why not create an sdk?
chrislawless 1 year ago
@BigCheese00001 i know this is off topic but would interacting with the shapes in games, using tis tech, cause the shapes to change?
(eg. shooting a tree will make a real hole not just a texture of a hole)
Groudon259 1 year ago
@lansingone UD uses proprietary software that's apparently build ground up for PCs. If what they suggest is true this thing doesn't need much of a GPU at all to render scenes, rather relying on a central processor. It might be possible for the Wii to look just as good as a 360 might using the same technology.
Geoxile 1 year ago