Stop with this we aren't artists bullsh*t just scan in some real trees, I dont want to look at these stupid models it is so much better if you could just scan the d*mn trees in.
I'm surprised that there is so much skepticism.. It's taking what already exists in the real world (objects composed of atoms) and implementing it in a graphics-world (objects composed of atoms). How is that so hard to believe? Just because YOU can't create it doesn't mean it's impossible to create...
Change is always difficult until... you're the only one not changing :)
Far away? Minimal points. Hide non visible points.
Close up? Higher points. Hide outside of screen points.
If you think it's a scam or will flop, I suggest you pull your head outta your ass and see the real world for a change. This is just simply emulating what happens outside your computer screen.
Ok so the unlimited moddeling...i get that (kinda) but im really curious how texturing works with this "non polygon" texture moddeling, and how much hard-drive space would take game built with THIS technology.
@gagagegegigigogogugu That'd be great, but at some point this guy still has to be using some sort of polygons to get "unlimited" data points - else he doesn't understand the concept of infinity. There is no way to store unlimited data, as obviously you will need unlimited storage space...
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
I mean they ARE not really showing much of modelling work, but I don't think they can use CAD or vertex models with this technique (-->they have to write their own modeller). IF it's actually "the next big system", the awesomeness will only be revealed step by step.
But still...
Modelling every tiny piece of dirt? Naaa...
Also, todays engines have CRAZY performance, it's up to the modelling, how round or complex they appear.
@imnok1 the whole point is megatexture beats this a million times over, and they should just dump this crap project and do what id did, its ten thousand times superior. :)
The way it works is very simple actually, it has unlimited detail, but the reason it doesnt require a super computer, its because it uses a smart way of rendering: instead of showing every point of data, it only shows the maximum amount of points that the Screen can show to us.
For example if your screen resolution is 1380x768, then the software/engine/computer/thingy will only show 1059840 points (pixels in the scren), a pixel cant show 2 points, so it wont bother trying, saving A LOT of RAM.
It doesn't matter if they are trying to get money, who wouldn't be? All that matters is for the final to work as it should. I agree, I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on a graphic that doesn't work in today's times. Give these guys a chance. Maybe this actually could work? I strongly think that there should be more back info on the product though.
Why not just use the same system that grabs only the points you need depending on your resolution but not with point clouds, instead just use like 3 times as many polygons as the average game and do it that way until storage media evolves to the point where you can fit more information.
Firstly, I will start to believe this when I get a demo which works on my computer. And secondly, This looks really nice and dandy but seriously, who the hell wastes time laying down in the ground and looking at it in a game? I seriously couldn't care less if the ground is made out of small pebbles or a bumpmap with some grass sticking out of it.
1) Hot damn, if this company has successfully managed to lower pixel rendering to the resolution themselves, then I'll love to see the demo games they make. What? They aren't making any, just asking for money?
2) Look at all this lovely grass..growing out of rocks? Yeah, they look nice but applying physics and object interaction to that will be even tougher than this magic resolution pixel viewing mumbo jumbo was.
back in the days of half life 2? I played it a few days a go, it still has good graphics, you just have a crap computer, while these unlimited detail ones are prerendered
i love how their computers are working perfectly fine when they're showing the stuff that they made that is so much more complex, but play a 'simple' game like HL2 and ZOMFG LAGGY AS HECK.
They need these artists to get ahold of this tech so we can see it. and perhaps this is the reason play station and xbox haven't improved yet? but that's a huge stretch to think about.
@Sourdeed Well, I mean, there is plenty of reason to be septic, but I think it's pretty simple the way it works and innovative. It just shows what's you can actually see with the pixels, instead of wasting so much rendering everything. That's probably why there's all the little black spots, which is the software calculating what to render and it still being in development without all the bugs fixed. Imagine what this will be able to do in 16 months when it's complete. Also, it looks slow-
@Sourdeed Have you seen the 40 minute interview with Euclideon? They have a demonstration of their engine and even the interviewer is blown away by the detail as he constantly reiterates throughout it.
That music is frickin' annoying. It's like when some douchebag has a crappy ringtone and then leaves the phone in their locker at work, and someone calls it and calls it and keeps on calling it... So yeah, Next time you do one of these, leave the crappy Midi music OFF.
@NLhardcorebobNL Keep in mind, yet again, that they aren't artists. They programmed the... well, program. What he wants is for people to realize that it would dramatically decrease lag, yet in the hands of, for the sake of my argument, a Crysis modeler and artist, it would look absolutely fantastic, would it not?
hold on. Does this mean that it wont lag for larger scenes, or will it start to get harder for the computer
will the processor use scale up when you scale up the scene, or does the math, actually use a process that can search through a truely "unlimited" data?
@cromoman94 The required CPU power will scale with the amount of pixels you want to display. The more you want to see, the more you need to calculate.
no, the perspective of the game itself is irrelevant (there is no difference between first person, third person or top down view on a terrain), its the resolution that matters.
I haven't seen any animations, the ai would just not work. and better graphics, not just higher detail graphics, have been created with polygons. Especially with normal and relief mapping
@LewyRawr Seeing as he typed "dar tar" and not "daa taa." he knows that the man has an accent. You can criticize someone's comment, but don't go overboard, k?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't really care about simulating the look of the real world. Seriously, don't we play games to escape from the craziness of the world and just have fun? Why try to emulate the thing we are escaping from?
I'm a freelancer and I use Blender, I have to say that polygons are much more efficient than unlimited point cloud data. Mostly due to the fact that making one tree in this system would take several times longer than it would using polygons.
@WeegeePerson So you're saying that you shouldn't make something the best it can be because you don't want to spend as much time on it? I'm sure if you did it a lot you would speed up anyway. I'm also sure that it isn't so different from how Blender does things.
This technology is definately worth investing time in if it has the potential to increase the depth of computer graphics and allow more objects to be displayed without having to have 100% cpu going. That's the real power of this.
@toppatsuteki Yes, I know, but games would be delayed way more than polygonal games would be delayed. Animation is hell with this system, and glsl shaders are also hard to get working on these simple points. The anti-aliasing ability is limitless, the cpu usage is almost nothing, but the storage is high.
You can like this system if you like, but I personally prefer the good old polygon system.
I'd love the detail and immersion of games to go right up to virtual reality. Just imagine what you can do when it looks and feels like you're really there - if anything, that should be even more appealing to your escapism. Are you saying you only play really old games, or you turn the graphics of your games down all the way?
@Jotto999 I'm not depressed, I just find it more efficient to use the polygon system because it takes up WAY less hard drive space. I like the idea of this system, and even made an apple once using points, but it takes way too long to make something using this system. And that one apple I made? It took up almost a gigabyte. I then made an apple using the polygon system and used normal mapping for detail. It took up less then megabyte. I then compared them, the difference was really hard to see.
@WeegeePerson I was more talking about this, "Seriously, don't we play games to escape from the craziness of the world and just have fun? Why try to emulate the thing we are escaping from?"
I see that point cloud graphics aren't necessarily feasible, I was thinking more about the escapism.
@Jotto999 Oh, yeah. It would be AMAZING if this kind of detail was efficient! I would just love that. If it didn't take up 100X more memory than the average polygon game, I would probably like this system more and give it more of a chance.
@lauris15151 I believe physics would still require the 'standard' polygon stuff in addition to this technique which is just for the visual presentation
@PriestBurn You are right. All middleware engines that are used to the polygonal system (think of Havoc, PhysX, but also non-physics like pathfinding algoritms) need to be adapted to be able to work with Unlimited Detail.
I don't see this happening as well. Plus all middleware should already work with tessellation. Tessellation already brings you all the detail and can drastically increase the LODs of nearby geometry.
Great job, guys. Takes a touch of genius to come up with some new stuff, and you clearly have it. As for the criticism about the quality of the world, please ignore them, they're totally missing the point. I would totally suggest releasing your technology as open source, but I guess you're trying to make a living so, good luck. :)
The technology is amazing but they undercut themselves with the hideous landscapes. I wont judge them on it though, I just eagerly await UDT with better scenery.
@FireBIaze Way longer. I have actually come up with this idea of using simple "points" before, but quickly abandoned it due to the fact that it would have taken several times longer to make than polygonal models.
This is awesome!!! If the SDK contains the means to import point clouds in some format like .ply or .obj then I could import point cloud models from photosynth DIRECTLY to games without tearing my hair out with the garbage point cloud meshing and texturing programs!!! Please Please make this a reality!
The question is how does it handle dynamic environments ? If every object is billions of points and suddenly you have to change a significant part of the scene, how in the world are you going to do that fast enough to avoid a slideshow ?
They need to hire an artist to make demo scenes that don't look retarded. He said they need artists, I 'submit' that get artists before you do these demos.
This is supposed to be for visualization only, so how the data that will be displayed (like desctructed worlds) is achieved will not be influenced by this technology.
Most excamples in your explanation feature various games footage.
So you propose that this tech will be mostly used in computer games.
You, sir, have just gave me some beautiful present wrapping. But I would appreciate the present even without this wrapping. Hell, it is sometimes even hard to get rid of it and you enjoy the present less!
Just check out how (I dare to say that) one of the most popular, interesting and fun games today, Minecraft , looks like.
This tech sounds intriguing, but I think these demos would be alot more convining if they didn't portray such bizarre sceneries. Purple-toned waters and trees with sausage roots, warts and fern leaves are not very appealing to me. I want to see a golden sun shining from a deep blue sky thrugh the foliage of some birches or blossoming cherries, whose gently rustling leaves are dropping onto a mirror pond beneath it, all surrounded by a grassy field.
@Vorondil86 I was watching this video while eating, so I wasn't paying much attention to the video but one thing that stood out was this 3:00 ...Great to know that you and 100 other idiots didn't watch the video.
@8888plasma Any serious technology company would've already hired at least one artist to make a demonstration worthy of peoples' attention. Their explanations are just excuses.
I'll wait until they've successfully animated and stylized an actual demonstration before applauding them.
@Vorondil86 this engine is not finished, if you take a look at the whater it is just a miror, it doesent move. But i thenk they are still working on it.
The system is gret, but these presentations are UGLY. You said you don't have artists to do these things in a nice way, but PLEASE hire one for your presentations if you want people to use this system.
Seems almost too good to be true...could this be one of those revolutions " like ray tracing being too taxing/slow e.g. (at least not at this point)" that just aren't practical in games for some reason..??
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the polygon count issue being addressed through tessellation? Wouldn't it be easier to just negate the weakness of the polygons through tessellation rather than jump to an entirely new way of rendering? ...someone care to enlighten me?
@McFlanker Tesselation doesn't give you free extra geometry. GPU still needs to render these polygons that were created in the process of tesselation. What tesselation does is allow 3d artists to make shortcuts, create simpler objects with low polygon count and then apply displacement maps on them to make them more complex. It saves some resources like disk space for storing objects or brandwith to the graphic card (simpler objects are sent to gpu) but the polygon limit stil exists.
@kaczyyy good answer. But even though polygons still exist one might get the impression that polygons are really not an issue with sufficient tessellation and a decent GPU or? "perhaps at least in the future?"
awesome but im not computer savy, can this technology actually work on games? because polygons is just a part of the graphics, there is also shaders, light, physics, interactivity. since it uses a search algorithm how can that work on games since it would require the dots to interact with each other
From their website i understand this works like a search algorithm.The ideea is great.But no geometry moves, of course.This is like baked textures compared to real time raytracing.To move one of those plants you need another computer with ten processors 10 gb ram and lot of time.This is good for brain tumors in detail.But for real time geometry, impossible.There is no substitute for raw computing power
this is very cool technology. i hope this will be incorporated into games very soon. one question though? can these "atoms" interact physically like nvidia's water particles?
2:52, bottom center - kind of a strange rock. Almost looks like it's made out of regular 'outdated' polygons, doesn't it? Less bullshit next time, please.
I might have actually watched the whole thing if it didn't have crappy background music and the voiceover guy didn't quote "unlimited detail" every ten seconds.
What this guy doesn't understand (and its easy when you want something to go your way) is that once a model reaches a certain level of detail its no longer required to have UNLIMITED DETAIL.
Having unlimited detail in computer grahpics is a bit like having one of those giant cups of coke at the cinema, you don't use it, its too much, its overkill and this is why I think the polygons will stick around for a long long time.
you don't need unlimited data replicate real life. Nice2C anyway.
Even then you would have to zoom into an unplayable FOV to really notice. Even in the realworld if you look too closely it gets blurry. They could just add some kind of brokeh effect to it.
Procedural textures and lod will ensure that even close up elvel you'll see fine skin details.
You don't need a 1000 gallons of water to quench your thirst and with a major shift in game dev techniques, I don't see this taking off anytime soon.
About procedural textures: I think what would work really well would be procedural polygons as well - If this would be possible, then you could generate low-poly and high-poly models as required.
He said the Unlimited Detail Engine uses actual atoms rather than just shapes made from polygons. Now that's how it should be in my opinion, because the real world isn't made from just shapes, it's made from atoms and small particles.
so using unlimited detail, is it an open 3D software that you could model objects in using point cloud data? or say, rig an object for animation in the game engine?
I'd be interested to see one scene, just one scene that features a comparable range of aspects as current games. Animated objects and or characters are a must have. Without them you can not build a video game. Graphicswise better lighting and shadows would have to be showcased. And the whole thing should run on a modern day PC, not a crappy notebook or whatever just to prove a point.
@SuckItLily Actually, no. That's switching between several worlds quickly. However, this system doesn't let you change the world you're in, so it's useless for games.
This seems like it would make processing physics easier, but I don't really know 'cause I know little how we compute physics. So every single point has its own color? Also, I would love to know if there's something like this, but with sound. Kind of like physics, but with the air, and thing act on the air making sound, instead of playing a sound file.
i actualy like the way games are now even hl2 i just got done playing it and i rely liked it so y should i care if they use unlimated detail in the next half life game cause i rely like that game?
DATA not DARTA, what the hell is wrong with you!?
huw2904 3 days ago
fake and gay
piotrlysek 5 days ago
His voice is so annoying, it sounds like hes way to proud of himself....
DeverSonic 1 week ago
It's just small voxels. Case closed.
ajedwards102 3 weeks ago
It can render unlimited detail but can only "boost the graphics by about a thousand times"?
fingerprint211b 3 weeks ago
Stop with this we aren't artists bullsh*t just scan in some real trees, I dont want to look at these stupid models it is so much better if you could just scan the d*mn trees in.
xAPB9x 1 month ago
So they explain how they would not need a extreme amount of RAM by saying they pick only the pixels to show to player.
But I have a quesiton: And the HD space? How they will save this extreme amount of details?
exedeath 1 month ago
The difference I'm seeing, they're tree is animated... yours is not. Problem?
XtraFear 1 month ago
Hire an artist NOW
yehar 1 month ago
WHEN I'm gonna be able to sculpt on this?
JBantha 1 month ago
I'm surprised that there is so much skepticism.. It's taking what already exists in the real world (objects composed of atoms) and implementing it in a graphics-world (objects composed of atoms). How is that so hard to believe? Just because YOU can't create it doesn't mean it's impossible to create...
Change is always difficult until... you're the only one not changing :)
strothergross 2 months ago
unlimited hoax lolz.
MrFennmeista 2 months ago
@MrFennmeista Why?
1GTX1 2 months ago
This screams vaporware.
ViaggioFM 4 months ago
Its clear in the video that some spots are limited by your FPS :D
TheFeenixServer 4 months ago
Would be nice to show something soon, instead of all this talking. Bullshit walks, evidence talks :)
RMJ1984 5 months ago
Makes perfect sense.
Far away? Minimal points. Hide non visible points.
Close up? Higher points. Hide outside of screen points.
If you think it's a scam or will flop, I suggest you pull your head outta your ass and see the real world for a change. This is just simply emulating what happens outside your computer screen.
sparnell15 5 months ago
Ok so the unlimited moddeling...i get that (kinda) but im really curious how texturing works with this "non polygon" texture moddeling, and how much hard-drive space would take game built with THIS technology.
Marobot 5 months ago
FUCKING AWSOME!
but seriusly...they could have said something besides:
unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited....
DarkGlobus1OO 5 months ago
@gagagegegigigogogugu That'd be great, but at some point this guy still has to be using some sort of polygons to get "unlimited" data points - else he doesn't understand the concept of infinity. There is no way to store unlimited data, as obviously you will need unlimited storage space...
yanjchan 5 months ago
unlimited detail? perfffff... more like unlimited repetition.
rouncer81 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
@rouncer81
What do you mean with not Unique?
I mean they ARE not really showing much of modelling work, but I don't think they can use CAD or vertex models with this technique (-->they have to write their own modeller). IF it's actually "the next big system", the awesomeness will only be revealed step by step.
But still...
Modelling every tiny piece of dirt? Naaa...
Also, todays engines have CRAZY performance, it's up to the modelling, how round or complex they appear.
OriginalRoughStylez 5 months ago
@rouncer81
i'm making note of your guarantee. meanwhile...
* 1.they're not creating a game, it's just a demo. 2.everyone uses duplications where they can in current releases - why wouldn't you?
* i'd wager it's better than the shit detail of current day modeling
* there is no reason to believe that megatexture would be necessary or that a similar implementation could not be applied
* CSG as it is wouldn't apply to this. a similar tech would be implemented for this system if there were a need.
imnok1 3 months ago 5
@imnok1 the whole point is megatexture beats this a million times over, and they should just dump this crap project and do what id did, its ten thousand times superior. :)
rouncer81 3 months ago
this sucks
rouncer81 5 months ago
i dont like change
fressfisch 5 months ago
The way it works is very simple actually, it has unlimited detail, but the reason it doesnt require a super computer, its because it uses a smart way of rendering: instead of showing every point of data, it only shows the maximum amount of points that the Screen can show to us.
For example if your screen resolution is 1380x768, then the software/engine/computer/thingy will only show 1059840 points (pixels in the scren), a pixel cant show 2 points, so it wont bother trying, saving A LOT of RAM.
gagagegegigigogogugu 5 months ago
i hate the bells.. but i cant help thinking that there going to be like the Meletta teapot or something.
honestkenny 5 months ago
Seriously! Get a more annoying background music! -_-
Skrufnyckeln 5 months ago
why the textrure of the tree and of the whole are so bewildering ?
TheLukasDing 5 months ago
It doesn't matter if they are trying to get money, who wouldn't be? All that matters is for the final to work as it should. I agree, I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on a graphic that doesn't work in today's times. Give these guys a chance. Maybe this actually could work? I strongly think that there should be more back info on the product though.
dziewiatkom 5 months ago
dislike while I litsen to the possible idea in MANY MORE YEARS
YahooSoccerj7 5 months ago
Why not just use the same system that grabs only the points you need depending on your resolution but not with point clouds, instead just use like 3 times as many polygons as the average game and do it that way until storage media evolves to the point where you can fit more information.
SupremeCommander360 5 months ago
Firstly, I will start to believe this when I get a demo which works on my computer. And secondly, This looks really nice and dandy but seriously, who the hell wastes time laying down in the ground and looking at it in a game? I seriously couldn't care less if the ground is made out of small pebbles or a bumpmap with some grass sticking out of it.
Paskaaja 6 months ago
Narrated by Gilderoy Lockhart: internationally famous wizard and five-time winner of Witch Weekly's Most Charming Smile Award.
SmallPoly 6 months ago
Comment removed
SmallPoly 6 months ago
1:09, one of the shrubs gets too close to the camera and pixelates up like a sprite from doom
ClawMaster0 6 months ago
Two things about this video:
1) Hot damn, if this company has successfully managed to lower pixel rendering to the resolution themselves, then I'll love to see the demo games they make. What? They aren't making any, just asking for money?
2) Look at all this lovely grass..growing out of rocks? Yeah, they look nice but applying physics and object interaction to that will be even tougher than this magic resolution pixel viewing mumbo jumbo was.
liger04 6 months ago
There is something awfully wrong with the color and contrast.
egretdingo 6 months ago
What I would like to know is what game are they playing where there is that girl in the green clothes from? I recognise all the other games.
AdamWhistle 6 months ago
Please stop saying dahtah - it's DATA :(
squareski 6 months ago
@squareski he's british.....
megamaa 6 months ago
back in the days of half life 2? I played it a few days a go, it still has good graphics, you just have a crap computer, while these unlimited detail ones are prerendered
gabefett 6 months ago
i love how their computers are working perfectly fine when they're showing the stuff that they made that is so much more complex, but play a 'simple' game like HL2 and ZOMFG LAGGY AS HECK.
seriously guys?
suparcaret 6 months ago
@suparcaret On their website it stated that they used a single-core laptop with an integrated GPU...
iMaRki360 5 months ago
They need these artists to get ahold of this tech so we can see it. and perhaps this is the reason play station and xbox haven't improved yet? but that's a huge stretch to think about.
Barit555 6 months ago
Without an actual demo to run on real computers, this is all just BS. You can prerender videos and say whatever you want.
TheTalkingCricket 6 months ago
"Daata." <3
powderyorgan 6 months ago
I'll believe it when I get a downloadable demo that I can run on my machine and see for myself.
Sourdeed 6 months ago 53
@Sourdeed well this shit should take up a tone of ram
flamingarse1 5 months ago
@Sourdeed Well, I mean, there is plenty of reason to be septic, but I think it's pretty simple the way it works and innovative. It just shows what's you can actually see with the pixels, instead of wasting so much rendering everything. That's probably why there's all the little black spots, which is the software calculating what to render and it still being in development without all the bugs fixed. Imagine what this will be able to do in 16 months when it's complete. Also, it looks slow-
KedViper 5 months ago
@Sourdeed
Watch the real time demo that was done on a laptop.
Paratrooper1n0 3 months ago
@Sourdeed Have you seen the 40 minute interview with Euclideon? They have a demonstration of their engine and even the interviewer is blown away by the detail as he constantly reiterates throughout it.
eventfularse 1 month ago
Woah, why'd I say we in that last bit.
Karionfabe1 6 months ago
I'm Australian and I pronounce it dar ter(tar, however you say it). It's just my accent, we can't help it :P
Karionfabe1 6 months ago
tell me the render-time pls^^
im modelling things like fire with voxels, and the render time ist like WTF?!
scorpionlux 6 months ago
Comment removed
bgpivoter 6 months ago
That music is frickin' annoying. It's like when some douchebag has a crappy ringtone and then leaves the phone in their locker at work, and someone calls it and calls it and keeps on calling it... So yeah, Next time you do one of these, leave the crappy Midi music OFF.
arleas 6 months ago
Why does Bruce Dell's accent keep changing? Scam identity fail...
MrEricLarson 6 months ago
I would watch this if it wouldn't be for the annoying song...
HyvelTjuven 6 months ago
I'm not convinced, you've given some bad arguments against polygons.
So far, I've been more impressed by all those parts of Crysis than the parts of Unlimited Detail.
You have to realize, that at this point, if you multiply the amount of polygons by 10, our eyes wouldn't even be able to see the imperfections.
NLhardcorebobNL 6 months ago
@NLhardcorebobNL Keep in mind, yet again, that they aren't artists. They programmed the... well, program. What he wants is for people to realize that it would dramatically decrease lag, yet in the hands of, for the sake of my argument, a Crysis modeler and artist, it would look absolutely fantastic, would it not?
RiverDaComedian 6 months ago
Wow, although bump maps look pretty good, raycasted voxels like this look incredible! What a bright future we have to look forward to.
hatestew 6 months ago
@hatestew Yeah, imagine the possibilities! =O
Skrufnyckeln 6 months ago
polygons got something called tessalation now tho...
Madlion 6 months ago
hold on. Does this mean that it wont lag for larger scenes, or will it start to get harder for the computer
will the processor use scale up when you scale up the scene, or does the math, actually use a process that can search through a truely "unlimited" data?
cromoman94 6 months ago
@cromoman94 The required CPU power will scale with the amount of pixels you want to display. The more you want to see, the more you need to calculate.
Saob1337 6 months ago
@Saob1337 so, a large scene would not lag, until you tried to zoom out!
that could eliminate loading screens from fps games.
cromoman94 6 months ago
@cromoman94
no, the perspective of the game itself is irrelevant (there is no difference between first person, third person or top down view on a terrain), its the resolution that matters.
Saob1337 6 months ago
this is like WOW 2.0 Grafik !!!
SwissCow85 7 months ago
@SwissCow85
Because WoW 1 was such a graphical benchmark /rolleyes.
RickyRecruit 6 months ago
@RickyRecruit He actually said that he used it to be able to show the polygons for non techy persons.
Skrufnyckeln 6 months ago
UNNNLIMITED POINT CLAWD DAAHHTAH
LSDlucid 7 months ago 21
I haven't seen any animations, the ai would just not work. and better graphics, not just higher detail graphics, have been created with polygons. Especially with normal and relief mapping
SubversionStudiosPFG 7 months ago
Imagine all of this with Frostbite 2.0 level destruction...
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW
xHeavyweaponzguyx 7 months ago
Cloud point games over cloud based streaming... O.o Please contact OnLive!
TheChanclasVerdes 7 months ago
looks interesting.. wonder how this differs visually from hi levels of tesselation and which is more efficient..
buck3tface 7 months ago
Is it not the same system Delta Force 2 graphic engine used?
anariaq 7 months ago
How long does it take to model that?
Just asking...
Making a flat ground with bump maps and textures is relatively fast... But modelling, like real earth? Shite. Think of your modelling crew.
Magnetohydrodynamics 8 months ago
Liked it better when it was called voxel graphics
professorquack 8 months ago
OMG... this is revolutionary...
LAZrailkapinda 9 months ago
Jesus. Why do you pronounce 'data' as DAR TAR. It's pronounced 'DAY TAH'.
alfredcohol 9 months ago
@alfredcohol People have different accents and dialects, but you're American, so you wouldnt know whats outside the US, would you?
LewyRawr 9 months ago
@LewyRawr Seeing as he typed "dar tar" and not "daa taa." he knows that the man has an accent. You can criticize someone's comment, but don't go overboard, k?
youmakeitwhatitis 8 months ago
I don't know about you guys, but I don't really care about simulating the look of the real world. Seriously, don't we play games to escape from the craziness of the world and just have fun? Why try to emulate the thing we are escaping from?
I'm a freelancer and I use Blender, I have to say that polygons are much more efficient than unlimited point cloud data. Mostly due to the fact that making one tree in this system would take several times longer than it would using polygons.
WeegeePerson 9 months ago
@WeegeePerson So you're saying that you shouldn't make something the best it can be because you don't want to spend as much time on it? I'm sure if you did it a lot you would speed up anyway. I'm also sure that it isn't so different from how Blender does things.
This technology is definately worth investing time in if it has the potential to increase the depth of computer graphics and allow more objects to be displayed without having to have 100% cpu going. That's the real power of this.
toppatsuteki 9 months ago
@toppatsuteki Yes, I know, but games would be delayed way more than polygonal games would be delayed. Animation is hell with this system, and glsl shaders are also hard to get working on these simple points. The anti-aliasing ability is limitless, the cpu usage is almost nothing, but the storage is high.
You can like this system if you like, but I personally prefer the good old polygon system.
WeegeePerson 9 months ago
@WeegeePerson You sound depressed.
I'd love the detail and immersion of games to go right up to virtual reality. Just imagine what you can do when it looks and feels like you're really there - if anything, that should be even more appealing to your escapism. Are you saying you only play really old games, or you turn the graphics of your games down all the way?
Jotto999 8 months ago
@Jotto999 I'm not depressed, I just find it more efficient to use the polygon system because it takes up WAY less hard drive space. I like the idea of this system, and even made an apple once using points, but it takes way too long to make something using this system. And that one apple I made? It took up almost a gigabyte. I then made an apple using the polygon system and used normal mapping for detail. It took up less then megabyte. I then compared them, the difference was really hard to see.
WeegeePerson 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WeegeePerson I was more talking about this, "Seriously, don't we play games to escape from the craziness of the world and just have fun? Why try to emulate the thing we are escaping from?"
I see that point cloud graphics aren't necessarily feasible, I was thinking more about the escapism.
Jotto999 8 months ago
@Jotto999 Oh, yeah. It would be AMAZING if this kind of detail was efficient! I would just love that. If it didn't take up 100X more memory than the average polygon game, I would probably like this system more and give it more of a chance.
WeegeePerson 8 months ago
what about physics ?
lauris15151 9 months ago
@lauris15151 I believe physics would still require the 'standard' polygon stuff in addition to this technique which is just for the visual presentation
tesselation will own this anyway... bigger lobby
PriestBurn 9 months ago
@PriestBurn You are right. All middleware engines that are used to the polygonal system (think of Havoc, PhysX, but also non-physics like pathfinding algoritms) need to be adapted to be able to work with Unlimited Detail.
I don't see this happening as well. Plus all middleware should already work with tessellation. Tessellation already brings you all the detail and can drastically increase the LODs of nearby geometry.
Piratehurrdurr 9 months ago
Great job, guys. Takes a touch of genius to come up with some new stuff, and you clearly have it. As for the criticism about the quality of the world, please ignore them, they're totally missing the point. I would totally suggest releasing your technology as open source, but I guess you're trying to make a living so, good luck. :)
TamoNekiDrMr 10 months ago
make them stop make the bells stop
where are the oompa loompas in this video???
valkyr3003 10 months ago 31
The technology is amazing but they undercut themselves with the hideous landscapes. I wont judge them on it though, I just eagerly await UDT with better scenery.
NPC919 10 months ago
i dont see any rig
chotolarg 10 months ago
i have a question, how much more time does all the 3d artwork take for one of those rocks branches etc
FireBIaze 10 months ago 2
@FireBIaze Way longer. I have actually come up with this idea of using simple "points" before, but quickly abandoned it due to the fact that it would have taken several times longer to make than polygonal models.
WeegeePerson 9 months ago
So.. How do you generate models with point cloud? Scanning? Obsessive atom-placing?
TheReggaeMortis 10 months ago 2
STOP MOVING THE CAMERA 24/7!
Peaty1992 10 months ago
This is awesome!!! If the SDK contains the means to import point clouds in some format like .ply or .obj then I could import point cloud models from photosynth DIRECTLY to games without tearing my hair out with the garbage point cloud meshing and texturing programs!!! Please Please make this a reality!
Bellerophon2200 10 months ago
Can you see the polygons?
TomClark2 10 months ago
It's amazing, but think that algorithm will never be free.
Somebody knows if the developer of that technology have plannig to share it with some free software lincense?
nodeidan 10 months ago
They need to compile a Benchmark for people to run on their own PCs before I get excited
animekid200 10 months ago
Honestly, I think the technology is incredible. It looks amazing. But the thing is, it kinda looks like shit. And scene switching would be tough.
CrabtechIndustries 10 months ago
Sounds great.
The question is how does it handle dynamic environments ? If every object is billions of points and suddenly you have to change a significant part of the scene, how in the world are you going to do that fast enough to avoid a slideshow ?
HarpoonsTheMan 10 months ago
They need to hire an artist to make demo scenes that don't look retarded. He said they need artists, I 'submit' that get artists before you do these demos.
Smood47 10 months ago
It looks promising but what will happen if you need to render human made objects like buildings or cars?
Do you have a demo that shows off those capabilities? Anyway these unlimited detail graphics look like they suffer from a disease...
VangelisPs 10 months ago
could this also be used to make fully destructible envoyerments?
radu0 11 months ago
@radu0
This is supposed to be for visualization only, so how the data that will be displayed (like desctructed worlds) is achieved will not be influenced by this technology.
Saob1337 11 months ago
that is so amazing!
I bet the 32 dislikes are involved with nvidia/ati companies. :P
TransparentWorlds 11 months ago
Lag on HL2 but barely any lag on Crysis?
QWERTYCommander 11 months ago
@QWERTYCommander It's because of how the footage was captured.
olsenrob 11 months ago
watch?v=m_yqOoUMHPg&feature=player_embedded
Racoon42a 11 months ago
Most excamples in your explanation feature various games footage.
So you propose that this tech will be mostly used in computer games.
You, sir, have just gave me some beautiful present wrapping. But I would appreciate the present even without this wrapping. Hell, it is sometimes even hard to get rid of it and you enjoy the present less!
Just check out how (I dare to say that) one of the most popular, interesting and fun games today, Minecraft , looks like.
No, sir, I am not interested.
Racoon42a 11 months ago
i guess we'll see
kaczyyy 11 months ago
Too much bullshit, no actual game demo
AfghanLibre 11 months ago
@AfghanLibre It's not a game.
genieea 11 months ago
@genieea
''slaps his forehead''
AfghanLibre 11 months ago
This tech sounds intriguing, but I think these demos would be alot more convining if they didn't portray such bizarre sceneries. Purple-toned waters and trees with sausage roots, warts and fern leaves are not very appealing to me. I want to see a golden sun shining from a deep blue sky thrugh the foliage of some birches or blossoming cherries, whose gently rustling leaves are dropping onto a mirror pond beneath it, all surrounded by a grassy field.
Vorondil86 11 months ago 123
@Vorondil86 I dont think Programmers make for good artists.
LinkMyBoy 10 months ago
@Vorondil86 then take your head out of your window and look in the horizon XD
Ruis0 7 months ago
@Vorondil86 Ahm he said programer art. Of course it looks weird.
MrLegendman3 6 months ago
@Vorondil86 They are no artists, like they always stated.
xaninha123 6 months ago
@Vorondil86 They are not artists.
apslakt1 6 months ago
@Vorondil86 I was watching this video while eating, so I wasn't paying much attention to the video but one thing that stood out was this 3:00 ...Great to know that you and 100 other idiots didn't watch the video.
locolalo1364 6 months ago
@Vorondil86 They're a technology company. Not artists.
8888plasma 6 months ago
@8888plasma Any serious technology company would've already hired at least one artist to make a demonstration worthy of peoples' attention. Their explanations are just excuses.
I'll wait until they've successfully animated and stylized an actual demonstration before applauding them.
ploothable 5 months ago
@ploothable /watch?v=tkn6ubbp1SE You were saying?
8888plasma 5 months ago
@Vorondil86 this engine is not finished, if you take a look at the whater it is just a miror, it doesent move. But i thenk they are still working on it.
Melga1994 6 months ago
I can't wait to see what unlimited detail looks like once you guys can afford better artists/game makers/whatever they're called.
ross817 11 months ago
The system is gret, but these presentations are UGLY. You said you don't have artists to do these things in a nice way, but PLEASE hire one for your presentations if you want people to use this system.
mai1992 11 months ago
Seems almost too good to be true...could this be one of those revolutions " like ray tracing being too taxing/slow e.g. (at least not at this point)" that just aren't practical in games for some reason..??
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the polygon count issue being addressed through tessellation? Wouldn't it be easier to just negate the weakness of the polygons through tessellation rather than jump to an entirely new way of rendering? ...someone care to enlighten me?
McFlanker 11 months ago
@McFlanker Tesselation doesn't give you free extra geometry. GPU still needs to render these polygons that were created in the process of tesselation. What tesselation does is allow 3d artists to make shortcuts, create simpler objects with low polygon count and then apply displacement maps on them to make them more complex. It saves some resources like disk space for storing objects or brandwith to the graphic card (simpler objects are sent to gpu) but the polygon limit stil exists.
kaczyyy 11 months ago
@kaczyyy good answer. But even though polygons still exist one might get the impression that polygons are really not an issue with sufficient tessellation and a decent GPU or? "perhaps at least in the future?"
McFlanker 11 months ago
is that moonlight sonata playing in the background?
MrNeskio 11 months ago
The thirty people that disliked this video can suck a polygon.
2468iamstraight 11 months ago
I like it, I think it's a great idea, but the rendering algorithm must be magic or alien technology of some kind.
metabog 1 year ago
awesome but im not computer savy, can this technology actually work on games? because polygons is just a part of the graphics, there is also shaders, light, physics, interactivity. since it uses a search algorithm how can that work on games since it would require the dots to interact with each other
elmalhermano 1 year ago
From their website i understand this works like a search algorithm.The ideea is great.But no geometry moves, of course.This is like baked textures compared to real time raytracing.To move one of those plants you need another computer with ten processors 10 gb ram and lot of time.This is good for brain tumors in detail.But for real time geometry, impossible.There is no substitute for raw computing power
Olengher 1 year ago
so developers would have to place each atom?? it would take a very long time to create a game right? and is that moonlight sonata?
leakedazaz 1 year ago
so developers would have to place each atom?? it would take a very long time to create a game right?
leakedazaz 1 year ago
Is the detail limited?
bryceguy72 1 year ago
@bryceguy72 No, there are no details at all.
baso88 1 year ago
this is very cool technology. i hope this will be incorporated into games very soon. one question though? can these "atoms" interact physically like nvidia's water particles?
MrLuc420 1 year ago
2:52, bottom center - kind of a strange rock. Almost looks like it's made out of regular 'outdated' polygons, doesn't it? Less bullshit next time, please.
ishar88 1 year ago
@ishar88 Yes because obviously some realistic items don't have corners, especially not rocks.
chozei 1 year ago
@ishar88 ur missing the point, the idea of the engine is not to make the image look better but to have more detail and more things in the picture
hizzlemafizzle 1 year ago
I might have actually watched the whole thing if it didn't have crappy background music and the voiceover guy didn't quote "unlimited detail" every ten seconds.
Lo0pyluke 1 year ago
youd only need 4x crossfire on the 5970 and you'd still get about 3fps
Camster3 1 year ago
learn how to pronounce DATA
darth0bush 1 year ago
@darth0bush learn that people come from different countries fagnugget.
Zipstacracksta 1 year ago
I don't know if it's the artists or what but all these UD environments seem oddly Fuzzy.
Grug16 1 year ago
i would care, its just the graphics look wrong for some reason... everything looks like it should be within a fish tank
Garcian 1 year ago
Stop zooming into those penis like.. Its disgusting..
EdDyWuu 1 year ago
Funeral music. Why?
Stoffmeister 1 year ago
What this guy doesn't understand (and its easy when you want something to go your way) is that once a model reaches a certain level of detail its no longer required to have UNLIMITED DETAIL.
Having unlimited detail in computer grahpics is a bit like having one of those giant cups of coke at the cinema, you don't use it, its too much, its overkill and this is why I think the polygons will stick around for a long long time.
you don't need unlimited data replicate real life. Nice2C anyway.
Jamerio3D 1 year ago
@Jamerio3D Except when you zoom in.
TazeTSchnitzel 1 year ago
@TazeTSchnitzel
Even then you would have to zoom into an unplayable FOV to really notice. Even in the realworld if you look too closely it gets blurry. They could just add some kind of brokeh effect to it.
Procedural textures and lod will ensure that even close up elvel you'll see fine skin details.
You don't need a 1000 gallons of water to quench your thirst and with a major shift in game dev techniques, I don't see this taking off anytime soon.
Jamerio3D 1 year ago
@Jamerio3D I agree with you now.
About procedural textures: I think what would work really well would be procedural polygons as well - If this would be possible, then you could generate low-poly and high-poly models as required.
TazeTSchnitzel 1 year ago
@TazeTSchnitzel
Its already happening, take a look at DX11 demos, or sub division surfaces.
Jamerio3D 1 year ago
He said the Unlimited Detail Engine uses actual atoms rather than just shapes made from polygons. Now that's how it should be in my opinion, because the real world isn't made from just shapes, it's made from atoms and small particles.
sexywolfboy7 1 year ago
@sexywolfboy7 But they are not using "real" atoms.
mabans 1 year ago
so using unlimited detail, is it an open 3D software that you could model objects in using point cloud data? or say, rig an object for animation in the game engine?
Riyuzakisan 1 year ago
I'd be interested to see one scene, just one scene that features a comparable range of aspects as current games. Animated objects and or characters are a must have. Without them you can not build a video game. Graphicswise better lighting and shadows would have to be showcased. And the whole thing should run on a modern day PC, not a crappy notebook or whatever just to prove a point.
SuckItLily 1 year ago
@SuckItLily It runs fine on really low-end machines, due to an optomized render system.
However, this is going nowhere for games, as it is impossible to do object movement in this.
TazeTSchnitzel 1 year ago
@TazeTSchnitzel Where did you get that from? There's actually a little animation demo.
SuckItLily 1 year ago
@SuckItLily Actually, no. That's switching between several worlds quickly. However, this system doesn't let you change the world you're in, so it's useless for games.
TazeTSchnitzel 1 year ago
This seems like it would make processing physics easier, but I don't really know 'cause I know little how we compute physics. So every single point has its own color? Also, I would love to know if there's something like this, but with sound. Kind of like physics, but with the air, and thing act on the air making sound, instead of playing a sound file.
oblivionnerd 1 year ago
i actualy like the way games are now even hl2 i just got done playing it and i rely liked it so y should i care if they use unlimated detail in the next half life game cause i rely like that game?
33345654v2 1 year ago
Vaporware
Khn90 1 year ago
Who else wants to play Arma 2 in Unlimited Detail?
I do!!! :-)
XxJJxX13 1 year ago
the video is amazing, but STOP WITH THESE F*CKING MUSICS DUDE!
Azfargh 1 year ago
how would you handle game interactions with this technology? And what about physics?
EtaCarinaez 1 year ago
@EtaCarinaez
today, the most power on pc and consoles goes away for graphic rendering, physics need alot less power
Ponzius 1 year ago