@AtomontageEngine I read on your page, that you believe that hardware acceleration was the wrong choice in video-games technological progress. What exactly did you mean by this? What sort of hardware or technology do you believe is needed to support highly detailed voxel games and how would it be different from existing shader-based videocards?
@cubrman Modern GPUs are okay for rendering non-poly content, complex lighting etc. But before the GPUs were programmable, developers were very limited in what they could do. The fact that texturing was smoother, FPS higher, .. was not so great in exchange with no possibility to apply self-developed methods. Commercial pressure killed long-term developments of SW based engines and that was the end of almost all progress in this field. Since then the capabilities of the game (cont. >)
@cubrman (cont. >) ... the capabilities of the game engines (not only the way the geometry was rendered) were pretty much determined by the architecture of the dominant GPUs. It is not a big problem now, but for about a decade the problem was pretty much devastating. I think there is a huge difference between progress made by thousands (or tens of thousands?) of independent programmers and progress predetermined by few hardware vendors. I believe that without GPUs ... (cont2. >)
@cubrman (cont2. >) ... without GPUs atom-based engines would have become dominant sometime between 2002-2005. With GPUs it is still not the case. If I could go back in time and change it I would have preferred a multi-core multi-CPU architecture. Having a little lower number (compared with the num of GPU cores) of fast general-purpose independent processors would probably result in a greater variability of products. Also the development of atom-based engines wouldn't be halted at all.
btw, you have a great talent creating and manipulating those fractal noise functions! I guess you are somehow filtering out the floating islands you tend to get with this sort of thing? Or is carefull noise parameter manipulation... or some clever noise function?
@SLPCaires Thanks. Some generators suffer from the 'floating silands' a lot but the generation pipeline fixes most of the artifacts by filtering them away. Also I prefer formulas that don't tend to generate many floating islands and other artifacts.
I love this stuff, its great that you aren't just repeating a small area of dense point cloud over and over again... like that irritating euclidean bs.
I believe voxels of some sort is where we eventually will arrive at.
Re the blocky look, I was wondering if this could be dramatically improved by removing vertices which are not shared by neighboring voxels? Basically turning these silluette cubes into much more forgiving wedges and pyramids and such?
@SLPCaires I prefer per-pixel geometry - that means that plotting a particular atom, or something like that, remains a trivial operation. So for example a higher-LOD version of the geoemtry will be created on the fly and possibly augmented by some noise to improve visual fidelity. It is a slower method but it has greater potential to satisfy players. Could be that future implementations of similar engines will feature both methods. There are some good reasons for that.
I didnt really understand why it could be better that this engine is used more for 3rd person games?
I think that this engine could look very inpressive in fps games and i would dream about a game where you have to battle in these kind of buildings and where you could build them too!
@TheDg00 Thanks. The engine is becoming really potent in 1st person view. Still 1st person view is quite more resource-demanding and therefore I think that most of the first games powered by AE and similar engines will be 3rd person ones.
@lonestaremex361 In AE I could show similar scenes to theirs. In their engine they would most likely NOT be able to show what I did in AE videos. Tons of unique dynamic volumetric content will beat surface point-clouds on every field.
So let me get this straight this engine will have good Physics and not use so much memory so that every computer can run thats Smart im so donating because i hate upgrade my computer every year to play new games
Could you please explain how you are planning to implement the animation for voxelized objects? For instance if a piece of building is falling. In my opinion there are two ways to do it: to allow for the rotation of voxels or to divide the entire world into voxel matrix and "rebuild" every object every time it moves an inch, as it was in old 2d games like Prince of Percia with pixels. What are pros and cons of these approaches?
@cubrman there are actually both of these somehow necessary, just that the second approach cannot be used per-frame in real-time for 99% of the content, no hardware could make it work in a very dynamic scene
@vampireita I guess the projection is set differently than it is in most games. If that's the problem then it's actually no problem, a single parameter has to be changed to fix that. The look of the scene is also affected by the lighting. As you can see there's no specular component. That one adds a lot to the apparent quality of the graphics. Once it's added the overall look get be much better.
@cracottecassee This way we can also compare apples with pears. Apples are rounder while pears are sweeter. So what's better, apples or pears? :)
My personal view on this is that today voxels already got better than polygons because we can already have more then enough of them to fill the screen with sufficient detail. The rest is (or soon will be) a question of physics. Physics dislikes polygons a lot.
I can't really imagine how rotations and scaling work with voxel objects. When you rotate or scale a pixel based image you often get this kind of mashing, destroying hard edges, fine details, etc. Would you use a distinct coordinate system? That would take away a lot of flexibility.
@Sauron1999RS if something moves then it has its own coordinate system; it would be too expensive to plot an object (or hundreds of objects) every frame
Especially you with Atomontage and Euclideon with Unlimited Detail (seen no such thing as great physic-interaction from their tech) are doing great things :) and btw, I urge everyone reading this to DONATE to the project! 4 dollars from a 100 ppl is better than thinking about giving 400 dollars you don't even have to give. :)
@labobo doing too many things in parallel (need to work with about 50x the previous amounts of data, generate much higher quality content etc.. all that takes some time believe me:)
Unlimited deta. And and this are both voxel engines. The difference is this guy isn't claiming videos improve performance or detail 100,000 times and this guy has a product the public has touched.
@keshaz12 Unlimited detail is showing off PURLY voxel data and the amount of detail it is possible to go to. This is showing a practical use of voxels by using interactivity and physics. Unlimited detail makes absurd claims and such, this guy shows those claims. Unlimited detail is currently only graphics, whereas this is showing the voxels used in a game-style and has physics and interaction between objects. Basically, this is unlimited detail with physics and interaction.
i think unlimited atom or w/e it is looks better... but maybe its just poor artist skills. either way, nice job and cant wait to see these technologies in game
@HedgehogStudios1 the footprint can be comparable to that of a poly-based tech with similar unique 2-point-something-dimensional geometry .. in other words the memory requirements of modern polygon-based engines somehow converge to the actual memory requirements of AE
I have a question. Will this engine be multi-platform, or Windows only. Will it be on other OSes and possibly consoles like PS3, Xbox, Linux, or Mac? I might consider donating because this project holds a lot of potential.
@Tomcatonebl off course not win only! the current win32 implementation (yes, still 32bit; I want for example casual gamers on 32bit systems to have fun, too) is just a prototype, it would be a pretty bad idea to make this project a win targetted thing..
@prof89 thank you! I'm still working on that, have to prepare tons of data and optimize everything a bit (and make my notebook stay cool(ed) when processing all the many gigavoxels of the hi-res geometry)
WANT, WANT, Get this into a usable engine, and you will be greater than notch, heck id even imagine minecraft in this engine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@AwesomeBlackDude cannot say, I'm just preparing the first hi-res scene ever + tuning the whole thing; old code wouldn't perform well with these amounts of voxels..
I will consider donating, but will you also implement resistance of objects? So too much weight on a metal platform will bend it and possibly break it?
@jafabian37 I hope I will but first I have to optimize and tune the volumetric core a bit, that's necessary to make complex physics perform well and make it useful actually for the use in games and similar..
Maybe the voxels should have little invisible "joints" attaching them to surrounding voxels, each with a stress limit on it. Objects woud just be rendered as an assemblage of jointed voxel groups, and not break until the joints' stress limits are exceeded. That might enhance the engine's performance overall because the engine isn't rendering every single voxel as an individual unit.
when i read the aims(wake up the industry, show people that it is possible blablablub) i don't see why you are keeping it all close and why only videos and no smaller demos of what is here are provided
i would support this project and donate money but there is no proof and only very vague information on how this actually performs on computers. Are you planning to sell the engine later on? With a proper license that can still be possible, even with open source
this is genius. The only thing holding this system back is getting close to surfaces. Although the depth of field effect works if the game is an RTS where the camera zoomed in too much, it wont work for a first person view, or any views that need to get up close to volume surfaces.
Other than that, this is incredible. How big do levels get space wise? I would imagine they would be bigger than polygon levels of the same size, since every particle has attributes, such as softness and etc.
@Zuriki09 same here. Hopefully they can find a good balance between in-game level size and actual hard drive space required. Imagine giving each voxel increasing amounts of personal voxel data: color, weight, friction, element, viscosity, conductivity, closest neighbors and etc.
@IknowWhatImherefor Thanks. DoF is the easiest-to-implement solution; dynamic upsampling is quite better (I'm already implementing it) but also slower.
Space-wise there are theoretically no hard limits. The memory footprint is the most relevant limitation in an atom-based technology (can be voxels, points, particles...) but the real constraint is the information entropy of the content. So the actual footprint depends on just that parameter. The simpler the content the lower the footprint.
@AtomontageEngine Upsampling sounds perfect! From my understanding, will upsampling create new voxel information using the "medium resolution" created by the artist/designer, similar to upres'ing a low resolution image in photoshop? Or will the artist need to create a superfine detail mesh which is used when the camera is close?
What do you mean exactly by information-entropy? Does this imply that steadily increasing data of each voxel can cause anomalies in storing deformation?
I was playing Red Faction (one) on my playstation 2 when I was younger. I shot at a wall with my rocket launcher.
It made a hole in the wall that I could physically climb into. This let me dig around and create my own sniper positions and stuff. Me and my cousin had a lot of fun with those phyiscs. But they were not voxels, and the engine was very limited.
In the future, I hope someone else can experience a game like I did, without the limitations I had to face.
Absolutely stunning. It looks extremely convincing in many areas. The pixelation isn't too bad. You could use this level of resolution for a flight or vehicle-based game. Within a few years the level of detail will be on par with today's polygon-based games.
Is this all procedurally generated? I'm relatively new to programing (a few months) and i've been wondering about algorithms to generate procedural height maps or terrain any suggestions? Thanks and your work is extraordinary. :)
@macattack1459 Thanks. Yes the static geometry was generated procedurally. The best things to read are articles about noise generation (Perlin etc.), fractals and similar. CSG could be the next step. Good luck!
Someone put the finance into developing this engine for real. It doesn't matter that out PC's will have problems running the engine. This is how progress in games happens.
@AtomontageEngine Thank you. It was a very informative answer.
cubrman 3 weeks ago
@AtomontageEngine I read on your page, that you believe that hardware acceleration was the wrong choice in video-games technological progress. What exactly did you mean by this? What sort of hardware or technology do you believe is needed to support highly detailed voxel games and how would it be different from existing shader-based videocards?
Thank you.
cubrman 1 month ago
@cubrman Modern GPUs are okay for rendering non-poly content, complex lighting etc. But before the GPUs were programmable, developers were very limited in what they could do. The fact that texturing was smoother, FPS higher, .. was not so great in exchange with no possibility to apply self-developed methods. Commercial pressure killed long-term developments of SW based engines and that was the end of almost all progress in this field. Since then the capabilities of the game (cont. >)
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
@cubrman (cont. >) ... the capabilities of the game engines (not only the way the geometry was rendered) were pretty much determined by the architecture of the dominant GPUs. It is not a big problem now, but for about a decade the problem was pretty much devastating. I think there is a huge difference between progress made by thousands (or tens of thousands?) of independent programmers and progress predetermined by few hardware vendors. I believe that without GPUs ... (cont2. >)
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
@cubrman (cont2. >) ... without GPUs atom-based engines would have become dominant sometime between 2002-2005. With GPUs it is still not the case. If I could go back in time and change it I would have preferred a multi-core multi-CPU architecture. Having a little lower number (compared with the num of GPU cores) of fast general-purpose independent processors would probably result in a greater variability of products. Also the development of atom-based engines wouldn't be halted at all.
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
Shut up and take my money!
drak8888 1 month ago
btw, you have a great talent creating and manipulating those fractal noise functions! I guess you are somehow filtering out the floating islands you tend to get with this sort of thing? Or is carefull noise parameter manipulation... or some clever noise function?
SLPCaires 1 month ago
@SLPCaires Thanks. Some generators suffer from the 'floating silands' a lot but the generation pipeline fixes most of the artifacts by filtering them away. Also I prefer formulas that don't tend to generate many floating islands and other artifacts.
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
I do high end CGI for game trailers.
I love this stuff, its great that you aren't just repeating a small area of dense point cloud over and over again... like that irritating euclidean bs.
I believe voxels of some sort is where we eventually will arrive at.
Re the blocky look, I was wondering if this could be dramatically improved by removing vertices which are not shared by neighboring voxels? Basically turning these silluette cubes into much more forgiving wedges and pyramids and such?
SLPCaires 1 month ago
@SLPCaires I prefer per-pixel geometry - that means that plotting a particular atom, or something like that, remains a trivial operation. So for example a higher-LOD version of the geoemtry will be created on the fly and possibly augmented by some noise to improve visual fidelity. It is a slower method but it has greater potential to satisfy players. Could be that future implementations of similar engines will feature both methods. There are some good reasons for that.
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
The Elders Scrolls VI in this engine, PLEASE!!
PedroGoulart31 2 months ago
when will we be able to make games with it
ghost59able 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AtomontageEngine
I didnt really understand why it could be better that this engine is used more for 3rd person games?
I think that this engine could look very inpressive in fps games and i would dream about a game where you have to battle in these kind of buildings and where you could build them too!
Anyways its an incredible work!
Good luck for the future ;)
TheDg00 2 months ago
@TheDg00 Thanks. The engine is becoming really potent in 1st person view. Still 1st person view is quite more resource-demanding and therefore I think that most of the first games powered by AE and similar engines will be 3rd person ones.
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
Euclidean engine looks way better than this.
lonestaremex361 3 months ago
@lonestaremex361 But does it run in realtime? We have yet to see that happen.
Danielo944 3 months ago
@Danielo944 yeah, youre right the Eulidean engine looks fake but have u seen Fox Engine? it looks better than both.
lonestaremex361 3 months ago
@lonestaremex361 In AE I could show similar scenes to theirs. In their engine they would most likely NOT be able to show what I did in AE videos. Tons of unique dynamic volumetric content will beat surface point-clouds on every field.
AtomontageEngine 3 weeks ago
See these guys need a BJ
junnwe1 3 months ago
So let me get this straight this engine will have good Physics and not use so much memory so that every computer can run thats Smart im so donating because i hate upgrade my computer every year to play new games
junnwe1 3 months ago
Slovakia will rule the world
Ghost4win 3 months ago
strasnej prizvuk ;)
JazzCZE 3 months ago
minecraft needs this generator
nutzeeer 3 months ago
@AtomontageEngine
Dear Branislav,
Could you please explain how you are planning to implement the animation for voxelized objects? For instance if a piece of building is falling. In my opinion there are two ways to do it: to allow for the rotation of voxels or to divide the entire world into voxel matrix and "rebuild" every object every time it moves an inch, as it was in old 2d games like Prince of Percia with pixels. What are pros and cons of these approaches?
Thank you.
cubrman 3 months ago 3
@cubrman there are actually both of these somehow necessary, just that the second approach cannot be used per-frame in real-time for 99% of the content, no hardware could make it work in a very dynamic scene
AtomontageEngine 3 months ago
@vampireita I guess the projection is set differently than it is in most games. If that's the problem then it's actually no problem, a single parameter has to be changed to fix that. The look of the scene is also affected by the lighting. As you can see there's no specular component. That one adds a lot to the apparent quality of the graphics. Once it's added the overall look get be much better.
AtomontageEngine 3 months ago
seriously, is voxel better than polygons? i thing polygons are vector-based ans voxels are bitmap-based. Vector>bitmap
cracottecassee 3 months ago
@cracottecassee This way we can also compare apples with pears. Apples are rounder while pears are sweeter. So what's better, apples or pears? :)
My personal view on this is that today voxels already got better than polygons because we can already have more then enough of them to fill the screen with sufficient detail. The rest is (or soon will be) a question of physics. Physics dislikes polygons a lot.
AtomontageEngine 3 months ago 5
are it komming a new video soon
OYBOY100 3 months ago in playlist More videos from AtomontageEngine
this is amazing!
guerrillaman69 3 months ago
Its awesome : ) more pls pls x.x
Raiyn3d 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fake as hell, people don't realize this
FastFlyerJr 4 months ago
@FastFlyerJr what exactly is fake and why do you think it is?
AtomontageEngine 4 months ago 16
I can't really imagine how rotations and scaling work with voxel objects. When you rotate or scale a pixel based image you often get this kind of mashing, destroying hard edges, fine details, etc. Would you use a distinct coordinate system? That would take away a lot of flexibility.
Sauron1999RS 4 months ago
@Sauron1999RS if something moves then it has its own coordinate system; it would be too expensive to plot an object (or hundreds of objects) every frame
AtomontageEngine 4 months ago
If only minecraft looked like this
MrLemonyFresh 5 months ago
Especially you with Atomontage and Euclideon with Unlimited Detail (seen no such thing as great physic-interaction from their tech) are doing great things :) and btw, I urge everyone reading this to DONATE to the project! 4 dollars from a 100 ppl is better than thinking about giving 400 dollars you don't even have to give. :)
MDxm3000 5 months ago
these people are doing a really great job :D
bonkswa 5 months ago
Вы русский? Слышен славянский акцент)
XapoH7 5 months ago
@XapoH7 акцент французский :)
SmokiSounds 5 months ago
@XapoH7 ой сорри он из Словакии :X
SmokiSounds 5 months ago
I'd suggest make a this engine for Xbox demo live arcade market. I bet you will get lots of hit, if you show how much the engine can do :).
mikeccuk2006 6 months ago
Which areas are voxel based? the sand? the rocks? everything?
PortaleMedia 6 months ago
@PortaleMedia the vehicle is poly-based, the rest is voxel-based
AtomontageEngine 5 months ago
@Whiterfire loading takes just seconds or even less; generating takes hours on 1 PC
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
this is much better than Euclideon's unlimited bla-bla engine.
smackthat87able 6 months ago
ит тук а литл лонгэр диз видео, сори фор дэт
i thought my english was bad
Frankey2310 6 months ago
this is strange to look at and i mean that in a very good way.
zzzzZodiac 6 months ago
y don't u get picked up by microsoft or bell or IBM if you need funding?
Armada3lite 6 months ago
@AtomontageEngine Have the project stalled ?
It's been 7 months
labobo 6 months ago
@labobo Check the webiste, he is still working on it. Posted an update a few days ago.
tycoonassassin 6 months ago
@labobo doing too many things in parallel (need to work with about 50x the previous amounts of data, generate much higher quality content etc.. all that takes some time believe me:)
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
@AtomontageEngine depends on the engine design, algorithms used and targeted hardware
there are many many tricks you can use to help with the performance issues
will you release the source code (or parts of it) ? I'm interested in reading it
labobo 6 months ago
I like this guy more than the Euclideon tech guys. This guy doesn't make outrageos claims and shows that his voxel technology can be improved.
RidgeRacerLord 6 months ago 2
Unlimited deta. And and this are both voxel engines. The difference is this guy isn't claiming videos improve performance or detail 100,000 times and this guy has a product the public has touched.
liminal18 6 months ago
reminds me of minecraft... does minecraft have the same engine? :p
korencek 6 months ago
@korencek actually in a way I think so. Minecraft is indeed voxel based but obviously on a wayyy lower resolution, and poorly optimized. afaik
TheGoose91 6 months ago
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
So can someone explain me, whats the difference between this and unlimited detail?
keshaz12 6 months ago
@keshaz12 Unlimited detail is showing off PURLY voxel data and the amount of detail it is possible to go to. This is showing a practical use of voxels by using interactivity and physics. Unlimited detail makes absurd claims and such, this guy shows those claims. Unlimited detail is currently only graphics, whereas this is showing the voxels used in a game-style and has physics and interaction between objects. Basically, this is unlimited detail with physics and interaction.
MASproductionss 6 months ago
@keshaz12 different goals -> different tech
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
i think unlimited atom or w/e it is looks better... but maybe its just poor artist skills. either way, nice job and cant wait to see these technologies in game
randrewm97 6 months ago
very very nice. Unfortunately this takes a fuckton of memory
HedgehogStudios1 6 months ago
@HedgehogStudios1 the footprint can be comparable to that of a poly-based tech with similar unique 2-point-something-dimensional geometry .. in other words the memory requirements of modern polygon-based engines somehow converge to the actual memory requirements of AE
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!
djmk227 6 months ago
@djmk227 how? ;)
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
I'm dead broke but I'm almost tempted to offer sex instead.
You like tall men?
lesleyhenriquez 6 months ago 12
I have a question. Will this engine be multi-platform, or Windows only. Will it be on other OSes and possibly consoles like PS3, Xbox, Linux, or Mac? I might consider donating because this project holds a lot of potential.
Tomcatonebl 6 months ago
@Tomcatonebl No way this could play on this consoles generation and maybe even the next but someday it will be able to.
MrsDump511 6 months ago
@Tomcatonebl off course not win only! the current win32 implementation (yes, still 32bit; I want for example casual gamers on 32bit systems to have fun, too) is just a prototype, it would be a pretty bad idea to make this project a win targetted thing..
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
@AtomontageEngine But wouldnt it be more productive picking 1 area to focus on?
Exgaves 6 months ago
Polygons are like VHS, they will slowly be phased out as computer power and storage capacity will increase.
Photorealistic graphics and Hyper-realistic physics, Here we come!
thesecondislander 6 months ago
Maybe a demo for those who have donated could be released? (aka me)
prof89 6 months ago
@prof89 thank you! I'm still working on that, have to prepare tons of data and optimize everything a bit (and make my notebook stay cool(ed) when processing all the many gigavoxels of the hi-res geometry)
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
WANT, WANT, Get this into a usable engine, and you will be greater than notch, heck id even imagine minecraft in this engine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so... many... possibilities!
cromoman94 8 months ago
when is the next WIP date?
AwesomeBlackDude 8 months ago
@AwesomeBlackDude cannot say, I'm just preparing the first hi-res scene ever + tuning the whole thing; old code wouldn't perform well with these amounts of voxels..
AtomontageEngine 8 months ago
@AwesomeBlackDude when I feel good after seeing the results .. which is not yet the case :| I want to show a little more this time
AtomontageEngine 6 months ago
I will consider donating, but will you also implement resistance of objects? So too much weight on a metal platform will bend it and possibly break it?
jafabian37 8 months ago
@jafabian37 I hope I will but first I have to optimize and tune the volumetric core a bit, that's necessary to make complex physics perform well and make it useful actually for the use in games and similar..
AtomontageEngine 8 months ago
@AtomontageEngine Im going to donate when i get my next paycheck.
DoctorFreeman97 6 months ago
Maybe the voxels should have little invisible "joints" attaching them to surrounding voxels, each with a stress limit on it. Objects woud just be rendered as an assemblage of jointed voxel groups, and not break until the joints' stress limits are exceeded. That might enhance the engine's performance overall because the engine isn't rendering every single voxel as an individual unit.
MarshmallowRadiation 8 months ago
please let it be minecraft future...
norchaaa 9 months ago 3
VOXELS
VOOOXELS
VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXELS
VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXELS
lordofgangstas 9 months ago
Goddamn, this is the future
Div658 10 months ago
why is this not open source?
when i read the aims(wake up the industry, show people that it is possible blablablub) i don't see why you are keeping it all close and why only videos and no smaller demos of what is here are provided
i would support this project and donate money but there is no proof and only very vague information on how this actually performs on computers. Are you planning to sell the engine later on? With a proper license that can still be possible, even with open source
Kamshak1337 10 months ago 3
this is genius. The only thing holding this system back is getting close to surfaces. Although the depth of field effect works if the game is an RTS where the camera zoomed in too much, it wont work for a first person view, or any views that need to get up close to volume surfaces.
Other than that, this is incredible. How big do levels get space wise? I would imagine they would be bigger than polygon levels of the same size, since every particle has attributes, such as softness and etc.
IknowWhatImherefor 10 months ago
@IknowWhatImherefor I predict they're around FUCKING HUGE, and REALLY FUCKING HUGE. Worth it though.
Zuriki09 10 months ago
@Zuriki09 same here. Hopefully they can find a good balance between in-game level size and actual hard drive space required. Imagine giving each voxel increasing amounts of personal voxel data: color, weight, friction, element, viscosity, conductivity, closest neighbors and etc.
I love the possibilities.
IknowWhatImherefor 8 months ago
@IknowWhatImherefor I predict they're around F*CKING HUGE, and REALLY F*CKING HUGE. Worth it though.
Zuriki09 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IknowWhatImherefor I predict they're around HUGE, and REALLY HUGE. Worth it though.
Zuriki09 10 months ago
@IknowWhatImherefor Thanks. DoF is the easiest-to-implement solution; dynamic upsampling is quite better (I'm already implementing it) but also slower.
Space-wise there are theoretically no hard limits. The memory footprint is the most relevant limitation in an atom-based technology (can be voxels, points, particles...) but the real constraint is the information entropy of the content. So the actual footprint depends on just that parameter. The simpler the content the lower the footprint.
AtomontageEngine 8 months ago
@AtomontageEngine Upsampling sounds perfect! From my understanding, will upsampling create new voxel information using the "medium resolution" created by the artist/designer, similar to upres'ing a low resolution image in photoshop? Or will the artist need to create a superfine detail mesh which is used when the camera is close?
What do you mean exactly by information-entropy? Does this imply that steadily increasing data of each voxel can cause anomalies in storing deformation?
IknowWhatImherefor 8 months ago
I was playing Red Faction (one) on my playstation 2 when I was younger. I shot at a wall with my rocket launcher.
It made a hole in the wall that I could physically climb into. This let me dig around and create my own sniper positions and stuff. Me and my cousin had a lot of fun with those phyiscs. But they were not voxels, and the engine was very limited.
In the future, I hope someone else can experience a game like I did, without the limitations I had to face.
RadGH 10 months ago
voxel-modelling tools: confirming that computers are *not* (and never will be) "fast enough".
walter0bz 10 months ago
Fuck CryEngine. THIS will be the future.
FischKopfD 11 months ago 10
Absolutely stunning. It looks extremely convincing in many areas. The pixelation isn't too bad. You could use this level of resolution for a flight or vehicle-based game. Within a few years the level of detail will be on par with today's polygon-based games.
CodyRicheson 11 months ago
Is this all procedurally generated? I'm relatively new to programing (a few months) and i've been wondering about algorithms to generate procedural height maps or terrain any suggestions? Thanks and your work is extraordinary. :)
macattack1459 1 year ago
@macattack1459 Thanks. Yes the static geometry was generated procedurally. The best things to read are articles about noise generation (Perlin etc.), fractals and similar. CSG could be the next step. Good luck!
AtomontageEngine 8 months ago
This gives me shivers =D Nice work!
asgalad 1 year ago
love me some A-toms
brorkanintheman 1 year ago
This looks very good! Keep it up. :)
exaltstudios 1 year ago
Someone put the finance into developing this engine for real. It doesn't matter that out PC's will have problems running the engine. This is how progress in games happens.
T1tusCr0w 1 year ago
@T1tusCr0w
Not just games, mind.
LyricalDJ 11 months ago
Someone give this man a lot of money.
Clean3dYT 1 year ago 170
@Clean3dYT would if I could, but if he released a game I would buy it !
KlingonOG 10 months ago
Wow, that looks awesome! Sometimes really photo-realistic.
Evi1M4chine 1 year ago
Comment removed
Evi1M4chine 1 year ago
I thought this project was dead. Thank god!
Freak2121GTAF 1 year ago 58