|
ghostwheel
|
 |
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:10:30 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is for cowards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris W
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2011, 01:59:39 AM » |
|
I remember this, exactly like the narrator described at the beginning - a fantastic claim that was followed up by nothing. Glad to see they are still working, though. I will remain skeptical until I see it working in a real project. Voxels have always been way to heavy to run in real time, so how they are giving you an "unlimited" number seems almost like magic. I hope they can back it up, because modeling in voxels would eliminate some of the irritations you get with polygons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kjell
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2011, 02:57:15 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michaël Samyn
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2011, 09:24:05 AM » |
|
Realtime 3D will always be an illusion. I personally don't mind the artifacts of lower-poly models too much. As long as the overall effect is good. Which has more to do with art direction than technology.
What I would really be interested in is a new way of creating these 3D models. And this technology doesn't seem to have a solution for this. The movie just talks about exporting from stone-age Max or scanning things in.
I'm also wondering if their claims extend to the inside of objects. I've always felt the hollow-ness of 3D models to be very unnatural. I would love to be able to create models that are filled with atoms and that are not just shells. This would feel a lot more intuitive when creating them.
I do like how this technology might take away some of the head-aches when running up against polygon count restrictions. But given that we already have trouble creating a smooth-running game with small amounts of low-poly objects, I'll join the sceptics here and wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kjell
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2011, 12:15:55 PM » |
|
It's not all that complicated. A demo ( including source ) from NVIDIA is available here, or you can simply check out a video of the demo. There are some serious downsides to this approach though. I personally don't mind the artifacts of lower-poly models too much. As long as the overall effect is good. Which has more to do with art direction than technology. Agreed |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ghostwheel
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2011, 05:26:21 PM » |
|
I don't mind low-poly models either, in some cases. But I think it would be awesome to take a super detailed model from Zbrush or Sculptris and put it directly into a game and not have to screw around with normal maps, modelling a low-poly version and optimizing textures and all the other bullshit you have to do now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is for cowards.
|
|
|
|
Michaël Samyn
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2011, 07:14:39 PM » |
|
I agree. It would be great if this technology could take away some of the hurdles towards being creative in this medium. I'm pretty sure I spend more than half of my time on finding workarounds for performance limitations. It would be nice to be able to be a bit more productive.
But I'm afraid that now that the engineers have figured out how to make games run at 60 FPS on a normal computer (which means that our games run at 30 -still decent), this new technology might mean that we're back to 30 FPS for engineers (meaning 15 for us -unacceptable).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
God at play
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2011, 07:59:09 PM » |
|
I use 3D Coat, which allows you to sculpt in voxels. That means objects actually have volume. It's quite nice to work in, but you can still mess things up; this is sort of the first commercial software of its kind.  http://www.3d-coat.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FourthWall
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2011, 01:35:52 PM » |
|
One day we'll be using this, I think that's a given. However, I don't think these guys (who have been around a while) are going to give us a magical breakthrough that will allow us to utilise this on near-future systems. Hardware needs to move on too much for this to become a reality soon, even with clever software technology. Indeed, hardware needs to be developed around this and that doesn't look like a route that the big hardware players are aggressivley chasing.
The possible physics application of this technology gets me more excited than anything. Saying that, it's also another major drawback when competing with current tech.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michaël Samyn
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2011, 02:19:35 PM » |
|
The strong push towards mobile computing is somewhat of a setback for increases in hardware performance. These days technology seems to evolve by taking steps back before going forward (a little bit). Maybe we're too nostalgic. Or maybe we're not ambitious enough. Or maybe we don't really want all this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Albin Bernhardsson
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2011, 07:25:18 PM » |
|
The engineer in me screams when anyone uses the word 'unlimited'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
axcho
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2011, 06:53:38 AM » |
|
I would love to see this used to bring natural complexity (plants, dirt, etc.) into game environments... It's something I appreciate so much in the real world, which games currently cannot even come close to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Albin Bernhardsson
|
|
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2011, 08:52:41 AM » |
|
Everything they claim in the first video (and in the second, for that matter), is pure unsubstiated bullshit. What they claim to have done is absolutely impossible. What they have done is nothing new. It's perhaps more efficient than previous voxel-codes, but no revolutionary breakthrough.
What they actually show you in the demo is a very small amount of voxels (compared to how many they say there are) in chunks repeated all over the place. Notice how all of the world is flat and structured in the same way, constantly repeated? Notice how all big structures face the same direction? They're just the same chunks repeated.
What they've done is very impressive but they keep lying about it for reasons I can't exactly understand. If you've got the funding, if this isn't a scam, why not be honest about it?
(Always beware of claims of anything unlimited, they're always lies.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
