Unlimited Detail

[Domnomnom 1]

So basically, revolutionising graphics.

If this isn't in enough detail for you then:

Edited July 16, 2012 by Guest

[Biggles 44]

Nice links

[Domnomnom 1]

I can't work it out D:

[Biggles 44]

Fixed it for you, just use the URL link not the shared link

[Domnomnom 1]

Ah cheers. What do you think of it?

[Biggles 44]

From the narrator, I don't believe it, sounds like a troll voice so I'll believe it when theres a game released

[Shadow 0]

Saw this video a year ago, still haven't seen any progress on it. Most likely not real. Like Biggles said, wait for a game to be the proof.

[barrythemorris 0]

Lol don't get your hopes up, there's a reason they use polygons and not voxels. Voxels are a bitch to animate, notice in all their videos nothing is animated? That's the trade off they make to get such high detail. You can get on that level of detail with polygons if you ignore animation. It's just a scam to get business people to invest who know nothing about games.

[Domnomnom 1]

There is a video of animation. They're still in early stages. Basically, if they have come up with the search algorythm, there is no reason why this isn't possible.

[barrythemorris 0]

There is a video of animation. They're still in early stages. Basically, if they have come up with the search algorythm, there is no reason why this isn't possible.

Yeah and the graphics are shit because you can't have that much detail and animate it.

Technically polygons are capable of infinite detail as well, you just need enough of them. But increasing the polygon/voxel count increases the processing power you need to animate and render. Things like Toy Story and Shrek, Pixar movies etc are made of polygons and look way better than current PC games because they don't need to render in real time and have access to expensive hardware. Nothing they've done is revolutionary or game changing, you can achieve exactly what they have done using polygons.

[Domnomnom 1]

It actually requires very little processing power as there is only one atom rendered per pixel of the screen (hence the use of the search algorythm) and he claims it uses none of the graphics card's power yet we see a voxel count 100,000 times higher than any polygon count around before - all this done on a standard laptop. I know those 2 year old videos of animations are awful, there was a more recent one of a soldier walking. Not sure where that is though. It still isn't brilliant, but they're working on animations atm.

Finally, @Shadow - the reason there have been no developments recently (or as he claims in the interview) is that they enjoy being a secretive business (which is clearly their hype-up marketing plan) and said he would disappear again for some time before they are ready to release their progress.

[barrythemorris 0]

we see a voxel count 100,000 times higher than any polygon count

Because it's a static scene, no animation. You can get the same result with polygons. You can make polygons as detailed as you like. You can't move all those voxels/polygons though in an animation without a ton of processing power, which is why games have low polygon counts. Voxels don't magically animate themselves and are actually harder to animate than polygons.

It actually requires very little processing power as there is only one atom rendered per pixel of the screen

Polygons do the same thing. Again it only requires little power as NOTHING IS MOVING.

Voxel engines do exist but they aren't more efficient than polygons.

Here is an engine based on voxels:

Their voxel engine makes nice static scenes but claiming it will revolutionise the gaming industry is like saying your new painting technique will revolutionise the film industry.

[Domnomnom 1]

That engine is nowhere near the level of this. He talks about animation in the video. He says he can do it. I thought it wouln't be possible to get such a high level of detail until I saw this video. Give the guy a chance. Also, polygons don't just render per pixel. There are too few polygons for that to happen :p

[barrythemorris 0]

That engine is nowhere near the level of this. He talks about animation in the video. He says he can do it. I thought it wouln't be possible to get such a high level of detail until I saw this video. Give the guy a chance. Also, polygons don't just render per pixel. There are too few polygons for that to happen :p

The engine they made can technically have infinite detail, but so can any engine given enough power. The only reason they achieve such good graphics with their engine is because their models are static so they don't need a lot of processing power to render them. This is generally true of most engines, what limits the polygon count in games is your hardware, not your engine. Infinite detail on a practical level is impossible as your detail will always be limited by your hardware.

[Domnomnom 1]

But it isn't limitted by the hardware of the individual computer. They 3d scan in their objects... So it can be as detailed as the 3d scanner can sense. All those leaves on the floor are from the real world. And also, they've shown animations to work without being hard on the hardware