NERDGASM ALERT: Detailed Rendering of CG just got infinately better. The polygon is dead

And I doubt that ATI or Nvidia are going to make something just to accommodate this...

ROFL!

They will welcome this! NEW HARDWARE! Everyone will run and want one, and YOU know you would want one too More money for NV and AMD... its NOT their goal that people are sitting on outdated hardware for years and years.

Let's put it that way...

If they HAD such a miracle-algorithm...why not simply patent the technology and then announce it and get everyone involved?

Instead of playing such a ridiculous game of superlatives "WE found the holy grail of 3d graphics, we are 100.000 times better than everything else on the market"

Minecraft creator Notch says its a scam.

It’s a scam! Perhaps you’ve seen the videos about some groundbreaking “unlimited detail” rendering technology? If not, check it out here, then get back to this post: www.youtube.com... Well, it is a scam. They made a voxel renderer, probably based on sparse voxel octrees. That’s cool and all, but.. To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information. In reality, you will need way more than just one byte of data per voxel to do colors and lighting, and the island is probably way taller than just eight meters, so that estimate is very optimistic. So obviously, it’s not made up of that many unique voxels. In the video, you can make up loads of repeated structured, all roughly the same size. Sparse voxel octrees work great for this, as you don’t need to have unique data in each leaf node, but can reference the same data repeatedly (at fixed intervals) with great speed and memory efficiency. This explains how they can have that much data, but it also shows one of the biggest weaknesses of their engine. Another weakness is that voxels are horrible for doing animation, because there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data. It’s possible to rotate, scale and translate individual chunks of voxel data to do simple animation (imagine one chunk for the upper arm, one for the lower, one for the torso, and so on), but it’s not going to look as nice as polygon based animated characters do. It’s a very pretty and very impressive piece of technology, but they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it’s been done several times before. There’s the very impressive looking Atomontage Engine: www.youtube.com... Ken Silverman (the guy who wrote the Build engine, used in Duke Nukem 3D) has been working on a voxel engine called Voxlap, which is the basis for Voxelstein 3d: www.youtube.com... And there’s more: www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... They’re hyping this as something new and revolutionary because they want funding. It’s a scam. Don’t get excited. Or, more correctly, get excited about voxels, but not about the snake oil salesmen.

Why it’s a scam:

* They pretend like they’re doing something new and unique, but in reality a lot of people are researching this. There are a lot of known draw-backs to doing this.
* They refuse to address the known flaws. They don’t show non-repeated architecture, they don’t show animation, they don’t show rotated geometry, and they don’t show dynamic lighting.
* They invent new terminology and use superlatives and plenty of unverifiable claims.
* They say it’s a “search algorithm”. That’s just semantics to confuse the issue. Sparse voxel octrees is a search algorithm to do very fast ray casting in a voxel space.
* They seem to be doing some very impressive voxel rendering stuff, which could absolutely be used to make very interesting games, but it’s not as great as they claim it is. The only reason I can see for them misrepresenting it this bad is that I assume they’re looking for funding and/or to get bought up.

If these guys were being honest with the drawbacks and weaknesses of their system, I’d be their biggest fan. As it is now, it’s almost like they’re trying NOT to be trustworthy.

All this said, voxels are amazing. So is raytracing and raycasting. As computers get more powerful, and storage gets faster and cheaper, we will see amazing things happen.

And a final word to the engineers who worked on this: Great job, I am impressed! But please tell your marketing department to stop lying.

Was speaking to a friend of mine who is a senior programmer at a games company, and they all think it's a scam too. Note how they've only been able to get investment from the Aussie government, no real sensible money is going anywhere near it.

Check out this vid, here is another company doing point cloud data. It's not fake.



This video contains some very detailed scenes that are scanned in by laser.

Is this a scam too?



Here is an example of how to get unlimited amount of stuff on your screen.

No matter what if you say, "We're amazing. We're way more amazing than everyone else! In fact, we're 100,000 times more amazing than everyone else. Now ... we don't have these amazing things yet, because we're not industry leaders, but imagine when they get their hands on it!"

Meanwhile, what you're saying flies in the face of well-established industry standards and capabilities ...
Meanwhile, you don't have the funding to bring it to market ...

I mean I can completely understand why people are so skeptical.

In my opinion, innovation like this is not outside the realm of possibility. This video looks like an attempt to "go viral" to rouse up interest in their product. The real problem with that, is that it is not ready for consumer level consumption. The buzz needs to happen within the industry, in which case serious business needs to take place: demos, dinner, trial SDKs, etc ... The public might get a little glimpse here and there, but the big works would be done with the big dogs behind closed doors.

It smells fishy, and it probably is, but they also might be on to something. It's hard to tell at this point.

Originally posted by TimeSpiral
No matter what if you say, "We're amazing. We're way more amazing than everyone else! In fact, we're 100,000 times more amazing than everyone else. Now ... we don't have these amazing things yet, because we're not industry leaders, but imagine when they get their hands on it!"

Meanwhile, what you're saying flies in the face of well-established industry standards and capabilities ...
Meanwhile, you don't have the funding to bring it to market ...

I mean I can completely understand why people are so skeptical.

In my opinion, innovation like this is not outside the realm of possibility. This video looks like an attempt to "go viral" to rouse up interest in their product. The real problem with that, is that it is not ready for consumer level consumption. The buzz needs to happen within the industry, in which case serious business needs to take place: demos, dinner, trial SDKs, etc ... The public might get a little glimpse here and there, but the big works would be done with the big dogs behind closed doors.

It smells fishy, and it probably is, but they also might be on to something. It's hard to tell at this point.

Here is NVIDIA testing out the concept.



Look familiar?

reply to post by BIGPoJo


No, that's voxel-based GI. That is nothing like the "unlimited detail" voxel engine. Different concepts completely.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo

 

No, that's voxel-based GI. That is nothing like the "unlimited detail" voxel engine. Different concepts completely.

Its being rendered real-time.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


You're missing the point entirely. Using a voxel heirachy for real-time indirect lighting is nothing at all to do with with using voxels to represent geometry. They are completely different concepts. The geometry in that vid is still triangle-based, not voxel-based.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo

 

You're missing the point entirely. Using a voxel heirachy for real-time indirect lighting is nothing at all to do with with using voxels to represent geometry. They are completely different concepts. The geometry in that vid is still triangle-based, not voxel-based.

edit on 4-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

Here is more of the impossible, very tall mountains made of voxels.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo

 

You're missing the point entirely. Using a voxel heirachy for real-time indirect lighting is nothing at all to do with with using voxels to represent geometry. They are completely different concepts. The geometry in that vid is still triangle-based, not voxel-based.

edit on 4-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

No, you are not showing what is possible, you are only showing your ignorance of the field of computer graphics. You are getting 2 completely different concepts confused because they have the word 'voxel' in them. No offence, but googling the word 'voxel' and pasting links to research and using it to make your case (why? I have no idea) is rather foolish when anyone with a background can instantly see that not only is the research you post not in any way pertinent but it also highlights your own lack of understanding of the field. What exactly us your agenda here?

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo

 

You're missing the point entirely. Using a voxel heirachy for real-time indirect lighting is nothing at all to do with with using voxels to represent geometry. They are completely different concepts. The geometry in that vid is still triangle-based, not voxel-based.

edit on 4-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

No, you are not showing what is possible, you are only showing your ignorance of the field of computer graphics. You are getting 2 completely different concepts confused because they have the word 'voxel' in them. No offence, but googling the word 'voxel' and pasting links to research and using it to make your case (why? I have no idea) is rather foolish when anyone with a background can instantly see that not only is the research you post not in any way pertinent but it also highlights your own lack of understanding of the field. What exactly us your agenda here?

I don't have an agenda. I was just showing similar results that could seem to be impossible if we take the word of Notch to heart. I am not confused, you are.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

Notch knows exactly what he's talking about. He's a voxel expert. Minecraft runs on a voxel engine.

I'm the former technical director of a large game developer (Neversoft), and a technical writer for Game Developer magazine with over 30 published game programming articles. In my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone I know in the game development community, Notch's assessment of these claims is entirely correct.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by BIGPoJo

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by BIGPoJo

 

You're missing the point entirely. Using a voxel heirachy for real-time indirect lighting is nothing at all to do with with using voxels to represent geometry. They are completely different concepts. The geometry in that vid is still triangle-based, not voxel-based.

edit on 4-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

No, you are not showing what is possible, you are only showing your ignorance of the field of computer graphics. You are getting 2 completely different concepts confused because they have the word 'voxel' in them. No offence, but googling the word 'voxel' and pasting links to research and using it to make your case (why? I have no idea) is rather foolish when anyone with a background can instantly see that not only is the research you post not in any way pertinent but it also highlights your own lack of understanding of the field. What exactly us your agenda here?

I don't have an agenda. I was just showing similar results that could seem to be impossible if we take the word of Notch to heart. I am not confused, you are.

No my friend, you are the confused one. It is quite clear that you are ignorant of the very concepts you cheerlead. For example, the fact you posted another example of a voxel engine as if to refute those who call it "impossible" (clue: no one has said using voxels to represent geometry is impossible) only illustrates that you haven't grasped the criticisms levelled at this "unlimited detail" technology. You post up an example of a voxel-based global illumination solution to support this "unlimited detail" technology when they are completely different concepts entirely. Why?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Just showing what is possible. I bet if Notch had seen these other videos he would call them hoaxes too.

Notch knows exactly what he's talking about. He's a voxel expert. Minecraft runs on a voxel engine.

I'm the former technical director of a large game developer (Neversoft), and a technical writer for Game Developer magazine with over 30 published game programming articles. In my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone I know in the game development community, Notch's assessment of these claims is entirely correct.

Care to explain how Mr. Dell weaseled some of the largest grants ever to a video game company from the Australian government? The claim is that the engine is NOT voxel based but they did start in voxel editors. The claim is that they have found a new way to render things in 3d. He is making the assumption that it is voxel based and so are you. If it was voxel based then it would be a valid argument but this is not the case.

How about this person's opinion?
@ID_AA_Carmack

Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.

He did not mention it was a hoax.

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Care to explain how Mr. Dell weaseled some of the largest grants ever to a video game company from the Australian government?

By taking existing technology, and writing a rendering engine based on it, and then saying it's new and amazing.

The claim is that the engine is NOT voxel based but they did start in voxel editors.

He just says he does not refer to them as voxels. But that's what they are, by definition.

The claim is that they have found a new way to render things in 3d. He is making the assumption that it is voxel based and so are you. If it was voxel based then it would be a valid argument but this is not the case.

His description of his technology is the same as a description of voxel technology.

How about this person's opinion?
@ID_AA_Carmack

Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.

He did not mention it was a hoax.

It's not a hoax. Carmack's assessment is entirely correct. Carmack has also written voxel renderers, and probably has more advanced voxel technology than Euclideon. He'll probably show it in id Tech 6.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


You still do not understand the criticisms that have been levelled at this technology. No one is saying that the vids are a "hoax", rather the technology has severe limitations that are not mentioned by the inventors. Their technology is old and certainty not "the end of polygons". Seriously, stop grasping at straws.

When people like John Carmack level criticisms at technology, you'd be very wise to listen.