Mind blown, jaw dropped
- Thread starter Vaskadar
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
So what's the difference between voxels and real point cloud data? The guy in the video says it's point cloud. He even talks about scanning a rock from the real world, which is how you create point clouds.
Last edited:
Notch makes a few good points, but his math is blatantly wrong. Also, it's been shown that points can take up less than 1 bit of space.
About the whole animation thing, we have indeed yet to see that. Some people have been showing animation working in voxel engines, though it still has drawbacks. I suppose this is where unlimited detail has figured out something that works.
About the whole animation thing, we have indeed yet to see that. Some people have been showing animation working in voxel engines, though it still has drawbacks. I suppose this is where unlimited detail has figured out something that works.
Which is why they've never demonstrated it in all the time they've been showing the same rubbish?
Edit: His math doesn't look wrong to me. Also, he assumes one byte of information... before clarifying how one voxel could never really consist of one byte.
Last edited:
Right. And we're supposed to take the word of a self-admitted not-so-great coder instead.
I'm an expert on the internet.
Get more offended people. It's funny when you are.
I welcome any revolution in graphics with open arms. If these guys deliver, it's good for everyone. If they don't, everyone will forget about it and keep increasing the polygon count instead.
I really don't understand why people are hating on these guys.
Let me put it another way. Last time I checked, CG rendering companies (e.g, Pixar) still worked in Polygons. If there was an improvement to be had using voxels, they'd have moved on a long time ago.
Voxels are good in engineering applications where you need to push a lot of dense 3d data around and don't care about how long it takes (e.g medical imaging).
Voxels are good in engineering applications where you need to push a lot of dense 3d data around and don't care about how long it takes (e.g medical imaging).
You say that like it's impossible that these guys have figured something that makes it viable.
They say the version they showed runs at 20FPS and that they have other versions that can run faster.
According to them, it's no longer an issue.
As for Pixar, they have a much higher polygon budget than games as their stuff only needs to render on computer farms and not run real time. The advantages of switching to voxels or whatever it is these guys are showing are not as significant, as they can already make round stuff look round with polygons for example.
Because they're rendering the same tiles over and over and over again. You can do that very cheaply with the right architecture in a voxel renderer.
There are better voxel renderers out there already.
So possible that they must conceal all evidence of it from the world completely, lest our puny minds explode with the excitement.
Edit: While I'm here:
Voxels! As seen in 3d game renderers for almost as long as polygons.
Last edited:
Yeah, and the inventors of the PC said that even in the future, almost nobody would have a PC.
Festering Anus
Cheeto Hans
But if it looked that good back then, how come nobody is trying to bring it back nowadays? And why do they get shot down so hard when they do for being fake?
They don't. CryEngine, C4, Atomontage, all legit engines with at least a partial voxel implementation. These guys on the other hand are complete bullshit merchants who have been around for a long time, and only seem to re-emerge when they're running out of money. Voxels can be used and are used in games already (and have been since the mid-late 90s).
Because it doesn't really look good. Yes, the level of detail without LOD is impressive and could possible be a cool thing in the future, but the system as it stands looks weird, runs poorly and doesn't work with any of the tools that people have. I mean, when you environment runs at 20fps with repeated structures, no animation, no physics, no particle effects, etc., what is there to even care about?
As for why this video gets shot down as being fake: it's because of the claims. They are obviously inflated and exaggerated, ignoring all of the downsides and over selling the pluses. This is shady and people are calling it out.