Mind blown, jaw dropped

  • 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.

phil

OH GOD
Jan 3, 2000
3,705
0
0
So that technology runs 20fps on modern computers with no animation or gameplay going on.......

cough.
 

NRG

Master Console Hater
Dec 31, 2005
1,727
0
36
34
Yep, there was a big thread about it here when they first demoed. The rendering method itself isn't terribly new or impressive (he says it himself, it's used in the medical field). However, if they've actually managed to find a way to optimize it to the point of being possible on gaming hardware, then it's impressive.

Of course, everyone wants to know what Carmack's response is:
John Carmack said:
Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging.
So that technology runs 20fps on modern computers with no animation or gameplay going on.......

cough.
He said that's on software rendering. Anything 3D is terribly slow compared to using an API or hardware-level access. IE, consoles.
 

Vaskadar

It's time I look back from outer space
Feb 12, 2008
2,689
53
48
34
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Yeah, this is their year-in report. It looks promising, based on Moore's law, things could be 'there' in a matter of a few years.
 

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
What they are saying sounds amazing. I, for one (and I'm pretty sure I said the same thing a year ago), don't think that the likelihood is all that great that they can actually deliver what annoying voice man is trying to sell.
 

[GU]elmur_fud

I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Mar 15, 2005
3,148
31
48
45
Waco, Texas
mtbp.deviantart.com
After watching that, it looks like they are using small chunks of rendered details that are then tiled over and over to achieve the appearance of realism.

Pointillism model count something like 50 maybe. Arranged into various blocks and then stuck together.

Old truck new paint.
 

Zur

surrealistic mad cow
Jul 8, 2002
11,708
8
38
48
What they are saying sounds amazing. I, for one (and I'm pretty sure I said the same thing a year ago), don't think that the likelihood is all that great that they can actually deliver what annoying voice man is trying to sell.

For one thing any technology that comes out needs to leverage graphics hardware.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
I remember the conversation the first time this showed up. The trick must be in only showing the pixels that are actually visible. They must have some sort of advanced data structure that allows them to pull all the visible pixels in constant time based on location. There's still some serious limitations to the technology. I'd like to see more vibrant environments, and surfaces with detailed textures.
 

Rambowjo

Das Protoss
Aug 3, 2005
5,073
5
38
32
Tapeland
[GU]elmur_fud;2528170 said:
After watching that, it looks like they are using small chunks of rendered details that are then tiled over and over to achieve the appearance of realism.

Pointillism model count something like 50 maybe. Arranged into various blocks and then stuck together.

Old truck new paint.

They copy/pasting a lot because these guys are not focusing on making pretty tech demos, they are working on getting the technology to work. Scanning stuff and arranging it in a level takes time, I'd imagine.

At any rate, adding more models is a non-issue, and if storage becomes a problem, they can just reduce the point count, to make room for more models. In the end, the count would still be many times larger than current standards.

I must say, the guy's voice has changed a lot. Back when they first showed this, he sounded like a nerd. Now he sounds like some terrible voice over out of a 90s show or something.
 

SleepyHe4d

fap fap fap
Jan 20, 2008
4,152
0
0
So basically it's procedural generation and tessellation and he's just trying to make it sound a lot better than that? Because if it's not those things, then it would truly look realistic and have infinite detail like he says it's supposed to, BUT IT DOESN'T. You know why? Cause computers still have to render stuff and it's impossible to render "infinite detail". Herp derp. :rolleyes:

He basically references normal games as "non-procedural" but doesn't really explain how the tech he's showing off works, so that's just making me think all of this.

Probably related to what they're really doing:

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7eREddMjt4[/M]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3muhlQYFgLE[/M]


Please someone prove me wrong and explain how it's not just procedural generation and tessellation.
 
Last edited:

Fuzzle

spam noob
Jan 29, 2006
1,784
0
0
Norway
[GU]elmur_fud;2528170 said:
After watching that, it looks like they are using small chunks of rendered details that are then tiled over and over to achieve the appearance of realism.

Pointillism model count something like 50 maybe. Arranged into various blocks and then stuck together.

Old truck new paint.

Wut.
It's basically voxels in a way (if not straight up voxels, I wouldn't know the exact definition), and like someone mentioned, the trick is that it renders per-pixel rather than rendering everything and then squeeze it down into pixels. It basically discards every 'atom' that isn't caught and rendered.

The theory is sound and if it is, doesn't require as much processing power as our current way of rendering things.
So basically it's procedural generation and tessellation and he's just trying to make it sound a lot better than that? Because if it's not those things, then it would truly look realistic and have infinite detail like he says it's supposed to, BUT IT DOESN'T. You know why? Cause computers still have to render stuff and it's impossible to render "infinite detail". Herp derp. :rolleyes:

Procedural is a way of generating the assets and not necessarily referring to the way it renders them. He's talking about how our current games use polygons for their 3d, while they want to use volumetric 'dots'.

I think the blade runner game used voxels, it's been so long since I've played it.
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZaS6nbHLyI
It sorta ends up looking like prerendered 3d sprites, like someone in the comments points out, but it is infact realtime 3d voxels. There's a better example somewhere in the game where you can stand on a painstakingly slow rotating platform and watch your character spin around. It points out how it's not prerendered sprites since you'll be rotating at 60fps but it still takes you like a full minute to do a full revolution.
 
Last edited:

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
There's certainly a certain level of procedural generation involved, but probably only because the files would be too big otherwise. What they are trying to show is simply how scalable it is. They want to show that you can move from the view of an island and zoom in all the way down to a grain of dirt without any tricks like switching to a more detailed model.
 
Mar 19, 2002
8,616
1
0
Denver Co. USA
Visit site
Pretty dumb.

Why yes, yes you are.

you left out physics, and AI and all that other stuff they've never thought of.

I realize the Unreal Engine hasn't evolved at all since we first saw it over 10 years ago, but that doesn't mean this technology can't.

Actually, they should just give up. Carmack himself said games will never look better than Doom3.
 
Last edited: