Go to bottom

Unlimited Detail Technology?

category: offtopic [glöplog]
/uncovers nose
added on the 2011-08-01 15:07:04 by xernobyl xernobyl
gloom: Actually, he states in that video that it's currently running in software. So the GPU shouldn't matter, but it's probably pretty CPU intense. And that's something I doubt most game-devs are too psyched about ;)
added on the 2011-08-01 15:18:57 by kusma kusma
He says running at 20fps in software, but no resolution or any hardware detail. He also says hardware versions are being worked on. CUDA / OpenCL perhaps?
added on the 2011-08-01 15:26:33 by xernobyl xernobyl
I can see the engine being 'possible', and if it's running 20fps now it'll probably be usably fast on the hardware available when it's actually used in a game. So I don't think that's all that much of an issue.

GPU based versions could render it faster perhaps, but how much data are you going to have to shove across that bus? And presumably if it's using really large datasets it's going to be streaming from disk too, and all without stalls?

But anyway, the people who will be interested in buying this are probably asking "OK, so I can drive a tank through that world knocking down the trees and walls in a realistic way right?" And I bet there's not a good answer for that ;)
added on the 2011-08-01 15:33:07 by psonice psonice
animation plz kthx.
added on the 2011-08-01 16:01:26 by Gargaj Gargaj
In fact, how about an uneven terrain that doesn't repeat, covered with a _large_ variety of non-axis-aligned objects :) I mean it does look kinda nice, but what we see is the voxel equivalent of the Minecraft engine. :)
added on the 2011-08-01 16:10:41 by Gargaj Gargaj
yeah, a terrain generator shouldn't take much time, and a simple tool to copy + paste those nice trees they made at random positions + rotations over an area would make a nice forrest quite easily.

Question is whether they have some big reason to not do that, or if they're simply showing some test world they made?
added on the 2011-08-01 16:15:24 by psonice psonice
the reason, i suppose, is that the partitioning engine is optimized to have static "blocks" with static alignments.
added on the 2011-08-01 16:17:05 by Gargaj Gargaj
BB Image
added on the 2011-08-01 16:18:40 by Gargaj Gargaj
I thought it looked similar to something.

If they can't evolve it from what it currently is, that's all it will be good for. But really, who wants an even MORE power hungry Minecraft? XD
What, you're saying minecraft with crysis style graphics + requirements is a bad thing? :D That is a comedy comparison though. I really hope for them that's just a silly limitation of their map tools, and not a problem with the engine itself. Because that would suck horrendously.
added on the 2011-08-01 16:31:42 by psonice psonice
I can't see how it cannot be a limitation of the engine. Lets say, for a moment, that it is possible to render, in full framerate, an atom level voxelized world. How will your resources look like? You have two options:

1) Go for a complex world where objects are complex (each designed, rotated and placed at random places, just like the real world).

2) Go for a world that has patterns - there are multiple "rocks" but they all look the same, or come from a finite set of options.

It would be good for 1) to work, but wouldn't you need an infinite amount of memory to process all that?
added on the 2011-08-01 16:40:41 by Navis Navis
Only if the world is infinite.
added on the 2011-08-01 16:48:25 by pommak pommak
well, anything in the "billions" (let alone trillions) is still infinity for common computers.
added on the 2011-08-01 16:50:27 by Navis Navis
"billions" = a few GB, or a DVD or two. Pretty standard dataset for a modern game, no? And the CPU doesn't have to deal with all of that at once, it's presumably keeping the near-by data at full res in memory plus lower detail data for more distant points. So it might only be storing 10% or less of the full data say.

Plus it's probably using something along the line of a detail texture - you make the world quite low res (big blocky terrain like in the video) and then have detailed geometry to actually build the block (so when you get close you can see the blades of grass). So the actual world map might only be 1024x1024, perfectly manageable.
added on the 2011-08-01 17:04:43 by psonice psonice
yes, only they're talking about a billion (or more) per square meter or something. If there is some sort of LODing then it is a whole different story yet again. I don't know, the figures just don't add up if we go full blown "infinite". It works with repeated, aligned objects, sure. But that's not reality.
added on the 2011-08-01 17:10:14 by Navis Navis
Who needs animated geometry when you can have Unlimited Detail?
psonice: streaming sure isnt that efficient.. :)
added on the 2011-08-01 17:28:39 by smash smash
"well we're not finished yet"
added on the 2011-08-01 17:52:06 by numtek numtek
I bring unlimited punches to his face anytime! Don't even need polygons!
added on the 2011-08-01 17:57:42 by maytz maytz
Even if his work should not make specialized graphics processors dispensable, it, nonetheless appears as unrelated to much of what is conventional and, moreover, gives satisfactory results. That's an argument in favor of alienating one's self and `working in a vacuum', as Mr. Dell puts it. Also, cf. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf
added on the 2011-08-01 18:24:05 by Kais Kais
I want a ST port !
added on the 2011-08-01 19:40:36 by tobé tobé
they are the ultimate trolls of the industry :)
.. i didn't care to read all - but it seems they got funded??
if it's all true, this is no less than a major leap in gfx industry. it figures, they come from Australia.


get it? leap? kangaroos? Australia?? ahahah
added on the 2011-08-01 21:16:58 by jeenio jeenio


Go to top