Bogus? I think not!

I don't know why people try to hate on this new 3D technology. They somehow want it to fail, when it could benefit every gamer.

<iframe width='420' height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/etjItFiOX9Y" frameborder='0' allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's an interview with the guy who "thought out of the box" in terms of 3D programming.


<iframe width='560' height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JVB1ayT6Fdc" frameborder='0' allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Old news. There's already been a bunch of threads on this.

 

Its vaporware.

 

The only things there is to it is that developers will market their games to having such beautiful graphics using the technique, sacrifice gameplay and charge double or triple just to make a small profit out of all the time they spent making the game.

 

Exactly! Well said Baka. This has been nothing but tech demos (and poor ones at that) and lip service. Let me play a somewhat modern FPS using the tech and I'll be convinced (Somewhat).

 

Everything they show in the video are STATIC. No shadows, no animations. No dynamics involved, nothing but simple drawings.

FAAAAAKE

 

From a mathematical point of view, it would be 100k times more complicated (as they are saying it is as much more detailed) as calculating the new polygon is just applying a linear transformation on its vertices, but every single atom will become a vertex in their approach (smooth surface), would end up calculating the new location of everything, doesn't look feasible to me.

This also explains totally static video as cloud is pointing.

 

I always thought they could apply physical attributes to certain models, like wood (and varying kinds of wood), steel, glass, etc, that would react in a random way based on an algorithm how that material would react to certain forces. So you could assign attributes to each "type" of model like density, tensile strength, melting point, combustibility, hardness, fracture toughness, etc. So for example in a game like BF3, when a tank shell hits a tree, instead of a pre-rendered animation, it could fracture where you hit it and sometimes take multiple hits and fracture based on its properties.

 

I know you're enthusiastic about the tech, but can't you wait until they bring out something practical before bringing up this topic again?

 

Benefit? I don't think so, at least with the current technology.
I don't want to be stuck with a pair of 3D glasses or looking at my monitor from a certain angle only to enjoy the game at its fullest.

 

ofcourse it'll benefit everyone. The most significant aspect of pulling of an immersive 3d first person perspective virtual world is maintaining a constant 30+ frames per second, never to dip below that unless you compromise the believability of the illusion that you are living in that virtual world.

The traditional way of making 3d games is using polygons that require alot of computational horsepower from the CPUs and GPUs. The trend in videogame graphics is to add more and more polygons to create more detailed virtual worlds, this pushes current hardware since the more polygons the game developers add the more likely they are to push the limits of what current CPUs and GPUs can compute at a constant 30 frames per second. Hence you'll have to buy more expensive powerful hardware to run the newer more polygon rich games if you don't want slow down and choppy animation.

Bruce Dell of Euclideon, has percieved this trend and has probably found the cure for this 2-4 yearly hardware upgrade to enjoy the latest in 3d videogame graphics. If they succeed, in bringing out this unorthodox way of generating 3d geometry, then they will have effectively given gamers who want to play the latest and greatest looking 3d videogames without having to dish out thousands of dollars for more powerful hardware.

He has already mentioned that his engine can generate trillions of "polygons" using only a single core CPU at the magic 30 frames per second, so if the potential of "unlimited detail" is unleased we will have games at and beyond the graphical prowess of the best looking games right now running of cellphones, the Xbox, PS3, heck maybe even an intel 286 CPU.

This is where I figure the hate and negative comments come in, because big hardware companies and their affiliates have alot to lose in terms of profits, and so they try to bash, mock, smear and give negative opinions in hopes Euclideon doesn't reshape the landscape of how the traditional model of 3d gaming is.

Tell me I don't speak the Truth...

 

Haters gonna hate, can't help it. But this will surely bring huge benefit to consumers that don't own powerful laptop/pc.

@Kiol,

By the way this wasn't about the 3D vision thing, it's just they use atoms to build stuff instead of polygons.

 

It's called voxel rendering, and it's been around for a LONG time. That's why people don't really put much stock in Euclideon. The technology is not new. Show me a playable demo and I'll stop calling this pointless.

You've posted essentially the same thread so many times now, it's kind of absurd. What's even more absurd is that you seem to think the skepticism is because we are all in the pockets of Nvidia/AMD. I don't work for AMD, I don't work for Nvidia, and I don't have any kind of financial interest in either company. But it's in everyone's best interest to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and when a company hasn't been able to release anything but a couple of pre-rendered tech demos in the past two years, people are naturally going to be mistrustful. I don't see anything here that's new and unique. I see voxels, and Euclideon has even admitted that it's just voxels, but they don't want to call them that. Hey, their plan worked, they soaked the Australian government for 2 million.

It's on Euclideon to provide hard evidence that this is the real deal. Like I said, give me a playable demo, let me see and test the tech for myself, and let the market be the judge. A handful of videos narrated by the CEO (who, by the way, doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence with his talking about 3d atoms and all kinds of buzzwords and whatnot) won't cut it.

 

I've essentially posted the same thread many times? Have you mistaken me with someone? Could you link me the threads you were referring to? Also in the video they did state they will release the real time demo when they are ready.

 

ummm, no they are not requiring alot of computational horsepower. The reason we have polygons is that because they are easy to process, its not like it is inefficient.. I don't see a realistic way of getting a 3D animation of a smooth surface (these atoms) from a computational complexity perspective.

 

I've been PC gaming since 1991, so yeah I've been following the PC 3d gaming scene for awhile now. It was always the same problem, intels 286, 386, 486, and pentium chips couldn't cope with the polygon calculation demands of "newer" polygon rich 3d first person perspective graphics, and that's why the GPU or graphics card was invented to help relieve the CPU from this calculation demands.

I forgot the persons name that invented voxels, but he was in the medical field and then if I'm not mistaken worked with Nova Logic to implement this new idea of voxels to counteract the polygon riddle of a high demand of computations from the CPU. He had the right idea, because many people back in the PCs infancy knew that framerates were essential to immerse someone in a virtual world and 30 fps was that magic number.

PC gaming was still very new and polygons won out over Nova Logics voxel technology before it even had time to evolve, and so the industry went with polygons as the foundation and built from there. Voxels didn't have time to refine, but now it seems that Bruce Dell has come back and found a better, more efficient way to do voxels or atoms using just the necessary amount to create a 3 dimensional illusion that won't require huge amounts of processing power.

There is an arrogance with these "know it all's" when they have know idea how Euclideons "unlimited detail" technology actually works, yet they pretend to know the dynamics of it when they probably have never even programmed once in their life.

Maybe everyone who bought the latest in computer tech will lose the advantage of their investment if this comes to fruition, but who knows, if Euclideon solved the riddle of the ever annual upgrade to more powerful hardware by foregoing computational heavy polygons, they could use that extra horsepower for something else besides geometry.

 

chill before claiming nonesense, phd of mathematics and software engineer over the last summer (in the biggest company you can imagine), definitely I don't do computer graphics, but I understand very well from complexity theory.. again I am saying, it doesn't look feasible unless someone comes up with P=NP.

 

And maybe this is why you and many in the field resist, because 3d programming was built on the foundation of polygons. All that you learned will have to be thrown out and relearned to take into account the newer thinking as far as 3d virtual worlds are concerned.

It's no wonder that video game developers will back the console or platform that is easier (more familiar) to program for, because they don't want to go back to school and learn new stuff.

 

Sorry, I quoted you but I was talking to the OP in my second paragraph.

When they release the real time playable demo, then maybe people will take them seriously.

It seems like you make overly wordy posts to obfuscate your point and make it more difficult to argue back.

We can't know how it supposedly works because Bruce Dell doesn't seem to know anything about 3D rendering and throws out buzzwords like "search algorithm" and "3D atoms" and yet he hasn't shown us how it works in real time.

I've never built a car, but I know that if you tell me you can get an internal combustion engine to run forever on a gallon of gas, you're probably blowing smoke up my posterior.

 

What you are arguing is the idea of getting something from nothing, in this case, getting unlimited levels of detail from little or no additional work. This is the same problem with the perpetual energy myth.

 

what in the hell are you smoking dude? first of all, I am still a phd, so I am still in school, second of all, if a breakthrough comes in science, believe me, we (scientists) will be the first to celebrate among many..

everything in applied mathematics is chained together, if you break one thing (like process infinite details on computer graphics) you can do many things, involving solving problems which are tougher than stuff like CERN (you can solve TSP for example, don't know your background, but if you are CS type, dig a bit into NP-hard problems to understand this phenomenon). Computer graphics are as of now a polynomial problem in the number of polygons you are processing. What these guys are suggesting is essentially making every atom a polygon, which is not feasible regarding 3D animation. Certainly I can also draw a crazy detailed map on Catia without animation, and process it on real time with a 3k cpu server, nothing fancy in what they do.

 

I'm not studying in the field of computer science, but to me it sill seems like each atom would be equivalent to a polygon. Ok, so you got a nifty search algorithm to know which atom to pull, but then you still gotta apply the right color to said atom, do the physics calculations, the collision calculations for each of those atoms which the demo definitely doesn't show and that is gonna take extra processing power.

 

it is not equivalent, polygon is nice to work with because instead of calculating the new object entirely, you just calculate it's finite number of vertices.

 

They're voxels, not polygons.

 

a good read for everyone who is talking about this topic:

Voxel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bottom line, people chose polygons back in the time because of their time&data efficient representation thanks to vertices, which are used within many many applied fields of sciences. I don't believe it will be quite possible to render 3d animation with smooth surface (definitely upto this voxel discretization) in near future, we'll see.

 

Thanks, i think i got it, the fact that i'm more used to finite elements (in French) where we refer to what you call vertices with a word which would be better translated to node didn't help. I had to search some stuff again in english.

 

The point of all this, as Euclideon claims, they are going to revolutionize 3D games. I disagree. I don't see anything revolutionary here for games.

Eh, at this point in games, I'm satisfied with the level of detail. What I want is more fun games to play that don't come with baggage and headaches. ME3 is hardly a difficult game to run or full of the latest tech available, yet it's the most entertaining for me right now. If this company focused their engine on doing something really interesting that will encourage development of unique gameplay and ideas, great. If it's just to make photorealistic movies, don't care.

And they have failed to do that in their demonstrations. I see nothing that will revolutionize games so far. Personally I think Bullet Physics and the games people are creating with Source Engine far better than this tech. The Hidden and Trouble in Terrorist Town are phenomenal. That's what I think is game changing.

If Valve brings Steam to Linux and gives companies a reason to develop for Linux and OpenGL, that's game changing.

 

By your logic then, being a passenger in an airplane makes you qualified to be a pilot; driving a car makes you qualified to run Ford; and ordering off a menu will secure you a spot on Top Chef.

 

Even though it looks nice this is NOT the way it will be implemented.

Simply not even worth the hassle if you ask me on laptops... not now