I doubt he would be pushing it like this if it were just another voxel engine. He's using voxels because for a non-artistic programmer they are probably the easiest type of data source to create. He does mention in another video that you could in theory import conventional models at super-high poly counts, or use a 3d scanner to scan real-life objects and provide the point data that way.It's funny how so many people just dismiss the guy, based on their own understanding of 3D tech gleaned exclusively from the box-art of the last 3D card they bought. Nobody knows if this is legit or not simply because he isn't going to tell us, quite rightly.The key thing to me is that this is done in software. If you could produce a hybrid engine that used this technique for landscapes, trees, all static scene elements, then used conventional techniques for characters and moving stuff, that would give you insane numbers of polygons to use for the moving stuff. It could advance the art considerably, even if it's not the complete solution.But like the rest of you, I have no real idea.Anyway, the existence of these videos does tell us something. He obviously hasn't got much of a response from ATI/Nvidia, or he wouldn't need to do this.But the videos are obviously aimed at regular people, not engineers, so it's not like this is his boardroom pitch video. He's done this for the public.I can only assume he is doing this to generate some buzz and see if this leads to VC money so they can develop it without needing Nvidia/ATI at all. And as he says in the 2nd video, in that case they would target stuff like mobile phones and consoles first, and wait for Nvidia or ATI to come begging once it was well proven.The final thing I would say is that England often throws up people like this, who work alone and produce something that is quite revolutionary. A successful example is Sir Clive Sinclair, but there are many failures too.I detect a hint that this guy doesn't want to work with the 'establishment' and we may find that this is a genuine revolutionary tech that ends up sinking just because of his ego and reluctance to cooperate.Anyone remember tile-based rendering? If they spent the last ten years developing *that* instead of rasterisers, we would have vastly better gfx now than we do. But it just failed politically.
you have to store all the other n points of the scene no matter what you do thats my pointhe claims to have found a way to find which point in a very short time but even if you do that you need a ton of points
Dude I don't know why i'm getting buried for this s**t.I posted something about Global Illumination, but it got lost some how. What I mean to say, is that this tech is interesting, but never did he mention anything about lighting. Lots of polygons is only part of the scene complexity equation. If we are talking about photo-realism here then we can't ignore the the lighting question, which he never mentioned in the video.
jackmackgMar 12, 2010Buried
BTW this guy using the same definition of unlimited as atnt does for its data plain.
kanojo1969Mar 15, 2010Buried
I doubt he would be pushing it like this if it were just another voxel engine. He's using voxels because for a non-artistic programmer they are probably the easiest type of data source to create. He does mention in another video that you could in theory import conventional models at super-high poly counts, or use a 3d scanner to scan real-life objects and provide the point data that way.It's funny how so many people just dismiss the guy, based on their own understanding of 3D tech gleaned exclusively from the box-art of the last 3D card they bought. Nobody knows if this is legit or not simply because he isn't going to tell us, quite rightly.The key thing to me is that this is done in software. If you could produce a hybrid engine that used this technique for landscapes, trees, all static scene elements, then used conventional techniques for characters and moving stuff, that would give you insane numbers of polygons to use for the moving stuff. It could advance the art considerably, even if it's not the complete solution.But like the rest of you, I have no real idea.Anyway, the existence of these videos does tell us something. He obviously hasn't got much of a response from ATI/Nvidia, or he wouldn't need to do this.But the videos are obviously aimed at regular people, not engineers, so it's not like this is his boardroom pitch video. He's done this for the public.I can only assume he is doing this to generate some buzz and see if this leads to VC money so they can develop it without needing Nvidia/ATI at all. And as he says in the 2nd video, in that case they would target stuff like mobile phones and consoles first, and wait for Nvidia or ATI to come begging once it was well proven.The final thing I would say is that England often throws up people like this, who work alone and produce something that is quite revolutionary. A successful example is Sir Clive Sinclair, but there are many failures too.I detect a hint that this guy doesn't want to work with the 'establishment' and we may find that this is a genuine revolutionary tech that ends up sinking just because of his ego and reluctance to cooperate.Anyone remember tile-based rendering? If they spent the last ten years developing *that* instead of rasterisers, we would have vastly better gfx now than we do. But it just failed politically.
paradigmxMar 12, 2010Buried
If you turn around 360 degrees you are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
rustinpiecesMar 12, 2010Buried
You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
nudarMar 14, 2010Buried
This should at least give the next Myst game incredible graphics.
m3talhaz3Mar 16, 2010Buried
These are all good points you guys are making here!!
whoreableMar 16, 2010Buried
Um...they are making a game engine. Not a game.
tidalwarriorMar 15, 2010Buried
With that site, it looks like a scam. lol Good luck marketing this with a failed presentation.
grassb1adeMar 16, 2010Buried
seed!
buttinkMar 17, 2010Buried
you have to store all the other n points of the scene no matter what you do thats my pointhe claims to have found a way to find which point in a very short time but even if you do that you need a ton of points
plantedplanetMar 21, 2010Buried
Dude I don't know why i'm getting buried for this s**t.I posted something about Global Illumination, but it got lost some how. What I mean to say, is that this tech is interesting, but never did he mention anything about lighting. Lots of polygons is only part of the scene complexity equation. If we are talking about photo-realism here then we can't ignore the the lighting question, which he never mentioned in the video.