Unlimited Detail - Something beyond polygons? ZOMFG!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaos Knux

Daww, a mother and her foal
http://www.popsci.com/node/45300/?cmpid=enews042910

Skaarg said:
In that article there is a link to the Unlimited Detail site and a video at the bottom that shows how this graphics engine works to give the idea of "unlimited detail" for games. Since this doesn't use polygons, but rather what's called point clouds. Apparently the reason this doesn't require intensive CPU or GPU power is because UD works as a search engine for the point cloud and only renders what's needed for each pixel.
There you have it folks, PC's are soon to be #1 gaming devices again.
 
That seems like a really cool idea. I wish they would've shown more images in greater detail, though. There's not much to differentiate from the regular polygon system from what they showed us; to my knowledge anyway.
 
It has it's own limits in complex scenes. There's not much there besides several simple objects repeated multiple times. Besides, nothing looks better than millions of small polygons.

There you have it folks, PC's are soon to be #1 gaming devices again.

Oh you.
 
Speaking as somebody who's relatively technically inept with this kind of stuff, this sounds really cool, and I'd like to see this tried out in games in the future.

I wish that video showed something animated with Unlimited Detail, though.
 
Oh MAN! That looks AWESOME!

Just so you guys know, I'm shortly going off to college, where I am going to major in Games and Simulation Arts and Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Perhaps I might get a chance to actually work on developing this for the masses.
 
Model data from millions of tiny dots does not suggest "unlimited". If geometry were to be drawn in real-time using mathematical functions describing the actual shape of the model, then yes. But all this does is use tons of dots. It's really just another voxel renderer.

Also, that video is obnoxious and insulting. I can't stand how he downplays the intelligence of the viewer. Given the actual subject matter being discussed here, chances are that the viewers don't need- or want- to listen to this "layman speak" that caters only to the uninitiated.
 
Last edited:
How much detail do you need? I mean, seriously, do you actually need to be able to see every single atom that makes up a brick wall that you see only as you dash around madly slashing everything that moves?

Also, he brought up World of Warcraft in his video, even though it's made to be able to run on older systems. He also used lower than normal graphics settings in all the games he listed during the video. Plus the entire thing is like the "Raster vs Vector" debate for images. While you can have more detail, there will always be a limit to how much you can make or render.
 
It was confirmed as a fake months ago.
This is an old technology using voxels. It was used in few games both old ones (Delta force) and new (Crysis uses voxels for its terrain system). The main problem is you can't animate it.
Those guys got their hands on one of free sparse voxel octree engines and made a showcase.
P.S. Wonder how Pop Science editors don't verify things they publish?!

Wait... this is fake?
 
Voxels aren't new technology.

Raycasting is a better idea.

However, vertex-based geometry will continue to reign in the speed department, especially with tesselation eliminating the rounded object issue.
 
Wait... this is fake?

Do people, like, not read my posts?

It's really just another voxel renderer.

Oh, since Furyhunter posted before me, I'd just like to point out that vertex-based geometry is far better for games in many ways, especially in the animation department, though they don't have quite the destructive capabilities that voxels have... Ken Silverman actually made a pretty neat voxel engine. There's a game (more of a tech showcase) out there using said engine, called Voxelstein 3D, which shows destructible environments, ragdolls, and very detailed rooms, though it's sorta CPU- and memory-hungry.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Back
Top