We had a topic on here before about this and I have been think of it lately about it but comply forgot what it was called. Anyway Notch made a blog post about it with his thoughts on its updated video.
Here is the updated video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4
Here is notches blog posts he made so far:
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam
What do you all think about this? Something interesting to see.
Yeah, I saw this a few days ago. Looks pretty amazing.
When something seems to good to be true, it usually is. I've been reading responses to infinite detail, and people with a background in voxel rendering have pointed out some serious flaws. In the videos released by these guys, we can see that there are actually very few unique models, because when you have an extremely complex model in a scene, it takes up a LOT of RAM. There is no way around that.
Notch (creator of Minecraft) even pointed out he thinks this is a hoax.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/02/notch-vs-unlimited-detail/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/02/notch-vs-unlimited-detail/)
So far this engine hasn't shown advanced lighting, animation, scaling, or physics, and they can only get their engine running at 20 fps without any of that.
I hope I'll live long enough to be around for this :o Notch says at the rate technology is growing, standard use of this type of rendering is a possibility in the near future.
Sounds hard to believe. So detailed, each grain of dirt is visible? My laptop would die.
Isn't this basically the difference between pixel based graphics and vector based graphics? Why is that hard to comprehend for everyone? Maybe calling it "unlimited detail" was a bad call... but still.
Quote from: Lingus on August 10, 2011, 03:19:44 PM
Isn't this basically the difference between pixel based graphics and vector based graphics? Why is that hard to comprehend for everyone? Maybe calling it "unlimited detail" was a bad call... but still.
No, that's not quite it. All they have are really detailed models repeated in the world. It's a paged geometry that uses memory only for one object (and only a few bytes for every copy of it) and it still uses polygons no matter what they say. Vector graphics are truly not limited to depth and resolution, while this "unlimited detail" masks it's flaws very well.
Voxels exist since 2005. Paged geometry since 1999. This is nothing new. It's a hoax, nonetheless.
EDIT: Whoa, my bad, yes that's what they WANT you to think it is. But the concept is impossible to implement with the way data and memory works. Notch explained it very clearly...
Quote from: Lingus on August 10, 2011, 03:19:44 PM
Isn't this basically the difference between pixel based graphics and vector based graphics? Why is that hard to comprehend for everyone? Maybe calling it "unlimited detail" was a bad call... but still.
Thats the right way to think about it, its just how much they are milking it with little to show off and no demo etc.
wow.....
what an annoying voice he has....
thats years old. i prefer this since it looks sexy plus its voxel based
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCZIBDt1uM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y&feature=related
To me what it looks like is just polygons that zoomed way out. Take the rock for example, a normal polygon one would be 30 or what not, but they have theirs to be like 300, in order to do that they made it very big, like 100x the size of the original and then zoomed the camera out so it looks like what they call "unlimited detail". Its just polygons and not that crap "atoms" This is a fake.
This is old news, I remember unlimited detail being addressed 4 years ago. No idea why notch is deciding to dig upon dead graves now...
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on August 10, 2011, 09:46:11 PM
This is old news, I remember unlimited detail being addressed 4 years ago. No idea why notch is deciding to dig upon dead graves now...
Well he really did not have a voice back then. And since this is a new video they released recently this mouth, he can get his chance to say something.
Pretty snazzy and will probably keep getting closer to the real thing, the outside
Quote from: KaptainKohl on August 10, 2011, 06:38:43 PM
To me what it looks like is just polygons that zoomed way out. Take the rock for example, a normal polygon one would be 30 or what not, but they have theirs to be like 300, in order to do that they made it very big, like 100x the size of the original and then zoomed the camera out so it looks like what they call "unlimited detail". Its just polygons and not that crap "atoms" This is a fake.
Umm, no, it's voxels. Very complex, repeated, static, pixel based geometry. To an extent, what they've done is impressive, but it's not mind blowing by any means and they have a LONG way to go to actually make this engine useful, let alone replace polygons like they've claimed so many times.
Quote from: KaptainKohl on August 10, 2011, 06:38:43 PM
To me what it looks like is just polygons that zoomed way out. Take the rock for example, a normal polygon one would be 30 or what not, but they have theirs to be like 300, in order to do that they made it very big, like 100x the size of the original and then zoomed the camera out so it looks like what they call "unlimited detail". Its just polygons and not that crap "atoms" This is a fake.
And what exactly would they gain by doing this? What makes you think they couldn't create a small rock with 300 polys, that would be so much better for both memory and performance. These are not polygons, these are voxels.
Once it can animate as well as polygons, I'll be impressed. Until then, voxels can go die in an art museum.
Quote from: T-Rok on August 21, 2011, 01:13:12 PM
Once it can animate as well as polygons, I'll be impressed. Until then, voxels can go die in an art museum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkn6ubbp1SE
That's old news. I'm talking animating an entire world and keeping a steady 60fps. A single animated object using voxels quite frequently just barely reaches 30fps.
Well you did not say that before. I don't know. Have not looked into it.
Yes, I realize I was very obscure about it, sorry haha. I myself have looked into it with my C++ buddies. They all agree that voxels are the future, every single one of them, with the condition of A: A future machine powerful enough to handle it available to the every day consumer. or B: Programmers figure out a way to animate better with voxels. I asked about the idea of a voxel world with top quality vectors doing the animations, but apparently it's not viable.
I agree. I can see a time when something like this can be a viable way of doing things. They need something to push the power of new hardware.
Quote from: T-Rok on August 21, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
Yes, I realize I was very obscure about it, sorry haha. I myself have looked into it with my C++ buddies. They all agree that voxels are the future, every single one of them, with the condition of A: A future machine powerful enough to handle it available to the every day consumer. or B: Programmers figure out a way to animate better with voxels. I asked about the idea of a voxel world with top quality vectors doing the animations, but apparently it's not viable.
Still, this kind of technology is impossible to make solely because of memory problems. Even if it could be animated, it would eat memory hundred times more than polygon models. I doubt the machine power could skyrocket like that :S
Quote from: krele on August 23, 2011, 06:02:53 AM
Quote from: T-Rok on August 21, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
Yes, I realize I was very obscure about it, sorry haha. I myself have looked into it with my C++ buddies. They all agree that voxels are the future, every single one of them, with the condition of A: A future machine powerful enough to handle it available to the every day consumer. or B: Programmers figure out a way to animate better with voxels. I asked about the idea of a voxel world with top quality vectors doing the animations, but apparently it's not viable.
Still, this kind of technology is impossible to make solely because of memory problems. Even if it could be animated, it would eat memory hundred times more than polygon models. I doubt the machine power could skyrocket like that :S
Agreed, I watched a man animating a single voxel character and it took the fps from 600 down to 29 just animating it. Scientists can only pack so much into such a small space. Eventually we'll reach the limit and have to find a new way to be faster. Which is why I wish voxel worlds and polygon animations could work together.
Some day (probably soon) this conversation will be silly and we will laugh about it.
When that day comes, I'd like to see them do precise collision checking with voxels. trololol. Billions of atoms checking for collisions? -_-"
I'm just saying, it is a common thing for people to talk about what is "impossible" to accomplish and then be absolutely and completely proven wrong within a short period of time. I find it interesting, given the fact that the rate of progress continually increases, that people still feel that way. What we have seen happen in the past 10-20 years with technology should really show anyone that if we can't do something today, we'll probably be doing it in 5-10 years.
Oh, not saying its impossible. I'm saying currently it is. No matter how much they tweak their "engine" and such, we don't have the processors capable of handling it yet.
I can't wait until graphics look truly 'realistic'
Games say they have realistic graphics, but they are nothing compared to the real world. When will they be truly realistic?
Quote from: Freeforall on August 24, 2011, 06:59:44 PM
I can't wait until graphics look truly 'realistic'
Games say they have realistic graphics, but they are nothing compared to the real world. When will they be truly realistic?
Well, static rendered scenes without people have gotten to the point where they are more or less photo-realistic. Only problem is that they can't be rendered in real time yet, but we're getting there soon. I'd say another 10-15 years before we can run extremely complex, photo-realistic scenes in real time. Even at this point though, I fear we will still be able to tell that living, organic things are 3d models, simply because of the amazing complexity that goes into a facial animation, the way our muscles flex and move, etc. Obviously, we're making amazing strides with this already, but there's still so much farther to go until a 3d face and it's subtle facial cues are indistinguishable from a real life person.
Ever see a 3d scene, and you're like "wow, is this real or fake? And then you see a 3d modeled person, and instantly realize that it's fake.
Well, they are pretty much there with faces actually. Check this out:
(Edit - Changed the link.)
http://www.emilyobrien.net/projects/image_metrics.php
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5aQYbX3bU
Implementing that into games will be a bit harder, but probably not far off. They already have games like LA Noir using similar face capture technology to capture facial expressions. It just doesn't have the photo-realistic graphics.
Quote from: Lingus on August 24, 2011, 08:18:21 PM
Well, they are pretty much there with faces actually. Check this out:
(Edit - Changed the link.)
http://www.emilyobrien.net/projects/image_metrics.php
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5aQYbX3bU
Implementing that into games will be a bit harder, but probably not far off. They already have games like LA Noir using similar face capture technology to capture facial expressions. It just doesn't have the photo-realistic graphics.
I've seen videos like this, and while I think it's nothing short of amazing, I believe we're still a long ways off (at least 10 years, and likely longer) till we can create a 3D face that our mind fully perceives as human. Immediately after I started watching the video, I picked up on subtle hints that it was a 3d model. Our brains have been conditioned to pick up on even the slightest facial gestures and cues, and anything that seems off immediately becomes grotesque and fake looking to us, even if it's 99% accurate.
Ever heard of the Uncanny Valley (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley") hypothesis?
"The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of robotics[1] and 3D computer animation,[2][3] which holds that when human replicas look and act almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The "valley" in question is a dip in a proposed graph of the positivity of human reaction as a function of a robot's human likeness." -wikipedia
This is why in modern 3D animated movies, we often times see realistic environments with unrealistic looking people. If you try to make a realistic looking person and don't nail it perfectly, you create a disconnect with the audience, leading 3d studios to create characters with more cartoonish features, so as not to risk entering the Uncanney Valley. CGI films like Beowolf, Mars Needs Moms, and The Polar Express, were all criticized by reviewers and audience members for having "creepy" or "eerie" looking characters.
When I was watching the video you linked, I became immediately aware of issues with her smile and her eyes, and she looked almost ugly. Almost everyone that watches the video will tell you that something seems a little off, even if they can't tell you why. There is a range of theories on why this occurs, ranging from mate selection to pathogen avoidance, and that's why I think we still have a long way to go in making a 3d model truly human.
Year is 2050. 'Real life' is a game with worst graphics in the world.
Depends what you mean by worst. I mean today you could say that's true if you don't like the look for real life. :P
Quote from: Jake on August 25, 2011, 01:06:23 AM...I think we still have a long way to go in making a 3d model truly human.
Fair enough. Although, in my opinion, I think we're very very close. The "uncanny valley" you're talking about is, by definition, very close to reality. It's the extremely subtle differences that you're talking about that make the effect so eerie. I really think it will take very little to get past that dip and put us into the realm of photo-realistic.
I think we are pretty good at faking people in movies. I mean that no ware near real time 3D but are computer effects are good. I think maybe one day we will get there.