http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4&ttl=1
I think he making some really big clams.
And his argument for why one of the big graphics vender wold not accept his technology makes no sence. Its like saying "Unlimited Detail: Here the answers that you are always going to make the best graphics card." and they are like "ATI: NO! we want to keep battling and spend millions to just make something a little better than nvidea. Why would we ever want to be the best instantly?" All Unlimited Detail would need to do is make a patent and give it to that vender and no one else will be able to use it for a while and they will become the best platform out there leaving every one down.
But of course that's only true if his clams are true and that there no major defects or drawbacks to start with.
I hope its all true but i really bleave its just some lies.
Sounds reasonable to me. If you read the full description of the video on the side it explains it well. Basically it only needs to process the points which are required to view the image on the screen. Wheras normal 3D graphics would have to process the entire map. Pretty ingenious.
Yeah, it makes sense... the website looks funky though. I wonder how true this all is, I guess we will see.
The concept though is something you see in WoW and stuff - it only processes what you need to see. Thats how they can have no load times and what not. Though, of course, this takes this a whole notch up and applies it to all geometry.
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:04:15 PM
Sounds reasonable to me. If you read the full description of the video on the side it explains it well. Basically it only needs to process the points which are required to view the image on the screen. Wheras normal 3D graphics would have to process the entire map. Pretty ingenious.
Well drawing all you can see in the view is nothing new and it used in video games today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_surface_determination
He claiming to have a super one of those. He calming with his points with his "Mass connected processing" we can get geometry to the full resolution to the screen. Basically his secret sauce is in his search algorithm.
Very intriguing. It sounds good in theory, I'm curious to see it in action, though.
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
No no, I understand that. I just meant the idea behind only loading what you need to see at that point in time.
Quote from: Chaos on March 12, 2010, 07:34:24 PM
Very intriguing. It sounds good in theory, I'm curious to see it in action, though.
i agree!
In reply to your unedited post, its only new technology apparently theres still a lot of work to be done.
This sounds like it would make creating 3D graphics a more lengthy task but it does sound like its worth it. If they could create like a small 3D game with it showing off its features then I will be truely impressed (if it is good).
Evey system has its pros and cons. And wondering whats its cons. Also they did not show much animation other than that one bug. But your right, it looks like really early stuff.
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 12, 2010, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
No no, I understand that. I just meant the idea behind only loading what you need to see at that point in time.
The difference is that in WoW you're loading things you can't see. It's based on distance versus actual line of sight.
Though after reading more into this and the other methods of 3D graphics I do agree that what I mentioned is not anything new. It's called ray tracing. As Art mentioned what I said earlier is not the only thing this method has to offer. I guess it's the fact that it takes some from these other methods such as ray-tracing and point clouds, as well as combines them with this search algorithm.
The main concern at this point is that the demo is so horrible looking. Of course, this is completely understandable since it was designed by a bunch of programmers who know nothing about art direction. It would definitely be nice to see something done by a graphic artist with some animation.
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 12, 2010, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
No no, I understand that. I just meant the idea behind only loading what you need to see at that point in time.
The difference is that in WoW you're loading things you can't see. It's based on distance versus actual line of sight.
Though after reading more into this and the other methods of 3D graphics I do agree that what I mentioned is not anything new. It's called ray tracing.
wo, wo! hold on there. ray tracing is something really different from what we use today and what this guy thech he using. ray tracing is really slow and is the calculating of the physics of light as it bounces off objects. Light as you know can bounce off a lot of things before it hits your eyes and can change colors when doing so. even things not in your field of view. Real time full ray tracing is like the holy grail of computer graphics. One day we will get there (i hope).
You have the right idea just not the right terminology.
Sounds fascinating. I hope to see this on the market soon.
I am far from believing this at the moment. They don't have any high resolution pictures and their site is way too nub.
I can see how it'd work, it sounds really cool, I'd defenately like to see it in action, it's a great concept.
O_o wow... this is insane! I'd never think that technology could go so far! O_O
Quote from: Ciro on March 13, 2010, 12:44:21 PM
O_o wow... this is insane! I'd never think that technology could go so far! O_O
This is the tip of the iceberg.
More videos up, in two parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaam5mwIR8&feature=channel
I cant what till the api comes out and i just put a infinite loop making exponential growth of points and leave it running on my 5 year old pc. Hey i can have unlimited. I have a feeling this is all going to turn out to be some big joke or something.
But hey. making big clams like these seems like the quickest way to get a tun of press fast. They got me to post it here. :P
Quote from: ARTgames on March 12, 2010, 06:13:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4&ttl=1
I think he making some really big clams.
(http://whatscookingamerica.net/Foto4/ForkingClam.jpg)
Mmm..Clams.
Quote from: DarkBlade325 on March 14, 2010, 01:51:46 AM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 12, 2010, 06:13:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4&ttl=1
I think he making some really big clams.
(http://whatscookingamerica.net/Foto4/ForkingClam.jpg)
Mmm..Clams.
no no
a BIG clam.
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8605/289307337af68cd27ee.jpg)
But yes i did forget an i in claim.
Quote from: ARTgames on March 12, 2010, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 12, 2010, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
No no, I understand that. I just meant the idea behind only loading what you need to see at that point in time.
The difference is that in WoW you're loading things you can't see. It's based on distance versus actual line of sight.
Though after reading more into this and the other methods of 3D graphics I do agree that what I mentioned is not anything new. It's called ray tracing.
wo, wo! hold on there. ray tracing is something really different from what we use today and what this guy thech he using. ray tracing is really slow and is the calculating of the physics of light as it bounces off objects. Light as you know can bounce off a lot of things before it hits your eyes and can change colors when doing so. even things not in your field of view. Real time full ray tracing is like the holy grail of computer graphics. One day we will get there (i hope).
You have the right idea just not the right terminology.
From what I can tell, this method is similar to ray tracing in every way you mentioned. It's not the same obviously, but it uses the same concept. In this method, they also have to account for lighting, so I don't see how that's any different. Apparently they are using a different method than ray tracing which makes it way faster. I understand ray tracing is not the same as this, but my point was that what I had initially claimed was the main feature of this method was actually just ray tracing.
Quote from: Lingus on March 15, 2010, 01:41:15 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 12, 2010, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on March 12, 2010, 07:36:06 PM
Quote from: Lingus on March 12, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Actually I believe the way WoW works is like normal 3D but it only loads the part of the map in your general area. Also, this method does not use polygons at all. It's point cloud based.
No no, I understand that. I just meant the idea behind only loading what you need to see at that point in time.
The difference is that in WoW you're loading things you can't see. It's based on distance versus actual line of sight.
Though after reading more into this and the other methods of 3D graphics I do agree that what I mentioned is not anything new. It's called ray tracing.
wo, wo! hold on there. ray tracing is something really different from what we use today and what this guy thech he using. ray tracing is really slow and is the calculating of the physics of light as it bounces off objects. Light as you know can bounce off a lot of things before it hits your eyes and can change colors when doing so. even things not in your field of view. Real time full ray tracing is like the holy grail of computer graphics. One day we will get there (i hope).
You have the right idea just not the right terminology.
From what I can tell, this method is similar to ray tracing in every way you mentioned. It's not the same obviously, but it uses the same concept. In this method, they also have to account for lighting, so I don't see how that's any different. Apparently they are using a different method than ray tracing which makes it way faster. I understand ray tracing is not the same as this, but my point was that what I had initially claimed was the main feature of this method was actually just ray tracing.
Its not as similar as you say it is. They almost have nothing in commend accept that they are for visuals. This way Unlimited Detail is doing it does not even take into a count of light to start with. He scans what you can see then applies affects like textures and lighting to it. Thats why he claims its so efficient. But this concept is no ware near ray tracing.
His way tries to account for drawling what the user able to see like this:
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/9127/screenshotxc.png)
Only things in his FOV is computed.
Ray tracing takes into account the whole world the light lives in and follows the life of it till its adsorbed or hits the bounces or distance limit. like this:
(http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9089/screenshot1gf.png)
As you see at no point is the physics of lights computed in UD. So how you see they are the same or use the same concept please explain how.
Who even knows how Unlimited Detail performs light or textures etc. They give such little info.
They even said this is not ray tracing of any sort but a whole new way of doing things.
Quote from: http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/description.htmlnlimited Details method is very different to any 3D method that has been invented so far. The three current systems used in 3D graphics are Ray tracing polygons and point cloud/voxels, they all have strengths and weaknesses. Polygons runs fast but has poor geometry, Ray-trace and voxels have perfect geometry but run very slowly. Unlimited Detail is a fourth system, which is more like a search algorithm than a 3D engine.
I dunno. I guess I misunderstood what ray tracing was about. If it is how you explained then I see how they are totally different. I just thought ray tracing did something similar where it only traced the light that would be visible by the camera.
In UD, it has to account for light in some way. I would imagine it would just be more indirect than the method ray tracing uses.
Quote from: Lingus on March 15, 2010, 05:12:47 PM
I dunno. I guess I misunderstood what ray tracing was about. If it is how you explained then I see how they are totally different. I just thought ray tracing did something similar where it only traced the light that would be visible by the camera.
In UD, it has to account for light in some way. I would imagine it would just be more indirect than the method ray tracing uses.
i see, and its hard to tell about them as of now. we need more info!
Okay, well, the way I understand this is, they go and create their entire world using their 'dots'. The data for this world is in the program. Now, a computer has a specific resolution. It can only show so many pixels on the screen at any given time. For example, mine is 1680x1050, so that would literally be 1,764,000 pixels that it needs to display on the screen. If what I understand is correct, it's essentially doing something similar to a 'google search', and searching for the proper 'dot', or pixel, rather, to show, and then display those 1,764,000 pixels to the screen. Theoretically, this should be fairly quick, because it doesn't have to actually real-time render anything. The real question in my mind, at this point, is whether it can find and pull 1,764,000 pixels and display them in 1/60th of a second (60 fps).
yes chaos you have the idea.
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
same here. i don't get how the points forum a surface. maybe they have some sort of vector between these points.
i also agree with "Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? "
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
same here. i don't get how the points forum a surface.
I believe I understand that part of it to an extent. If you find the point needed for every pixel on the screen, they will combine to look like a surface.
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 10:22:33 PM
i also agree with "Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? "
Hopefully someone can shed some light on this.
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
same here. i don't get how the points forum a surface.
I believe I understand that part of it to an extent. If you find the point needed for every pixel on the screen, they will combine to look like a surface.
dang that's a lot of points. Non the less that's not infinity germonty like this guy claims. That would be germonty to the rezultion to the points you have. But i dont know. know one really does but them.
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 11:27:03 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
same here. i don't get how the points forum a surface.
I believe I understand that part of it to an extent. If you find the point needed for every pixel on the screen, they will combine to look like a surface.
dang that's a lot of points. Non the less that's not infinity germonty like this guy claims. That would be germonty to the rezultion to the points you have. But i dont know. know one really does but them.
my eyes are bleeding from that post. But yeah,totally agree.
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 11:27:03 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 11:19:38 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on March 17, 2010, 10:22:33 PM
Quote from: Jake on March 17, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
I'm a little confused as to how they search for these points of data. Wouldn't large amounts of geography still need to be stored in memory? I really have no clue how this works 0_o.
same here. i don't get how the points forum a surface.
I believe I understand that part of it to an extent. If you find the point needed for every pixel on the screen, they will combine to look like a surface.
dang that's a lot of points. Non the less that's not infinity germonty like this guy claims. That would be germonty to the rezultion to the points you have.
You're slightly incorrect. The geometry is infinite in the fact that it can be as complex as possible without any slow down. You could have huge complex worlds with no end in sight. Obviously, these complex worlds can only display enough points to match your resolution, therefore what's being displayed at one time is not infinite, which is the entire reason why this system works.
I agree with you jake. that's what i meant. or was trying to mean. (my writing made it hard to tell :P) I was thinking how many points would you need when you get nice and close to a model. That must be a lot! Lets say i take a sniper rifle scope to a block of wood. How much detail will i get zoomed in? Will there still be points to fill every pixel? or is it all made up when your that close like a vector between the point? Or do you see space between the points? And if you do see solid space that is detail at that level and you have points still that small that must take up a lot of memory! (i think, idk, maybe they are magic)
like if keep zooming into a model do the points start spreading apart. And if so then it would be "that would be germonty to the rezultion to the points you have." IDK i can be wrong. See what im asking? i should have placed a question mark on my last post. :P
I gotcha now.
I believe they stated somewhere how they handle that method (forgot if it was in one of the videos or if I read it). From what I gathered, they blend the points together in a way that's easy on the eye. Not exactly sure what it would look like or how it works exactly.
mmk. BTW i'm thinking this works like a CCD/CMOS array on a digital camera. Like photons bouncing off an object are the points. The photons hitting the CCD/CMOS are the search search results. And the CCD/CMOS is an algorithm they use to make the image out of the points.
But non the less i think your still have a resolution/accuracy limit on your models. I don't think any artist is going down to the nanometer scale to fill in points. Even in are real world endless geometry Artists work has a limit on its accuracy before it becomes noise or out of place artifacts because he either stops going smaller/bigger or does not have the tools. Like if you look at a painting under an electron microscope i don't think those molecules of paint are still consider part of the artwork the artist wants you to look at.
Or in other words to have meaning full infinity geometry an artist would need to work an infinity about to get there.(unless we are dealing with vectors, different story) But i know you don't need to go that small or big to make a video game. I'm just making a point at the people in the video. I think down to the mm accuracy would be the best we would ever need.
I believe the way the points are "strung together" is similar to vector graphics. If you have a curve in vector it doesn't matter how close you zoom in it will still be a smooth curve. It seems like this would be the same concept but with points, and they have a way for the points to be blended with a smooth surface at any distance. So it's only calculating the points and the curve between them. Not an infinite number of points.
I'm also curious how they store the data that is not being shown on screen. If the overall design is extremely complex that would take up a lot of memory. Unless they have some crazy compression method.
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:19:32 PM
I believe the way the points are "strung together" is similar to vector graphics. If you have a curve in vector it doesn't matter how close you zoom in it will still be a smooth curve. It seems like this would be the same concept but with points, and they have a way for the points to be blended with a smooth surface at any distance. So it's only calculating the points and the curve between them. Not an infinite number of points.
Thank you, that makes seances. That's what i was kinda thinking.
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:19:32 PM
I'm also curious how they store the data that is not being shown on screen. If the overall design is extremely complex that would take up a lot of memory. Unless they have some crazy compression method.
I agree. They must have a way if what they say is true.
Quote from: Lingus on March 18, 2010, 01:19:32 PM
I'm also curious how they store the data that is not being shown on screen. If the overall design is extremely complex that would take up a lot of memory. Unless they have some crazy compression method.
My only guess so far is that they quickly stream data from the hard drive to memory, depending on what the player sees or has the potential to see. Probably similar to how open-world games work these days, but they can be much more specific in what is loaded, seeing as how it uses a point cloud based system, and it's probably heavily compressed like Lingus and Art have mentioned.
What I fail to understand is this... Considering the fact that hard drive speeds aren't the greatest, they still need to load a large portion of the world into memory before the user has a chance to see it. Seeing as how these worlds can be extremely complex, and point cloud data is one of the less efficient ways of handling model data, how the hell could they do this even with heavy compression. The guy even made mention in the videos that one tree could have as much detail as an entire world in current games (or something along those lines). Something just doesn't add up here...
I'm also wondering how they are going to do animation.