"Unlimited Detail" graphics

I can't link the video at work, but go on You Tube and look up Euclideon and "unlimited detail".

Basically, an Australian company has come up with a new way of rendering graphics that allows for infinitely more detail - instead of being made out of polygons, they're made out of "atoms", and supposedly computers can show trillions of those without slowdown, or at 20 FPS in software mode.

They demonstrate this with a graphics demo. You see individual grains of dirt, tons and tons of individually rendered leaves on trees (and lots of trees, no less), and far more detail than any game has, although the art direction isn't particularly good. Though they justify that last part by saying "we're not artists, we're technology people. We can't wait to see what an actual game company will do with this."

They also demonstrate the limitations of current tech to illustrate their point.

Anyway, please check it out, and someone please link the video here (I can't since I'm at work and You Tube is blocked). I'm really excited for this new technology. It looks like the limitations of current graphics displays have been shattered.

We have a thread about this here.

No kidding.

The other thread is closed, however, and its title doesn't help people who don't know ahead of time what Euclideon is or refers to. So it might be a good idea to have a conversation here.

Never mind, a different, better titled thread is here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13012754630A84463100

Its about time already, lol.

Am I the only one that thinks the games are gonna suck?

^ These aren't games, they're just tech demos to show off the new technology.

UNLIMITED DETAIL! ATOMS! LEAVES! WATER! FUR! LIGHT! MOTION! FINAL DETAIL BLASTER!

I know, but if they start using the technology to make games...

Interesting.

^^ ? What does a graphics engine have to do with the quality of a game?

If anything, they're implying that this would all but nix the focus on polygon budget, leaving more room to improve the other aspects of the games.

I think games with this are pretty much going to REQUIRE procedural generation for their graphics except maybe in setpieces—I mean, they're giving you the ability to design patches of ground if you so desire. Not textures, patches of ground.

Also, I have no clue how the hell they mysteriously solved that little problem of atoms being expensive that they mentioned early on. They skipped from step 1 to 3. Too much effort's gone in for me to think they're lying outright though.

If they are lying...then how did they get it to look so good? That's the part that confuses me. Obviously it has to work...perhaps not as well as they say...but you can see it with your own eyes.

As mentioned in the other thread they've been doing the same presentation for a few years now never getting closer to release.

Notch claims bullshit on "Unlimited Detail" technology.

That was the same reply he gave a long time ago unless someone brought the issue to him again. Progress might have been made since then, but we'll need to see new material to be sure.

I honestly don't get it. Yes, their concept is nice and all that but... why? When it comes to organic or oddly shaped items in a game I can see how their method produces some good looking results. However when it comes to solid, man made objects like buildings, cars, guns, etc. Why do we need millions of discrete atoms to make a flat face when polygons already do that? Also, the dirt thing while impressive is pointless. It's so tiny you'd never be able to see it in game so how is it a tremendous benefit to do it that way? Do we really need to waste millions of cycles calculating how the dirt moves when we can't even see it?

Then again I'm an old fart (at 30) who thinks gameplay trumps graphics. Half-Life, the original fucking Half-Life (minus Xen), is still more fun than any other FPS I've played in the last five years and Team Fortress 2 is still the best online FPS I've played, EVER. One is what, a decade old and the other four years, neither have anything like the graphical chutzpah of Gears and Duty of Honorable Resistance 3 or whatever the fuck we're on now but that doesn't matter because they're far better games.

Ok, kind of when off on a tangent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdRri5jSMs&feature=player_embedded Ok this unlimited detail technology is a load of shit, but voxels themselves can be used to make really cool looking games like the one in the video.

edited 8th Oct '11 6:53:40 AM by locotony

I don't know much about engines, but wouldn't having a lot of tiny particles make explosions super awesome with realistic ground deforming?

Render enough particles and give them good enough collision responses and you can make a photo-realistic explosion.

Next step: making the process simple and effortless so that explosion coding doesn't take the majority of your budget.

edited 8th Oct '11 7:06:29 AM by Recon5

If this tech is true then hell yes, we are going to see a BIG difference in the quality of graphics in games. But since you'll have to model every little detail I think only the big-name games/companies who have the time and art budget are really going to benefit from this tech. A lot of smaller companies will probably stay with the polygonal stuff for the sake of graphical simplicity, or because of simple artistic choice.

Heres to hoping that this tech ain't a hoax...

There appears to be a few problems with this:

• It's going to take forever to program individual atoms. It's also going to take a lot of manpower, which is expensive.
• Computers are going to have to be super powerful, and therefore super-expensive.

Science isn't about "Why?". It's about "Why not?"!