Unlimited Detail Real-Time Rendering Technology

[Ya93sin]

hmmmm..

i can see this as an evoloution into rendering objects.. and getting detail to be so lifelike we would struggle to tell the dirrerence between CGI and real life...

Right now i agree is not feesable to bring it to a game platform. but its pushing the boundries of tech

go back 20 years.. if i rocked up to a board room and said "guys im gonna make a RAM stick with 2gb of memory" for the public to use i would be declared mental.

i would give this tech 5-7 years of development and then see...

Is it? This company isn't the first to try this approach by a long way.

 

[I Hunta x]

Its just a voxel renderer, there are so many draw backs and that guy mentions none of them.

Yeah theres lots of stuff on screen BUT its the same thing repeated and thats one thing voxeling is good for, there is no animation in any of the clips of there work (moving the camera does NOT count) as last time i looked into it animation with voxels is a bugger.

The amount of data that would be needed for the island the way he described it would fill atleast thousands of the biggest drives out atm (3tb i think?) even if each atom was just 1 byte each (doubtfull as it needs all the color/lighting info aswell).

 

[mrapoc]

Looks amazing. Hope its real and good for them delving into new tech

 

[badtaylorx]

kinda disapointing to see ppl who've watched computers come further than anyone could imagine dissmissing this a bull$hit so quickly.........hell...30 years ago even bill gates couldnt even fathom why anyone would need more that 500k mem(or som'n the like) in there pc's

 

[Natashaful]

Other then that alot of people who work in the Game/Cgi industry know it's garbage the Entire reason polygons were designed was to simplify pixels into 3d clusters so fewer opterations needed to recreate objects, This so called Tech is Software based, You can't possible improve frame rates without hardware support just like DX11 tessilation, Are you surpised AMD and Nvidia are not backing them?.

The only time it'll work is when computers are super computers, And by then DX11 based tessilation will still have higher efficiency ratios, This type of code won't run on anysystem, And it's no surpise they havn't shown anything at a show in real time, Because it's all prerendered BS and bad at that.

Heres the real joke an Atom is a Single pixel. Lol..

Remove polygons and you have insanely hard architecture to recreate never mind Animate, I Give you Atoms!!..

 

[yassarikhan786]

Other then that alot of people who work in the Game/Cgi industry know it's garbage the Entire reason polygons were designed was to simplify pixels into 3d clusters so fewer opterations needed to recreate objects, This so called Tech is Software based, You can't possible improve frame rates without hardware support just like DX11 tessilation, Are you surpised AMD and Nvidia are not backing them?.

The only time it'll work is when computers are super computers, And by then DX11 based tessilation will still have higher efficiency ratios, This type of code won't run on anysystem, And it's no surpise they havn't shown anything at a show in real time, Because it's all prerendered BS and bad at that.

Heres the real joke an Atom is a Single pixel. Lol..

Remove polygons and you have insanely hard architecture to recreate never mind Animate, I Give you Atoms!!..

I agree.

 

[EventHorizon27]

I want this to be true, I really do.

But there is no way this can be as easy to program as the current method.

I think it's quite possible that we could see static objects using this tech in the text few years. Like the ground, rocks, and walls for example, but they would have to be things that are repeated all over the game to save space. Like 1 or 2 different bricks repeated to make a wall and that wall to be replicated for most walls in the game.

One thing is for sure... games will eventually get this realistic. It's just a matter of when