Oh hey, not sure if you guys have seen this but just thought I'd show you.





The second video address skepticism, (it is a 40 minute long interview) from other game designers (such as Notch (The guy who made Minecraft)) mainly about how he says this is impossible for any modern machines to run, when in reality the only piece of hardware being used to display and run this is a processor, the graphics card is only being used so far to display the image onto the screen, in later builds they will incorporate the graphics card for even more power.


what are your thoughts on this?

Thank god for the British!

no....this is

haha minecraft is very fun and insanely addictive at times. I was more talking the "future" in terms of graphical capabilities.

@ cyning,,, not sure what you were referring to, but if its voice of the nattator, i believe he is Australian

We're going to go backwards, it's subjectively forwards

minecraft its the future back to 8 bit, back to basics.

badass.

Oh I thought the creators of all this were British, so I was thanking the British people :P

Minecraft is not 8-bit.

I think it'll be like Duke Nukem Forever. One of the most hyped games in all of history to turn out to be one of the biggest flops ever. I don't buy his bullshit excuse of "we're not artists so these graphics look bad" It's not that hard to hire a few graphics arts people and have them design random objects for you.

should of never brought back the legend (Duke Nukem) if they were just gonna half ass the game so disappointing and a major let down for all the Nukem fans

That "unlimited detail" stuff is bogus. I remember seeing at first but it never made sense to me so I started doing some research on it.

In the video, there are no animations, no shadows, no dynamic lighting. Voxels are very clunky when it comes to doing stuff like that, especially animations. The best thing that could be done for animations here are transformations (scale, rotate, translate). Anything else would require HUGE amounts of memory.

Yeah, it's definitely pretty. But hardware just isn't there yet and neither is the industry. I'll be excited when I see this same studio doing dynamic lighting and actual animations. We're going to stay in the polygon world for quite some time. It's like moving an entire county away from using fossil fuels. There's too much mass and inertia with polygons especially now with Physx and tessellation.

OMG this gave me a boner. I hope they can advance with this and make it a reality i would love to play games 2-3yrs from now on this.

I highly suggest you take a look at the second video i posted, it goes over just about every point you covered. Learn the science behind it before you try and refute it.



Basically sums up your post

I don't know my bits...only my bytes.

This part is somewhere in the 40 minute video interview; which goes over all the points you made..... but here is a clip about the animation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZqPMg-Y7gE

Excuse the stupid F*CKING music i have no idea why its playing in the video lol....
Also the video was 7 years old (not .7 years old like the video had photoshopped in) when the main creator was still working on this as a solo project, and also was in very early stages of the design, hence the bobby, gelatinous forms.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

I went through the video. Yes, it's possible to do animation in its current state. However, like I said, that's only possible with simple, matrix TRANFORMATIONS. Rotation, translation, and scaling. That's what you are seeing in the goofy video while the models wobble around. You could never achieve fluids, particles, physics, realtime shadows, dynamic lighting etc like you can with polygons.

Honestly until they release an SDK for it and people start playing around and I get to see it for myself, I'm going to stand my ground. Maybe in a decade when technology can flow enough bandwidth to move and process billions and trillions of points of data 60 times a second, this could certainly replace polygons as we know them today. However, it's all hype right now. It's pretty, that's about it. It's nothing new and certainly just not feasible.

He's just a salesman. "We imported this rock from real life." Uhh, okay, File > Import > Real Life? LOL. It's nine people. NINE. If it was truly something original and groundbreaking, they'd have loads of funding and a staff of hundreds. This company has bobbed around and resurfaced every few years with nothing new but hype. Just sayin'

If anything, Atomontage

I'm not sure about all the tech stuff but in terms of the business model and the phase they are in, it does not call for that many people. Also they have some initial start up investors and a 2mil grant funding 9 people. That is significant and actually having a small group of highly specialized staff will allow them to get max efficiency per $ used. Their operating cost are low only having to cover a small office space for 9 people and the equipment for 9 people etc is a low fixed cost for them to absorb. So assuming they got about 1 mil from there other investors combined with a 2mil grant, 3mil puts them in a really good spot for producing a concept product that can then be acquired by a larger company with more personnel to put behind it.

I'm not going to argue with your points because I don't feel like it, however, LOL!

You're trying to act like someone who's experienced in venture capital. Instead of bashing something instantaneously, notice this:

Microsoft, started out of college -- 0 funding to start, like 5-ish people?
Google, started out of a garage -- 0 funding to start, 2 people?
Facebook, started out of college -- 0 funding to start, 3 people?

Three of the biggest corporations in the world started from scratch, by < 9 people. You sound ignorant, more than someone who knows what they're talking about.

In regards to it "not being new"; like i said earlier, watch the second video I posted, it literally address every point you have made so far, even that video you posted at the end. Until then ill let you just look ignorant all by yourself.

I definitely didn't mean to step on anyone's toes because I've obviously upset some folks. Let me apologize for that first, I'm sorry. I'm just throwing my points out there (without namecalling) from what I've learned from looking into this since I first saw it a while ago and offering my skepticism. To Hooker - ouch dude.

I've followed this tech since I first saw it in like 2003....and really nothing new has happened to it. Maybe that's why I'm so indifferent. I'm not saying that one day, this might have some momentum to it. Seriously though, they've been working on it for at least seven years and have yet to do something useful with animation? Shadows? Something please? Lol

I'm not saying it's not possible. Of course it is - we see it in the video. And yes, it does look really really good. But honestly though, it's going to be a decade or more before anything useful comes out of it because we simply don't have the means to handle that much data. The entire demo it's just a bunch of instances. It's bunch of objects replicated over and over facing the same direction. You can do amazing things with instancing. That's why it actually runs at 20fps. Also, the entire island surface is completely flat. Did anyone notice that? Lol.

I've spent many hours looking at this tech since it resurfaced a few months ago - because it's interesting. But there's just nowhere for it to go right now. Polygons work great. And no, they're not as ugly as you're shown in the video, those are terrible examples. Look at gameplay for BF3...it's stunning. Polygons + tessellation = just as much detail. Let's say on a typical 1920x1080 screen there are roughly 2 million pixels...which is nothing for today's video cards to handle at high framerates. So if I stuck one polygon per pixel on my screen, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Polygons aren't the limit...RAM and disk space footprint is.

For Euclideon to go anywhere in the game market, they need to be able to demo and optimize:

-Realtime shadows
-Fluids and particles
-Deformations
-Skins
-Skeletal animation
-plenty else.

Reezy, I've seen the video. If you're talking about the goofy neon lsd giraffe trippy shit showing collisions and animation, that's from 7 years ago.

Why do I look ignorant, lol? I've really taken the time to look into this stuff. Take some time and just browse some developer/coding/game dev forums on the subject and you'll see what I mean...

Again, sorry for stepping on toes and farting on others' pillows for stating my skepticism and giving reasons for it LOL.

Just browse around their website and see what you'd think if you wanted to take them seriously...I lol'd.

http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/description.html