Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

ausgamers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#21

Post by palish »

chime wrote: post #15

I can understand that adding dynamic objects/shadows is difficult and their videos do not show them being capable of doing that yet. However, why can't 90% of the objects be rendered in the new static way like they do (statues, buildings, tree trunks) and dynamic objects be added on top of it using whatever method game devs use right now? I don't really care if the cactus is moving or not but I sure would like to see…

They can be, and that's likely how it will work. Triangle animated characters + voxel static world.

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#22

Post by SoftwareMaven »

WoundedMarlin wrote: post #7

If this takes off the whole graphics industry is going to get so much better. I am talking from movies to games to everything else you can think of. I mean think if FIFA started to use this in there games, you could make it so you see a shoe lace move or individual hair strains moving. I hope they get this out to market sooner rather then later.

Even if polygons weren't the limiting factor on the shoe laces or hair, the cost of computing the physics will limit how detailed things get. Need more cores...

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#23

Post by palish »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #22
WoundedMarlin wrote: post #7

If this takes off the whole graphics industry is going to get so much better. I am talking from movies to games to everything else you can think of. I mean think if FIFA started to use this in there games, you could make it so you see a shoe lace move or individual hair strains moving. I hope they get this out to market sooner rather then later.

Even if polygons weren't the limiting factor on the shoe laces or hair, the cost of computing the physics will limit how detailed things get. Need more cores...

Not really. Physics is computed against low-resolution polygon representations.

You don't want to compute physics against your art representation, because it's typically over-described.

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#24

Post by jarin »

Nicknameless wrote: post #13

If this technology is legit without problems with animation and lighting etc, what will it mean for the costs of game content creation? You still need artists to create the models, textures etc, and higher detail generally takes much longer with diminishing returns. I also find that environments with highly detailed objects also need far more objects to be convincing which compounds the issue. In short, the tech soun…

From what I can gather, 3D game artists tend to start with high-res models and then reduce the poly count, so it may not be THAT much of a problem. I think it's because a lot of the modeling takes place in more organic editors now.

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#26

Post by jarin »

prawn wrote: post #12

John Carmack's repsonse: "Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging." https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/statuses/98127398683422...

I trust Carmack's response over pretty much anyone's in matters of rendering engines. The guy is a god of coding them.

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#27

Post by AlfaWolph »

I thought it was interesting that they predicted some sort forthcoming schism between 'real' scene objects and 'artificial' ones. At first I thought he was talking about the characters and scenes of residing on one side of the uncanny valley or the other, which I think is a valid thought. But he wasn't talking about that at all and posited instead that objects will either be scanned in from the real world and placed in game vs assets created by artists. I don't think this will be the case except in games that strive for realism. It will be more like Photoshop, where real scanned in assets still require artists to perfect and stylize them for your game. Until high resolution, tactile VR arrives, you're still running into 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'.

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#28

Post by chime »

palish wrote: post #21
chime wrote: post #15

I can understand that adding dynamic objects/shadows is difficult and their videos do not show them being capable of doing that yet. However, why can't 90% of the objects be rendered in the new static way like they do (statues, buildings, tree trunks) and dynamic objects be added on top of it using whatever method game devs use right now? I don't really care if the cactus is moving or not but I sure would like to see…

They can be, and that's likely how it will work. Triangle animated characters + voxel static world.

Then why is everyone here complaining about the lack of dynamic objects?

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#29

Post by mambodog »

jarin wrote: post #4

20 FPS in software is pretty impressive, I wonder (if this is real and if it takes off) how long it will take to see hardware voxel acceleration.

They're here already. NVIDIA Research paper describing one approach: http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/88889/laine2010i3d_paper.pdf

Open source implementation: http://code.google.com/p/efficient-sparse-voxel-octrees/

Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better

#30

Post by palish »

chime wrote: post #28
palish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be, and that's likely how it will work. Triangle animated characters + voxel static world.

Then why is everyone here complaining about the lack of dynamic objects?

Because Euclideon's demos haven't featured any dynamic objects.

IMO they're doing the graphics industry a disservice by putting out demos of a half-finished technology in their rush to "be the first". The technology can work, but Euclideon's showmanship leaves much to be desired.

Post reply on HN