I think these guys are on to it too. W/o govt. funding and "orders of magnitude better" marketing babble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE
Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
101–110 of 144 posts
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#102To all those talking about physics, interaction, lighting and shadows, what do they think of the Atomontage engine using similar technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCZIBDt1uM&feature=BFa&#...
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#103So when they say atoms do they mean voxels or is it something else?
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
"tl;dr: Dynamic shadows work fine." So... where were they in the video? There's a difference between "some voxel engines can have dynamic lighting" and "dynamic lighting works with this particular engine". It's not like this is some obscure or useless feature that nobody has ever heard of. In fact for all the "detail" one can't help but notice the number of other things missing from the video.
Near the end they claim to have added more detailed shadows to their engine just after making this demo. I'm not sure if they meant 'dynamic shadows' by that.
I think they meant diffused shadows, the small shadow demo they give didn't appear to be dynamic.
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#105Color me skeptical. However, I'd like to pose a question to HN: If the claims from this video are legit, is this level of innovation deserving of a patent? (Yes, a software patent.)
no.
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there are no moving objects in this demo. Voxel animations are much harder than poly animations. Then there is memory. The elephant is looking great, no doubt about that. But I think you will need a lot of space for it. On a PC this might work, but I'm not sure it can be used on consoles.
That and I don't know of anyone (outside of using them as particles) that has successfully created collision models with voxels in real time. The collision calculations of just a few of their scanned rocks and a ground plane would be plenty complex - a whole scene perhaps even a little insane given today's specs. They might have to resort to polygonal collision models in the same way that polygonal games end up using…
What about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gshc8GMTa1Y&feature=relat...
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Near the end they claim to have added more detailed shadows to their engine just after making this demo. I'm not sure if they meant 'dynamic shadows' by that.
I think they meant diffused shadows, the small shadow demo they give didn't appear to be dynamic.
The "improved shadow" demo they showed was clearly ambient occlusion. It's impossible to say whether their particular implementation supports dynamic shadows but as a rasterization technique many of the same techniques used in games ought to work fine here (pre-baked lightmaps, various kinds of shadow maps, screen-space ambient occlusion, and even the fanciest new real-time GI stuff coming from SIGGRAPH).
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#108Sounds like another overhyped Australian startup that exists only to get funding from the Australian government.
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#109I think what they're doing is great, but I see two problems with their presentation. First, computer rendering techniques are extremely well understood and well researched. We've picked the low hanging fruit, much of the high hanging fruit, and everything in between. There is no "groundbreaking new technology" to be invented. They're converting polygons into voxels (although each voxel is probably a sphere for cheape…
And there are no moving objects in this demo. Voxel animations are much harder than poly animations. Then there is memory. The elephant is looking great, no doubt about that. But I think you will need a lot of space for it. On a PC this might work, but I'm not sure it can be used on consoles.
They are using point clouds, not voxels. Animation should be easier without the grid restrictions of voxels, though it really depends on their acceleration structure (which they're not saying anything about, in addition to the specs of that machine they're running on which are undoubtedly beastly).
Re: Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
#110This has been "announced" since 2010 all the while being only "a few months" from release. So far nothing has materialized. Vaporware. Also note this is nothing but voxels plus an advanced search algorithm, for resource conservation.