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

131–140 of 144 posts

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

#131

Post by speleding »

coffeemug wrote: post #76

I 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…

> They're converting polygons into voxels

Are you sure about that? He mentions atoms, but then the video also mentions that they're using procedurally generated graphics, which is something entirely different. Also, voxels would not work on the scale they are demonstrating, you'd need way too much memory.

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

#133

Post by efnx »

speleding wrote: post #131
coffeemug wrote: post #76

I 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…

> They're converting polygons into voxels Are you sure about that? He mentions atoms, but then the video also mentions that they're using procedurally generated graphics, which is something entirely different. Also, voxels would not work on the scale they are demonstrating, you'd need way too much memory.

I thought he said something like "you don't see polygon counts this high unless they are procedurally generated".

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

#135

Post by starwed »

sliverstorm wrote: post #75
starwed wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely a lot of that is due, not to lighting/shadows/rendering, but to the incredible subtlety required of the animation? HL2 has some pretty amazingly convincing faces, and that's obviously not because it has the best rendering engine.

I wouldn't go as far as "amazingly convincing". I think they look better after you've been staring at the HL2 world for a while, rather than the real world.

Nah, I had that impression from the very first scene the game loads, which is the creepy guy talking to you.

(I don't mean convincing in a "mistake-for-real" way, but in a "lets-me-suspend-disbelief" way.)

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

#136

Post by wtracy »

albertzeyer wrote: post #106
badmonkey0001 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

As far as I can tell, they're not doing any voxel-voxel collisions. Mesh-voxel collisions sound much more tractable.

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

#137

Post by SoftwareMaven »

palish wrote: post #23
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course. My point is that polygons aren't the limiting factor today, so having unlimited polygons wouldn't "fix" that. The GPU typically determines polygon budget, with the CPU determining physics and AI.

Of course, you can dump physics onto the GPU, but that will cost you polygons. I guess that could, in theory (if you really had unlimited atoms), give you more cycles for physics.

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

#138

Post by spyder »

tintin wrote: post #88
coffeemug wrote: post #76

I 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.

voxel animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl6PE_n6zTk

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

#139

Post by Havoc »

I love how they mock other game dev companies for using skyboxes (they call it card board cut-out buildings in the distance @04m52) and then proceed to do exactly the same thing in their demo. Hell they even managed to do it wrong (their sky texture isn't stretched & compressed appropriately to hide the fact that its a cube @2m27).

To many bold claims & deception in that vid. Colour me skeptical.

Post reply on HN