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

Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

notch.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#31

Post by martinkallstrom »

cube13 wrote: post #30
martinkallstrom wrote: post #29

I have the highest respect for you Notch and personally know people on your team (Carl), but you're out on a limb here. Sparse Voxel Octrees are frickin awesome and Euclideon aren't wrong for saying so. There are drawbacks with them, but they are one by one being picked off by research. Animation is one example, dynamic lighting and shadows can be done in screen space. There is a real chance that soon enough voxels a…

You're missing the part where they said basically the same thing here a year ago, and haven't delivered on most of it.

I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school.

Determining if something is a scam is not possible until you actually have the facts and aren't just guessing.

And it's a really weird argumentation going on as well. "This is a scam - it is totally possible to do". Normally you say that something is a scam if you think it's not possible to do.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#32

Post by jxcole »

Dear Notch,

I don't think that people have issue with your factual analysis of the Euclideon system. We more have an issue with your use of the word scam. Every time I watch american television, I am inundated with ads for various medical products that claim that they have been scientifically PROVEN to do x, y or z. I know for a fact that science does not give proof, it only provides evidence. This is why we call it the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity.

Now, does that make these medical products a scam? Not really. At worst that makes it false advertising.

I think the evidence you have gathered indicates strongly that there is a flip side to their advertisement, that there is still a lot of work they have to do and that their claims are probably only barely true, or are subject to strong interpretation.

But a scam? I think not. What they are doing is still pretty cool, and I am looking forward to whatever product they release.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#33

Post by bane »

mrcharles wrote: post #26
robfitz wrote: post #2

Calling their tech "infinite detail" instead of "voxels" feels no different than calling the iphone screen a "retina display" instead of listing its resolution details. Good marketing is not inherently evil. Here, though, they're suffering a huge PR backlash, which I suspect is because they're out-marketing the work of passionate amateurs and academic researchers instead of e.g. big phone companies. It admittedly doe…

I think they aren't calling it voxels because it works differently. I have a feeling that while the data is likely stored in a voxel-like fashion, the way they are reaching in to the data and extracting it is completely different. If you recall that tech that was shown a few years back of being able to quickly zoom around a ridiculously large image, because you only need to look up the pixels that are going to be on…

I think Notch's point of the memory requirements are critical as well. For non-repetitive detail, at the levels they are talking at, it would require google size data centers to just store the data for a single 1 km x 1 km game level.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#34

Post by SoftwareMaven »

seanalltogether wrote: post #27
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication in the video is the are no texture maps. The geometry (I agree with those who've said voxels) contain the texture information in three dimensions. That's why zooming on the palm tree actually looks good, unlike traditional polygon/texture map rendering.

That's good to know, am I still correct in assuming this still comes down to a memory tradeoff, whether you want large textures+polygons, or voxel data to represent a high detail model?

Absolutely. Information needs to be stored somewhere, whether in the voxels or the polygons/textures. I do wonder if these guys are doing something like levels of detail to allow the close-up detail without destroying performance at the macro level.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#35

Post by mrcharles »

bane wrote: post #33
mrcharles wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they aren't calling it voxels because it works differently. I have a feeling that while the data is likely stored in a voxel-like fashion, the way they are reaching in to the data and extracting it is completely different. If you recall that tech that was shown a few years back of being able to quickly zoom around a ridiculously large image, because you only need to look up the pixels that are going to be on…

I think Notch's point of the memory requirements are critical as well. For non-repetitive detail, at the levels they are talking at, it would require google size data centers to just store the data for a single 1 km x 1 km game level.

But that also makes the incorrect assumption that each of those voxels must be populated -- which isn't necessarily the case. In fact, more will be unpopulated than populated, I would expect.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#36

Post by jwatte »

Interesting that the numbers in the defense are off. Good voxel schemes store neither color nor normal per voxel. In fact, storing a normal for a voxel makes no sense. Implicit storage and volume based materials have been the standard for a long time.

For a look at a game based voxel terrain engine that's been around for a couple of years, download and try the C4 demo game and editor from terathon.com! (That engine is just one guy, too)

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#37

Post by MostAwesomeDude »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #29

I have the highest respect for you Notch and personally know people on your team (Carl), but you're out on a limb here. Sparse Voxel Octrees are frickin awesome and Euclideon aren't wrong for saying so. There are drawbacks with them, but they are one by one being picked off by research. Animation is one example, dynamic lighting and shadows can be done in screen space. There is a real chance that soon enough voxels a…

I did the same math as Notch, independently of him, and came to the same result: This will never run on current consumer hardware because of space and computation constraints. I don't think this is a massive stretch considering the numbers involved.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#38

Post by martinkallstrom »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #37
martinkallstrom wrote: post #29

I have the highest respect for you Notch and personally know people on your team (Carl), but you're out on a limb here. Sparse Voxel Octrees are frickin awesome and Euclideon aren't wrong for saying so. There are drawbacks with them, but they are one by one being picked off by research. Animation is one example, dynamic lighting and shadows can be done in screen space. There is a real chance that soon enough voxels a…

I did the same math as Notch, independently of him, and came to the same result: This will never run on current consumer hardware because of space and computation constraints. I don't think this is a massive stretch considering the numbers involved.

The math Notch did was to prove that they are using procedural generation of geometry, which makes it feasible. In his mind it also makes it a scam. Beats me why.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#39

Post by cube13 »

martinkallstrom wrote: post #31
cube13 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the part where they said basically the same thing here a year ago, and haven't delivered on most of it.

I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school. Determining if something is a scam is not possible until you actually have the facts and aren't just guessing. And it's a really weird argumentation going on as well. "This is a scam - it is totally possible to do". Normally you say that something is a scam if you think it's not possible to do.

>I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school.

If you're going to promise specific features(in this case, dynamic lighting, shadows, and animations), then you damn well had better deliver some part of least one of those after a year. It doesn't matter if it's handwavey or anything, you should show that the last year's efforts and money haven't been wasted.

Here's the presentation from last year: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/video-new-g...

>And it's a really weird argumentation going on as well. "This is a scam - it is totally possible to do". Normally you say that something is a scam if you think it's not possible to do.

It's also a scam if you take the results of other people's research and development(ATI has published code for a raytrace/voxel engine) and try to push it of as something brand new and innovative.

Re: Notch defends his previous statement calling Euclideon a scam

#40

Post by martinkallstrom »

cube13 wrote: post #39
martinkallstrom wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school. Determining if something is a scam is not possible until you actually have the facts and aren't just guessing. And it's a really weird argumentation going on as well. "This is a scam - it is totally possible to do". Normally you say that something is a scam if you think it's not possible to do.

>I didn't know that there is a specific time limit to launching? I must have missed something in startup school. If you're going to promise specific features(in this case, dynamic lighting, shadows, and animations), then you damn well had better deliver some part of least one of those after a year. It doesn't matter if it's handwavey or anything, you should show that the last year's efforts and money haven't been was…

Ok then, sorry. I sincerely didn't know that they are using published code and claiming it to be their own.
Post reply on HN