61–70 of 70 posts
Given we're on a collective patent kick at the moment, this is surely the perfect example of why we have software patents. If we assume this to be real, who here would like to have spent years working on this, only for ATI and NVIDIA to reap all the rewards?
ATI and Nvidia would still have to write code to make it work. That's the hard part, not coming up with the idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ATI and Nvidia would still have to write code to make it work. That's the hard part, not coming up with the idea.
Are you serious? Figuring out the algorithm is absolutely the hard bit here. When was the last time you had trouble implementing an algorithm? I feel like I'm feeding a troll here - I had to check your profile to be sure I wasn't. I think you're letting your dislike of patents warp your normally intelligent viewpoints.
Sure, coding up B-trees from a textbook description is easy. But in a video game, 10fps and 30fps is the difference between unplayable and perfect, which means that your "by the book" implementation likely won't cut it. Video game developers spend months squeezing the last 1.1x improvements out of their inner loops, using clever bit coding techniques, cache alignment, often even hand-optimized assembler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm itching to find out what the modelling tools are like. At this point I doubt they would gel with many 3D artists. Programmer designed interfaces for creative tools are generally a pretty ropey affair. However, I'm certainly willing to attempt to do battle with the uncanny valley if they let me.
I bet they would work great. If you could tell a 3D artist that he can use as much detail as he wants for this game... well, you'll get what they show on Zbrush central. All those models have hundreds of times more polygons than what would ever be accepted in a real game.
I doubt they'd have anything anywhere near ZBrush's flexibility and depth.
I point out that there is no animation whatsoever in their demo.
Isn't real time ray tracing more interesting? http://blogs.intel.com/research/2007/10/real_time_raytracing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet they would work great. If you could tell a 3D artist that he can use as much detail as he wants for this game... well, you'll get what they show on Zbrush central. All those models have hundreds of times more polygons than what would ever be accepted in a real game.
I use ZBrush to create displacement maps using HD geometry, which doesn't use actual polygons in the classic sense. A lot of the ultra high poly models you see on the turntables and such use the same technique. You can easily make a mesh well over a billion polys that doesn't impact the system. http://www.pixologic.com/docs/index.php/HD_Geometry I doubt they'd have anything anywhere near ZBrush's flexibility and dept…
Sounds like a good implementation of Ray-Tracing. Lighting and animation are going to be major hurdles to overcome, followed by tools.
I think it sounds a lot like ray tracing: The Unlimited Detail engine works out which direction the camera is facing and then searches the data to find only the points it needs to put on the screen it doesn’t touch any unneeded points, all it wants is 1024x768 (if that is our resolution) points, one for each pixel of the screen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not arbitrarily. Make sure it's nothing new before you say it is. How complicated is the predicate they're searching?
I can say it is nothing new. I have written and seen many patents that describe systems that do that. As far as the "predicate they are searching" the video mentioned nothing about the predicate other than it is for things that are visible, and that is nothing new.