Euclideon & Unlimited Detail - Bruce Dell Interview @ [H]

So after reading 5 pages of this I found it amusing that the Carmack Fan club came in here and said he is the messiah and nobody can do anything without his hand placed upon their head for approval.

Carmack is amazing in what he did with computer games and will still probably produce amazing stuff and might even change his design but to say nobody can do anything unless Carmack says it can be done or it has to be done his way is just silly.

This is kind of like VHS tapes in my opinion. That's all there ever was and when DVDs came out im sure people went to the inventor of the VHS tape and demanded answers. "How can they do this?! Its just not possible. Have you seen it? A little flat disk can not hold as much as a VHS tape. Our VHS tape is big and that disk is flat and tiny! Do you know how many VHS tapes it would take to hold the amount of data that this so called DVD is calming!"

The VHS guy found one way to do it and it became the industry standard.
The DVD guy found another and now nobody owns a VHS tape.
I'm not saying the VHS tape was horrible. It was great during its time but it we ONLY looked to the VHS guy for answers then we would never have the DVD. The DVD guy just dreamed a different dream and had a different approach.
Then came this Blu-ray guy... :)

Technology and science has a funny way of evolving and cant be done by one single person.
I bet those CERN guys would be pissed off if someone told them they couldn't build their little machine to challenge the ideas and theories of other scientists.
 
compeng said:
Im sorry Mr.Bennett, but you are wrong here.
Click to expand...


Noted, you think I am wrong. Sorry for reporting on what is the biggest story in the last week. I am sorry to waste your time.
 
USMCGrunt said:
First off, let me say that what i know of computer graphics has been learned from [H]....so I dont know a whole lot lol.

If my understanding is correct, the way current engines would render a baseball is that they render the entirety of the object, even the parts of it that you cannot see. Euclideon's approach is to say, we will only render what can be seen...if im right on this assumption...then why the hell did it take so long for someone to think this up?
Click to expand...

There kinda is already existing methods of this, HSD/HSR (hidden surface determination/removal), OC (occulusion culling), and VSD (visable surface determination).

Crysis uses the method called Occlusion culling though it might not be quite the same as what Dell was referring to. The effectiveness of this method varies greatly. I know it sticks out like a sore thumb in Crysis and Crysis Warhead when peaking out around objects quickly. Often time you get a brief glimpse through the world geometry before the engine realizes you shouldn't be able to see it, then draws in the object/terrain that should be in the line of sight.

EDIT More specifically a culling method for the baseball would be Backface culling. It gets rid of the side of the object you never see. That is why when you play a game or play in a 3d space, if your camera goes into an object you tend to not see the inside faces of the object, but see though it as if the other side didn't exist. Not all games do it, but a lot do. Some games tend to cull terrain and objects at long distances away from the camera. It tends to look like the terrain just ends but as you get closer more appears along that same line. I'm not exactly sure what that type of culling would be called. However don't confuse this with object/terrain pop-in detail levels, because that is a bit different.
 
Last edited:
compeng said:
Isn't it curious how they have not shown any realtime demonstrations or a demo of the engine released...just youtube videos?
Click to expand...

Funny stuff, this guy cannot even take time to watch the video before he chimes in about how I am wrong.....for reporting on the most talked about tech story of the week.

Compeng, you just lost all your credibility with me. So we are even now?

And there has been no "engine released." But you would not know anything about that because you did not watch our interview.
 
compeng said:
Ok then, id like to see him release a demo and it not be over 100 GB which i can promise you it is right now.

And I enjoy your usual articles, but you are supporting the wrong company here. They are never going to make anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...

We are not supporting anyone, or anything. Simply reporting on the company and sharing our opinions.

Please go troll elsewhere.

When the company folds you get to come back and gloat, and then you really tell us where to put it for reporting on a company that was a hot topic of discussion.
 
compeng said:
Its because a demo to download would take up probably a terabyte of space...even with such a small number of unique items in the world (not counting how many times they are copied).
Click to expand...
And this is where you stop posting ;)

This does bring up a question I had for John though. Was he at all able to find out the file size this demonstration took upon the hard drive? If you notice in the video, the only description he mentioned about the hard drive running on the laptop was that it was a 2.5" SATA drive.
 
compeng said:
I am not trolling Mr.Bennett. I appreciate reporting on news such as this. I only disagree on your bias. It is my opinion that the reported should present the news in a completely unbiased way.
Click to expand...

Um.... he seems pretty unbiased to me. Why are you blasting out crazy assumptions on everything?
 
Injuis said:
Um.... he seems pretty unbiased to me. Why are you blasting out crazy assumptions on everything?
Click to expand...

He is defending this company when clearing they are all smoke and mirrors.

Like the other poster said, they have had 8 years to put out a tech paper...just a simple document that would get rid of all doubt. If they can not do that...there is no reason to believe this is viable.


Trust me I would love for this to actually work and for developers to pick this up and turn it into a game. But I am not going to blindly believe them.
Remember if something is to good to be true, it probably is.
 
compeng said:
Remember if something is to good to be true, it probably is.
Click to expand...

You are right. Them there horseless carriages and flying machines of lore certainly didn't pan out so well did they? Them contraptions are the devil's work I tell ya!
 
compeng said:
He is defending this company when clearing they are all smoke and mirrors.

Like the other poster said, they have had 8 years to put out a tech paper...just a simple document that would get rid of all doubt. If they can not do that...there is no reason to believe this is viable.


Trust me I would love for this to actually work and for developers to pick this up and turn it into a game. But I am not going to blindly believe them.
Remember if something is to good to be true, it probably is.
Click to expand...

Where does he defend the company? Do yourself favor and re-read his posts... you have misunderstood him somewhere along the way.

ALSO, watch the freaking interview already. You cannot claim "smoke and mirrors" when they have some evidence that their technology is viable. Seriously just watch it man. And re-read some posts. Holy hell, haha.
 
Injuis said:
Where does he defend the company? Do yourself favor and re-read his posts... you have misunderstood him somewhere along the way.

ALSO, watch the freaking interview already. You cannot claim "smoke and mirrors" when they have some evidence that their technology is viable. Seriously just watch it man. And re-read some posts. Holy hell, haha.
Click to expand...

I did read it, I referenced a point in the video 19 minutes through. ;)
 
Bravo Kyle, for getting an interview on what I thought last year to be a complete pipe dream. I think seeing that real time run through was enough to make me have a little glimmer of hope. Water might be tricky for the engine though it looks like, but I'm sure with time ;)
 
0mega said:
Bravo Kyle, for getting an interview on what I thought last year to be a complete pipe dream. I think seeing that real time run through was enough to make me have a little glimmer of hope. Water might be tricky for the engine though it looks like, but I'm sure with time ;)
Click to expand...

Its because the motion would take up much more space on the harddrive.
 
This really seems like a game engine that renders nurbs or the points themselves. The only reason most of those objects would be super heavy poly counts is not the details but the round edges and surfaces. To be blunt all the objects in there could be normal maps on low resolution geometry with high detailed normal maps generated in zbrush.

It would not surprise me that it is new and maybe better method but the one thing that was truly interesting about the pan through is it reacts more like maya than a game engine especially where it protrudes into the leaf and you get a razor sharp edge that is just invisible and the object appears normal from that point forward. The one thing that really did not make any sense was that if it is only rendering x amount of atoms then those atoms have to be big enough to one have data visible on them and two some how know which atoms make up a complete object so that it does not draw half of one and half of another...
 
compeng said:
Ok then, id like to see him release a demo and it not be over 100 GB which i can promise you it is right now.
Click to expand...

ummm.... You cant promise anything.. at all.. about something somebody else is working on that you have only seen in a Youtube video.
 
0mega said:
I Sincerely hope you aren't PMing everyone who posts here.
Click to expand...
Oh he is....
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_570940.jpg
 
Llian said:
*breaks out pom poms*

Seriously tho, those saying "Give us the demo." and "They will never release anything" might want to stop, step the fuck back up and look at history. How many tech demo's out there are there? Is everyone one of them immediately released to the public to be dissected, reverse engineered, critiqued etc? Do games use everything from these tech demo's? For every tech demo out there, it is there to demonstrate something. And alot of them are not released until consumer hardware is profligate enough or even released (think nvidia) before we get our hands on it. But we still 'ooh' and 'ahh' at it.

Why?

Because it is familiar. Everyone is used to their circle as it were. show them a sphere and 'It cannot be done', 'I know more than you and your working tech demo', 'It would need too much XXX'.

Instead of naysaying things that I guarantee you have no clue about (unless you have all Euclideons data, algorithms etc) then perhaps you should just let the tech evolve. PhysX was once upon a time like this ;)
Click to expand...
QFT. They wont even take people's offers to invest in their business because they don't want people on their ass. Their action of taking on the interview and for him to open up about what has happened ever since he started is a sign that they're trying to calm the "scam" talk down. He took Notch's blog and answered it point by point. This thread is getting too serious for technology that we were given a sneak peek to.
 
Did anyone else find it strange that the guy interviewing was an apologist for the Euclideon cause, and was repeatedly talking about how it was better than everything he'd ever seen, including the Unigine benchmark?

How is it possible to make that claim at 1024x768, without any high quality lighting, and with a massively copy-pasted, instanced world like that?

I don't believe their claim that the copy-pasting is purely because of lack of artists. I'd guess they do it to avoid using too much memory.

If that's true, one other thing to keep in mind is that currently, the majority of gaming PCs are actually just average PCs. They're not enthusiast, hardcore, high end watercooled rigs. They're mainstream PCs that double as gaming rigs. If this engine is super memory intensive, even though system memory is relatively cheap, the average PC is not going to start selling with many times more memory on average just because of this rendering technology. Currently the amount of memory works fine for Windows and running general apps, *and* happens to work well for games (more like games are forced to fit into that 2-4GB amount of memory that makes sense for average users on Facebook and listening to music). The average use case (not gaming) is what decides how much memory HP sticks into a system. You might argue that you could always build a custom rig with tons of memory for this, but then you're basically reducing your potential install base to a size that will guarantee there's no way to turn a profit on a game. So if this is a memory hog due to it's design, it will not make sense economically for users/developers.

I also find it weird that Bruce Dell has repeatedly tried to make the graphics vendors out to be "the man holding him down because they have a vested interest polygons". The graphics vendors don't give a shit what primitive you use... as long as you make use of the GPU they're happy to adapt to what developers want and they actually already attempt to do that with every new architecture.

That said, even if this is feasible for creating immersive detailed geometry in worlds, if it comes at the expense of things that people have come to expect from games today (i.e. ability to shadow, animate, etc), then it's DOA. Sure developers want more of anything they can get... and if you can give a ton more of one thing (in this case geometric detail) without much sacrifice, then they'd love it. However if you say "hey all this geometry detail comes at the expense of high quality animation and shadowing" then it's unlikely to be attractive.
 
alik4041 said:
QFT. They wont even take people's offers to invest in their business because they don't want people on their ass. Their action of taking on the interview and for him to open up about what has happened ever since he started is a sign that they're trying to calm the "scam" talk down. He took Notch's blog and answered it point by point. This thread is getting too serious for technology that we were given a sneak peek to.
Click to expand...

Actually he answered it point by point by saying "no... not true.. nope... not at all".

The interview didn't really reveal much on the tech side that we hadn't already seen except prove that it's running in realtime. That's something I guess.

Still no animation, still no talk about memory (when that came up he quickly jumped away from it).

Sure you could say "but that's just one or two issues". But it only takes 1 major, unavoidable issue to bring this down. If you don't believe that, just go ask Intel about Larrabee.
 
BlueStorm said:
Actually he answered it point by point by saying "no... not true.. nope... not at all".

The interview didn't really reveal much on the tech side that we hadn't already seen except prove that it's running in realtime. That's something I guess.

Still no animation, still no talk about memory (when that came up he quickly jumped away from it).

Sure you could say "but that's just one or two issues". But it only takes 1 major, unavoidable issue to bring this down. If you don't believe that, just go ask Intel about Larrabee.
Click to expand...

Thank you this is exactly what I have been saying!
 
astroboy said:
A certain company, who "didn't like the idea of abandoning polygons".
I think its reasonable to assume he meant a GPU company - it is not reading too much into the sentence.
Click to expand...

You know that video is pre Euclideon right? And as I know who it was, I can tell you it was NOT AMD or Nvidia or Intel. :p
 
At the end of the day, you're arguing about potential technology with no idea of if/when it will be ready. This thread isn't going anywhere until another update is released.

EDIT: John, is there anything you're willing to share that was not included in the video? Anything else about the demonstration that you'd like to mention? You seemed to really like it, but being there and seeing it on video are two different things.
 
compeng said:
Im sorry Mr.Bennett, but you are wrong here. Not about this quoted text, but by supporting this "developer". The engine shown at 19 minutes, Atommontage, is exactly the same as this engine. The only difference is that this engine repeats the same area over and over again. They use the same piece of dirt for every piece of dirt...they use the same palm tree for every palm tree...it is like his video from 2.5 years ago...it is just this small number of objects repeated but this time they disguised it better. There is 0% chance a full game with thousands of objects can be made from this engine. Also movement while possible, takes up incredible amounts of storage space, so while you could see that demo with movement there is zero chance you would see more then that. Isn't it curious how they have not shown any realtime demonstrations or a demo of the engine released...just youtube videos?

Its because a demo to download would take up probably a terabyte of space...even with such a small number of unique items in the world (not counting how many times they are copied).
Click to expand...

Sorry brother I can say this the demo will fit on a dvd and have lots of room but for them it still need to be smaller and it will in time. You see unlike you I know whats coming next.
 
BlueStorm said:
Did anyone else find it strange that the guy interviewing was an apologist for the Euclideon cause, and was repeatedly talking about how it was better than everything he'd ever seen, including the Unigine benchmark?
Click to expand...

Fire up your best game in terms of graphics. Get a camera 4 feet from it. Now tell me that picture on the camera is the same as on screen. Big difference. JG was stressing this point. We have seen the demo. We know what it looks like in that perspective. JG saw it real time. Saying what it looks like when the camera won't do it justice is apologist now?
How is it possible to make that claim at 1024x768, without any high quality lighting, and with a massively copy-pasted, instanced world like that?

I don't believe their claim that the copy-pasting is purely because of lack of artists. I'd guess they do it to avoid using too much memory.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it is more about detail and it has more of it than the mentioned benchmark? And on memory there, it is a guess as you say. They have the tech and say another thing. So which is more accurate? Your guess or their knowledge?

If that's true, one other thing to keep in mind is that currently, the majority of gaming PCs are actually just average PCs. They're not enthusiast, hardcore, high end watercooled rigs. They're mainstream PCs that double as gaming rigs. If this engine is super memory intensive, even though system memory is relatively cheap, the average PC is not going to start selling with many times more memory on average just because of this rendering technology. Currently the amount of memory works fine for Windows and running general apps, *and* happens to work well for games (more like games are forced to fit into that 2-4GB amount of memory that makes sense for average users on Facebook and listening to music). The average use case (not gaming) is what decides how much memory HP sticks into a system. You might argue that you could always build a custom rig with tons of memory for this, but then you're basically reducing your potential install base to a size that will guarantee there's no way to turn a profit on a game. So if this is a memory hog due to it's design, it will not make sense economically for users/developers.
Click to expand...

Kinda true, but not. Anyone who plays games more often than not buys the PC to fit those needs. Rarely does it end up the other way around. Also, when you look historically memories impact on gaming, even today, 2-4gb is more than enough even on games that stress high end hardware. Also, 2 years ago, did PCs ship with 2-4 gb of ram? Or 512-1gb? So in 2 years time, how much will they on average ship with then?

I also find it weird that Bruce Dell has repeatedly tried to make the graphics vendors out to be "the man holding him down because they have a vested interest polygons". The graphics vendors don't give a shit what primitive you use... as long as you make use of the GPU they're happy to adapt to what developers want and they actually already attempt to do that with every new architecture.
Click to expand...
Catch 22? GPU's wont support more GPGPU stuff until it is used. It IS happening today, but not sure how well it goes with CUDA etc but I can imagine, that is right imagine even dream, what the extra horses would do for tech like this speed-wise. Why? Because I prefer to look on the bright side of life when I do not have absolute damning proof otherwise.

That said, even if this is feasible for creating immersive detailed geometry in worlds, if it comes at the expense of things that people have come to expect from games today (i.e. ability to shadow, animate, etc), then it's DOA. Sure developers want more of anything they can get... and if you can give a ton more of one thing (in this case geometric detail) without much sacrifice, then they'd love it. However if you say "hey all this geometry detail comes at the expense of high quality animation and shadowing" then it's unlikely to be attractive.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned once before, look at the history of demo's. Not all of those had all those things mentioned above even when they were available. They were done to showcase a CERTAIN technology.
 
alik4041 said:
At the end of the day, you're arguing about potential technology with no idea of if/when it will be ready. This thread isn't going anywhere until another update is released.

EDIT: John, is there anything you're willing to share that was not included in the video? Anything else about the demonstration that you'd like to mention? You seemed to really like it, but being there and seeing it on video are two different things.
Click to expand...

As I just said that demo will fit on a DVD.

I have a copy of the map layout for the demo and it lists 24 major models like the palm tree cactus etc but what blew me away was at 1024x768 you could not tell it was not running at 1920 it was amazing man, it scales up like nothing I have ever seen. Apart from the 24 major items we had more rocks weeds and other stuff I just didn't have time to show! A wild guess I found 80 to 150 other items that I noticed. I counted 20+ leaves alone. And it was all done in under 3 weeks.
 
When I called John Gatt and asked him to do this interview for HardOCP, I never dreamed we would get this kind of access. Big kudos to John for doing a superb job. And obviously we are not professional video produces either, so you will have to give us a bit of a pass in that department. We did our best on what was a tight budget and a very short timeline with limited equipment. If anything, I hope it points somewhat to the interview being genuine.
Click to expand...

Wrong word :)
 
Thanks for doing this. I have to admit that I have my skepticism initially as well, especially with the lack of animation which almost everyone noticed.

This video if anything did show how forthcoming he is. I mean he worked in a supermarket and did this for a hobby. I think that made a lot of hardcore 3D tech guys shit in their pants. Including me. :p That did explain why he said "level of distance" instead of "level of detail".

At the end of the day, it's an interesting tech demo that's in it's infancy and no matter you believe it or not, it's a respectable effort.

(goodness, I've not posted here in a damn long time. :p)
 
JohnnyGatt said:
As I just said that demo will fit on a DVD.

I have a copy of the map layout for the demo and it lists 24 major models like the palm tree cactus etc but what blew me away was at 1024x768 you could not tell it was not running at 1920 it was amazing man, it scales up like nothing I have ever seen. Apart from the 24 major items we had more rocks weeds and other stuff I just didn't have time to show! A wild guess I found 80 to 150 other items that I noticed. I counted 20+ leaves alone. And it was all done in under 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
Thanks John. I'm sure we all wish we could've been there with you :D
 
By the way, here is another implementation of SVO's (which by all educated guesses is exactly what Euclideon is doing) except it it comes with a technical paper and full source code.

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

I guess he would get a lot more attention if he sounded more like an infomercial =)
 
kt3946 said:
The problem you don't understand, is that point clouds don't need TEXTURES. Textures are purely a POLY thing. Point cloud data includes the texture as part of the point cloud, and also includes the COLOR.

You don't NEED terabytes of texture data. However, unlike a poly, which is basically three coords and a bunch of texture data, you instead have 10k point objects.

The key, AGAIN, is that he's not requiring the system to render the ENTIRE point cloud for an object, and then bi-sect, and tri-sect the result to get the 3D projection, he's culling the point cloud based on the pixel projection right from the start. That results, in the only data necessary to render the screen is only the points which are visible within the pixel frame.

A similar process for poly-casting would be to imagine each pixel as an individual 3d projection screen, and ray casting against the poly based upon what's in front of the pixel. Your projection is built into the process.

Carmack mentions these processes as REAR projection as opposed to FRONT projection. Most current poly techniques use a FRONT projection technique which requires a fully rendered item to then be projected from the object to the screen. Euclidon likely (we're speculating here based upon available information), is that he's using a REAR projection technique which limits the rendering to only those points of the point cloud falling into the search algorithms result.

Not saying REAR projection doesn't have it's problems. Shadows, smoke, and other environmental effects become more difficult since they are procedural systems which aren't part of the normal point cloud, and instead, modify the point cloud data. It's not an intractable problem, just one that requires more thought than current poly techniques do.

At the same time, as mentioned in the video, the physics problems become infinitely EASIER since your resolution is high enough to encapsulate some of your physics problems (bounding boxes, perimeters, and other poly techniques for finding edges). So, while making some things harder, it makes other things EASIER.

The biggest hurdle is going to be moving the mindset to a different series of techniques. Most of the graphics professionals in the medical industry are well versed in these systems since they are actually used quite effectively in systems such as your 3-D MRI scanners and LIDAR based rendering. We'll see some crossover here in those techniques are being applied here into the game-world...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying here that a voxel renderer has to use textures, although it certainly could. 2D textures can be a very efficient way to store the color data, because they can be used on multiple objects, can be stored at a lower resolution than the voxels, and 2D image compression algorithms are very advanced. Regardless, you need to get the color information from somewhere and baking it into the voxel representation won't save you any space.

I can't really follow the rest of what you said. The key to the “unlimited detail” is that the algorithm speed is bound by the number of pixels rendered and not by the number of voxels. This is true of ray-casting or ray-tracing on a sparce voxel octree (which is why people are assuming that is what Euclideon is doing).

There are many things that are difficult or computationally expensive to do when your voxel data is stored as a sparce voxel octree. These include animation, shadows, and other dynamic lighting. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) none of these are visible in the Euclideon demos.

Having worked for 5 years as a software engineer in the medical industry, I can tell you that the reason we use voxels is because the data happens to come that way from the CT, MRI, or PET scanner. And in fact it is quite common to extract surfaces from the voxel data into polygon data because it is often easier to deal with and faster to render.
 
If I understand the technology properly, there will be no need for AA or AF. The only difference in quality is going to be resolution.

John, was the demo running on all 8 threads of the mobile i7 or did you see?
 
Llian said:
Fire up your best game in terms of graphics. Get a camera 4 feet from it. Now tell me that picture on the camera is the same as on screen. Big difference. JG was stressing this point. We have seen the demo. We know what it looks like in that perspective. JG saw it real time. Saying what it looks like when the camera won't do it justice is apologist now?
Click to expand...
Not at all. But saying that this is the most amazing thing ever, including vs. Unigine is a bit far fetched. Any demo running with 1/4 of the necessary systems to look "complete" will run at reasonable framerates. I have no doubts they can take advantage of the GPU eventually. But let's be honest here:

-Lighting is missing or very basic
-No real shadowing
-Very few unique pieces of geometry, world is obviously tiled
-No animation, all we have are promises
-No mention of the amount of memory it requires, all we have are promises and we are simply told it's going "very well". Is that good enough for you? Well it isn't for me. Allow me to remind you that they are as far as many other devs have gotten, and still have not addressed the core criticisms. Saying "it's coming" about animation and memory information in a normal circumstance would be fine. But in this circumstance it's well known by people with technical knowledge on the subject that the things they haven't shown are the exact limitations with the technology being discussed... do you think that's coincidence?

Llian said:
Perhaps because it is more about detail and it has more of it than the mentioned benchmark? And on memory there, it is a guess as you say. They have the tech and say another thing. So which is more accurate? Your guess or their knowledge?
Click to expand...
Wait.. so because they claim something it is as they say now? That's what someone who is trying to get the world to notice them is going to do. They'll claim their product has 0 flaws and minimize them and talk about their strengths all day. Marketing 101 dude. Sorry but I'm a natural born skeptic, and will need to see more than 2 instanced trees and rocks to be sold. Memory is memory, and there is only so much you can compress things before you have to face the music of data requirements. There's no magic that can change that.

Llian said:
Kinda true, but not. Anyone who plays games more often than not buys the PC to fit those needs. Rarely does it end up the other way around. Also, when you look historically memories impact on gaming, even today, 2-4gb is more than enough even on games that stress high end hardware. Also, 2 years ago, did PCs ship with 2-4 gb of ram? Or 512-1gb? So in 2 years time, how much will they on average ship with then?
Click to expand...
Sorry but your view is fairly warped, maybe because you're a more hardcore gamer by definition (after all you're on a gaming-centric forum). Most PC gamers are using the family PC with a low end GPU that came with it.

This forum is a slice of the top end of the group of gamers you have in your head.. the ones who build their own systems and tend to have higher specs. Your claim that most PC gamers go and build their own is just plain incorrect.

In two years time, what do you think the average user will be doing on their PC that requires 8 to 16GB of memory? There is such a thing as diminishing returns which says that even though increasing the amount of memory is good to a point, once the usage of the modern date PC has stabilized (which is already happening.. do you think Facebook is going to suddenly require 4GB?), the requirement for "more" starts drying up. Already PC sales are dropping as mobile phone and tablet sales increase. If the PC were not "good enough" today, why would that be happening? Why aren't people running out to grab SSDs and Core i7s for their parents? Why are they getting iPad2s instead? Why would people start doing more and more of their browsing and music playing and everyday tasks on mobile devices?

Llian said:
Catch 22? GPU's wont support more GPGPU stuff until it is used. It IS happening today, but not sure how well it goes with CUDA etc but I can imagine, that is right imagine even dream, what the extra horses would do for tech like this speed-wise. Why? Because I prefer to look on the bright side of life when I do not have absolute damning proof otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's not a cool concept, but I choose not to live with my head in the clouds. This is the same reason that I don't believe in psychics, aliens, ghosts, or monsters under my bed.

Show me some rational data and I'll be stoked. But spare me the marketing, please.

Llian said:
As I mentioned once before, look at the history of demo's. Not all of those had all those things mentioned above even when they were available. They were done to showcase a CERTAIN technology.
Click to expand...

Sure. and the certain technology has been showcased before. The key to really doing something interesting is showing the piece of the puzzle that is most difficult... the "how will this fit into the current expectations of developers" piece. And without giving a clue as to how much memory it takes, or how animation is going to work, it's just not something I'm willing to buy mentally. Sorry. Show me the money.
 
kcthebrewer said:
If I understand the technology properly, there will be no need for AA or AF. The only difference in quality is going to be resolution.

John, was the demo running on all 8 threads of the mobile i7 or did you see?
Click to expand...

It was running on just 1 but the next spin will use more. You know I wish we all got to pay with it now but understand why general public need to wait. I know others have this tech and are working with Bruce on it, just don't know who it is yet but we might soon...
 
There are a couple posters in this thread that telling them what a couple of ignoramuses they are would be almost worth getting banned over.

I mean seriously... you two are apparently completely blind, and about as intentionally uninformed about what someone has said (in a freaking video no less) as i have ever seen. :rolleyes:


Nice job on the interview and followup on this interesting development in graphics!
 
You want to sell me or investors. Recreate an iconic scene in gaming, with your engine. Make it look so similar but different that we don't notice until you do one of those famous zoom ins. Then change the scene all together with some nice trick. But we gotta see something that is functional, with animations/sound/UI everything. They are secondary to your engine, but they are what you need to sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top