Euclideon Makes World’s Most Realistic Graphics

Ehren8879 said:
I knew they were computer graphics. Still doesn't look "real"
Click to expand...

Still, thank FSM that somebody is trying. The AAA gaming industry seems to have abandoned progress towards photo-realism in favor of over-saturation and over-the-top cut scenes. And Indie devs barley go beyond cell-shading or 8-bit styles

For me, graphics progress stopped when Stalker 2 was canceled. Xray engine, despite it's bugs, wowed me with it's dynamic lighting & climate.
 
They have been working hard on this, but until there is something to play I will remain very skeptical.
 
He didn't say "UNLIMITED DETAIL" even once! I feel so short-changed.

The lighting is a little weird but under the right conditions (ie. the stairs) it is very cool.
 
They cheated a little. Compare the shots on the first run to the one they ran when they were bragging about real time. In the real time demo polygons were like legos, it just didn't show too obvious due to the small screen size. Plus the real time was real choppy, nowhere close to playable.
 
this shit again? good luck investing in them. it has "scam" written all over it. unlimited detail cannot exist without unlimited memory. and "3d pixels" have been around since the late 90s called "voxels", voluminetric pixels. they have yet to show a working tech demo that isn't hundreds of copy/pasted shapes and the last tech demo about streaming a complex scene in under a second can be rigged easily because it was not a random scene and could be prepared beforehand.
 
You can tell its still computer, I knew right away. Its to shiny, like all graphics.
 
Voxels will be getting faster now that the latest nvidia card has hardware to do them.
 
This is a very curious piece of technology. I wonder though, the laser scanner does a pass and saves all of the scanned details to the computer graphic engineer's computer, but what of the "other side"? When the laser scanner scans a forest for example, they would have to place the scanner at many points to get every side of the trees and foliage?
 
Yes, apparently that is what solid scan does, combines many points into a 3d scene
 
temujin987 said:
this shit again? good luck investing in them. it has "scam" written all over it. unlimited detail cannot exist without unlimited memory. and "3d pixels" have been around since the late 90s called "voxels", voluminetric pixels. they have yet to show a working tech demo that isn't hundreds of copy/pasted shapes and the last tech demo about streaming a complex scene in under a second can be rigged easily because it was not a random scene and could be prepared beforehand.
Click to expand...

What if you bypass memory like they are doing in the geospace software? :) the demos and the platform takes data right off the hard disk bypassing memory and its loading fast too! .8 seconds to load a massive city. yes thats .8 not 8! more info coming in a week or too.
 
Ehren8879 said:
I knew they were computer graphics. Still doesn't look "real"
Click to expand...

This. I could tell right when he started saying, "Now look at these videos taken from real places."

That said, their stuff is still far beyond just about anything used in games right now.
 
Aireoth said:
You can tell its still computer, I knew right away. Its to shiny, like all graphics.
Click to expand...

Same here. When he said they were real videos, I knew he was BSing and the gig was up.

Not to say it's not impressive. It looks great, and it will be cool to see some of that technology in games. It's just that he hypes it up and puts too much faith into it. It's good, but it's not that good.

I'd like to see it 60+fps in a gaming environment with a lot of movement and a lot of stuff on screen at a time. Static environments look ok, but very dynamic? Can you destroy buildings/walls/rocks? Good tech, but a long ways to go to meet his promises.
 
Ehren8879 said:
I knew they were computer graphics. Still doesn't look "real"
Click to expand...

Same.

Here's the problem. I still don't see them using any sort of shaders (shadows/lighting/etc). This only looks good because it's essentially applying a photo to the scanned point cloud (or sampling the color of the point, which gives the same illusion). This allows for extremely accurate realistic (faked) lighting, but it's locked in a time and angle. What happens when the player interacts? Nothing. The environmental lighting doesn't change.

You can make a "photorealistic" polygon model/scene by doing the same thing. But as soon as you shift more than a few feet from the perspective of the camera, it's going to start looking iffy (shadows, reflections, etc). It's why photos are used as references, as a good texture usually is neutral and doesn't have shadows/reflections - those get applied in other layers.

I'm willing to bet that you could do a metric sh*t-ton of polygons in a game if you turned off lighting shaders.
 
Super-cool, BUT the "real footage" scenes still looked kinda unreal to me so when he said it's CGI I wasn't that surprised. Very close, but still something was off.

The issue I see is that since it's based on scanned environments, how would they do imagined content? I guess post-processing the scanned geometry?

Anyway, would be amazing to see some playable prototype.
 
If anyone at the 2:00 mark shit a brick at that realization, they seriously need to schedule a visit to their optometrist. Its not THAT good.
 
Have to agree with everyone that it didn't look real.

But that gravel/road looked damn impressive.
 
This reminds me of that company that showed up a few years ago with claims of near-infinite resolution in their 3D worlds, everything made up of what looked like tiny nuggets.

Watched more.. its the same people. :D
 
I think Half-Life 3 and Fallout 4 should use this engine. Hell, every upcoming 3D game should use this engine.

Is it possible to run 8-way SLI with 4 TitanZ's so games have a chance at running somewhat smoothly at 1080p with such graphical detail? :p
 
Photo-realism isn't the goal anymore. We'll get more pixels and better lighting and textures as processing power increases. We want real physics and I'm not talking about papers swirling around Batman. I want to shoot chunks out of walls, leave craters, wind to actually blow the grass and my bullet, and water to splash and wet objects. Also, realistic character movement.It shouldn't look like stop motion mannequins.
 
Everyone making comments about the gaming prospects for this need to just give up, 'cuz that's what Euclideon did. They don't care about gaming anymore. They created a technology with the (assumed) original intention of making a game engine, but found that was unfeasible.

They instead shopped around for what would best utilize their technology, and they found that massive amounts of point data already existed in various markets, but didn't have a proper way for displaying that data. Instead of massive render farms brute-forcing their data, they now have an elegant solution.

If they can get historical sites to laser scan their entire locations, inside and out, with very high resolution scanners; you will be able to do "virtual tours" that aren't just some crappy 360 degree (corrected) fishbowl camera.

This has huge potential for educational uses, clearly, but there are also much larger (profitable) avenues that I'm guessing these guys are chasing... Geological surveyors. The guys looking for rare earth materials, oil, natural gas, etc. I'm sure they have some sort of internal proprietary visualization software already, but there is a very real possibility that this would be a "next gen" engine for them as well.

Then there's astronomy data, sonar data, higher detail street data, all kinds of stuff and that's just off the top of my head.

These guys are silly and almost comical in their lack of professionalism, but they have a good product.
 
Looks ok Resident Evil 7 should be set up in that church with a boss fight with zombies.
 
All their 'demos' are static scenes with fixed lighting. I bet their system cant perform real-time lighting or animation or physics any better than current 3D engines.
 
lilbabycat said:
Everyone making comments about the gaming prospects for this need to just give up, 'cuz that's what Euclideon did. They don't care about gaming anymore. They created a technology with the (assumed) original intention of making a game engine, but found that was unfeasible.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? From the end: "Regarding the question: Will this technology be used in games? Yes. Euclideon is working on two games that use solidscan technology. Yes, we can do animation, and yes, it's very good. But that will remain hidden away until our next video."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5AvCxa9Y9NU#t=347
 
Along with dynamic lighting and animation, I'd love to see destructible environments. I'll wait a year for the next video, no problem... can't stand to hear him talk for more than a few minutes anyways.
 
When I bought my first PC (Pentium 90) back in May of 1994 I ran into some screenshots of an upcoming video game called Quake. My first reaction to seeing those images was to call BS. I also remember seeing an advertisement in some PC magazine/catalog showing a "full color" image on a monitor. Again I called BS. CGA and VGA looked nothing like that. I could not wrap my head around such a thing at the time.

Both of those things turned out to be true, it just turned out that I did not have access to that technology.

So once again I must call BS on what these people are doing. While I do not have access to their technology what they are attempting to do is impressive.

With regards to the 1080p video showing things as being flat? Whatever video they uploaded to YouTube sucked because the bitrate of 3321Kbps (or bit per pixel density of 0.053) for their 1080p video is abysmally low. The math for bitrate based encoding is as follows and is a general guideline:

Width of the video * Height of the video * Frames Per Second of the video == Pixels per second

Pixels per second / 1024 == Kilo pixels per second

Kilo pixels per second * (.067 ~ .150) = Kilo bits per second.

1920 x 1080 x 29.970 / 1024 == 60689.25 Kilo pixels per second
60689.25 * .100 == 6068.925 Kbps
60689.25 * .075 == 4551.69375 Kbps

Based on the output video being 29.970fps progressive the company uploaded an interlaced video. Blu-Ray 1080p content is typically encoded at a .445 or so bit per pixel density with H.264 video.

1920 x 1080 x 23.976 / 1024 * .445 == 21,605.373 Kbps

That formula comes from Jan Ozer who is huge in the streaming media world. A link to one of his articles can be found below:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/choosing-your-streaming-resolution-and-data-rate.html?page=2

Item number 24 in the article I wrote below provides detail on the formula above:
http://helixforum.realnetworks.com/helix_support/topics/what_are_some_best_practices_for_encoding_content

I have learned a lot since I wrote that article but the formula remains mostly intact. If you encode to CRF then the variable quality of constant bitrate goes away but is exchanged for unpredictable network bottlenecks due to the extremely variable bitrate of CRF. Streaming media is encoded to CBR or ABR in most cases. CRF and VBR are more applicable for desktop playback or HTTP delivery on your private network.

If you download the video from Youtube using the Firefox Plugin Complete YouTube Saver you will see the horrific quality of the output video. What kills the video the most are the slow fades from one scene to another. A quick cut is easier to deal with. A fade, much like high action and grain, is a high bitrate scenario which can push your bit per pixel density up around .250.

Until I can get a higher quality video of what they are doing I cannot adequately judge them or their product.
 
What's with all the hate? You'd think that most of the people here are game developers or something. Geez. These guys aren't asking for any money, just showing a demo of some interesting technology. If they can pull it off in a game, then great, we will all enjoy it. If not, then no skin off our noses. So step off the hate wagon, m'kay?
 
I know people are saying that "it doesn't look real" and I would agree, but it looks pretty damn good! Also, I don't think that the CGI in a lot of the recent movies that use it heavily looks real, but it looks as good or better than this.

This isn't just the gaming industry that they are trying to sell to, but graphics for movies as well.
 
HBAO can't even make games look like the video they just showed. Tho i do agree the youtube quality of things made it easy to see that it wasn't real as soon as he tried to pass it off as such.A step in the right direction.
 
maboblivion said:
HBAO can't even make games look like the video they just showed. Tho i do agree the youtube quality of things made it easy to see that it wasn't real as soon as he tried to pass it off as such.A step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm wondering if it didn't translate well to streaming video... What looked like real images to him while in front of the screen might look like CGI and artificial when streamed, hence the comments.
 
I hate to be that guy but as others have already said, I new it was computer graphics from the get-go. Didn't come off as "real". That's not to say the graphics aren't nice.
 
JohnnyGatt said:
What if you bypass memory like they are doing in the geospace software? :) the demos and the platform takes data right off the hard disk bypassing memory and its loading fast too! .8 seconds to load a massive city. yes thats .8 not 8! more info coming in a week or too.
Click to expand...

I call bullshit.

There is not one single hard drive that is fast enough to stream the data from disk to display faster then any piece of memory out there. The fastest spinning disks hover around 120 IOPs, SSDs maybe 30000. This would highly random IO if its an FPS because you don't go in a line, but all over the room. To stream it that smoothly there HAS to be a fair amount of caching. Even if they got slick and were some how deduping the data and compressing it in real time into memory, there is no way you can load an entire city in .8 seconds at the quality they are claiming.

The idea for this is neat. Take an already built physical model, scan it, import it, and use it. That would be much faster then taking pictures and having virtual artist recreate it and re-render it. It still doesn't look "real" to me. Still computer generated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top