Biggest Computer Graphics Advance Since 3D?

[niall0 10]

UKUuUvDSXk4

Could signal a huge change in the games industry, imagine Arma with this tech.

I'm not at all a graphics guy myself so what are those more knowledgables view on this?

[maddogx 13]

Still no animation, still no transparency.

I'll get excited when I see them implement that... until then it's just hot air, blown in our faces by an extremely annoying voice.

[Nicholas 5]

No thanks. Detail in games doesn't matter to me that much.

[dm 9]

Still no animation, still no transparency.

I'll get excited when I see them implement that... until then it's just hot air, blown in our faces by an extremely annoying voice.

This.

The tech is potentially "exciting", but until I see it in my virtual hands (especially the SDK, as a developer) its just a load of PR hype.

How does one animate a point cloud of ~30,000,000,000 to create the turret of a tank for instance? (very very roughly using their dirt points-per-cubic-mm)

[GRS 10]

If its plausible, then why not. Gameplay over graphics, sure, but I still want the best graphics possible too to sweeten the deal. Definitely cool in my book.

[soul_assassin 1750]

voxels, old stuff.

@ DM

info can be stored in structured sets each can then be animated just like a set polies. One of the most exiting thing about it is that LODs become obsolete as the data adapts automatically.

[a wild goat 0]

From the video description:

"(Yes grumpy forum people, we do have animation, but you'll just have to be patient.)"

lol. try reading next time guys

[katipo66 94]

Good to see them back, Seems like they have been working hard, wonder how destructible environments would look/work with this?

[PuFu 4600]

old news, new video (at least for me). Well, i'll believe it to be working when i'll see it implemented in some sort of tech demo

[celery 8]

Big words and little to show. When you develop a groundbreaking new technology, would a shitty Youtube video really be your first order of the day? This raises suspicion.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

That guy always sounds way too impressed in their videos...

[solidsnake2384 10]

Maybe he wants it to sound groundbreaking....

[Flash Thunder 10]

Still no animation, still no transparency.

I'll get excited when I see them implement that... until then it's just hot air, blown in our faces by an extremely annoying voice.

this. Still nothing mentioned about animation and transparent materials.

I guess we will see in several months.

[Montanaro 0]

Worst

Voice

Ever

and lol at "games will be 100,000 times better)

[GRS 10]

I'd love to see the responses if it was BIS doing this.

[a wild goat 0]

I'd love to see the responses if it was BIS doing this.

absolutely +1

[-)rStrangelove 0]

physics, destruction? dyn shadows?

[dmarkwick 261]

Does nobody in this thread understand the notion of WIP? I see a lot of negativity based on stuff that isn't there, like apparent animation, transparency, physics, shadows etc. It's work in progress, not finished, still being made. I see a lot of "Pfft" - dismissive hand waving and "old news" type comments.

What about a few comments based on what you CAN see? In 5 years time this could be the way it's done. I for one enjoyed the presentation and appreciated the technology demo. I'd like to see some downloadable demo, even just a small one. I'd like to know more about the poly-to-atom conversion process. I'd like to know more about the texturing process.

[maddogx 13]

Does nobody in this thread understand the notion of WIP? I see a lot of negativity based on stuff that isn't there, like apparent animation, transparency, physics, shadows etc. It's work in progress, not finished, still being made. I see a lot of "Pfft" - dismissive hand waving and "old news" type comments.

The reason for this is simple: the guy in the video is touting this tech as the best thing since sliced bread, something that will ostensibly revolutionize the games industry, but in the year since the last presentation, none of the major issues people saw have been addressed.

In the last thread on the subject, the overall reactions were cautiously positive, though people (including me) were wondering how certain issues would be addressed. Now, a year later, they've come back with.... *drum roll* ... prettier visuals! Woah!

:rolleyes:

I know the guy added something like "yeah, yeah, animations work too, whatever, fuck off" to the video description, but that begs the question why such a major feature still hasn't been shown or even touched upon in the video itself. If they had something, surely they would show it.

[dmarkwick 261]

I wonder if this new tech allows for hybrid systems? I can imagine that the ArmA terrain would be far improved using this atom approach. I'm thinking about that effect you get on the ground currently in ArmA2 where parallax mapping is applied and makes things "float" a few inches. And grass would be improved etc.

Lets say worst case scenario is that this tech doesn't handle collision or animation too well. The terrain/buildings/vegetation (non-tree) would benefit enormously.

And if transparency can be developed, well volumetric cloud/smoke systems would improve also.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Lets say worst case scenario is that this tech doesn't handle collision or animation too well. The terrain/buildings/vegetation (non-tree) would benefit enormously.

And if transparency can be developed, well volumetric cloud/smoke systems would improve also.

Buildings and non-tree vegetation also need animation and transparency.

Grass sway, grass transparency, doors, windows, etc.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Geez, tough crowd.

Reminds me of those early nay-sayers for the likes of "Microsoft", "Apple", "AMD", "Minecraft" etc etc

;)

[dmarkwick 261]

Gnat;1995438']Geez' date=' tough crowd.

Reminds me of those early nay-sayers for the likes of "Microsoft", "Apple", "AMD", "Minecraft" etc etc

;)[/quote']

Indeed. As a tech demo, I thought it was very interesting. The biggest problem for most people seems to be that it's not yet complete :)

[celery 8]

Gnat;1995438']Geez' date=' tough crowd.

Reminds me of those early nay-sayers for the likes of "Microsoft", "Apple", "AMD", "Minecraft" etc etc

;)[/quote']

When you compare those to the output of this company, do you not see any difference?

There's only a video that could just as well be showing select shots of a purely polygon-based system. They could be doing it just to swindle money from investors. There's not even a rudimentary tech demo out, just this annoying sounding guy's promise that it's totally, unbelievably astonishing. And that they have animations but don't want to show it.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Gnat;1995438']Geez' date=' tough crowd.

Reminds me of those early nay-sayers for the likes of "Microsoft", "Apple", "AMD", "Minecraft" etc etc

;)[/quote']

I believe it's just a case of lack of substance and the fact that after a year, they're basically showing the same thing, with the attitude that rubs people the wrong way.

Sure, the model detail is overwhelming, but the technology they're showing has been known by many, the problem is that the technology has it's limitations that prevented it from being a viable alternative.

So basically, I believe people will be more excited about it when they actually show that they've broken the limitations of what can be done with it, instead of showing them what they already know about it. (Saying "Yeah, we've got animations" isn't very convincing)

In my opinion, some kind of demo to support their claims, would give them a lot of credibility at this point.