"Unlimited Detail"
-
s0m3th1ngAZ
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:11 am
- Car: 96' Miata
2014 Focus ST
"Unlimited Detail"
Called point-cloud detail...it's an algorithm they use to render otherwise flat surfaces. Could current graphics hardware handle it at the moment? Can't say...but it looks f***ing fantastic. Future of graphics to be sure.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaam5mwIR8
FN-QR
Saw this video about a few weeks ago. It looks promising, but if you have unlimited points then what will Nvidea and ATI now do? It won't happen is my guess. Too much invested in the current system to radically destroy all norms and move to this system.
-
s0m3th1ngAZ
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:11 am
- Car: 96' Miata
2014 Focus ST
Re: FN-QR (RCA)
They made the switch to bump mapping...I don't see how this is any different.
-
breadbox
- Posts: 8549
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:09 pm
- Car: 89 Nissan 240SX
89 Koop
84 720 4x4KC - Location: Va Bch
Re: FN-QR (ScorchedNX2K)
interesting. looks amazing though. Like he said that was as detailed as programmers are concerned with artists working on it, it should look even better.
-
JimmyMethod
- Posts: 6450
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:18 pm
- Car: 97' 240SX SE
- Contact:
-
MinisterofDOOM
- Moderator
- Posts: 30928
- Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
- Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille - Location: The middle of nowhere.
Re: (JimmyMethod)
Yep. Even guys with top-end CPUs are limited by their graphics hardware now. I have an i7 920 but it's only backed by a single gtx260 so I still only get about 50fps in Crysis at "high" (not very high) settings.
I remember back in the day when my gaming rig was a P1 200MHz with 64MB of RAM and a Diamond Stealth 2000 Pro (8MB Video RAM!!!!!) I could run games like RA2 and DII:LoD even though I didn't meet requirements processor-wise because I had so much RAM. And the Stealth took a lot of the load for D2 off the processor.
As for this "unlimited detail" thing...it sounds fishy to me. It sounds wonderful when you talk about only having to render what's visible, thus only ever the screen resolution's worth of pixels on a per-pixel basis. But it cannot be that simple. It isn't used for rendering stills or slideshows. It's used to render real-time dynamically generated 3D content. Stuff changes. Stuff EXISTS outside the FOV. You still have to keep track of that s***, you still have to render the effects of that s*** (shadows, pullets, cast light, etc.). So yeah, as a FINAL DRAW PASS that tech is grand. But the final draw isn't what consumes processing power. It's the computation of what is what does what to what and why. Just because you're not directly drawing something doesn't mean it isn't using computational power.
Really, all this sounds like to me is just neutered voxels. You can't just ignore stuff that isn't visible, ESPECIALLY occluded objects within the FOV. That stuff still "exists" and still has cause-and-effect relationships with everything else (in and out of view). So the "search engine" explanation they give is crap. The engine might be able to search for what to DRAW but everything else still exists. The draw pass is all that's seeing any improvement.
Plus, they don't say ANYTHING about how it handles shadows, light sources, dynamic lighting, etc. At least not that I could see.
In the end, you can make up lots of magic terms for stuff, but there's more to graphics than just drawing the 1440x900 (or howevermany) pixels the player sees in a given frame. If that was all that was necessary, we'd already be in a GPU-less world. Plus, that idea is not new and NOT exclusive to unlimited detail (or exclusive from traditional polygonal rendering).
Some neat ideas, but it isn't the magic solution the poshly-accented narrator fellow makes it out to be. It does not replace all that processing. The stuff the "search engine" algorithm searches for still has to come from somewhere, and THAT takes processing power.
At any rate, if you watch those videos, the framerate during the UD demo scenes is HORRENDOUS. Certainly not adequate for gaming. And those are static scenes.
With more info, it might be possible to convince me there's something to this, but right now it sounds to me just like the 100mpg carburetor does: too good to be true.
I remember back in the day when my gaming rig was a P1 200MHz with 64MB of RAM and a Diamond Stealth 2000 Pro (8MB Video RAM!!!!!) I could run games like RA2 and DII:LoD even though I didn't meet requirements processor-wise because I had so much RAM. And the Stealth took a lot of the load for D2 off the processor.
As for this "unlimited detail" thing...it sounds fishy to me. It sounds wonderful when you talk about only having to render what's visible, thus only ever the screen resolution's worth of pixels on a per-pixel basis. But it cannot be that simple. It isn't used for rendering stills or slideshows. It's used to render real-time dynamically generated 3D content. Stuff changes. Stuff EXISTS outside the FOV. You still have to keep track of that s***, you still have to render the effects of that s*** (shadows, pullets, cast light, etc.). So yeah, as a FINAL DRAW PASS that tech is grand. But the final draw isn't what consumes processing power. It's the computation of what is what does what to what and why. Just because you're not directly drawing something doesn't mean it isn't using computational power.
Really, all this sounds like to me is just neutered voxels. You can't just ignore stuff that isn't visible, ESPECIALLY occluded objects within the FOV. That stuff still "exists" and still has cause-and-effect relationships with everything else (in and out of view). So the "search engine" explanation they give is crap. The engine might be able to search for what to DRAW but everything else still exists. The draw pass is all that's seeing any improvement.
Plus, they don't say ANYTHING about how it handles shadows, light sources, dynamic lighting, etc. At least not that I could see.
In the end, you can make up lots of magic terms for stuff, but there's more to graphics than just drawing the 1440x900 (or howevermany) pixels the player sees in a given frame. If that was all that was necessary, we'd already be in a GPU-less world. Plus, that idea is not new and NOT exclusive to unlimited detail (or exclusive from traditional polygonal rendering).
Some neat ideas, but it isn't the magic solution the poshly-accented narrator fellow makes it out to be. It does not replace all that processing. The stuff the "search engine" algorithm searches for still has to come from somewhere, and THAT takes processing power.
At any rate, if you watch those videos, the framerate during the UD demo scenes is HORRENDOUS. Certainly not adequate for gaming. And those are static scenes.
With more info, it might be possible to convince me there's something to this, but right now it sounds to me just like the 100mpg carburetor does: too good to be true.
-
s0m3th1ngAZ
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:11 am
- Car: 96' Miata
2014 Focus ST
Re: (MinisterofDOOM)
What I got out of it was it's a completely new system to render objects....instead of employing polygons skinned with textures and light data. If that's the case then today's graphics chips aren't programmed to handle an antirely different rendering code. So we'll see...