|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 22nd, 2010 12:48 PM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
I wish I had history enabled, because yesterday I found a thread on a blog where Bruce Dell (CEO of Unlimited Detail and the guy from the video) basically ADMITTED that it was useless for animation, and would be background-only for quite some time. Here it is: http://www.tkarena.com/Articles/tabi...e-Know-It.aspx "the system isn’t ray tracing at all or anything like ray tracing. Ray tracing uses up lots of nasty multiplication and divide operators and so isn’t very fast or friendly. Unlimited Detail is a sorting algorithm that retrieves only the 3d atoms (I wont say voxels any more it seems that word doesn’t have the prestige in the games industry that it enjoys in medicine and the sciences) that are needed, exactly one for each pixel on the screen, it displays them using a very different procedure from individual 3d to 2d conversion, instead we use a mass 3d to 2d conversion that shares the common elements of the 2d positions of all the dots combined. And so we get lots of geometry and lots of speed, speed isn’t fantastic yet compared to hardware, but its very good for a software application that’s not written for dual core. We get about 24-30 fps 1024*768 for that demo of the pyramids of monsters. This will probably be released as “backgrounds only” for the next few years, until we have made a lot more tools to work with, then we will move in to sprites as well." Voxels and sprites? Sega Saturn much? 
|
|
| Mar 22nd, 2010 11:57 AM | ||
| Tadao | thanks... | |
| Mar 22nd, 2010 11:44 AM | ||
| jhonnyD2 |
question the nano will be the future tech off course coz it could make all things better ... what do u think tadao... don't u believe people |
|
| Mar 22nd, 2010 11:14 AM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 22nd, 2010 11:11 AM | ||
| Zomboid | YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GONE BECAUSE THEY ARE 100% RIGHT. | |
| Mar 22nd, 2010 10:04 AM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
Quote:
When I mean "too perfect" I mean SHITLOADS OF EXTRANEOUS DETAIL THAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY. |
|
| Mar 19th, 2010 05:21 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
this guys totally right though. i just watced the matrix recently and in it they talk about how the world was too perfect (AT FIRST) and that the brain couldn't comprehend it and everybody DIEd. ENTIRE CROPS WERE LOST, MR ANDERSON. |
|
| Mar 18th, 2010 12:21 AM | ||
| Fathom Zero |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 17th, 2010 09:30 PM | ||
| Nick | Way ahead of you, Poindexter. | |
| Mar 17th, 2010 10:27 AM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 17th, 2010 12:11 AM | ||
| Nick | Suddenly, this thread has become too long to read. | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 11:07 PM | ||
| Zhukov |
You're asking me for scientific reasoning on technology that I speculated would perhaps exist a few thousand years in the future? That's tough. I can't do that. That's like Herodotus turning to Archimedes (let's just say they lived together, alright?) and saying "You know, I think one day people will walk on the moon." And get the reply "Bullshit! That's impossible! Tell me how it could be achieved! It's too far to walk, for starters." |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:23 PM | ||
| Pentegarn | Next we'll all be dreaming about Lightspeed Briefs | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:23 PM | ||
| Tadao |
I just saw a House episode were they did just that! All lies of course, but I've been told that if I can dream it, I can do it! Seriously though, I'm talking about Ghost in the Shell type of brain jacking. It's really is amazing what we have done technically with materials outside our body, and we haven't figured out how to harness our bodies potential, but let's just say that we found a way to jack the brain and people were having problems seeing and controlling what everyone else sees and controls. I'm sure there would be a tutorial to tell you that this is an apple and that apple is red, not green. Eventually you brain would recognize those inputs, but that's just the old dogs. The kids would adapt to it by kindergarten. That is all very speculative, but this is a very speculative subject. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:05 PM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
Quote:
EDIT: It just donned on me that it may be possible and safe if instead if literally tapping the brain with wires the game was to somehow hack your dreams. I see what Chojin means by having more than one option now. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:00 PM | ||
| Tadao | They can make a mouse curser move with brain power, I don't think brain jacking is too implausible. | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 01:52 PM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
Quote:
You're running on the assumption that the game programmers will create a world that everyone percieves as the same, no matter what brain it's played on. This would require a crapload of data due to having to store every little nuance the brain processes consciously and subconsciously. You couldn't make a streaming system or a level of detail system for that kind of data, the brain would recognize that something was wrong (basically hitting the Uncanny Valley) and there would be the possibility of it rejecting the game and killing the user, if the massive influx of data didn't already. The only way I think this could be solved would to be not making whole games but instead giving suggestions as to how things progress in the game, for instance telling the user there is a man with a gun in the room but leaving his mind to picture it the way he wants. This way there would be no huge dump of data needed to play the game, and it would be a lot safer in that regard. However you could run into a situation during multiplayer where one person's rendering does not work with another person's rendering. For example the game suggests that the man brandishing the gun fires at the users. User 1 pictured him to have a shotgun, and saw User 2's head blown off, which isn't true because User 2 is still alive, and he saw the man with a pistol. Thus a conflict is created, and it could cause problems with the game, endangering the users. (Of course this is another terrible example because said situation can be easily remedied by defining what kind of gun the man is holding, however this presents a new issue; If the game is using the suggestion system and I say the man is holding an H&K MP7 but the user has never seen one before, what happens then?) I admit I'm not that good at giving these examples (as shown with this and the red apple) but you can see what I'm getting at, yes? The only safe way (and feasible, because even if the mass data dumping was safe nobody could model all the data necessary for a completely believable manmade mindworld) requires different perceptions, and this could also lead to problems. Now what you've said in response to mebasically amounts to me not fully understanding technology that doesn't exist yet. And while that is in some ways true, you haven't provided any solutions that WOULD work, just faith in technological progress, so I'm interested in hearing your implementation of this system, without avoiding problems by saying stuff like "because future technology will have alleviated the issue of X" where X is one of my perceived flaws with the future technology that does not yet exist. If you think my reasoning is wrong, why? If you think that I have only one notion of how this could be done, how else do you believe this could be done? And finally (and at the risk of this sounding like a flame), you imply that I have had no comparable experience with this, which is right. And that all I have to combat it is a notion in my head, which is right. Point me to some research in this direction and I'd be happy to rethink things. But you say that I'm doing the same thing to the OP, which is a bizarre accusation to make, and it seems like a colossal backfire of trying to reverse my own argument against me. I mean, no experience with voxel games? As said, I've played Shadow Warrior and Outcast, and I used to play the Delta Force demos back on my old machine. I may not have programmer-level knowledge about how these games work, but I like to learn about game engines and stuff, and read about it. Maybe one day I'll try and make something, but for now I'm happy just reading about it. Arguing with theories in my head on this subject? I've pretty much said that I'm just agreeing with the comments on the website, and to the best of my knowledge (and FWIW, Google+Wikipedia), it's all valid. As for the quote about putting an LOD system on a voxel engine? HE FLAT OUT STATES IT IN THE END OF THE VIDEO. So I'm interested to read your response to that as well. Sorry for the wall of text, but I had to explain myself, and a wall of text is the best way to do it. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 01:31 PM | ||
| Tadao | I can see how this would work in the future, but by the time the hardware catches up with that software, they might finder a better more fluid solution. | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 12:37 PM | ||
| Zhukov |
Also, I predict that such technology will only be available after the abolishment of all diseases and disabilities. Nobody will ever be born blind. Not that it would matter. Don't know what an apple looks like because you are blind? Here, let me pump the image right into your brain. There we go. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 12:08 PM | ||
| Chojin |
Quote:
it seems like you have a very specific (and flawed) perception of how such a thing could work, despite having no experience with any comparable technology, and are arguing against the mythical beast you've constructed in your head. this is also pretty much how you're responding to the OP, so no surprises there. "However, your perception of red may be different than mine, and wouldn't that cause problems for the game?" - again, this seems to work in real life, idk how it'd throw off a game. Our "perception of red" holds true for the existing RGB system of displaying colors and I've yet to hear a complaint. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 10:01 AM | ||
| Nick |
Don't be a wuss, be a bro. Brah. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 09:23 AM | ||
| Kitsunexus |
I've never bought into the whole "Matrix brain-jack" theory of gaming's future. Sure it sounds cool, but there's many problems IMO. Firstly, no one's game will be the same because everyone's mind is different. Like, if you were to see a red apple, and I were to walk into the scene and see the red apple, we could both agree that we are perceiving the sensation of seeing said red apple. However, your perception of red may be different than mine, and wouldn't that cause problems for the game? What about a man who was born blind? How can he perceive anything in the game? How is someone from a remote country that is less educated in our culture to perceive a generic American city (if that was the setting)? Sure you could define everything (instead of just suggesting what to perceive), but sensation data for the mind would OBVIOUSLY be a lot larger than even point cloud data, and your brain wouldn't slow down like a digital computer, the rush of data would just simply overload your brain and kill you. There's also topics like what if someone who was mentally impaired was to play the game, what if your body woke up somehow, simulation fatigue/post-traumatic stress syndrome, etc... but I think that if you thought a bit about it, you would agree that it's impossible and very dangerous. |
|
| Mar 16th, 2010 04:21 AM | ||
| Supafly345 | You are the one neo | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:37 AM | ||
| Zhukov | I think eventually computers will just trick your brain into imagining that you are actually seeing whatever it wants you to see. So things will be as if you ARE ACTUALLY SEEING THEM IN REAL LIFE. | |
| Mar 16th, 2010 02:02 AM | ||
| Fathom Zero |
I don't think that there will never be a day where a processor can calculate these billions of points simultaneously and get smooth animation. Tech's moving forward at an exponential rate, so I'll probably see it in my lifetime. AND IT WILL BE SWEET, DUDES. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
