CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-29-2012, 11:43 AM   #31
neuk
Dr. Strangelove
portfolio
ognjen vukovic
london, United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 181
About that... i had this great idea its a six faced wheel, basically a "atom wheel" , by optimizing it to one atom wheel per vehicle you can have "unlimited wheels " . Only one problem, well they cant move just yet....

Contact me by pm.
I'll send you my paypal info.
Cheers.
 
Old 10-29-2012, 04:25 PM   #32
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercube
Scientific visualization of massive static datasets does not say "production animation or games oriented" to me. Sounds more like they got to a certain point and figured out it may be better suited for those sorts of applications rather than how they were originally selling it for entertainment.


It is worth remembering that today's 3D game technology started life as interactive 3D graphics for hugely expensive simulators created to train civilian and military pilots for duty.

Then that 3D simulator tech, including the textured-and-lit-polygons approach, and hardware 3D chip designs, trickled down to PC and Console Games in the form of 3D graphics accelerator cards.

I see Euclideon's tech very much the same way.

They can start their product life-cycle by visualizing huge 3D datasets for science/engineering use.

Eventually the day may come when Gamemakers, too, need to visualize huge 3D datasets, because that's where 3D game environments are headed scale- and detail-wise.

And voila - there is sudden demand for Euclideon's tech in the game industry.

Being dismissive of a technology before it even hits the market is easy.

But that kind of "ha ha ha that tech will never work" perspective isn't useful to anyone in any way, particularly if there is a good chance that the tech will, indeed, work as advertised.

At least that's how I see the situation...
 
Old 10-29-2012, 05:58 PM   #33
hypercube
frontier psychiatrist
 
hypercube's Avatar
portfolio
Daryl Bartley
vfx goon / gfx ho
hypercube
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,050
You're not seeing what I was getting at..that stuff needs to be able to MOVE in order to be viable for games and film and TV. Which is something their initial videos have been trying to sell with the ugly-yet-supremely-detailed "game environment" and comparisons, but haven't shown a single instance of that I have seen.

Now they are going with an application for it that seems to be purely static information without any kind of animation of the data, which is why it seems a complete change of gears and a thought they may have hit a wall with the current state of their tech as far as being able to do a functional game or animation.
 
Old 10-29-2012, 06:05 PM   #34
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Ah man, not unlimited detail again.
 
Old 10-29-2012, 08:00 PM   #35
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercube
You're not seeing what I was getting at..that stuff needs to be able to MOVE in order to be viable for games and film and TV. Which is something their initial videos have been trying to sell with the ugly-yet-supremely-detailed "game environment" and comparisons, but haven't shown a single instance of that I have seen.


There is a very early Euclideon demo from 7 years ago that shows basic animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZqPMg-Y7gE

If they could do an early prototype with animation 7 years ago, what makes you think they can't do it today?
 
Old 10-29-2012, 08:18 PM   #36
hypercube
frontier psychiatrist
 
hypercube's Avatar
portfolio
Daryl Bartley
vfx goon / gfx ho
hypercube
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
There is a very early Euclideon demo from 7 years ago that shows basic animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZqPMg-Y7gE

If they could do an early prototype with animation 7 years ago, what makes you think they can't do it today?


Because they aren't showing it? I have never seen that video or seen it widely publicized in any of the endless articles or cgtalk threads that pop up about this every year or so..probably because it is extremely rudimentary and their earliest videos were criticized as being hideous.

Do you own stock in them or something? This tech has so far been the "cold fusion" of the CG world, and if they really have their shit together, they will show everyone at some point. Until then I am only willing to give them credit for what I have seen demonstrated, same as any other new technology.

Hell how long ago were we supposed to be using those "sugar cube" 3D holographic storage drives? Or 90% of the stuff from Beyond 2000?
 
Old 10-29-2012, 08:39 PM   #37
BrainFreeze
Know-it-All
portfolio
Mark Wellington
Everett, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercube
Do you own stock in them or something? This tech has so far been the "cold fusion" of the CG world, and if they really have their shit together, they will show everyone at some point. Until then I am only willing to give them credit for what I have seen demonstrated, same as any other new technology.

I was wondering the same thing. I guess some people, once they say something, become so entrenched in their opinion that it is impossible to see it any other way.

DOITH: Demo (I can run on my own computer) or it didn't happen!
 
Old 10-30-2012, 12:08 AM   #38
gauranga108
Lord of the posts
portfolio
jake mr
makaha, US
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 736
ZBrush, 3d coat and blender all use voxels.

3d coat seems to use voxels the most.

zBrush and blender seem to only use voxels in a remesh feature.

Rigging voxels still doesn't seem to be implemented yet in any commercial program, but apps need to create new features every year to sell more so I think there's a race to see who can get a voxel pipeline working form modeling to rigging to animation to rendering.

Modeling and rendering voxels seems to be working, now I'm hoping to see some rigging and animation voxel tools popping up

I have been playing with 3d coats voxel modeling and it's pretty nice.

I know it's a bit of "grass is greener . . . " posting but I've learned a bunch since I started this thread so thanks everyone to putting there time and energy into it.
 
Old 10-31-2012, 02:32 PM   #39
cookepuss
Lord of the posts
Rob
NYC, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by gauranga108
ZBrush, 3d coat and blender all use voxels.

ZBrush uses polygons, not voxels. It's as fast as it is due to highly optimized routines. Similarly, Blender is primarily polygon based too. 3D-Coat may use voxels, but stuff still gets tessellated back down to polygons anyway, especially when it comes time to UV or retopo. I think that, maybe, you're a bit unclear.

Trust me. If ZB used voxels you'd know it. The low res results would be chunky and almost minecraft-like. ZB might use some similar space partitioning to reevaluate its models in dynamesh mode, but It is most likely not voxel related.

Polygons aren't going anywhere. Triangles especially. They've been around for thousands of years and with good reason. They are a fundamental 3D and 2D abstraction of physical and screen space. Short of the vertex or line, they are the simplest and most elegant abstraction. With a polygon, you can define any surface, short of n-space post-4D structures. Triangles are always co-planar and never twist their normals.

Because they [triangles] are so perfect in their simplicity, mathematicians and engineers can optimize hardware design in ways that'd make your head spin. Even if you designed hardware based around voxels, the end result would ultimately be slower than a pure poly solution.

About 17 years ago, at the dawn of the modern GPU, NVIDIA did try a non-poly solution to hardware design: the NV1. This chip/card was based around patches and was, unfortunately, referred to as a deccelerator by anybody who ever owned it. I had one. Apart from Sega's Virtua Fighter, nothing ran well on it. Even optimized versions of Quake ran slower than software-based solutions. It was shortly after that NVIDIA unsurprisingly went with polygons for their later TNT & GeForce NVx chips.

As a huge fan of math and somebody who's done a fair share of 3D coding over the years, I can tell you that polygons have a distinct advantage over the higher level primitives. As with the tessellation of curve using line segments, it may take you more polygons to get a smoother result (adaptation aside), but the results and routines could be optimized far more efficiently.

I don't think that polygons, quad or tri, are going anywhere in the near future, nor should they. You might not like them, but they are pure, elegant, flexible, and ultimately (mathematically) quite beautiful.

As artists, it's nice to have access to other methods like patches, metaballs, & voxels. Those things shield us from the low level basics, as C/C++ might shield us from ASM or microcode. Sill, one should never forget that those higher level methods ultimately the servants to the almighty poly. They're just abstracted middlemen.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.

Last edited by cookepuss : 10-31-2012 at 02:34 PM.
 
Old 10-31-2012, 03:47 PM   #40
DePaint
Banned
 
DePaint's Avatar
portfolio
Emre M.
Istanbul, Turkey
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze
DOITH: Demo (I can run on my own computer) or it didn't happen!


That's very short-sighted in my opinion.

Guess what could happen if they gave you an interactive demo too early on?

1) The Chinese/Japanese and other parties highly interested in new 3D tech could decompile the demo and potentially reverse engineer Euclideon's "Unlimited Detail" tech in a few weeks, before it is even mature enough to bring to market. That would be a shitty thing, wouldn't it? You spend years developing a 3D technology, and the competition reverse engineers it in a few weeks!

2) Typically, when you apply for a patent for new tech like this, your lawyers will advise you to keep the tech to yourself, until the patent application(s) clear the first hurdles. In other words: Until the patent for it is solid, you keep your 3D tech strictly to yourself, and show only videos or images of what you are doing.

I think, based on what I've seen online, that Euclideon's tech is very much real.

If it performs well when released, it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually gets integrated into game engines like Unreal Engine or CryEngine.

You could use a hybrid approach where certain things are made of polygons, and certain other things use "Unlimited Detail" rendering.


Maybe the name "Unlimited Detail" is a bit over the top.

But I think the tech they showed off is real, and quite promising...
 
Old 10-31-2012, 04:37 PM   #41
cookepuss
Lord of the posts
Rob
NYC, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Maybe the name "Unlimited Detail" is a bit over the top.
But I think the tech they showed off is real, and quite promising...

In theory. The problem will ultimately end up being the "weight" of each 3D "atom". Drawing 1 million colored polygons per frame can be done very swiftly. Drawing each of those 1 million with texture, normal, diffuse, bump, specular, alpha, multiple lights, & a full shader pipeline is much harder.

Just because you're presented with a technology that promises much more detail doesn't mean that all of that stuff is going away. In fact, increased spatial detail is probably going to create an equally increased demand, from the viewer's perspective, for perceptual detail. It's not like you can have a 1B poly model with a 128x128 texture. You've got to scale the entire line.

I saw the demo you're talking about. It's interesting, but such promises have been made many, many times before. It never pans out. Apart from the fact that the content creation tools aren't there, there are too many other factors holding it back.

For one thing, there's a disparity when it comes to end user hardware. Nobody's running on level ground. I may have a a 6-core with 24G RAM, but you might only have a 2-core with 4G. What might run great for me might bog you down. What might run great for you might not even push mine. Scalability sounds nice, but it doesn't always work as promised.

Then there's the issue of real world application. Everything looks awesome as a tech demo. Put this tech to the real test and it will fail. Not just the increased visual pipeline, but also the addition of sound, logic, input, connectivity, & so on. All of that other stuff takes a huge bite out of your resources.

I don't dispute the potential of such "unlimited detail" demos, but I think that they're just that, demos. For real world application and across the full spectrum of consumer hardware, it's digital snake oil. I hate to be one of those guys, but I think that the real solution is to just throw more hardware power and more smart math at the problem. Who among us would have imagined, 30 years ago, that CG would be where it is now? We were barely a vector art society back then. Smart math and better hardware has helped us get this far. Imagine where we'll be 30 years from now.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
Old 10-31-2012, 07:31 PM   #42
gauranga108
Lord of the posts
portfolio
jake mr
makaha, US
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookepuss
ZBrush uses polygons, not voxels. It's as fast as it is due to highly optimized routines. Similarly, Blender is primarily polygon based too. 3D-Coat may use voxels, but stuff still gets tessellated back down to polygons anyway, especially when it comes time to UV or retopo. I think that, maybe, you're a bit unclear.


Maybe you're right about zBrush not using voxels but I found this below. I wasn't saying ZB is using voxels exclusively, just that they use them.

http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush/fea...ubtools/remesh/

Quote:
ZBrush uses its voxel-based Unified Skin technology to create the model. The purpose of these tools is to create a new base mesh that you can then sculpt via traditional methods to further refine the shape.
 
Old 10-31-2012, 08:02 PM   #43
BrainFreeze
Know-it-All
portfolio
Mark Wellington
Everett, USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
1) The Chinese/Japanese and other parties highly interested in new 3D tech could decompile the demo and potentially reverse engineer Euclideon's "Unlimited Detail" tech in a few weeks, before it is even mature enough to bring to market. That would be a shitty thing, wouldn't it? You spend years developing a 3D technology, and the competition reverse engineers it in a few weeks!

They'll do that anyways when you release it. I don't see the point of this argument. If they're planning to have such a tyrannical grip on their technology it doesn't stand a chance in the industry, people will keep to polygons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DePaint
2) Typically, when you apply for a patent for new tech like this, your lawyers will advise you to keep the tech to yourself, until the patent application(s) clear the first hurdles. In other words: Until the patent for it is solid, you keep your 3D tech strictly to yourself, and show only videos or images of what you are doing.

Right, which is why it has been 9 years since they've been trying to "sell" this and we haven't seen as much as a single patent application for this. In fact if they tried to patent this by now we'd all know exactly how it works- it'd be all in the application! By your logic what they're doing is opposite- trying to keep this as a trade secret. But then what about those evil Chinese reverse-engineering hackers?

I am surprised how much you are convinced about their credibility, you seem like an intelligent person. Don't believe everything you see and hear on the internet
 
Old 10-31-2012, 08:25 PM   #44
cookepuss
Lord of the posts
Rob
NYC, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Maybe you're right about zBrush not using voxels but I found this below. I wasn't saying ZB is using voxels exclusively, just that they use them.

You're absolutely right. IIRC, this sort of tesselation is also used in the shadowbox feature. I think that we're getting a little hung up on terminology though. There are a number of other technologies that use such tessellation and aren't strictly referred to as "voxels". Also here, they seem to be the means to an end instead of the end itself.

Pixologic's labeling of it as voxels is more hype than anything else. At the end of the day, as I said, they answer to their one true master... the polygon. That's your goal. That's what you're strictly working with. That's what you get after the remesh. Calling them "voxels" per se is maybe a little misleading. It's just a stepped poly tessellation.

I sincerely doubt that the data is being stored internally as these "volumetric pixels", as opposed to traditional vertex/edge/polys. There ARE some systems that do work and store exclusively with voxels though. A number of fluid systems and algorithms just love the voxel, which makes sense. Here? Sounds more like marketing exaggeration, maybe to sway over some non-zb sculptors.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
Old 10-31-2012, 08:46 PM   #45
Horganovski
Freelance Animator/Rigger
 
Horganovski's Avatar
portfolio
Brian Horgan
Graphite9
Dublin, Ireland
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,845
To an artist does any of this matter though? Zbrush pushes around huge poly counts with ease and provides a very fluid modeling experience. Has anyone ever used Zbrush and thought 'man I wish this had voxels instead of polys'?

Cheers,
Brian
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.