We are all using 40-year-old technology

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  10 October 2012
Originally Posted by cookepuss: 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.


I looked for that on wikipedia, but couldn't find mention of it. I think it strange that the idea was never seriously revisited.

It seems to me voxels might have a place for physics simulation, especially destructible objects. Most lighting calculations are surface based, and triangles seem more than adequate for defining surfaces.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by moogaloonie: I looked for that on wikipedia, but couldn't find mention of it. I think it strange that the idea was never seriously revisited.

The Nvidia NV1 wikipedia entry for your perusal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV1

It might be easier to revisit the idea of using quadratic patches years ago, but the time to strike the iron while it's hot has passed and now the PC market is deeply entrenched in the use of DirectX which is optimized for polygon rendering. If someone were to figure out better rendering algorithms for quadratic patches that runs circles around DirectX calls, I'm sure some company would be happy to revisit it.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by moogaloonie:
It seems to me voxels might have a place for physics simulation, especially destructible objects. Most lighting calculations are surface based, and triangles seem more than adequate for defining surfaces.



yeah, triangles suck at true transparency and dealing with density though. You end up with all these harsh transparent surface edges that don't truly respect the weight of the thickness AKA density of materials.

Even blurry raytraced transparency doesn't respect density - it has no real parameter for that. All materials currently have equal weight/density in modern polygon rendering engines.

Even most of the SSS shaders today are surface based hacks. The lightmaps they use are nice, but they still don't respect density, only distance through a surface. Even photon based SSS shaders don't understand density.

voxels gives you true transparency. Anyone who's worked with medical 3D CT reconstructions understands the difference and visual benefits. Seriously, it's as big as a deal as going from low to high dynamic range rendering.



Polygons will dominate as long as the tools and infrastructure are better. I think there is a point in detail where it starts becoming not as technically efficient to have lots of triangles that are smaller than pixels and loading lots of bitmaps to color those triangles that are again smaller than pixels.

It almost doesn't matter in the end if it's polygons or point clouds or voxels - the winning tech is going to be streaming the data that's what's needed for the frame either way, probably with caching the data that's most likely to be be seen next.



...and I thought Zbrush's display tech was point cloud based, not voxel based. It doesn't deal with interior data, just "voxel shells" or surfaces AKA point clouds. What it displays looks like polygons, but they're not. Notice how your video card isn't very stressed when using Zbrush or how video card performance doesn't really impact it while CPU speed and core count absolutely impacts its performance?

Zbrush's display tech is in the same vein of Unlimited Detail's tech. That's why it's so fast. The key difference though is Unlimited Detail doesn't load all the point data into memory so it's ready for deformation. Instead it streams only what shows up in screen space from the hard drive.

I'd still bet deformations to models in something made with Unlimited Detail's tech would require a 100% (low-res) model to be loaded into memory. You can't deform something without the software first knowing where all the data is

Last edited by sentry66 : 11 November 2012 at 04:08 AM.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: 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!


It costs quite a chunk of money, and a good deal of work, patience and time, to patent something in all the territories that matter - The Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, et cetera.

Ideally, you only want to jump through the Patent hoop once. ---> This means that you wait with the patenting process until your "method" is relatively mature, and you are not going to make major changes to it down the road.

If you patent something too early, you typically wind up having to apply for additional patents down the road.

This costs a lot of money, time and effort and is not an easy process by any stretch.

If you offload the patenting to a dedicated IP company/agency, for example, they milk you out of Dollars big time at different stages in the process.

Euclideon may just be getting to the point in their development where they are ready to "patent protect".

And even if they have applied for Patent protection already, it can take up to 3 years for the Patent to go through the system and wind up in a searchable database...

There's no way to know what Euclideon are doing, until they open their mouths, or the Patent shows up in a searchable Database somewhere.

Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: 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


When ZBrush first came out many years ago, nobody could have predicted that it would become an "indispensible tool" for many CG studios a few years later.

Now ZBrush is everywhere.

Its the same with "Unlimited Detail". You may not believe what they have achieved; You may not think that their tech can work the way they advertise it; But that doesn't mean that UD won't become a big part of game development pipelines say 3 - 5 years from now.

I have high hopes that these guys aren't lying, and that their tech is suitable for game development.

There isn't much exciting happening on the good old "Polygon Front", so the arrival of a point-cloud based realtime rendering paradigm would be quite exciting.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by DePaint: When ZBrush first came out many years ago, nobody could have predicted that it would become an "indispensible tool" for many CG studios a few years later.

Now ZBrush is everywhere.


ZBrush took off because it could be integrated into existing pipelines without changing much else. A change as fundamental as moving away from polygons is a much, much harder sell.
__________________
kevinbakercg.com
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by DePaint: It costs quite a chunk of money, and a good deal of work, patience and time, to patent something in all the territories that matter - The Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, et cetera.

They received $2M from Australian govt., we know this much. Nobody knows how much they scammed from other investors. You typically file in US and reuse much of the paperwork in other countries (paying for translation services). Patenting is usually done in "blocks" of European, Asian, and Eastern European countries who have signed an agreement. This is a routine process for most patent attorneys, they just will charge you a few hundred thousand dollars. I can provide you with references on all this.

Originally Posted by DePaint: Ideally, you only want to jump through the Patent hoop once. ---> This means that you wait with the patenting process until your "method" is relatively mature, and you are not going to make major changes to it down the road.

Have you ever consulted a patent attorney? You seem to be very mis-informed about the process. You will be advised to patent whatever you have ASAP! There are a number of reasons for this, in this case most important one being for the fear of someone else patenting the invention. You have a year to file a patent from the date of any disclosure until you can no longer use the "first to invent" doctrine, at which point its fair game for other people to patent your invention. For this reason alone, UD guys would've patented whatever they had back in 2003, or at least file a provisional patent which would extend their advantage to 2 years Max. That is, if they weren't full of BS

Oh an saying "their idea wasn't fully formed back then" is funny. Look back at their videos from there. They seemed to have it all figured out 9 ago. And you don't need a working prototype to patent something. Heck, people patented faster than light communication before!

Originally Posted by DePaint: And even if they have applied for Patent protection already, it can take up to 3 years for the Patent to go through the system and wind up in a searchable database...

Nope. It takes about 6 months for USPTO to publish patent applications for everyone to see. It might take 3 years (these days the absolute longest) and multiple amendments for your patent application to be approved but people will still see the application all this time. It is the contract you have with the govt.- I will disclose my invention to everyone, and will have a 20 year monopoly on it.

Now, Euclidian folks had 9 years and (at least) 2 million dollars to go through the process. Why didn't they? Because they're full of BS

You either work for Euclidion scammers or you are showing off a complete inability to reason. In either case, you should look back at what you're saying and stop giving other people false hope.

Last edited by BrainFreeze : 11 November 2012 at 08:36 PM.
 
  11 November 2012
[possessed by a higher entity]

You humans just cannot be trusted to handle new technologies.
Remembee when you were given Adobe Photoshop 'in the 90s?
The lens flare, it still burns our eyes!

[/possessed by a higher entity]
__________________
My Deviations
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: Now, Euclidian folks had 9 years and (at least) 2 million dollars to go through the process. Why didn't they? Because they're full of BS

You either work for Euclidion scammers or you are showing off a complete inability to reason. In either case, you should look back at what you're saying and stop giving other people false hope.


For crying out loud, what part of the info below looks like a scam to you? Its from their site.

And who in their right mind would make claims like these - aimed at the Geospatial Industry no less, with government grant support - and then fail to deliver?

I think you are being very needlessly sceptical, to the point of dismissing even the "possibility" that these guys can deliver a unique new realtime 3D technology.

And no, I neither work for Euclidion, nor have I ever met these people in any capacity.

I simply choose to entertain the possibility that these folks can deliver what they promise.

The fact that their 2 interactive demos on Youtube looked completely authentic to me helps in this regard.

If Sony, Google or Microsoft announced something like this "Unlimited Detail" tech, you would believe in an instant that the technology is real.

So why doubt Euclideon's claims? Just because they are a small, independent startup company, somehow their claims are worth less than ones coming from Sony/Google/MS?

It isn't me whose logic is off at the end of the day. It is your's. You label these people "scammers", and "liars" and won't entertain even the faintest possibility that these folks may actually deliver what they promise.

In any case, the official website for their new software "Geoverse" is set to launch "soon".

Lets wait until that website is up, and then decide whether the Euclideon folks are "liars" or "scammers", alright?

 
  11 November 2012
Ok keep waiting
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: Ok keep waiting


What precisely is it that makes you so damn sure that these guys are full of s*** ?

Why would they go through all this trouble - Youtube demo videos, interviews, PDF documents, a "Coming Soon" website for Geospatial software "GEOVERSE", a government grant, and all that jazz - and then not deliver "anything working" in the end?

All the promises about "5:1 Data Compression", "140 TB data sets", "Laptop friendly technology" et cetera.

Wouldn't all that be a little stupid, given the global attention the Euclideon demos spawned?

If its about making a few million Dollars, surely there are easier ways to do that?

When the Lytro lightfield camera, for example, was first announced, all they had to show was a few small pictures that you could refocus in realtime.

That was it.

By your reasoning, Lytro was also an elaborate "hoax", except that Lytro isn't a hoax and you can buy first generation lightfield cameras for a few hundred dollars now.


You have the right to believe what you want, of course...


I personally don't believe these guys are lying about their tech.

I'm looking forward to seeing what comes of it, and especially whether it is viable for realtime gaming.

Its been years since anybody did anything more than shading a few polygons better in gaming.

So yes, if Euclideon's tech works fast and efficiently enough, it could revolutionize game development as we know it...
 
  11 November 2012
I was going to leave it at that but.. Are you serious?

Yes, people will do a lot more for a "few million". Their whole campaign stinks of being a scam starting from their sleazy looking and sounding "CEO" and ending with their 9 year old snake oil campaign.

It sounds like you were born yesterday regarding seeing scams online. The Lytro camera never had any of these symptoms so there was never a reason to doubt them. It never had a string of sleazy videos promising "Unlimited 3d photon capture".

Anyways, this is another facepalm from me. You seem to be way too invested into these scammers.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: Anyways, this is another facepalm from me. You seem to be way too invested into these scammers.


Where, where, where is your evidence that they are scammers, Brainfreeze???

You don't really have any evidence to back up your view, do you? You just like pretending that "the earth is flat", and repeating it over and over again for no particular reason, it seems to me.

Maybe you are secretly afraid that this tech may replace your beloved "Polygons" completely at some point.

Either way, I don't understand why you are being so hard on this small startup company of 9 people.

Now lets talk evidence, shall we?

In this Youtube video, someone visits the Euclideon offices in Brisbane, talks to the CEO of Euclideon, asks him all kinds of questions, and gets to test-drive their interactive demo hands-on on a laptop computer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxtuZE5pOGA

There you go. Hard evidence that their tech really works, in realtime, at about 25 FPS on a Core i7 laptop. The CEO says that this is without any "speed optimization". Optimized, a core i7 system will deliver about 60 - 70 FPS.

The CEO also says that they are in touch with Nvidia, ATI and Intel about using their tech with various graphics processors.

The man testing the demo, flying the virtual camera around, reacts by saying "This is really impressive. The Youtube videos don't do it justice at all".

But go ahead: Repeat one more time that these people are "scammers" and "lying sacks of shit".

You seem to feel sorry that I am "falling for the baseless claims of these scammers".

If actually feel sorry that your view of "Unlimited Detail" is so closed-minded.

At this point in time, the best thing to do is to wait for them to launch their "Geoverse" software and website.

I think that when they do that, the picture will become a lot clearer.
 
  11 November 2012
A YouTube video of a bromance between two guys looking at a laptop.. yeah that is hard evidence, you should go buy their stock right now.

Physically/theoretically impossible claims, 9 years without any patents while promising to revoutionalize everything and calling conspiracies everywhere.. let's ignore that.

Again, I'm not saying they don't have *any* products, but yeah, I call BS on anyone claiming "unlimited" anything and using convoluted marketing speak like "3d atoms" for point cloud data.
 
  11 November 2012
Originally Posted by BrainFreeze: Again, I'm not saying they don't have *any* products, but yeah, I call BS on anyone claiming "unlimited" anything and using convoluted marketing speak like "3d atoms" for point cloud data.


If established companies like Nvidia, ATI or Intel made the same "Unlimited Detail" claim, and showed off a similar demo, would you be doubting them, too?

Give these guys a break... They are 9 people trying to revolutionize game graphics as we know it, without huge resources at their disposal.

If they deliver what they promise, we should applaud them, not crap on them.

If they don't deliver? Well, then that's too bad. But my gut feeling tells me that these guys are onto something impressive.

By "impressive" I mean of course the "search algorithm" nature of their graphics tech.

Lots of people have done Voxels and Point Clouds in realtime before.

But I've never heard of a method that uses a "Search Algorithm" to do this, and that can put so many millions of points/voxels/atoms on the screen at 25 FPS, and on top of this do this all on the CPU alone.

Lets wait until their software is released.

If it turns out to be a scam, then that's too bad, and the whole world will call these guys "scammers".

If their tech is genuine, on the other hand, we may be looking at the future of 3D gaming itself, and that's an exciting proposition - no more textured low-poly graphics in games!

My 2 Cents
 
Thread Closed share thread



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 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.