Kusy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4&feature=player_embedded#at=107:fap fap fap fap fap fap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Refuge Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I hit 5:45 and said "Holy crap!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowdeath Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 This was amazIng till i found out it was fake. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 @shadowdeath:> This was amazIng till i found out it was fake. :(Again, it is not a fake, the technology exists and existed for quite a while. It's just impossible to handle by anything you could fit into your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Refuge Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @shadowdeath:> This was amazIng till i found out it was fake. :(Yeah, same here.Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.…I still say Stephan could probably pull it off, screw "hardware limitations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlom Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @shadowdeath:> This was amazIng till i found out it was fake. :([http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam](http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam)Source, for any interested people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 scam ≠fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Refuge Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @Kusy:> scam ≠fakeThat's "!=" to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawQuart Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Tell the hardware companies to pick their shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlom Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @Kusy:> scam ≠fake*shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 `````` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawQuart Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Fake. Notch proved it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Notch gave a reasonable argument, but you shouldn't base your opinion on the fact that "Notch says so". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiden Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Holy shit. I'm having a hard time believing it, but that's pretty god damn sweet regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawQuart Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Notch's arguments were pretty solid though. How would it be possible to shade all of those atoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @Spork:> Notch gave a reasonable argument, but you shouldn't base your opinion on the fact that "Notch says so".You should base your opinion on the fact that it's physically impossible to store the amount of data needed to give solid data to every atom.Polygons were used for a reason and until our computing and storage power develops substantially we won't be able to replace that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiden Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 They're not atoms, he put it into those terms for people to understand. It's using a large amount of vertices, so essentially there are still polygons(?), they're just so incredibly small that they become insignificant.The "atoms" aren't little 3D dots forming a shape, if that's what the implication is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azure Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @Robin:> You should base your opinion on the fact that it's physically impossible to store the amount of data needed to give solid data to every atom.> > Polygons were used for a reason and until our computing and storage power develops substantially we won't be able to replace that.This is what I took away from Notch's blog post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 It's more like a cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azure Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @Spork:> It's more like a cloud.Even "the cloud" needs some where to store data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiden Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Yes it's a lot of data so it's unlikely, but I don't believe the shading is based on every single vertex, it's probably applied to a group of them. 3D isn't really my strong point, so I don't really know. All I can tell you is they're not "atoms". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rithy58 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I don't think it's possible yet when you think about the storage needed for the data.However, I don't think it'll always stay impossible.I was never into the realistic graphic anyway so polygon were just fine for me :PSincerely,Rithy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Refuge Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 I merged these two topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godlord Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 They are called volume elements or voxels, not vertices or atoms (stupid marketing people).To store them efficiently, there are some optimisation techniques. I'm going to use a cube of 1,000×1,000×1,000 voxels as an example, which comes down to 1,000,000,000 voxels. The first way of optimisation is to get rid of all the voxels that are never going to be visible, this comes down to only storing the voxels of the surface of an object. For the cube this would reduce the amount of voxels to 1,000×1,000×6, which is 6,000,000 voxels. Another optimisation can be made whilst displaying, that optimisation would be to cast rays through the object, so you only have to render the front voxels (because you can't actually see anything hidden behind those), applying this technique on the cube would reduce it further to about 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 voxels depending on your camera, and assuming we aren't using some odd projection.For detailed objects you can reduce the amount of detail to optimise the performance. The detail is only needed when you zoom onto something (e.g. when waving at someone from a distance, you barely recognise his or her face, therefore it isn't worthwhile to render the details).Your video buffer is the size of your resolution in pixels, you can't display more voxels than you have pixels. Therefore it wouldn't be sane to render more than 2,073,600 voxels on a monitor with a resolution of 1,920×1,080.There are probably some other techniques as well. So yes, it's definitely doable, if you know how to optimise your engine.@Jungle:> Fake. Notch proved it wrong.I've read his blog entry, and I consider him to be a bigger idiot than I did before. There are reasons why Notch uses Java. Although, I have to admit that this guy is really good at misinforming people as well.Yours faithfully Stephan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiden Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 @S.J.R.:Thanks for clearing it up, I mean that honestly. I had a feeling I was wrong, but I was pretty far off haha.It's good to know it's possible then. It will really revolutionize the game industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now