Unlimated Detail By Euclideon

[Shadow322]

Some of you may know what I'm talking about and some of you may not.

Before August 2nd I had no idea of this concepts existence, but then one day I checked the Word of Notch and found these 2 articles http://notch.tumblr....7075/its-a-scam and http://notch.tumblr....-its-not-a-scam, so the Australian software company Euclideon has discovered a way to completely eliminate the polygon limitations that have plagued gaming since the creation of 3D games.

Now I watched both of these videos, and they seem pretty legit even with what Notch has said.

The HD video they release on Aug 1, 2011.

An interview with the CEO of Euclideon.

If what their saying is true then this will change the face of 3D gaming forever.

---

What do you guys think?

[McJobless]

There was limitations?

Seriously, never heard of CryEngine? You're slow buddy...very slow.

[Addictgamer]

There was limitations?

I asked this same exact question. Only, I used a "were" instead of a "was" ;P

[McJobless]

There was limitations?

I asked this same exact question. Only,. I used a "were" instead of a "was"

I get ya

I mean, the idea that these guys have is good, but there are already engines in use by big-player game development studios which can pretty much replicate their results on your average gamer computer just through the poly method (if the devs even think about polys, which I'm sure CryTek didn't)...

[Alexpanter]

Needs more polygons.

[Cyrem]

I'm not sold on it yet. I want to know how all this information is stored.

What I find funny is the amount of people saying notch is an idiot, got burned and needs to apologise.... as if he is the only person in the world that has made a bad call. I still agree on what notch has stated about information storage. He did not say anything about how on earth all the data is stored and the fact the real games have a lot of different elements, not just the same repeated rock 5 million times. Next I wonder about the map, how much data would a map the size of Just Cause 2 need?

[Phoenyx]

I get ya

I mean, the idea that these guys have is good, but there are already engines in use by big-player game development studios which can pretty much replicate their results on your average gamer computer just through the poly method (if the devs even think about polys, which I'm sure CryTek didn't)...

A lot of those big companies are using shortcuts to increase their polygon budget, as well as using higher-res textures to get around it. Yeah, I guess it's reached the point where it doesn't matter, that the eye can't tell the difference in most cases, but I've actually seen the issues that they're trying to fix. A lot of maps in a lot of games put 2D blades of grass over a texture map rather than rendering the entire surface as well as the grass in 3D. Nadeo is guilty of using sprites for clouds.

Also, if you listen to what they're actually saying, in this system the computer only has to render what you see. A standard 3D environment consists of the map, props (separate objects that may or may not be effected by the physics engine), and ragdolls (separate objects with animation skeletons). The map is essentially a giant prop in it's own right. In order to render what you see, the entire map has to be rendered in addition to models that are partially or entirely on the screen. Not an efficient way of doing things, and because of that anything that is a part of the map is going to have polygon limits. Cue high-res textures and tricking the eye.

With this, each and every point is its own object, so you only have to render the points you see. Much more efficient than rendering an entire world at once.

In other words, take the rendering algorithms of Minecraft's random world generation system and shrink the cubic meter blocks into cubic nanometer blocks.

[Addictgamer]

Erm, I do polygons like the way you described they do this...

It's kind of the logical thing to do, ya know?

[Cyrem]

Also, if you listen to what they're actually saying, in this system the computer only has to render what you see.

I'm running at 1920x1080 that's 2,073,600 pixels it is pulling every frame. Didn't they say the demo was running at 15FPS on a laptop at a res of 1024x768?

They are talking about the next big thing, yet demo-ing the tech on low resolutions at incredibly low FPS. They still have far to go.

Additionally almost none of that demo is dynamic. I want to see water waves, physics, bump mapping, dynamic lighting... all running at a min of 60 FPS.

[Storm]

Give me a giant pink elephant made of water. Then I'll be convinced.

[Phoenyx]

I'm running at 1920x1080 that's 2,073,600 pixels it is pulling every frame. Didn't they say the demo was running at 15FPS on a laptop at a res of 1024x768?

They are talking about the next big thing, yet demo-ing the tech on low resolutions at incredibly low FPS. They still have far to go.

Additionally almost none of that demo is dynamic. I want to see water waves, physics, bump mapping, dynamic lighting... all running at a min of 60 FPS.

That's not really the point. A lot of the resolution stuff is limited by the monitor/screen size, while the FPS is probably manually limited because laptops have cooling issues and they want to keep the system stable.

Also, they said they are getting to the dynamic stuff, but they don't want to show it until it's 100% finished. If they were to release footage of animation before a release candidate is made, they would get demolished by critics (who seem to never understand when something is not complete - I've been told to give up and never touch Trackmania's track editor again simply because I presented a WIP track to a server for development feedback).

[TheDoctor]

I would like to point out that the kind of detail they advertise is a complete waste in a normal game where you don't really stop to count how many leaves a tree has, or look at the detail on it. I would rather have my processor computing AI and pathing and explosions, not rendering the lumps on a rock.

[TheEPICtrainrider]

Sometimes i wish I was into games around Half Life. At least computers didn't need to be submerged in liquid nitrogen to run the best graphic back then.

[McJobless]

Give me a giant pink elephant made of water. Then I'll be convinced.

The modeler, animator and graphic designer who all worked on that would probably end up in a loony bin...

[Cyrem]

Sometimes i wish I was into games around Half Life. At least computers didn't need to be submerged in liquid nitrogen to run the best graphic back then.

What I found funny is how he thought Minecraft defied the laws of games or something, that they don't have to have awesome graphics to be good. I mean REALLY? Gameplay comes first, not graphics... If they ever intend to produce a game, it will be terrible to play unless he wakes up to realise graphics mean squat if the game is garbage. If gameplay is good, you can get used to ugly graphics... thats why people to play epic old games, not just for nostalgia, but because they were actually good.

Graphics can be improved. Gameplay leaves a lasting impression.

[TheEPICtrainrider]

Sometimes i wish I was into games around Half Life. At least computers didn't need to be submerged in liquid nitrogen to run the best graphic back then.

What I found funny is how he thought Minecraft defied the laws of games or something, that they don't have to have awesome graphics to be good. I mean REALLY? Gameplay comes first, not graphics... If they ever intend to produce a game, it will be terrible to play unless he wakes up to realise graphics mean squat if the game is garbage. If gameplay is good, you can get used to ugly graphics... thats why people to play epic old games, not just for nostalgia, but because they were actually good.

Graphics can be improved. Gameplay leaves a lasting impression.

I hear the only exception to that rule is the first Deus Ex that apparently looked like absolute siet.

That, and games were easier to make too. Imagine how awesome it would have been to get half life and the hammer editor and make your frist map? Now a days you have displacements HDR real time water yadda yadda yadda.

What happened to Cubes hmmm? Half life had low poly-ness everywhere and it's 1,000,000% better then Far Cry 2, whose gameplay can be summed up as: Go here, kill/retrieve/blow up something, get money, repeat.

[Sonic322]

I hate how most of you act like this is nothing new and that these people should get with the program already.

There was limitations? Seriously, never heard of CryEngine? You're slow buddy...very slow.

I had no idea everyone in the gaming industry used this CryEngine 3 for every modern game that's made. I mean if this engine is as great as you have built it up to be then there should be no reason why these guys should continue making this. I can't believe there was an engine that could make games with the greatest graphics ever with absolutely no drawbacks what so ever. I don't even know why people still make graphics engines with this thing around. It almost like these people are trying to improve on perfection. It is such a waist of time.

Erm, I do polygons like the way you described they do this...

It's kind of the logical thing to do, ya know?

Really now? I had no idea your were a billionaire. I mean where can I find the graphics engine you made using this technique? People must call you up all the time asking to use your engine for their games. I think you should call these guys up and tell them that what they are doing has been done by you already. I mean they obviously have a right to know that they are just copying your outstanding work.

I'm running at 1920x1080 that's 2,073,600 pixels it is pulling every frame. Didn't they say the demo was running at 15FPS on a laptop at a res of 1024x768? They are talking about the next big thing, yet demo-ing the tech on low resolutions at incredibly low FPS. They still have far to go. Additionally almost none of that demo is dynamic. I want to see water waves, physics, bump mapping, dynamic lighting... all running at a min of 60 FPS.

I am pretty sure the point of the demo was to show that it could in fact run it at such a high quality so smoothly on a laptop with such limited capabilities on the software alone. You forget three points they made in both videos:

• They weren't using the graphics card at all.
  
• Right after they released the video on YouTube they were able to make a whole lot more than 2 layers of shadows. The first of which being the lighter spots and the second being the darker spots.
  
• That was the unoptimized version. They said the optimized version ran three times faster then that. So if that ran at 15FPS then the optimized version runs at 45FPS which is a pretty big jump when I look at it.
  

I would like to point out that the kind of detail they advertise is a complete waste in a normal game where you don't really stop to count how many leaves a tree has, or look at the detail on it. I would rather have my processor computing AI and pathing and explosions, not rendering the lumps on a rock.

I see what your saying here. I just have to ask you one little question. How many times do you buy a game expecting all those things to be really good because you see the graphics and you think that since the graphics are great then they must have worked really hard on AI and pathing so they could articulate the NPCs to work with their environment to get the best results and most realistic game play possible?

What I found funny is how he thought Minecraft defied the laws of games or something, that they don't have to have awesome graphics to be good. I mean REALLY? Gameplay comes first, not graphics... If they ever intend to produce a game, it will be terrible to play unless he wakes up to realise graphics mean squat if the game is garbage. If gameplay is good, you can get used to ugly graphics... thats why people to play epic old games, not just for nostalgia, but because they were actually good. Graphics can be improved. Gameplay leaves a lasting impression.

unfortunately your argument misinformed. Minecraft is in fact one of the reasons people look back at the game play when making a game. Why do you think the first words that come out of someones mouth then they first see Minecraft is "The graphics suck." but after they play it for a while they say "This game is so fun."? It's because a majority of people who play video games these days teenagers who expect graphics that will blow their mind. The fact that Minecraft are so popular is because it's content makes up for the fact that it doesn't use amazing graphics like most mainstream gaming companies.

[Sonic322]

I hate how most of you act like this is nothing new and that these people should get with the program already.

There was limitations? Seriously, never heard of CryEngine? You're slow buddy...very slow.

I had no idea everyone in the gaming industry used this CryEngine 3 for every modern game that's made. I mean if this engine is as great as you have built it up to be then there should be no reason why these guys should continue making this. I can't believe there was an engine that could make games with the greatest graphics ever with absolutely no drawbacks what so ever. I don't even know why people still make graphics engines with this thing around. It almost like these people are trying to improve on perfection. It is such a waist of time.

Erm, I do polygons like the way you described they do this...

It's kind of the logical thing to do, ya know?

Really now? I had no idea your were a billionaire. I mean where can I find the graphics engine you made using this technique? People must call you up all the time asking to use your engine for their games. I think you should call these guys up and tell them that what they are doing has been done by you already. I mean they obviously have a right to know that they are just copying your outstanding work.

I'm running at 1920x1080 that's 2,073,600 pixels it is pulling every frame. Didn't they say the demo was running at 15FPS on a laptop at a res of 1024x768? They are talking about the next big thing, yet demo-ing the tech on low resolutions at incredibly low FPS. They still have far to go. Additionally almost none of that demo is dynamic. I want to see water waves, physics, bump mapping, dynamic lighting... all running at a min of 60 FPS.

I am pretty sure the point of the demo was to show that it could in fact run it at such a high quality so smoothly on a laptop with such limited capabilities on the software alone. You forget three points they made in both videos:

• They weren't using the graphics card at all.
  
• Right after they released the video on YouTube they were able to make a whole lot more than 2 layers of shadows. The first of which being the lighter spots and the second being the darker spots.
  
• That was the unoptimized version. They said the optimized version ran three times faster then that. So if that ran at 15FPS then the optimized version runs at 45FPS which is a pretty big jump when I look at it.
  

I would like to point out that the kind of detail they advertise is a complete waste in a normal game where you don't really stop to count how many leaves a tree has, or look at the detail on it. I would rather have my processor computing AI and pathing and explosions, not rendering the lumps on a rock.

I see what your saying here. I just have to ask you one little question. How many times do you buy a game expecting all those things to be really good because you see the graphics and you think that since the graphics are great then they must have worked really hard on AI and pathing so they could articulate the NPCs to work with their environment to get the best results and most realistic game play possible?

What I found funny is how he thought Minecraft defied the laws of games or something, that they don't have to have awesome graphics to be good. I mean REALLY? Gameplay comes first, not graphics... If they ever intend to produce a game, it will be terrible to play unless he wakes up to realise graphics mean squat if the game is garbage. If gameplay is good, you can get used to ugly graphics... thats why people to play epic old games, not just for nostalgia, but because they were actually good. Graphics can be improved. Gameplay leaves a lasting impression.

unfortunately your argument misinformed. Minecraft is in fact one of the reasons people look back at the game play when making a game. Why do you think the first words that come out of someones mouth then they first see Minecraft is "The graphics suck." but after they play it for a while they say "This game is so fun."? It's because a majority of people who play video games these days teenagers who expect graphics that will blow their mind. The fact that Minecraft are so popular is because it's content makes up for the fact that it doesn't use amazing graphics like most mainstream gaming companies.

I am surprised none of you decided to reply to this.

[Alexpanter]

I am surprised none of you decided to reply to this.

I'll do

Minecraft sux

Kind regards

Alexpanter

[Sonic322]

I am surprised none of you decided to reply to this.

I'll do

Minecraft sux

Kind regards

Alexpanter

I was talking to the people I quoted so your response does not count.

[Cyrem]

I am pretty sure the point of the demo was to show that it could in fact run it at such a high quality so smoothly on a laptop with such limited capabilities on the software alone. You forget three points they made in both videos:

• They weren't using the graphics card at all.
  
• Right after they released the video on YouTube they were able to make a whole lot more than 2 layers of shadows. The first of which being the lighter spots and the second being the darker spots.
  
• That was the unoptimized version. They said the optimized version ran three times faster then that. So if that ran at 15FPS then the optimized version runs at 45FPS which is a pretty big jump when I look at it.
  

They also aren't doing near as more processing as that of games today. Shadow layers != Dynamic shadows.

I really don't care about what it can do anymore. All I want them to answer is how they intend to store all the unique data of a big game world. Most games today are about 8GB using simple polygon points. How much more bigger will something with hundreds of thousands to millions of 'atoms'?

[McJobless]

I really don't care about what it can do anymore. All I want them to answer is how they intend to store all the unique data of a big game world. Most games today are about 8GB using simple polygon points. How much more bigger will something with hundreds of thousands to millions of 'atoms'?

It depends that on the complexity...they could be simple co-ordinates for each point.

[Phoenyx]

I really don't care about what it can do anymore. All I want them to answer is how they intend to store all the unique data of a big game world. Most games today are about 8GB using simple polygon points. How much more bigger will something with hundreds of thousands to millions of 'atoms'?

It depends that on the complexity...they could be simple co-ordinates for each point.

Actually, the engine converts regular (but much higher quality) polygon based 3D models into dynamic particle based ones before rendering, from what I understand from the video.

[McJobless]

I had no idea everyone in the gaming industry used this CryEngine 3 for every modern game that's made. I mean if this engine is as great as you have built it up to be then there should be no reason why these guys should continue making this. I can't believe there was an engine that could make games with the greatest graphics ever with absolutely no drawbacks what so ever. I don't even know why people still make graphics engines with this thing around. It almost like these people are trying to improve on perfection. It is such a waist of time.

O.T.	Old topic is old, but he did ask for a response.

[Cyrem]

I had no idea everyone in the gaming industry used this CryEngine 3 for every modern game that's made. I mean if this engine is as great as you have built it up to be then there should be no reason why these guys should continue making this. I can't believe there was an engine that could make games with the greatest graphics ever with absolutely no drawbacks what so ever. I don't even know why people still make graphics engines with this thing around. It almost like these people are trying to improve on perfection. It is such a waist of time.

1. It's called competition.

2. Unlimited Detail is far from ready.

3. No one cares about looking at rocks in the pavement when you are playing an FPS.

4. There have been no proper game demos using this engine.

5. They haven't answered my question about storing unique data.

6. No drawbacks? Thats a laugh.

7. Graphics don't make games good anyway.

... Maybe useful to RPG players who get obsessed over their characters.

They'll probably sellout to some company(like EA) offering like 50mill. Then the tech will get patents and no-one will be able to use it. Then they'll jack the games with so much DRM that you'll even need to send in photocopies of your grandma's license to prove you are a really person with a real family.