It's quite incredible, I cannot wait till it's released and we see the first demo from a Major games company.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4

As amazing as it looks unless hardware companies start releasing the technology to run this on a normal pc I don't think we'll be seeing this implemented into any games for some time at least. The processing power required to run such high detailed graphics must be huge.

Hate to be negative, but I call BS. When they say things like "increass 10000x" and such, it seems unbelievable. Their actual demos didn't impress me much, especially considering how angular a lot of it was. I saw a lot of hard 90 degree angles in the water. And although the concept itself makes sense, if you put in 1000X more polygons or atoms or whatever the hell you wanna call it, you need roughly 1000X more processing power. Maybe slightly less if you find a more efficient way to calculate it, but still at least, say, 750X more processing power (being highly optimistic.)

 

Besides, none of the actual graphics looked anything better then what I'd see on a really good PS3 game. Oh, and they sound like a pyramid scheme returning for round 2. (We have incredible technology, you invest in us, we disappear. Ok. Now we're back, we've done lots more advancements, we probably want you to invest more money in us.)

AWESOME

Pretty cool. I hope it actually turns out to be something of consequence.

I can't help but be a bit sceptical, but if it's true then I look forward to seeing how the gaming industry implements this.

So basically, they've done nothing in the year?

 

It went from an unpopular idea from game makers to an unpopular idea from game makers?

 

They over-emphasise the whole thing, making it sound more 'needed' than it is. Polygon counts go up as processing power increases, graphics improve in a nice linear fashion. We can't suddenly jump to this incredible system without the machines to run them.

 

I didnt get through the whole video, but have they got over that gigantic stepping stone which involves actually animating the damn things yet? Last time they could only make static landscapes.

I'm sure it's safe to say that despite the questioning of the technology it'll take to run the graphics of this nature, by the time the technology is standardized in gaming systems across the board the software will be in place to take full advantage of it.

I didnt get through the whole video, but have they got over that gigantic stepping stone which involves actually animating the damn things yet? Last time they could only make static landscapes.

 

The video said they're still working on animating but can only get a few models at a time without requiring an absurd amount of processing power.

Reminds me a lot of the game Ecstatica, that used ellipsoids instead of polygons, pretty much the same concept, but with the technology of almost 20 years ago.

 

As for the video itself, yeah, it probably looks better, but at the same time they have spent an entire year to do what, 100 models? It simply wouldn't work with today's technology if they were to make an entire game with as many models as other games have.

Am I the only one that caught that? They're using the same exact technology. They packed polygons into a smaller space and gave them a new name. Game designers don't make larger polygons because they can't make them smaller, they make them larger so they don't use as many. So your system can actually run the game and it not run at 3 FPS.

 

Also I find it funny that they point out that game designers tend to make the backs of objects less detailed but never show the back of their objects for comparison.

I was pretty sure that this was a hoax when he mentioned individual atoms having polygons.

The only thing that impressed me was the rock, as sad as that sounds, it did look awesome. There was a point when they switched back to the graphics and it took me a second to realise that it wasn't a photo.

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

I didnt get through the whole video, but have they got over that gigantic stepping stone which involves actually animating the damn things yet? Last time they could only make static landscapes.

 

The video said they're still working on animating but can only get a few models at a time without requiring an absurd amount of processing power.

Well in that case it's completely [bleep]ing useless.

This. The last thing we need is to continue the photorealistic graphics arms race, and these guys seem to have done that in a way that's currently absolutely impractical <.<

 

Could someone PM me when people find out about having animations that match the graphics?

If our machines are going to need to process every individual grain of dirt then I want the world to be affected by every little thing. I want legitimate tracks to be made in the dirt. I want the elephant statue's ear to fall if should it be shot. I want the vines to move if my character touches them.

 

Make all of this happen, and maybe it will be worth the effort.

Er, does it really matter though? The grain of dirt I mean. The details of guns are nice and of your armor, but dirt? Who cares...this goes for 90% of the environment...

 

But ah, yes it is very, very, very impratical. Hell I could also say the same thing: if we create a polygon for every quark of every atom in a virtual world, then [cabbage], we could just create World of Workcraft.