Unlimited Detail: To replace polygons in the near future?

Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by Feels Good Man, Mar 14, 2010.

  1. Feels Good Man
    OP

    Member Feels Good Man GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Country:
    Canada


  2. yuyuyup

    Member yuyuyup GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,300
    Location:
    USA MTN timezone
    Country:
    United States
    Fuck yeah polygons are trash, ruining videogames for years, jesus will kill us all
     
  3. KingVamp

    Member KingVamp Great... AETHER!

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,591
    Country:
    United States
    from the 3 mins in it seem it going to be great improvements in hd games. This could help "console killer" onlive right?
     
  4. Skyline969

    Member Skyline969 MENUdo Afficionado

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Country:
    Canada
    This guy's clueless. New Nintendos, new Sonys? Has he ever seen a video game in his life?
    And besides, for computers to process these graphics rapidly, it'll take years to develop the hardware, not to mention your computer would have to be incredible to support it, PLUS it would be insanely expensive. If what he says is true, you'd be spending thousands of dollars on a graphics card. No sane person would do that.
    And if that's being run through software, the hardware still displays it. I'm sorry, I didn't know he had a computer from the future that could display billions of those things, when today's graphic cards display polygons. If it was software emulated, it would still be choppy as shit.
    And if they had "unlimited" points, first they would have to define all of these unlimited points. However, as we all know unlimited is unlimited, and if they tried to define all these points an infinite loop would be produced and the graphics would never be rendered.
    And if they have these "ways" of bypassing everything we have ever known about programming, they should probably explain their "ways", not just giving out some random bullshit like "we have a searching algorithm".
    AND they call themselves "Unlimited Detail", but they can't even spell their own company right. Take a look - apparently they're "Unlimited Datail".
    And I hate to say it, but their graphics don't look that impressive. [​IMG]
     
  5. granville

    Member granville GBAtemp Goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,977
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
    Country:
    United States
    Fun to listen to and watch them try to explain, but there aren't any real technical details on how it works. I would enjoy seeing someone attempt a game with this though, just to see it in real life and not a tech demonstration.

    Sounds like they're trying to merge old pixel 2D graphics into 3D geometry, that's pretty vague. Whatever, we'll see what happens with this "tech" in "16 months or so". [​IMG]
     
  6. Feels Good Man
    OP

    Member Feels Good Man GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Country:
    Canada

    Er... it says "Detail". And if I understood correctly, it shouldnt use the GPU as much or at all. It uses a search algorithm to place all the points in the correct place. Also, I agree that it doesnt look impressive as of right now and they seriously need to hire artists because they're clearly lacking some right now
     
  7. Skyline969

    Member Skyline969 MENUdo Afficionado

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Country:
    Canada
    Please take a closer look - it's a malformed "a". And it can still use the GPU for more than graphics calculation. Actually, a GPU can process faster (or more information, or more efficiently, I forgot the details) than a CPU. People can use the GPU for normal processing of information, with a few limitations. That search algorithm will still take a lot of time to search through "unlimited" points, as a search starts at the first element in an array and works up. Or, if the array is sorted, it finds the midpoint and then searches higher or lower on the array depending on the value it's trying to find.

    Now then, starting at 0 can be fast, or can be slow, depending on where the value is in the array. If it's closer to "infinity", then your entire game or whatever is going to hang until it finds that single point.

    Also, it can't find a midpoint between 0 and infinity, as infinity goes on forever. Ergo, there is no midpoint between 0 and infinity.
     
  8. mrfatso

    Member mrfatso That guy!!

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,932
    Location:
    @Your Home,behind the sofa
    Country:
    Singapore
    sorry, i only listened to 2 min before, blah, this sounds bullshit, little points on the object, in the end, these objects will still be made up of lots of polygons, wouldnt they?

    Even if that's isnt the case, with that many points, i have a hard time envisioning how the fk are those graphic cards/hardware gona handled all those rendering... i mean, while i was in school looking at people rendering their maya project, granted that the computer in school are not very strong, but taking into account that they need a few hours to rendering their monster .

    And if objects were to have that much detail, and there is a computer out there that isnt a super computer that is able to render it, i would like to ask, could u lend me your time machine so i can fix my own life?

    (also, i don have a lot of knowledge in this field, as it was more of a crash module in our course to teach us about 3D modelling, so, some might be a tad bs, but not as much as this guy..)
     
  9. Anakir

    Member Anakir Project: Melee

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,253
    Location:
    Canada.
    Country:
    Canada
    Interesting video.

    Although it could be a breakthrough, but there's always a drawback. For a computer to calculate every single dot, I think it would require more processing power as opposed to a polygon that has many flat surfaces. I'm no graphics expert.. nor can I saw I even know a moderate enough. I just happened to know enough about this video.. I think.
     
  10. Rydian

    Member Rydian Resident Furvertâ„¢

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    27,883
    Location:
    Cave Entrance, Watching Cyan Write Letters
    Country:
    United States
    No, it's that it's highly parallel. I'd say "extremely parallel".

    While a CPU can do many many jobs at once, a GPU can only do one job at a time, though it can do that single job better than a CPU can.

    To put it simply, instead of 1-4 cores putting out lots of numbers and results (like a CPU does), with a GPU you have a hundred or more cores that have a simple job. Take input (polygons), apply pre-programmed math (shaders), and give three numbers; the Red, Green, and Blue values of a pixel. Then do the same for the next pixel, and the next, and the next. Get 100+ cores doing this job, and you're churning out enough pixels to fill multiple frames per second, and you have yourself a fluid animation.

    Their technology seems purely based on polygonal rendering, without much emphasis on shaders, so by itself it will not reach nearly the detail level of games like crysis, which rely heavily on shaders.
     
  11. BakuFunn

    Member BakuFunn Flameproof.

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,174
    Location:
    New York
    Country:
    United States
    I don't think you guys get how it works. Supposedly, it only calculates and DISPLAYS the points needed. It doesn't render anything. As the video explains, it searches for the points for a 2D display rendering a 3D environment. As opposed to a 2D display rendering and giving you a viewpoint in a 3D display. Essentially, it searches for the points needed.

    You get it? The computer would look at the point grid, see which points would display, get those points, and there would only be one point per pixel on your screen. And it's not rendered, (so that means no 3D gaming) EDIT: I meant no 3D-glasses or crap gaming. Actually, you could, with TWO point cameras searching. SO i take that back.
    Think of it as a painter who takes many many pictures. That's infinite detail. Now think of a person taking a picture of each item in the viewing distance to give to you to roam around. That's our 3D games today.

    That's actually a good analogy for this. You could argue that a huge slideshow of interactive pictures at 30fps WILL look BETTER and more REALISTIC than say, Fallout 3. And even a small tiny little computer will be able to run it. It's cause it's not rendering anything. It's only displaying what you need to see. Now this unlimited thing, it's the same concept, but now it FINDS what you need to see based on what you do, interacting with the camera. Technically, there is no camera. Technically, it's not 3D. But it looks 3D.
     
  12. Rydian

    Member Rydian Resident Furvertâ„¢

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    27,883
    Location:
    Cave Entrance, Watching Cyan Write Letters
    Country:
    United States
    Are you referring to culling?
     
  13. Feels Good Man
    OP

    Member Feels Good Man GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Country:
    Canada
  14. Skyline969

    Member Skyline969 MENUdo Afficionado

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,206
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    Country:
    Canada
    Ah, RISC vs CISC, perhaps? I had it explained to me at a seminar, but quickly forgot it. [​IMG]
     
  15. Feels Good Man
    OP

    Member Feels Good Man GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Country:
    Canada
    Yeah, you guys need to watch the comparison video. It's a LOT better than the youtube link
     
  16. Bladexdsl

    Member Bladexdsl ZOMG my posts...it's over 9000!!!

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    14,347
    Location:
    Queensland
    Country:
    Australia
    you'll need a powerful fucker to run this shit [​IMG]
     
  17. DeMoN

    Member DeMoN GBAtemp Guru

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Country:
    United States
    In theory it seems plausible, and of course they made a comparison that any could relate to (Google search engine). However, I watched one of their other videos that showed how round objects can never be perfectly circular in shape using polygons, but they didn't show how UD could fix this.
    Personally, I don't like this because the super-realistic graphics make my eyes hurt.
    And this is a start-up company, and they said they got rejected by the big graphics card manufacturers; it will be a tough climb for them no matter how good their product is in application. It will be fun to see how this plays out in the 16 months they mentioned it will take. If this company ends up putting ATI and nVidia out of business, I'll [​IMG].
     
  18. code_punk

    Newcomer code_punk Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Messages:
    4
    Country:
    Canada
    Dude...the video explains, in simple terms, that only the points on-screen at any given time would need to be rendered. Meaning that that absolute maximum that your computer would have to render at any given time would be each pixel of your screen resolution, something it already does.

    It's called unlimited detail because you can potentially put in as much detail as you want. With polygons, you are restricted to what you know current hardware can handle processing all at once. Using this system eliminates the limits that were necessary in the past, allowing a developer to put in as much detail as they wish.

    It does not mean that there is "unlimited detail" on every frame being rendered. Not only would that cause the computer to be infinitely processing each frame, but it would mean the developers would spend eternity designing each frame [​IMG] Quite obviously, you misunderstood quite a bit about the video. So before you start calling them out for "bullshit", make sure you understand what you're talking about. Because from what I can gather, you certainly know less about programming than they do.

    Actually, this technology has potential. However, I'm doubtful that it would really improve graphics at this point...not all strain is taken off the hardware, and thus it still has limits. It just takes the stress off the GPU and places it on the CPU. I mean, once an entire detailed map is designed with billions of points, how quickly and efficiently is the search algorithm going to manage to pull together each frame? And if it does hit a limit, the only option will be to reduce the number of points, ultimately hitting the same barrier that polygons has. I don't think it's stubbornness on the part of companies like nVidia and ATI like the video claims, but rather a realization that making the shift doesn't really change all that much.

    Sure, it might render the modern GPU useless (no pun intended), but it just places the same strains and limitations elsewhere instead.

    We'll see where it goes.
     
  19. BlueStar

    Member BlueStar GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,094
    Location:
    UK
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Ignoring any technical arguments and taking everythign in the video at face value for the sake of argument, no, exactly the opposite. The On Live business model relies on buying hugely powerful machines to process polygons and then selling that processing power to people with lower end machines. If you no longer need super computers crunching all the polygons for you, you don't need that service.

    We'll have to see if this actually comes to anything, or if it's another Phantom - ie all grand claims and no final product. That said, the video would probably be more impressive if the technical demonstrations in the video weren't all chuggung along like when I tried to run Crysis on my single-core CPU.
     
  20. luke_c

    Member luke_c Big Boss

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,587
    Location:
    Land of England
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You've all got it wrong, he said he's using Software alone to do that, so you won't need powerful rigs at all.
     

Share This Page