This came up in another thread, but I'm really curious how/why this "unlimited detail" works (or doesn't)...

This came up in another thread, but I'm really curious how/why this "unlimited detail" works (or doesn't). It seems really pretty divisive.
The video seems too good to be true. Anyone understand it?
youtube.com/watch?v=hNSH1vKOK9o

bump

I think its like minecraft or something, but without the mining or crafting

Its not a game, its a tech demo

bump

they're not marketing it as vidya gaems anymore because they realized it has far more potential in mapping/geological modeling etc.

Euclideon's demos are always so full of jargon and buzzwords that I think even they don't know what the fuck they're trying to say.

Why doesn't it work for videogames?

Processing time

They actually explain it in another video. Normal 3D graphics is a bunch of floating points and instructions to fill in stuff between them. This new method just uses an infinite amount of points similarly to how you're made up of atoms. For reasons I don't understand, this allows for infinite detail while using almost no computing power.

so little big planet in first person?

Their claim is that it doesnt take any additional time.
they seem pretty confident it wont suffer from that issue

Are they bold faced lying? or is there something they dont understand?

What does it do for video games that polygons don't?

As of right now, not much. They look a little prettier but they're far more taxing and you won't be paying attention to it in the first place.

> far more taxing
that's the thing. It's not taxing at all. In fact, you don't even need a gpu to achieve it.

It was the same with tesla.

Dreams is LBP in first person

but they say it isnt very taxing, even up to billions of "atoms"

Recall them saying that they don't know how to animate anything with it yet.

so Sup Forums doesnt know shit?

I don't think there is shit to know. They just came up almost a decade ago telling people that making atoms is somehow more efficient than polygons and we still haven't seen a game using their tech.

I thought i saw an animated hippo in the video.
also why not just use it for environents?

I've got some wonderful snake oil to sell you

This video is like 5 years old.

is a scam, it can be used for prerendered shit but never for real time vidya.

well why? are they lying?

Probably. I'd at least expect them to have released their weird little island demo by now.

it was too good to be true in the first place

"lol no power required, hyper real grafixx with gazillion detail!"

I'm confused are we talking about the dreams ad or something else

>Their claim is that it doesnt take any additional time

For a completely static scene yeah.

Here let me explain it.

It's legit tech, they already using it for very niche stuff, but it will never be for games because the tech only works if the 3D objects never move. Notice nothing in the video fucking moves? All you can do is have static non-intractable environments. They can't even have variable lighting.

It only displays what is shown. Stuff the camera is not focusing on doesn't exist. That's why it can go into such insane detail without needing a graphics card. Same reason your PC can look at insanely detailed photos without a graphics card. It's also why it can't handle any sort of motion.

It has no game application what so ever.

>also why not just use it for environents?
We did that back in the 90's.

Because the environments would be 100% non-interacble with the characters. You would clip through everything, they couldn't support physics, if you made a 3D door it couldn't even open, your 3D tree branches can't sway in the wind, and like I said everything would clip through them including all characters and projectiles.

They couldn't even have shadows from the characters, only shadows from themself.

And if you are going to do that why not just use a fucking static image?

Sean Bean really let himself go

hasn't this "technology" been in development for a decade now and they're yet to release anything but videos of it "working"

I remember a video when in like 2010 where they were begging for investors.

there isn't all that much benefit to this, we've reached (are close to reaching) a point where polygons aren't what is stopping games from looking photo-realistic.

It's entirely lighting and surface effects.

Polygons are flat and less detailed. You can have interiors of objects with voxels.

Those voxels eat a fuckton of memory, which is why this demo only have like 8 objects.
Also they're very, VERY hard to animate, making the tech pretty much useless for actual game development.

the devs mustve known the application towards videogames would be limited... are they just trying to oversell their tech?