Unlimited Detail Technology

[Thatguy]

you missed my point, just becuase your a big deal on a web forum, doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone anywhere else. Your just a big thing on THIS web forum. Big whoopdee do da.

I am of no consequence either.

So basically, everyone needs to get over themselves and realize that someone who has dedicated enough time to design a brand new piece of technology "regardless of the merits" is likely to focused to care what some forum hacks have to say about it.

Follow me now ?


As to your points about rendering, I didn't quiet read that claim the same way, He isn;t saying you can render unlimited pixels, thats just silly. He is saying you can store unlimited amounts of data " which is BS to". The basic premise is that you store massively detailed models and use a search engine "likely based on camera position" to choose which pixels to display.

The whole marketing slant is piss poor and invokes responses like yours.

I already detailed how you could render "display" cloud point data with low overhead, now doing that in a game scenario is a whole different ball game.

this is all relatively speaking and I outlined a 3d bitmap format to allow for these types of constructs where a 1980x1020 image would be 300mb, a bit big to be impractical, that said with newer drive tech comming its entirely posiable.

There are alot of issues with the idea but any new idea is worth investigating. Sometimes there are better ways to skin a cat.

I am pretty much done with this discussion.

You miss the point again, my friend. You made a big deal about who am I on this forum. Well, Mussels answered you. Quite nicely. And he's a mod...

I don't suppose you bothered to read my previous posts in this thread on this outfit like I suggested, did you? If you read them and try thinking critically and clearly for a moment, you'll see that what I'm saying is right. I'm not the only one saying it, either. Remember, it's not me or others like me that are your enemy, it's the bloody conman we're outing! This is a classic case of shooting the messenger.

Once again, out of all the many telltale signs, the smoking gun is the claim is to render infinite detail in real time. Absolutely impossible and total bollocks, as anyone with a little logical thinking can see. Remember, there was no qualifier with it, so it's not up to us to come up with what we think he said. Dell quite literally made an impossible claim - and it's sat unchanged on his website for ages. Let him fall by that.

Never mind, people get sucked in all the time and are usually in denial when it's pointed out to them, so this is nothing new. It won't be me or my skeptical friends, that's for sure.

 

[pantherx12]

In regards to storage, don't forget you can get graphics like this from 96kb of data http://www.gamerevolution.com/download/pc/krieger


Certain things could be rendered at the start during load up and simply be deleted when the game stops so storage problems may not be an issue.



I understood what thatguy meant straight away by his "who are you" comment, he was talking from Dell's point of view.

So don't be upset chaps ^_^

 

[Benetanegia]

In regards to storage, don't forget you can get graphics like this from 96kb of data http://www.gamerevolution.com/download/pc/krieger


Certain things could be rendered at the start during load up and simply be deleted when the game stops so storage problems may not be an issue.



I understood what thatguy meant straight away by his "who are you" comment, he was talking from Dell's point of view.

So don't be upset chaps ^_^

Procedurally generated worlds don't work for games today. Good luck trying to mimic a Crysis or BC2 map with procedurally created data and fractals. lol

For a real example of what we are talking about read this:

http://artis.imag.fr/Publications/2009/CNLE09/CNLE09.pdf

and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HScYuRhgEJw&feature=player_embedded

In this video the only example that is using actual data instead of procedurally creating it or instancing using a fractal is the last example, the human body.

Highlights of that example:

Running on a GTX280.
512x512 resolution.
10-20 fps
dataset > 32 GB (and it's just a human body)

 

[Phxprovost]

You guys are still rabbling about this? Personally I think this tech is nothing but a future patent troll. Think about it, create an algorithm that would be required in a system like this, a system that just happens to be the next step in the logical path of progression for graphics. Create a website and a few YouTube videos with high view count for proof of concept and sit back and wait for the industry to work its way to your product, wait a few years then sue everyone…..Or at least that’s how I currently view this.

 

[pantherx12]

Procedurally generated worlds don't work for games today. Good luck trying to mimic a Crysis or BC2 map with procedurally created data and fractals. lol

For a real example of what we are talking about read this:

http://artis.imag.fr/Publications/2009/CNLE09/CNLE09.pdf

and watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HScYuRhgEJw&feature=player_embedded

In this video the only example that is using actual data instead of procedurally creating it or instancing using a fractal is the last example, the human body.

Highlights of that example:

Running on a GTX280.
512x512 resolution.
10-20 fps
dataset > 32 GB (and it's just a human body)

I wouldn't expect an entire world to be procedrally generated, just all the basic stuff for the point data to be built around, a skeleton if you will.
Just to save some space.

 

[Benetanegia]

After reading every article and post forum that appears when typing Unlimited Detail on google, I have to say that UDT is nothing else but just another sparse voxel octree implementation, confirmed, but instead of the typical ray-casting method for finding the voxel, it uses that search or sorting algorithm. I hardly doubt that represents any incredible performance improvement over existing/proven SVO engines, considering that all the others are not constrained by computing power, but by memory limitations. I said it in one of my first posts, but I'd rather take and promote Atomontage, and it's far from being ready for prime time, but is far more clear about it's strenghts and weakness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYBm-9cBqs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnboAnQjMKE&fmt=18

I wouldn't expect an entire world to be procedrally generated, just all the basic stuff for the point data to be built around, a skeleton if you will.
Just to save some space.

I'm not sure I follow you.

The idea is to have higher detail + more control over the details than with polygon+tesselation+displacement, at least if you are going to put the graphics world upside down. In order to achieve that every voxel has to be unique and represent the world as the artist wanted it to be. If you are talking about creating the point/voxel data out of a polygonal mess+procedural modifiers, forget about it it would be extremely slow (not posible with current hardware) and the resulting data would be huge nonetheless. At some point, on the HDD or main memory or cache the models have to be deconpressed and they just wouldn't fit in current hardware. You can't even stream it.

The best compression ratio for sparse voxel octrees data structures have been achieved (claimed) by Jon Olick from id and that means an average of 1.5 bits per voxel iirc, color included, quite impressive if you think about it, but... Now look at this video of a rabbit created out of voxels:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Akvaknarre

As you can see it's not extremely detailed, but it's made out of a 512x512x360 voxel grid. That's 94.5 million voxels, so with Olick's compression that's 140 million bits ~= 17 MB, just for the geometric data of a small animal that doesn't even look very well. You would most probably want 1024x1024x700 grid (136 MB) and to make it really worth it over poly+tesselation+displacement you'd probably need 2048x (1080 MB). For a rabbit. same rabbit will look 1000 times better with a 100 KB mesh and a 2 MB displacement texture.

For a good worldmap, I'd say the maximum relative size of a voxel would need to be like 1 mm in real world (imagine a world made out of 1mm sized small boxes) so just imagine what the voxel number would be for a 10mx10mx3m room, 3x10^12 = 3000000000000 voxels. That's 520 GB worth of data, compressed.

 

[pantherx12]

I can't really explain what I mean other than how I said it.

It's a start point to render around is all, like how it's quicker for a human to draw something if they already have a basic shape already there, a few lines here and there so you know where the eyes should be and such like.

Honestly I can't explain it better than that with text sorry : [

 

[qubit]

You guys are still rabbling about this? Personally I think this tech is nothing but a future patent troll. Think about it, create an algorithm that would be required in a system like this, a system that just happens to be the next step in the logical path of progression for graphics. Create a website and a few YouTube videos with high view count for proof of concept and sit back and wait for the industry to work its way to your product, wait a few years then sue everyone…..Or at least that’s how I currently view this.

Good point. You never know, that could be part of the game plan. Time will tell.

 

[inferKNOX]

I think you guys (especially Mussels) aught to try coax Mr. Dell over to the forum for yourselves and see if you have success (and let us know what he says). After all, I can't keep hounding the man. Here's his official email: info@euclideon.com
Let's just not turn on each other because of our distinct viewpoints.
Most other sites are filled with more or less the same questions about UD as are being asked here, so I'm not sure he'll come, but it's worth a try and I too would like some public answers.

Besides that, I found some demonstration that I can't look at unfortunately because of being under an ultra-low data cap. Others were impressed by it, so have a look and post some screenies for me if you can please: http://www.mediafire.com/file/0k2rm0koqjx/compare.wmv

Why do you think we are so skeptic? I already mentioned that Carmack is working on something like this for id Tech 6, and he considered to include some related stuff like data compression algorithms in id Tech 5. I think MegaTexture has something to do with it. Here from the wiki:



However that's for id Tech 6 which comes after id Tech 5 which has not been released yet and will be first used on the game Rage to be released in late 2011. After this comes Doom4 using id Tech 5 too. Then id Tech 6. To make an idea of engine cycles here's a list of when the previous engines debuted, from the top of my head:

id tech 1 - 1996 - Quake
id tech 2 -1997 - Quake 2
id tech 3 - 1999 - Quake 3
id tech 4 - 2004 - Doom 3
id tech 5 - 2011 - Rage

id tech 6 would release after 2015. From the id Tech 6 wiki article:



Compare that claim coming from the greatest expert in graphics engines to the claim made by Mr. Dell... it just doesn't make sense. Like I said and as it's explained in the quotes above, this kind of representation of worlds requires huge ammounts of GB and although you can compress them a lot, the hardware capable of decompressing it, streaming it and calculating it on the fly does not exist yet. It's either:

a) huge ammount of GB (= huge bandwidth required), lower CPU requirement
b) high data compression, huge CPU power and memory bandwidth required

There's so much of what you said that I don't understand, it's not even funny, lol! Does every hobbyist techie know this sorta stuff or are you guys CG pros or something?! I think I spend a fair amount of time on tech stuff, my wife would argue it's too much actually, but I'm baffled by how many highly technical concepts are discussed like they're everyday things by you guys!

 

[qubit]

I think you guys (especially Mussels) aught to try coax Mr. Dell over to the forum for yourselves and see if you have success (and let us know what he says). After all, I can't keep hounding the man. Here's his official email: info@euclideon.com
Let's just not turn on each other because of our distinct viewpoints.
Most other sites are filled with more or less the same questions about UD as are being asked here, so I'm not sure he'll come, but it's worth a try and I too would like some public answers.

Us skeptics would like nothing better than to see Mr Dell on here, demonstrating his new graphics tech. And I for one would be very nice to him, if he showed an honest demo. However, I explained previously why he won't come. And since you invited him over a few days ago we've heard nothing, haven't we? Says it all, unfortunately.

Also, I can tell you that I'm not turning on anyone here, as you can see. I hate conmen and I'm trying to help people avoid falling into the trap as much as possible. Unfortunately, people are often in denial and shoot the messengers, one of which is me. I've worked quite hard to avoid a flame war here when I have been attacked and I'm glad to have succeeded.

Besides that, I found some demonstration that I can't look at unfortunately because of being under an ultra-low data cap. Others were impressed by it, so have a look and post some screenies for me if you can please: http://www.mediafire.com/file/0k2rm0koqjx/compare.wmv



There's so much of what you said that I don't understand, it's not even funny, lol! Does every hobbyist techie know this sorta stuff or are you guys CG pros or something?! I think I spend a fair amount of time on tech stuff, my wife would argue it's too much actually, but I'm baffled by how many highly technical concepts are discussed like they're everyday things by you guys!

I've looked at some of that video and I've noticed the following:

- The examples do indeed look very detailed and impressive, with no obvious polygons or stuck-on graphics when zoomed up close. Mr Dell was demoing a forest scene
- I got the impression that it's the same thing we're currently seeing with DX11 tesselation
- The resolution was probably higher than the big thumbnails on the website, but the video resolution doesn't allow me to say accurately
- The framerate must have been around 5-10fps - not quite realtime, like he claims. Ok for a prerelease demo, I guess
- The regular game graphics he compared it to ran much more smoothly
- He used the words "unlimited detail" a lot, without really specifying how much detail is actually present
- To make a fair assessment of what is actually being demonstrated, someone who is much more expert than me, needs to take a close look at it. And by that, I mean look at his computer hardware and the software running on it
- As my attackers (not you, infer!) can now see, I am actually objective about this and I don't shout "Fraud!" for nothing. Here's something that looks like it's got legs, so I'm saying ok, let's take a closer look. Can't be fairer than that

---------------------

Oh yeah, I know all this stuff and more, dude. I tell ya, I'm an expert in everything!

Nah, seriously, that's not possible, so don't be hard on yourself. If you look at the whole subject of "computers", it's absolutely vast and no-one can be knowledgeable in all of it. Take networking for example. The whole subject would probably fill something like several volumes a 1000 pages long. Then you've got a zillion other computer subjects and some of them such as programming, are even bigger.

My specialty is troubleshooting and general help, especially for hardware faults and making things work together when they're being difficult about it. I've got a natural gift for sussing tech stuff out, which has been evident since I was three. So it's likely that you can throw any technical problem at me and I can fix it. If it's an area that I don't know much about, say Artificial Intelligence, then it would take me a long time to read up on it and ponder the problem, but I'd get there in the end. Whether I'd actually want to do all that hard work is another matter.

Incidentally, I use this ability all day every day in my IT support job and I'm really good at it. Makes the work very satisfying.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

I know im no CG pro but i did waste $85,000 learning about Computer Graphics and original went for my Bachelors degree in that field but didnt make it lol. That said ive a great deal of time spent and knowledge invested in how polygons nurbs subd surfaces render methods etc to get the best image i can with what i have at my disposal. Eitherway i guess as you said supposedly in another 2 years or so well have an answer i say lock the thread for 16 months or so then come back to it then roflol

 

[inferKNOX]

Nah, seriously, that's not possible, so don't be hard on yourself. If you look at the whole subject of "computers", it's absolutely vast and no-one can be knowledgeable in all of it. Take networking for example. The whole subject would probably fill something like several volumes a 1000 pages long. Then you've got a zillion other computer subjects and some of them such as programming, are even bigger.

My specialty is troubleshooting and general help, especially for hardware faults and making things work together when they're being difficult about it. I've got a natural gift for sussing tech stuff out, which has been evident since I was three. So it's likely that you can throw any technical problem at me and I can fix it. If it's an area that I don't know much about, say Artificial Intelligence, then it would take me a long time to read up on it and ponder the problem, but I'd get there in the end. Whether I'd actually want to do all that hard work is another matter.

Incidentally, I use this ability all day every day in my IT support job and I'm really good at it. Makes the work very satisfying.

I'm exactly the same on all counts including my job and MacGyver-like prowess with fixing things. Let's just say I'm considered the all-round handy-man by just about everyone I know.

What I mean though is, as you said, any one topic is quite huge. I'm diving deeper into networking ATM, but I mean that is a whole subject of it's own, as is graphics tech, design, audio tech, etc. I found long ago that you can only go so deep into any one subject without specialising because of time constraints, but I keep coming across people that seem to have delved so deep into some subjects that it makes me wonder how they afford the time!

EDIT: by the way, he did answer my email right away. He said (among other things) that he doesn't want to get into talking about it too soon again, otherwise it'll seem like a tech that is never being released, because they're quite some way from completion. I understand, but don't quite agree with that approach, that's why I'm saying you guys aught to call him too.

 

[douglatins]

I just found this! i am amazed, but would one kind soul sum um this thread to me!? Hehe
Thanks!

 

[inferKNOX]

Plenty arguement back and forth about whether this is a scam/hoax or not; and a petition that I started to try and get AMD to work with these guys to further the tech (check my sig).

EDIT: love the avie douglatins! ROTFL!

 

[remixedcat]

stil...... any luck contacting any companies about this? I've had none.

 

[qubit]

I'm exactly the same on all counts including my job and MacGyver-like prowess with fixing things. Let's just say I'm considered the all-round handy-man by just about everyone I know.

What I mean though is, as you said, any one topic is quite huge. I'm diving deeper into networking ATM, but I mean that is a whole subject of it's own, as is graphics tech, design, audio tech, etc. I found long ago that you can only go so deep into any one subject without specialising because of time constraints, but I keep coming across people that seem to have delved so deep into some subjects that it makes me wonder how they afford the time!

Good luck with the networking. It's a subject that interests me too.

EDIT: by the way, he did answer my email right away. He said (among other things) that he doesn't want to get into talking about it too soon again, otherwise it'll seem like a tech that is never being released, because they're quite some way from completion. I understand, but don't quite agree with that approach, that's why I'm saying you guys aught to call him too.

Over two years, still not quite ready and major players like AMD & nvidia aren't jumping on them about graphics tech giving a 1000-fold improvement? Really? Yeah, let's wait for him to show us the proof.

I'm sorry, but I must keep the skeptic hat on.

 

[hellrazor]

Caught it while browsing reddit.

 

[cheesy999]

Caught it while browsing reddit.

awesome, so there's a very small chance we can see this for crysis 3

 

[qubit]

Caught it while browsing reddit.

And one unconvincing video later...

Myself and a few others have already debunked this in this thread. The whole root of the problem is the way they're shouting "unlimited" all over the place. Unlimited = infinity and for that you need infinite power, infiinite data, infinite electrical power etc etc. An absolute impossibility.

Notice how after a whole further year of development, they can only show one cheesy low res 480p video with a dodgy sounding narrator and grandiose music? Sounds like one big pisstake, don't it?

This is bullshit: they'll never release it. It's just a ploy to con more investment money. Remember this, I said it here.

EDIT: All the effects shown here can be done now with tesselation in DX11. Just run the Unigine benchmark if you don't believe me.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

coming along nicely, cheers for the update vid cheesy. shadows are shit

 

[erocker]

Meh, until I hear from a 3rd party about this, it's all still a bunch of BS.

 

[remixedcat]

OMG I can't wait for this!!!!!

 

[Steevo]

I can't really explain what I mean other than how I said it.

It's a start point to render around is all, like how it's quicker for a human to draw something if they already have a basic shape already there, a few lines here and there so you know where the eyes should be and such like.

Honestly I can't explain it better than that with text sorry : [

That is generally known as bullshit when it is something you can't explain. Or a flying spaghetti monster. Or many other such things.


All computers understand is math, so for you and I to draw a point somewhere based on a feeling or thought it works, but for a computer the idea is useless and would create more overhead by causing a bunch of underlying simulations to take place to generate the hard math correctly to render what you want.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Meh, until I hear from a 3rd party about this, it's all still a bunch of BS.

Why don't we just ask Mussels? I'm pretty sure he's from the same penal colony as the devs.

 

[qubit]

Oh and notice how after all this incredibly lengthy development time, it's still just out of reach? Another classic hallmark of a scam.