"Unlimited Detail" Tech still being developed

[BiggieShady]

It's a scam because infinite data points = impossible.

They are twisting it, of course, for marketing or fraud sake works for both ... It's hierarchical data structure of voxels and because of the finite size of the pixel on the 2d screen, you only need to see data up to finite level of voxel hierarchy ... their logic is that the rest of the hierarchy might as well be infinite, although it isn't.
Essentially each pixel drawn on 2d screen is a ray trace query on this huge voxel oct-tree hierarchy, only visibility query without any reflecting or refracting ... just find me the color of the first voxel you hit and make sure it's the right size (right hierarchy level). Meaning as high in hiearachy as possible while its 2d projection is still contained entirely inside the pixel.

And actually, tech to convert polygons to rough voxel-likes exist. I worked on one for Minecraft of all things. This isn't that different.

This is all about source of the assets being laser scanned environment. But, for example, Google does laser scanning for cities in google earth ... and they have much better engine for displaying that data ... it doesn't peg the CPU and uses GPU efficiently, unlike euclideon tech.
I'm sure google uses same oct-tree structure for voxels (for the same efficiency), they just managed to write a GPGPU code for real time conversion to polys.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

They lost me at the demo is really just meshes. It was already looking like the same old BS, but that sunk the ship.

I find it odd the Australian gov even wants to give them grants.

 

[Vario]

The graphics in that video look like shit, fake or not.

 

[remixedcat]

How is it a scam when they have a functional thing on small scale? It's not like you just toss the tech into Maya and voila it churns out polygons converted to this thing. Things aren't that easy and they aren't a multibillion corporation.

"functional"

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The graphics in that video look like shit, fake or not.

Because it's about shape detail vs texture detail, but I agree with you. Furthermore when you add adequate animation and high texture detail to such tech, it only makes it all the more resource hungry, so they didn't want to even try to go there.

 

[Steevo]

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/euclideon-explained/

 

[qubit]

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/euclideon-explained/

Nice technical debunking. Great find.

 

[RejZoR]

"functional"

You do realize their company only has 35 employees, right?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I want to know where they get their money from to keep the doors open. They haven't sold anything yet, as far as I know.

 

[Steevo]

You do realize their company only has 35 employees, right?

I took programming, and after working 50hr weeks, being a father, working on my house, helping family out with their place, my other classes, I still managed to write code that took hours.

If I had 35 employees times 40 hours a week, times the number of weeks per year, times the number of years......

Annnnddddd...... they are not crating a game, just the render engine....

 

[64K]

I want to know where they get their money from to keep the doors open. They haven't sold anything yet, as far as I know.

Apparently they sell software.

http://www.euclideon.com/products/

 

[qubit]

I took programming, and after working 50hr weeks, being a father, working on my house, helping family out with their place, my other classes, I still managed to write code that took hours.

If I had 35 employees times 40 hours a week, times the number of weeks per year, times the number of years......

Annnnddddd...... they are not crating a game, just the render engine....

This is what they have to show after 13 years...

 

[remixedcat]

You do realize their company only has 35 employees, right?

I've seen better stuff come out of companies that have as little as 5

 

[remixedcat]

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/euclideon-explained/

Also Their demos seem very pre-calculated. Rehearsed. It seems as they are "pulling a pixar" and doing mastering for each of their "tech demos" All of them have a panning, scanning, moving, zooming pattern. Tons of gaming pros have noticed this. I think they pre-render in an extremely detailed res with polys and then just show us a movie and nothing more. The only way to get this disproved would be to have them do a livestream from the desktop view onwards and show us everything from the .exe ececution from the desktop or start menu or whatnot clear to the end of the "game". I told them this and submitted, however they ignored the offer.

If any of their reps are here!!! Accept the offer and I will give you a massive discount on networking hardware for the livestream! Hit me up here!!! Prove me wrong... BRING IT SON! If not then you have nothing but a flashy pixar movie and lots of angry birds gon get you....

 

[qubit]

Also Their demos seem very pre-calculated. Rehearsed. It seems as they are "pulling a pixar" and doing mastering for each of their "tech demos" All of them have a panning, scanning, moving, zooming pattern. Tons of gaming pros have noticed this. I think they pre-render in an extremely detailed res with polys and then just show us a movie and nothing more. The only way to get this disproved would be to have them do a livestream from the desktop view onwards and show us everything from the .exe ececution from the desktop or start menu or whatnot clear to the end of the "game". I told them this and submitted, however they ignored the offer.

If any of their reps are here!!! Accept the offer and I will give you a massive discount on networking hardware for the livestream! Hit me up here!!! Prove me wrong... BRING IT SON! If not then you have nothing but a flashy pixar movie and lots of angry birds gon get you....

Have you tried the web demo I linked to in my OP? Looks rubbish, confirming everything you've said here. No wonder they won't respond to you. Very telling.

Also check out Steevo's link debunking Euclideon:

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/euclideon-explained/

 

[remixedcat]

Yes I tried it and it was harsh on my system that's on my specs to the left.... even more intensive than most polygon games....

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Not that I like Notch, but him being used for a voxel reference...., I prefer SOE/Daybreak Games since Landmark is entirely voxels, and much more incredible to look at.

 

[RejZoR]

I've seen better stuff come out of companies that have as little as 5

Let me guess, better stuff based on polygonal method that has gazillion tools for it since EVERYTHING revolves around it currently?

 

[R-T-B]

Let me guess, better stuff based on polygonal method that has gazillion tools for it since EVERYTHING revolves around it currently?

Raytracing and voxels or points like this aren't exactly tool-less domains either.

 

[RejZoR]

Not for the application they are doing.

 

[R-T-B]

Not for the application they are doing.

Which is basically a glorified culling zbuffer from a data stream.

I don't see it. They have had way too long for this level of progress, if nothing else.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Let's all assume for a second that this is real.
Doesn't this mean that the Video card drivers needs to be re-written and also create a new, dedicated API only for this type of rendering?

 

[Steevo]

Let me guess, better stuff based on polygonal method that has gazillion tools for it since EVERYTHING revolves around it currently?

You don't seem to have an understanding of how coding for this or a standard games/programs works. I can write a program using a number of studios, to do whatever I want the program to do, its hardware independant, unless I specifically code an instruction that is not supported in hardware, but those can still be performed by other functions.

This claim that they don't have the tools is absurd. They could have created an ASIC to hardware support what they wanted, or written the software to run on existing hardware.

Also, if this was that much more effective at rendering, don't you think GPU MFGS would have already done it, or Nvidia bought them?

There are multiple people here who program, and they keep saying it doesn't work as easily as they say. They are trying to sell a square wheel and extolling it's virtues for being able to be as good as round at some arbitrary speed.

 

[BiggieShady]

It seems as they are "pulling a pixar" and doing mastering for each of their "tech demos" All of them have a panning, scanning, moving, zooming pattern. Tons of gaming pros have noticed this. I think they pre-render in an extremely detailed res with polys and then just show us a movie and nothing more.

They seem to do both ... they pre-calculate stuff for flybys without controller (much smoother frame rates) and they demo real time control (at sub 20 fps)

As you can see in this video at 24:10 using controller framerates are horrible, and at the beginning flybys are much more fluid. (with all the panning, scanning, moving, zooming patterns you mentioned)

Can't believe I'm saying this, but this shit would run great on Larabee

 

[Prima.Vera]

--^ Is all done in software, and on an average laptop. Without a GPU I call this impressive.