Is Dreams the first game that's truly 3D?

[onQ]

Imagine you're the camera, the x-axis points to the right, the y-axis points up, and the z-axis points in the direction you're looking. Now imagine that on a display, the x'-axis points to the right and the y'-axis points up.

Then the transform used by nearly all 3D games ever to change a world-space (x,y,z) to a screen-space (x',y') looks like:
x'=x/z
y'=y/z
(In a simple form, anyway.)

Dreams seem to also use spherical coordinates while other games seem to stick to the xyz axis.

That's the FOV. It's certainly wider in the beginning when throwing CSGs around.

I don't think many will agree that a wide angle lens gives a sense of a depth. It's also not something unique to Dreams, although I can't name any other games. But on PC you've had the option to change FOV in a lot of games for yonks.

Dreams is the 1st time that I'm seeing this.

 

[HTupolev]

Dreams seem to also use spherical coordinates while other games seem to stick to the xyz axis.

Based on what?

Again: If possible, you really need to post an annotated screenshot or something so we know what you're looking at.

(Incidentally, the rectilinear perspective projection I described has the rather uncommon property that straight lines are mapped to straight lines. The Dreams footage shows this effect, which makes me somewhat confident that there's nothing unusual about the way the 3D world-space data is being projected.)

 

[onQ]

Regardless of how anything is represented internally in the engine, it has to be transformed from that to 2D space.

From the Siggraph PDF
" Amusingly, the new CS based splatter beats the rasterizer due to not wasting time on all the alpha=0 pixels. That also means our ‘splats’ need not be planar any more,
however, we don’t yet have an art pipe for non-planar splats so for now the artists don’t know this! Wooahaha!"

Geometry is a mathematical representation of the real world, and that transform has to give produce the same result.

Which is a sphere & doesn't just use the XYZ axis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system

Based on what?

Again: If possible, you really need to post an annotated screenshot or something so we know what you're looking at.

(Incidentally, the rectilinear perspective projection I described has the rather uncommon property that straight lines are mapped to straight lines. The Dreams footage shows this effect, which makes me somewhat confident that there's nothing unusual about the way the 3D world-space data is being projected.)

Doesn't look like its only following the XYZ axis to me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dreams seem to also use spherical coordinates while other games seem to stick to the xyz axis.

Even if they shun Cartesian coordinates for something else like polar, the transformation to the float TV display requires a rectilinear transformation. There is absolutely nothing they can do with their rendering to add 3D depth to the image on the flat screen. They can't be any more 3D than a photograph/film.

From the Siggraph PDF
" Amusingly, the new CS based splatter beats the rasterizer due to not wasting time on all the alpha=0 pixels. That also means our ‘splats’ need not be planar any more,however, we don’t yet have an art pipe for non-planar splats so for now the artists don’t know this! Wooahaha!"

Meaning at the moment, every splat on screen is planar, so 2D. It's a collection of 2D sprites making the image. And what they're saying is by using a compute shader instead of rasteriser, they don't have to use 2D splats, so could use volumetrics of some description. Basically they generate a point cloud and can choose to draw whatever they want at that point. At the moment it's a sprite.

Which is a sphere & doesn't just use the XYZ axis

There are multiple ways of describing geometry mathematically. Even if they use polar coordinates for some reason, the output is no different.

Doesn't look like its only following the XYZ axis to me.

The scene extends horizontally, vertically, and into the distance - it's clearly using 3D dimensional space!

That's just a picture of a nicely lit blob. What's 3D about it? How is that more 3D than any other game render?

 

[hesido]

Doesn't look like its only following the XYZ axis to me.

Could it be following an additional direction other than the XYZ? Are we talking about the 4th dimension here?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is what following another direction? What suggests a fourth dimension?

 

[hesido]

Is what following another direction? What suggests a fourth dimension?

Doesn't look like its only following the XYZ axis to me.

{emphasis added}
I meant, it couldn't be following anything other than XYZ, or else, we'd have to be talking about the 4th dimension. Sorry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay. I thought you guys were looking at the numbers and seeing a fourth something-or-other.

 

[Grall]

Doesn't look like its only following the XYZ axis to me.

This is what happens when you mix religious faith into a supposedly rational discussion.

The images you posted look exactly like any other CGI images ever IMO, only more repetitive than most of course, since they're mainly a wavy grid of asteroid-looking chunks.

 

[milk]

I too think it was all down to the large fov. About projection not being rectilinear, many games have simulated that by just warping the framebuffer in post.

I think this is both cool and relevant so here it goes:

 

[onQ]

Even if they shun Cartesian coordinates for something else like polar, the transformation to the float TV display requires a rectilinear transformation. There is absolutely nothing they can do with their rendering to add 3D depth to the image on the flat screen. They can't be any more 3D than a photograph/film.

Meaning at the moment, every splat on screen is planar, so 2D. It's a collection of 2D sprites making the image. And what they're saying is by using a compute shader instead of rasteriser, they don't have to use 2D splats, so could use volumetrics of some description. Basically they generate a point cloud and can choose to draw whatever they want at that point. At the moment it's a sprite.

There are multiple ways of describing geometry mathematically. Even if they use polar coordinates for some reason, the output is no different.

The scene extends horizontally, vertically, and into the distance - it's clearly using 3D dimensional space!


That's just a picture of a nicely lit blob. What's 3D about it? How is that more 3D than any other game render?

That image wasn't to show that the game is more 3D than other games I was showing that they are also using a spherical coordinate system & not just moving on the XYZ axis. The image below show it better with the car riding over the sphere hill. By the way they said the artist didn't get the PGW build until 3 weeks before the show.

Could it be following an additional direction other than the XYZ? Are we talking about the 4th dimension here?

No not the 4th dimension

 

[Grall]

The image below show it better with the car riding over the sphere hill.

The end result looks the same regardless of the coord system used. The difference is only in internal representation of objects/environments, once you rasterize the difference becomes irrelevant. One is not more 3D than the other.

 

[hesido]

That image wasn't to show that the game is more 3D than other games I was showing that they are also using a spherical coordinate system & not just moving on the XYZ axis. The image below show it better with the car riding over the sphere hill. By the way they said the artist didn't get the PGW build until 3 weeks before the show.

No not the 4th dimension

Onq, that's just a way to represent an objects coordinates in 3d space. It may make it straight forward to implement such level designs, both physics and game systems wise. But what flavor would it give to the resulting image to make it any more 3d than other coordinate systems?

 

[Deleted member 86764]

{emphasis added}
I meant, it couldn't be following anything other than XYZ, or else, we'd have to be talking about the 4th dimension. Sorry.

I assumed it was a joke. Made me laugh anyway.

 

[iroboto]

I assumed it was a joke. Made me laugh anyway.

Coming from Hseido I would hope so lol. All credibility would be lost if serious haha.

 

[hesido]

I'm having a hard time here guys. Let's just say I'm with Grall. My first post with 4th dimension was tongue in cheek, at least I thought. Shifty took it seriously, I felt the need to clarify.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

I'm going to skip games with only 4 dimensions and only buy when they're as high as the 5th or 6th.

 

[Scott_Arm]

No not the 4th dimension

That coordinate system can be translated to the Cartesian coordinate system, which is x, y, z for 3 dimensions. If you took a 3 dimensional shape and represented it in either coordinate system, you can translate it from one to the other without error. If you couldn't, that would be a huge problem, because it would mean our basic understanding of geometry in 3 dimensions is wrong.

 

[iroboto]

I'm going to skip games with only 4 dimensions and only buy when they're as high as the 5th or 6th.

Agreed, I'm not purposely shit posting this thread or anything. But the instant the claim is that a game can be more 3D (or truly 3D), then you're talking about going above and beyond what a human capable of seeing. Our visual cortex is biologically 2 dimensional (as I understand it) , so seriously guys, where are we going with this?

 

[onQ]

The end result looks the same regardless of the coord system used. The difference is only in internal representation of objects/environments, once you rasterize the difference becomes irrelevant. One is not more 3D than the other.

If difference is irrelevant what's the point of making 3D games? why not just make 2D games?

Rasterizing isn't going to erase the illusion of depth.