Is Dreams the first game that's truly 3D?
- Thread starter onQ
- Start date
- Status
Yes but the point is for it to be easier for the processor to use that data.
This is your first post to create the thread. You're moving the goal posts.
The answer is that this engine is not any more "3D" than any other engine. It models the world differently, maybe even use a different coordinate system, but ultimate that model is not any more "3D" than another, and is transformed to a 2D frame the same way. The appearance of it being 3D would probably come from the art design, the lighting and maybe field of view.
He said " 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 that was the case it would be no point in 3D.
It seem like some of you think that I'm saying that the images is jumping out of my TV or something.
You're misunderstanding my point. You're taking an internal 3D model and transforming it into a 2D image. Your tv screen, monitor screen etc are 2D. Whether you're using polygons or not, Cartesian coordinates or not, both engines can accurately represent 3D geometry, and both have to take that information and turn it into a 2D image for display on your screen.
As for this:
, I don't think anyone clearly understands what you meant by
It seem to be a bigger difference with what I'm seeing in this game & what's happening in other games.
onQ:
A) if the images jumped out of your TV, it would still be 3D. You know that right? You must see where I'm going with this. If you created a perfect Star Trek Holodeck, it's still 3D. That's all we are capable of interpreting, we can imagine more than 3 dimensions, but cannot see or in theory interact with more than 3.
B) You're talking about coordinate systems, which all of which work in 3 dimensions and if done properly should convert to any other coordinate system.
C) As Scott_Arm writes, at the end of the day the image is being converted to a 2D space at the end of the day, either in your brain or on the screen. It makes virtually no difference - we cannot visually see MORE than 3D.
D) What you want to write about is how artistic style, FOV and lighting may effect how the graphics are being shown - to you it looks more awesome! But that's it! I've used Hololens, Oculus VR, and heck even the very dreams I have at night, are all rendered the same. I'm never seeing anymore than what you can see, so it's confusing for everyone here to read, truly 3D, more 3D than 3D is.
"Using such-and-such coordinate system" doesn't mean "everything is parallel with such-and-such coordinate systems axes." Otherwise level geometry in games would, in some respects, be more restrictive than it is in Doom.
(Also, the sine waves shown in those images would, formulaically, be much easier to construct in cartesian coordinates than spherical, since the waves appear to be parameterized along a straight axis, i.e. y=sin(x).)
Non sequitur much?
One three-dimensional coord system is equally 3D as another, it doesn't matter which one this game uses, its visuals would look exactly the same once rendered into a 2D screen image.
Not sure what you're getting at. Frankly, I don't think you know either.
I never claimed anything like the quote above.
I've seen nothing in the images you've posted so far that would explain your claims of superior three-D-essness, and I don't think any amount of images would. This game is no more 3D than any other 2D-rasterized 3D game, which we've had absolutely droves of for decades now.
Any claim that this game is somehow more 3D than all those others is not only utter flights of fantasy, it's also poorly based in fact, as you couldn't possibly have looked through all other games (and other software for that matter) produced since the history of ever. I know you have a thing for software rendering, but maybe you should rein in your enthusiasm just a couple notches, arite?
well not all others, I understand what you're saying
but certain methods like voxels (excuse the gif) & what dreams are doing do lead themselves to the world having more 'depth' than the standard flat polygons that 99+% of games have done over the years (though whether or not standard hardwares up to the task nowadays for this level is open to debate)
well not all others, I understand what you're saying
but certain methods like voxels (excuse the gif) & what dreams are doing do lead themselves to the world having more 'depth' than the standard flat polygons that 99+% of games have done over the years (though whether or not standard hardwares up to the task nowadays for this level is open to debate)
If he was talking about stereoscopy or 3D. Volume rendering like in dreams has probably some advantage against razterizing polygon in VR, no edge aliasing, no performance problem with very dense geometry. In VR some of the pixel shading technics to give illusion of volume break.
well not all others, I understand what you're saying
but certain methods like voxels (excuse the gif) & what dreams are doing do lead themselves to the world having more 'depth' than the standard flat polygons that 99+% of games have done over the years (though whether or not standard hardwares up to the task nowadays for this level is open to debate)
Finally someone understands.
Maybe it has something to do with physics because this is the 1st time I'm seeing objects in a game seem to adjust to it's depth & not just get bigger or smaller.
Even though I didn't have the answer as to why I was seeing what I was seeing it seems to be some truth to the statement.
Volumetric representation is arguably “real” 3D
Edit: also I think I found the answer to what I'm seeing.
Last edited:
[Citation Needed]
I'm sceptical; your statement sounds very pseudo-scientific.
I'm not going to read a PDF to find out what you're getting at, but the same as before, one approach isn't going to be "more 3D" than any other, due to the inherent limitations in projecting 3D imagery onto a 2D plane (monitor screen).
Also, if this 'volumetric representation' is solid modelling using mathematical representations like spheres, oblongs, bezier curves and things of that sort it's very different to voxels, and thus doesn't apply to this discussion.
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?
How do threads like this survive on a technical board like Beyond3D?
You can render any amount of depth, lens distortion or parallax with any representation of the world and any renderer. It's just a result of parameters in the projection to 2D. There's no magical extra information just a stylistic choice.
If anything, dreams is just (one of many games) that use an unrealistic projection to convert depth to a 2D screen. Anyone can do it - however for most titles a bad projection would be considered a bug to be fixed. They want it amplified on purpose. Play any shooter game and look through a rifle scope or enable a special vision mode and you'll likely see the same thing.
edit: scratch that - just noticed I'd wandered into the console gaming forum. This game is magically better than all that came before and whatever platform it runs on is undoubtedly got some special feature that means it's better...
You can render any amount of depth, lens distortion or parallax with any representation of the world and any renderer. It's just a result of parameters in the projection to 2D. There's no magical extra information just a stylistic choice.
If anything, dreams is just (one of many games) that use an unrealistic projection to convert depth to a 2D screen. Anyone can do it - however for most titles a bad projection would be considered a bug to be fixed. They want it amplified on purpose. Play any shooter game and look through a rifle scope or enable a special vision mode and you'll likely see the same thing.
edit: scratch that - just noticed I'd wandered into the console gaming forum. This game is magically better than all that came before and whatever platform it runs on is undoubtedly got some special feature that means it's better...
- Status
