Ok than tell me these games? I thinks it’s more the opposite. If you think about Fortnite and world of Warcraft have now Raytracing and the game looks ugly at all because of missing geometry
Polygons, voxels, SDFs... what will our geometry be made of in the future?
- Thread starter eloic
- Start date
Ok than tell me these games? I thinks it’s more the opposite. If you think about Fortnite and world of Warcraft have now Raytracing and the game looks ugly at all because of missing geometry
Wrong examples. Using RT does not guarantee a good lighting system (it may be just used for reflections and NOT lighting, for instance) and at any rate it depends on the artistic direction (Fortnite is purposely cartoony, for instance).
Now look at this:
There's no blockier graphics than those in Minecraft, right? Yet within the first 9 seconds in this video, when RT lighting and reflections are on, the results are photorealistic. Now, take the same scene and place a polygonally dense object lit by that same flat standard lighting without RT. Can you imagine the difference?
A little game... it doesn't seem it will get too much attention, unless it's something big.
Yeah, I went through that phase not so long ago...I've recently become quite obsessed about true voxel-based games
But I think that solutions like the one in Dreams are more practical for games.BTW, unlike in Lin's stuff, Atomontage doesn't use a universal grid, so to speak (what is the correct term?), so voxels rotate and "move".
There seems no term, people always need to describe that difference with saying things like 'global grid' vs. 'many, transformable volume objects', or whatever.
'True voxels' would be an idea, but it degrades the second option to be somewhat worse or half assed, which is not justified. (Why should we constantly re-voxelize our dynamic objects to a global grid just to display them? / Why should we accept the resulting temporal aliasing?)
I would only agree to your preference of global voxels if we talk about content creation but not game runtimes.
Well, after using voxels myself since some time i understand Siles volumetric vision a bit better. He's right with some things, and long before i was following his work with great interest.
But then they lost me with bold claims about a volumetric future, a paradigm shift, a revolution that makes it all better.
Maybe i would believe this if they would show some nice tools about volumetric content creation. But all i see is scanned content, and you can poke some spheres out of that. That does not really make content creation easier or possible at all.
Non the less, a demo game would be great. I would not mind if characters or vehicles use traditional triangles.
If you look the minecraft video you see that it is not a simple mindgraft sceen there are many corner and edges, so a lot of geometry. Without this it will look ugly. Also i think you don't need expensive RT effects i think you can reach the same level of detail with normal shader lightning. Thats is my point. Of cause if you use cheep lightning it will looks ugly to, but if you have mdium lightning and good geometry it will looks much better than good lightnind and medium geometry.
Thanks for the info, but I didn't mention any preferences, I don't even know how to feel about voxels being one way or the other.
And yeah, the whole talk about the paradigm, etc. is a bit lame. Also, it's just the same videos over and over.
Derive it:
AABB -> OBB
Axis Aligned Voxel [Hierarchy] -> Oriented Voxel [Hierarchy]
AAV[H] -> OV[H]
The AAVH is also known as ... Octree
Yup and it is certainly already possible. But a complete nightmare when it comes to youtube compression.
Derive it:
AABB -> OBB
Axis Aligned Voxel [Hierarchy] -> Oriented Voxel [Hierarchy]
AAV[H] -> OV[H]
The AAVH is also known as ... Octree
hmmm... with the derivation i would know. But if you only say 'octree', i would still assume you might store oriented stuff in your nodes, you cheater!
Sorry for accusing you axis aligned fetishism, then.
So weird and mesmerising! I was about to fall asleep while watching one of his videos.
Nice.
Do you use procedural turbulence, or is this all native simulation?