Unlimited Detail, octree traversals

Woah, you know what game
I cant find anything via google

 

Battlefield 4.

 

You're going top need to back that up with evidence, because I'm finding nothing. Quite the contrary, Euclidian have changed their position away from the interactivity of games to 'imaging tech'.

There's some motion I see. No skinning. No dynamic lights or shadows (except a low-res demo in a super simple scene). No interactive physics (grass bends on contact, etc.). No destruction. Maybe the engine can be made to do these things, but without clear evidence that it can do them well enough to compete with traditional renderers, I can't see why any developer would adopt the tech for a game. In combination with conventional rendering, there's some potential as has been discussed elsewhere. But becoming the new de facto engine? You can't be come a de facto if no-one's using your tech. It needs a majority of people to switch, and what's been shown of UD can't provide the visuals people want from their AAA titles.

 

Thought exercice/occupy one's mind.

AEROmetrex uses Geoverse. In fact, games are of secondary interest for Euclideon and this is a good thing.
Could some good willed individual look at the "Unlimited Detail, octree traversals" thread?

On April 23, 2012 this was public knowledge, then this suddenly became secret.

The trend is back to the old dumb terminal paradigm. The client only needs a fast renderer.

P.S.:

Google is somewhat biased...

 

Source ?

 

What follows is true: the head of DICE or that of Euclideon made it public (around April 23, 2012). One could substitute "xor" for "or", it seems.
This could be made precise, with concrete exhibits, but is perhaps a bad idea.

 

UD technology does not appear practical. But I wonder.... What if this serves as a basis of a new way of rendering? Sure there are limitations. But is it possible in time to solve these problems and actually use this in the future? Also current GPUs may not be designed around this, but this could be another future technology that may be implemented if there is enough interest to solve and build on it. Otherwise we may never see the potential of new rendering methods by simply rejecting them because we consider current hardware designed around currently widely accepted methods

 

Public knowledge with no record anywhere? That no-one here has heard of?

Gaikai and OnLive. Business models unproven. And if you are using extremely expensive hardware to drive more power-demanding renderers, that has a cost to be passed on. Plus you are assuming the engine can be made to provide all the functionality of a traditional renderer with the addition of unlimited detail, as if the only thing holding UD back is lack of power. If you have that much dedicated server power, conventional rendering could also be massively improved. The cost would be astronomical, for a company to invest in the tech with no proof of viability, and no toolchain for working with the materials. Thus I cannot believe that any game is seriously considering UD; certainly no professional developer. Maybe some indie games are toying with the idea, designing a game based around the engines limits, but you notion of it becoming the de facto standard is a wild, unsubstantiated claim. You cannot cite even one game that is known to be using UD, let along a majority to show it has become the standard as you claim. Euclidian themselves have changed their stance on their technology. How do you reconcile that UD being the de facto standard for games rendering?

Then provide a link if you feel Google are censoring the info. And MS (Bing throws up nothing). And Wikipedia. Or a reference if you read it a magazine and no-one cared to report this on any forum or blog.

 

http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Battlefield_4

 

According to recent rumors BF4 will use Frostbite 2 engine, supporting pc, currentgen and nextgen.

 

Why has my post been altered?

 

You've received an infraction telling you that. This forum is for discussing consoles and tech, not society which is to be discussed in the RSCPA forum. I removed off-topic remarks and kept the part relevant to the discussion.

At the moment you need to present actual evidence that UD is being used in Battlefield 4 or any other engine. If you can't do that, your reputation here is already shot for claiming UD is the new de facto standard without any games actually using it.

 

Bullshit

 

repi
Do you work at DICE? If yes then do you work on Battlefield 4?
Your saying the truth would be excellent news!

 

Yes and Yes. If he's calling bullshit, then it's bullshit.

 

Dag, you should really just leave this site while you can. Your libel will not be tolerated.

 

repi
Do you deny that, at some point, DICE and Euclideon had discussions?

 

That's immaterial to your point. You said categorically that UD was the new de facto standard for game engines. You said games are going to be/were using it. You cited Battlefield 4 as an example, saying it was common knowledge and then accusing Google of silencing the truth. The facts are:

1) No-one is reportedly using UD for any game
2) Euclidion no longer present UD as a game technology
3) UD hasn't been shown rendering essential components of a modern game

...and your response to this has been to assert Battlefields use of UD without any support and ignore the arguments until a DICE dev actually tells you you're wrong, and then continue ignoring the meat of your argument that UD is a de facto standard. Are you at any point going to admit you're wrong, or will you continue to ignore posts you haven't got an answer for?

 

While I have no idea about DICE it's been reported that Euclideon presented their tech to game developers in the past. That only means the companies were intrigued enough to hear their pitch and I'm sure lots of tool vendors make pitches.

 

Surely the lack of any clear adoption by games companies means the issues UD presented have not been resolved satisfactorily? This wouldn't be the first next-gen tech to make loud noises and disappear. There was this real-time GI engine for one.