3 ms·

That sounds really interesting, so compared to traditional polygon based graphics voxel is absolutely tiny?

kaoD 11y ago
Voxels are discrete, so not absolutely tiny. Voxel = vox (volume) + el (element), similar to pixel = pix (picture) + el. Do you know Minecraft? All those cubes in its world are voxels. The amazing thing here is how tiny this guy's voxels are while still keeping the game running at a decent framerate. Compared to traditional polygon graphics: voxels are discrete elements in space (sort of like "giant atoms") while polygons are the surface of objects (cuts of planes in 3d space). Being merely polygons they have no depth (as GP said, they're paper-thin) while voxels are inherently volumes in your space. You could compare it to Lego vs. papercraft.
gavanwoolery 11y ago
Depends on how you are representing stuff. The name is a slight misnomer that hails to the early days of this project when everything was strictly voxel based. Now the only thing voxels are used for is to determine the basic terrain addition and destruction. Voxels tend to be more storage efficient because their location is inherent to their index and vice versa.
- lfowles 11y ago
  > Now the only thing voxels are used for is to determine the basic terrain addition and destruction. Do you find that to be pretty efficient compared to other methods of terrain deformation (ROAM,etc)? Pretty curious, since I did my big undergrad research paper on deformable terrain in videogames before the huge voxel craze.
  - gavanwoolery 11y ago
    Depends on what you classify as efficient: mem usage, gpu workload, etc. Voxels are easy to work with but often represent more data than your really need.
    - lfowles 11y ago
      I was mainly asking in general terms of "gamedev" efficient: Whatever deforms and renders at a playable rate and looks just as good as the alternatives.
      - gavanwoolery 11y ago
        Voxels would probably be the simplest thing to program with (they were easier to use in my first iteration than my current (3rd) iteration of the engine)

kaoD 11y ago

Voxels are discrete, so not absolutely tiny. Voxel = vox (volume) + el (element), similar to pixel = pix (picture) + el. Do you know Minecraft? All those cubes in its world are voxels. The amazing thing here is how tiny this guy's voxels are while still keeping the game running at a decent framerate. Compared to traditional polygon graphics: voxels are discrete elements in space (sort of like "giant atoms") while polygons are the surface of objects (cuts of planes in 3d space). Being merely polygons they have no depth (as GP said, they're paper-thin) while voxels are inherently volumes in your space. You could compare it to Lego vs. papercraft.

gavanwoolery 11y ago

Depends on how you are representing stuff. The name is a slight misnomer that hails to the early days of this project when everything was strictly voxel based. Now the only thing voxels are used for is to determine the basic terrain addition and destruction. Voxels tend to be more storage efficient because their location is inherent to their index and vice versa.

lfowles 11y ago
> Now the only thing voxels are used for is to determine the basic terrain addition and destruction. Do you find that to be pretty efficient compared to other methods of terrain deformation (ROAM,etc)? Pretty curious, since I did my big undergrad research paper on deformable terrain in videogames before the huge voxel craze.
- gavanwoolery 11y ago
  Depends on what you classify as efficient: mem usage, gpu workload, etc. Voxels are easy to work with but often represent more data than your really need.
  - lfowles 11y ago
    I was mainly asking in general terms of "gamedev" efficient: Whatever deforms and renders at a playable rate and looks just as good as the alternatives.
    - gavanwoolery 11y ago
      Voxels would probably be the simplest thing to program with (they were easier to use in my first iteration than my current (3rd) iteration of the engine)