3 ms·

> not because they have nothing, but because they don't have what they claim they have Absolutely. > animation Yep, from what I’ve seen of their holoverse ga

> not because they have nothing, but because they don't have what they claim they have Absolutely. > animation Yep, from what I’ve seen of their holoverse ganes, that’s exactly what they’re doing and the results are, predictably, not particularly impressive. When compared to state of the art notion captured animation we have in modern games, it’s really not very good at all. > data structure It may be just their hype as opposed to actual facts, but they certainly make it sound a bit more sophisticated than a “traditional” spatial-index tree data structure in the sense that they claim they can stream just the voxels that are on screen at any given moment from a huge on disk dataset. But we both know they’ve been known to exaggerate, so you could very well be correct. > It's delta between the rather pedestrian tech they have and the wild claims they make that is the scam, not what they do have. That’s a very good point and I certainly agree.

jerf 8y ago
"It may be just their hype as opposed to actual facts, but they certainly make it sound a bit more sophisticated than a “traditional” spatial-index tree data structure in the sense that they claim they can stream just the voxels that are on screen at any given moment from a huge on disk dataset." To be honest, while I don't have that much difficulty imagining that they can stream voxels off a disk (since it's a straightforward application of the oct-tree structure; you get a good 50% of the way there just by writing a naive octtree larger than memory and letting the OS swap algorithm do its thing, with some slight preloading), none of the demos they've ever showed should require anything to be streamed off the disk. Everything I've seen would firmly fit in memory of very modest desktop systems of the time of the demo. It's possible you can zoom in farther than they demonstrate, but, I mean, it's a demo. I'm allowed to expect they're showing off the best. This is another one of the reasons people like me call them scammers; the first few graphics demos they put out weren't even that impressive. They were ugly and lacking in detail. They weren't even the kind of ugly you get when you have an impressive graphics tech and the person showing it off has no visual design chops, they were just plain ugly. Had the demos gone around the internet, but stripped of the hype they were accompanied with, nobody would have given them a second look. Any contemporary nVidia demo put out to demonstrate their graphics card look wildly better. The demos where they scan real scenes and display them work much better. The weirdest thing of all to me is that they don't lean into that and just make that their business, but no, they won't shut up about how awesomesauce their stuff will be for games, even when they have a perfectly sensible application developed. Bizarre stuff.

jerf 8y ago

"It may be just their hype as opposed to actual facts, but they certainly make it sound a bit more sophisticated than a “traditional” spatial-index tree data structure in the sense that they claim they can stream just the voxels that are on screen at any given moment from a huge on disk dataset." To be honest, while I don't have that much difficulty imagining that they can stream voxels off a disk (since it's a straightforward application of the oct-tree structure; you get a good 50% of the way there just by writing a naive octtree larger than memory and letting the OS swap algorithm do its thing, with some slight preloading), none of the demos they've ever showed should require anything to be streamed off the disk. Everything I've seen would firmly fit in memory of very modest desktop systems of the time of the demo. It's possible you can zoom in farther than they demonstrate, but, I mean, it's a demo. I'm allowed to expect they're showing off the best. This is another one of the reasons people like me call them scammers; the first few graphics demos they put out weren't even that impressive. They were ugly and lacking in detail. They weren't even the kind of ugly you get when you have an impressive graphics tech and the person showing it off has no visual design chops, they were just plain ugly. Had the demos gone around the internet, but stripped of the hype they were accompanied with, nobody would have given them a second look. Any contemporary nVidia demo put out to demonstrate their graphics card look wildly better. The demos where they scan real scenes and display them work much better. The weirdest thing of all to me is that they don't lean into that and just make that their business, but no, they won't shut up about how awesomesauce their stuff will be for games, even when they have a perfectly sensible application developed. Bizarre stuff.