20 ms·
Games company claims their graphics are 100,000x better
- saulrh 15y agoI'll say the same thing now as I said last time these guys released a video: I'll believe it when I see them make a single blade of grass move, or when they place a single dynamic light source and cast a single dynamic shadow. Until then, this technology is awesome, but more or less useless.
- overshard 15y agoIt's all fun and games until you introduce animation... oh wait, that is fun and games... I just confused myself.
- hristov 15y agoAlso if they actually make a scene with different things in it. Having millions of objects in your scene is not that hard if they are all copies of the same object. The old demonstration showed a bunch of repeated copies of a single object. This one showed a lot of copies as well, although not as obvious.
- palish 15y agoThat's like saying Megatexture isn't impressive since most of the texture detail is copied over and over.
- extension 15y agoIt is hard in that you still have to draw every poly in every copy of the object. Instancing allows you to reuse some per-vertex calculations but it doesn't help at all with fragments, which is where most of the power is typically used.
- wlievens 15y agoYeah, it "only" solves the memory use problem.
- hasenj 15y agoWould you say the same thing about polygon models? That is: if you have a scene with a million[0] copy of the same polygon-based elephant model, would it run as smoothly as this demo? [0] not to be taken literally
- JeanPierre 15y agoWhat is somewhat disappointing is that they don't tell if they have managed to solve these issues or not, as they were clearly commented on one year ago. Another major issue is the RAM-usage, as point cloud data will require a lot of memory. Their claims of being 100,000 times better than current technology is also "frustrating", as it is repeatedly mentioned as if you've for some strange reason forgot it in the last 30 seconds. It is also a lie if they cannot use this in a game: I would suspect it's not impossible to increase the level of polygons to 10-100 times the amount - if not even more - if there's no animations or dynamic light sources around.
- redthrowaway 15y agoIt seems they're getting around the RAM issue by procedurally generating their objects. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I want to see it in something approaching a consumer game before I'll believe it. Carmack seems to think the next-gen consoles might be able to handle it, so if they can push out their SDK within a year, it might just power the next Crisis. Assuming, that is, the technology is actually useful.
- palish 15y agoDynamic shadows work in exactly the same way as they do for standard triangle rasterization. Each light has a shadow map (which can be thought of as "the depth of the scene, from the point of view of the light"). During the final rasterization pass, the shadow map is sampled. If the sampled depth is less than or equal to the current fragment's depth, then the fragment is in light; otherwise it's in shadow. So, nothing has fundamentally changed here. When a particle (voxel) is rasterized, it outputs a depth, just like a triangle outputs a depth. tl;dr: Dynamic shadows work fine.
- jerf 15y ago"tl;dr: Dynamic shadows work fine." So... where were they in the video? There's a difference between "some voxel engines can have dynamic lighting" and "dynamic lighting works with this particular engine". It's not like this is some obscure or useless feature that nobody has ever heard of. In fact for all the "detail" one can't help but notice the number of other things missing from the video.
- palish 15y agoI didn't mean to imply Euclideon had dynamic shadows. I meant to imply that Euclideon are lazy and haven't implemented dynamic shadows yet. There's no fundamental reason why dynamic shadows wouldn't work in voxel engines. But whether you believe me or not is of course up to you.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- baddox 15y agoObviously not every 3D rendering technique in existence would be included in a short demo video.
- mestudent 15y agoFor something as obvious as for gaming (where in the video other games have people running around while these guys are hovering around a static environment), I expect something that at least looks like a game, hell id go for simple animation such as the top comments blade of grass.
- bodigital 15y agoCyril Crassin's stuff is also interesting and it's here, now, running dynamically on GPUs. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAsg_xNzhcQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAsg_xNzhcQ See his papers page: http://artis.imag.fr/Membres/Cyril.Crassin/ http://artis.imag.fr/Membres/Cyril.Crassin/ I am curious what methods Euclidean are using, however.
- extension 15y agoUseless huh? Static geometry and lighting was the state of the art for a while, starting with Quake. It certainly puts some constraints on game mechanics but it's significantly better than useless.
- wlievens 15y agoThe characters weren't static though. That's what he's alluding to.
- extension 15y agoYeah, and the characters had to use a completely seperate renderer with much simpler lighting. Likewise, the early voxel engines will probably use polys for dynamic stuff. Someone else mentioned an engine called Atomontage that does exactly that. Sometimes you have to take a step backward before you leap forward.
- phoboslab 15y agoQuake actually had "dynamic lightmaps" - that is flickering lights and such by alternating between two (or more?) lightmaps for the same geometry. It also had moving level geometry: elevators and all kinds of traps. Granted, both of these features are somewhat hacked into the static BSP level structure, but this only shows that it's "necessary" to have dynamic lighting and moving stuff to offer a good experience.
- nosignal 15y agoEven if it's absolutely impossible to animate this technology I don't think it would be "useless". I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to have the static elements (buildings, tree trunks, ground, debris, etc etc) of a level rendered using this tech, and polygons used for everything else. It used to be this way in the bad old days (Doom etc) - Polygons for level structure and sprites for animation. This would at least free up the "polygon budget" to improve the features which couldn't be voxel-based. If anything you could create a pretty interesting art style with hyper-realistic backgrounds and cel-shaded characters, or similar. Even as a replacement for pre-rendered background scenery or out-of-level elements it would be useful. And (thinking of the Game of Thrones titles story) whatever mojo they've got must surely be able to be applied to other industries, eg. CGI - if Weta or Pixar could improve the poly count of their static backdrops without just buying more rendering farms, that's gotta count for something.
- wlievens 15y ago"polygons for everything else" would mean you integrate two completely different rendering methods in one pipeline. I won't say that's impossible, but it sure sounds non-trivial.
- sycren 15y agoWould this not be perfect for films where you are rendering per frame?
- troels 15y agoYes, ray tracing is basically the technique that Hollywood use today.
- jarin 15y ago20 FPS in software is pretty impressive, I wonder (if this is real and if it takes off) how long it will take to see hardware voxel acceleration.
- mambodog 15y agoThey're here already. NVIDIA Research paper describing one approach: http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/88889/laine2010i3d_paper.pdf http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/88889/laine2010i3d_paper.pdf Open source implementation: http://code.google.com/p/efficient-sparse-voxel-octrees/ http://code.google.com/p/efficient-sparse-voxel-octrees/
- ComputerGuru 15y agoIt's only impressive if you know how powerful (or not) the cluster computers powering the software rendering are ;)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- WoundedMarlin 15y agoIf this takes off the whole graphics industry is going to get so much better. I am talking from movies to games to everything else you can think of. I mean think if FIFA started to use this in there games, you could make it so you see a shoe lace move or individual hair strains moving. I hope they get this out to market sooner rather then later.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoEven if polygons weren't the limiting factor on the shoe laces or hair, the cost of computing the physics will limit how detailed things get. Need more cores...
- palish 15y agoNot really. Physics is computed against low-resolution polygon representations. You don't want to compute physics against your art representation, because it's typically over-described.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoOf course. My point is that polygons aren't the limiting factor today, so having unlimited polygons wouldn't "fix" that. The GPU typically determines polygon budget, with the CPU determining physics and AI. Of course, you can dump physics onto the GPU, but that will cost you polygons. I guess that could, in theory (if you really had unlimited atoms), give you more cycles for physics.
- SimHacker 15y agoAnd seeing the details of a shoelace makes a game of soccer how much more fun? Fuck this shit. Back to Minecraft.
- hartror 15y agoStill no dynamic objects in these videos. A limitation they're not discussing and working on?
- mullr 15y agoThe last time we talked about this (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1179970 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1179970), the consensus was that it was a lot of snake oil and not useful for most applications.
- dkersten 15y agoIMHO polygon count is not nearly as important as texture, lighting (and therefore also shadows) and animation quality. Their polygon count is impressive and the object detail looks awesome, but, as other people commented here, I wonder how well it will hold up when dynamic objects, animation and dynamic lighting are added.
- jerf 15y agoGeneral consensus last time this rolled around, which I see no reason to change, is that once you add "dynamic objects [or] animation", it completely stops working, so... it probably won't hold up at all. Most obvious comparison comes in right at the 4:00 mark, where you can see the "polygonal" grass waving gently in the wind, then at 4:22 their "unlimited detail" grass appears to be carved out of some sort of grass-colored rock. Also observe how at the end they are excited about their improvement in "the lighting", by which they mean, the lighting that you will get.
- prawn 15y agoJohn Carmack's repsonse: "Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging." https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/statuses/98127398683422720 https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/statuses/98127398683422...
- chipsy 15y agoBy "production issues" I would think "pipeline" first of all. It doesn't matter if it's possible to convert a high-res mesh to an optimized voxel format, if the result takes hours of compilation. That is too long an iteration time for a single asset.
- wlievens 15y agoNot if it's a scalable thing, i.e. you can get a "decent" conversion in a short time, and only do the full-scale conversions for milestone builds.
- jarin 15y agoI trust Carmack's response over pretty much anyone's in matters of rendering engines. The guy is a god of coding them.
- leif 15y agogods have been known to be blindsided by revolutionaries
- MtrL 15y agoHe, and his company, have done research into the field of SVOs to compliment megatexture. I don't know enough to say if it's the same approach, but it's certainly the same field, so you'd expect him to know a fair bit about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpEpAFGplnI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpEpAFGplnI
- prawn 15y ago
- Nicknameless 15y agoIf this technology is legit without problems with animation and lighting etc, what will it mean for the costs of game content creation? You still need artists to create the models, textures etc, and higher detail generally takes much longer with diminishing returns. I also find that environments with highly detailed objects also need far more objects to be convincing which compounds the issue. In short, the tech sounds great, but will it result in better games or just more expensive games (and in turn, fewer games with more innovative but risky design)?
- jarin 15y agoFrom what I can gather, 3D game artists tend to start with high-res models and then reduce the poly count, so it may not be THAT much of a problem. I think it's because a lot of the modeling takes place in more organic editors now.
- Dramatize 15y agoI think their point was if the same amount of research and money went into improving their technology, then future games would be amazing.
- chime 15y agoI can understand that adding dynamic objects/shadows is difficult and their videos do not show them being capable of doing that yet. However, why can't 90% of the objects be rendered in the new static way like they do (statues, buildings, tree trunks) and dynamic objects be added on top of it using whatever method game devs use right now? I don't really care if the cactus is moving or not but I sure would like to see it in much higher detail. Why can't we take the good from both and get better results?
- palish 15y agoThey can be, and that's likely how it will work. Triangle animated characters + voxel static world.
- chime 15y agoThen why is everyone here complaining about the lack of dynamic objects?
- palish 15y agoBecause Euclideon's demos haven't featured any dynamic objects. IMO they're doing the graphics industry a disservice by putting out demos of a half-finished technology in their rush to "be the first". The technology can work, but Euclideon's showmanship leaves much to be desired.
- corysama 15y agoBecause they describe the tech as if was the answer to everything. It can do specific things very well and other things not at all. If they toned down the hype and were clear about the limitations, they would get nothing but love.
- mortenjorck 15y agoThis hybrid rendering approach has already been used in a video game from a major publisher - in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(video_game)
- keyle 15y agoI'm in Brisbane. Mmm I'm nearly tempted to apply for a job there.
- goalieca 15y agoPolygon engines work nice with physics and animation. I'm trying to figure out how they could have a dynamic world based on particles.
- plasma 15y agoI'm hoping they show a nicer looking demo (instead of 'programmer art') to get a better idea of how much better it would be.
- AlfaWolph 15y agoI thought it was interesting that they predicted some sort forthcoming schism between 'real' scene objects and 'artificial' ones. At first I thought he was talking about the characters and scenes of residing on one side of the uncanny valley or the other, which I think is a valid thought. But he wasn't talking about that at all and posited instead that objects will either be scanned in from the real world and placed in game vs assets created by artists. I don't think this will be the case except in games that strive for realism. It will be more like Photoshop, where real scanned in assets still require artists to perfect and stylize them for your game. Until high resolution, tactile VR arrives, you're still running into 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe'.
- georgieporgie 15y agoI thought replicated and fabricated were more appropriate terms.
- mambodog 15y agoEvery time this comes up I like to point people to the Atomontage Engine[1], which takes (what I think is) a more pragmatic approach, combining voxel and polygon graphics. Voxels are used where appropriate (eg. landscape, destructible buildings) and polygons can be used for dynamic objects. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE
- palish 15y agoIt would be nice if that demo was more exciting. Also, the detail on the terrain (in the first minute) leaves much to be desired. But it's a much higher quality demo than Euclideon IMO, from a technical standpoint.
- mambodog 15y agoI think the videos on the Atomontage channel show something I can actually see being a game, for example it shows destructible environments and terrain deformation, editing tools, and clever use of simulated DoF and a gameplay perspective that plays to the strengths and hides some of the weaknesses of the tech. I could see it being great for a hybrid-RTS game like Ground Control, or some kind of god-game.
- prof 15y agoYea this looks awesome, i hope he gets fundings. I am listed on the donor-page yay ^^
- greendestiny 15y agoIt's no accident that there is that much repetition in the models. It's also no accident that they are all nicely tiled in power of two axis aligned bounding boxes. Clearly these things take up enormous amounts of memory and need to be in some big octtree like hierarchy - so while they can instantiate these pretty impressive leaf nodes they can't do things like have them on uneven ground. So much work left to do.
- leif 15y agoI just want to say that this is probably the best company name I've seen yet.
- jxcole 15y agoThe most unrealistic things in video games for me are faces. While increasing polygon counts and such will certainly help, I can't help but notice that faces will never cross the uncanny valley unless they can do something about the lighting. Check out: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/subsurf.html http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/subsurf.html So, unless they can do all this AND ray trace it at the same time, it really won't make my game experience 100,000 times better.
- baddox 15y agoThese days, I don't think rendering technology is what's holding us back from having realistic faces. I think the art and animation is just really hard to get right.
- prawn 15y agoI think that's one of the massive challenges in gaming. I played Minecraft a bit (before realising I was tending a lovely in-game garden while there were weeds outside my real-life house) and at no point was my experience impacted negatively by the fact that the animals were dorky boxes with legs. Photo-realistic isn't everything.
- starwed 15y agoSurely a lot of that is due, not to lighting/shadows/rendering, but to the incredible subtlety required of the animation? HL2 has some pretty amazingly convincing faces, and that's obviously not because it has the best rendering engine.
- sliverstorm 15y agoI wouldn't go as far as "amazingly convincing". I think they look better after you've been staring at the HL2 world for a while, rather than the real world.
- starwed 15y agoNah, I had that impression from the very first scene the game loads, which is the creepy guy talking to you. (I don't mean convincing in a "mistake-for-real" way, but in a "lets-me-suspend-disbelief" way.)
- monochromatic 15y agoColor me skeptical. However, I'd like to pose a question to HN: If the claims from this video are legit, is this level of innovation deserving of a patent? (Yes, a software patent.)
- stickfigure 15y agoMaybe, you'd have to be an expert in rendering engines to know. Too bad none of those work for the patent office or are ever likely to.
- monochromatic 15y ago[Citation needed.]
- fserb 15y agono.
- vrode 15y agoI'm sorry, but as much as I respect people both on Reddit and Hacker News, I wonder where does all the enthusiasm come from, when: * demos show nothing new from a technological perspective * the presenter sounds like a door-to-door salesperson * as it seems to me, the only purpose of the demo is to raise a hype and somehow (I still don't understand) they succeeded Euclideon got financed by Australian government. I really hope the board took a critical approach and relied on at least /some/ technical expertise to grant these people A$ 2m. If they made this decision based just on a demo - I'm moving to Australia at once, where I will invent a technology you have never seen in your whole life before. Ever.
- Maxious 15y agoThe startup grant program was this one: http://www.commercialisationaustralia.gov.au/WhatWeOffer/EarlyStageCommercialisation/Pages/default.aspx http://www.commercialisationaustralia.gov.au/WhatWeOffer/Ear... Terms in that program are you have to match the government funding 1:1 so they must have (or raise within 2 years) $2mil to put against the government's. They also have to pay it back "on success" (5% of revenue once that reaches 100k total) and are monitored closely for "fast failure" (they are expected to succeed and repay within 2 years, they have to repay even if they fail after 5 years). Euclideon claims to have had a 2010 funding round so maybe that's how they got into this program. It also says this program is not to be used to "Prove to the applicant that a certain technological problem can be overcome (R&D projects)" so they must have shown it as a viable product that just needs to be packaged up for sale. What strikes me most is anything under a Commonwealth funding agreement has to have the words "Funded by Australian Government through the XYZ Program. An Australian Government Initiative" in all their promotional material. Yet the shining star of Commercialisation Australia's portfolio forgot. Ouch.
- cpeterso 15y agoBut will the games be 100,000x more fun?
- andrethegiant 15y agoI remember when the first video came out, they said their technology worked "like Google" to find the appropriate pixels to display on the screen. No further description of the technology. Seems too vague to be true.
- siphr 15y agoI think it is true but it is hype. Assuming it is based on voxels, then the earliest game engine to have used the technology (to my knowledge) is probably Blade Runner circa 1990s. The hardware at that time, ofcourse, dictated the quality of the tech at that time. By extrapolation I would say this is very much possible but may not be such a huge deal as it is made out to be. The results however could be amazing if widely adopted by the industry.
- coffeemug 15y agoI think what they're doing is great, but I see two problems with their presentation. First, computer rendering techniques are extremely well understood and well researched. We've picked the low hanging fruit, much of the high hanging fruit, and everything in between. There is no "groundbreaking new technology" to be invented. They're converting polygons into voxels (although each voxel is probably a sphere for cheaper computation), and using software ray-tracing to render in real time. Since ray-tracing is trivially parallelizable, the multicore technology is just about there now. A 12-core machine will give just about 20FPS. The reason why they can get away with an incredible amount of detail is that ray-tracing diffuse objects is fairly independent of the number of visible polygons in the scene. The second problem is that 10^4x improvement in level of detail does not mean 10^4x aesthetically pleasing (or in fact, more aesthetically pleasing at all). Ray tracing gets very expensive the moment you start adding multiple lights, specular materials, partially translucent materials, etc. It is very, very difficult to do that in real-time even with standard geometry, let alone with 10^4x more polygons. This is why their level doesn't look nearly as good as modern games despite higher polygon count (compare it to the unreal demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttx959sUORY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttx959sUORY) They only use diffuse lighting and few lights. In terms of aesthetic appeal of a rendered image, lighting and textures are everything. Furthermore, one of the biggest impacts on how aesthetically pleasing a rendered images looks is made by global illumination. That's also something that's extremely difficult to do in real time with raytracing, but is possible with gpu hardware with tricks. The trouble is, these tricks look much better than raw polygons. Again, I love what they're doing. Real-time ray-tracing is without a doubt the future of graphics, but it would be nice if they were a little less sensational about the technology, and more open about the limitations and open issues.
- gavanwoolery 15y agoAs someone who has worked with GPUs and software renderers for over a decade: I am pretty sure that their tech depends on a few types of repeatable data, which they are able to cache effectively based on rotation -- in other words, they have come up with an efficient way of querying the front-facing voxels in a large set of data based on the resulting view matrix. Where this falls flat is if the data is not procedural, or it is not diverse - as you can see in the video, there is a bunch of the same data copied over and over. However you compress it, such detail is not free and I am guessing there is a lot of data that depends on a good deal of memory/storage to work properly. I am not so worried about animation or dynamic lights or textures as everyone else is. If they can render it to a buffer and get the normals/depth/UV coordinates, the rest of the rendering can be done in screen-space, including SSAO, deferred lighting, and similar rasterization tricks. Animation can also be rendered on top of the scene, and intersected with the former depth buffer. The only thing I am worried about is the size of the data set and ability to create more diverse landscapes.
- gavanwoolery 15y agoAlso, for those interested in seeing a LIVE demo of very similar technology, there are many examples, but here is one: http://voxels.blogspot.com http://voxels.blogspot.com It is not likely to be the exact the same technique, but I am guessing they are using similar methods.
- yason 15y agoAnytime there's too much bragging--or any bragging at all--before the actual product is finished, my bogus filter lights up. And it's really hard to turn it off later.
- tlrobinson 15y agoOh, is this for real? I came across the video somewhere earlier today, but stopped watching after I got to "we give give computer graphics unlimited power".
- Maro 15y agoI don't know much about current 3D graphics technology, but the fact that they're trying to disrupt it is really cool. They remind me of a crazy inventor, let's hope they got something =)
- alexscheelmeyer 15y agoRegarding the technology used. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWujsO2V2IA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWujsO2V2IA you can see lots of artifacts and also talk of point cloud data, so it is clearly not raytracing but rather point data rendering. All the repetition seen is because of the memory constraints. The point data is probably preprocessed and compressed in numerous ways, which makes it very difficult to do animations. But as others have mentioned, even as a last resort they should be able to just use this technology to render terrain/background and then use polygons for moving/animated objects. This would probably also utilized current technology better as the polygon pipeline would not just sit there unused.
- virtualritz 15y agoI think these guys are on to it too. W/o govt. funding and "orders of magnitude better" marketing babble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfWYUgxGBE
- sycren 15y agoTo all those talking about physics, interaction, lighting and shadows, what do they think of the Atomontage engine using similar technology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCZIBDt1uM&feature=BFa&list=UULKJqaR2YQac&index=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCZIBDt1uM&feature=BFa&#...
- siphr 15y agoSo when they say atoms do they mean voxels or is it something else?
- mebesilly 15y agoSounds like another overhyped Australian startup that exists only to get funding from the Australian government.
- llambda 15y agoThis has been "announced" since 2010 all the while being only "a few months" from release. So far nothing has materialized. Vaporware. Also note this is nothing but voxels plus an advanced search algorithm, for resource conservation.
- Torn 15y agoVaporware is exactly what this is, note also that they also push investment opportunities in their 'product'.
- hamoid 15y agoI think a good game and a game with good graphics are two unrelated things. What would my mom say? This game looks a bit better than this other game? Or this game looks 100,000x better than this other one :)
- Troll_Whisperer 15y agoGraphics don't improve linearly with the number of pixels or polygons added. I'd say the improvement is closer to logarithmic. E.g. 500 polygons/second is a step better than 50, 5000 is two steps better than 50, etc. Improving the rate by 100,000 times is only a six step improvement and that's if they haven't surpassed the limits of the human eye. I much prefer 72 frames per second to 36, but giving me a thousand frames per second is a waste since my optic nerve can't process most of them.
- rektide 15y agoGraphics are only a very small part of the advantage a truly volumetric world could present. A game that captured wind currents, scent, EM spectrum... these are just some of the attributes air normally carries that most games do not capture but that a volumetric system might be used to capture.
- ja2ke 15y agoThese guys are doing something similar and are demonstrating more dynamic lighting and destruction tech: http://www.atomontage.com http://www.atomontage.com
- mikkom 15y agoIt's kind of intersting until you realize that all their examples are static - there is no animation anywhere and there is a very good reason for that. Yes, they might implement some kind of a hybrid approach but then they will lose all the things they hype about.
- crizCraig 15y agoPoll: Do you think this will result in real games with 100,000x better graphics? http://www.wepolls.com/p/1653402/Is-Euclideans-graphics-technology-really-going-to-allow-for-games-with-100,000-times-better-graphics http://www.wepolls.com/p/1653402/Is-Euclideans-graphics-tech...
- lobo_tuerto 15y agoMinecraft creator does the math and says: http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam
- Havoc 15y agoI love how they mock other game dev companies for using skyboxes (they call it card board cut-out buildings in the distance @04m52) and then proceed to do exactly the same thing in their demo. Hell they even managed to do it wrong (their sky texture isn't stretched & compressed appropriately to hide the fact that its a cube @2m27). To many bold claims & deception in that vid. Colour me skeptical.
- zmonkeyz 15y agoThe big problem that I see is that they don't show any animation. A camera floating through a static scene can only get you so far in video games.
- malkia 15y agoHonestly - it's quite ugly - it looks like a game from 8 years ago. I'm not sure what are they drinking? For sure their graphics are not 100,000x better.