Next Gen Visuals Will Be Made Of "Tiny Atoms"

Come bare witness to Euclideon’s “Unlimited Detail” graphics engine. Euclideon, a small and reclusive tech company from Australia, is making some bold claims about the future of gaming. They say that polygons will soon go the way of pixels and vectors. Using a cloud of tiny atoms, games in the near future will gain an nearly infinite level of detail. This technology has existed for a while but was very limited, used mostly in medicine and the movie industry. The average home computer wouldn’t stand a chance trying to run a full game using this method, until now, or so says Euclideon’s president Bruce Robert Dell. In this very convincing video he claims his company can generate the equivalent of an infinite number of polygons. They also demonstrate that real world objects can be scanned and inserted into the game world.

Time will tell whether Euclideon’s “Unlimited Detail” graphics engine will become the standard of the gaming industry. They certainly have an uphill battle ahead of them trying to convince companies who already pump money into next-gen polygons to jump off

the rails and try something new. If Euclideon’s claims are true and this method can be applied in a practical manner and provide up to 100,000 times the detail of polygonal tech, then I cant wait to see more.

CHECK OUT Joe’s FOLLOWUP: HERE

This one of the best products in the market with the added value that refrigeration is not necessary. ! Erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment can be effective.

34 thoughts on “Next Gen Visuals Will Be Made Of "Tiny Atoms"

    1. Casey Huard

      The only deal now is if they can get the industry to ditch what they are working with and join on here. I feel a BETA vs VHS or BLU-RAY vs HD DVD again…

  1. Paraptorkeet

    I feel I’ve made it clear that I take what Bruce Robert Dell and Euclideon are claiming with a grain of salt. No where in this video do they even hint at how they are able to produce these results when no one else can. They also fail to address how they could animate these clouds of data or make them interactive. Still I can’t rule them out entirely breakthroughs can and have come from unlikely sources.

    1. Asfasdfasasf

      Umm, Notch isn’t all powerful you know. It could be real. Don’t believe everything he says.

  2. Emerson Gaudin

    Well I, for one, think it’s a good article and looks amazing, even if it may be fake! Someone with such a creative mind should be thanked somewhere.

  3. Andar Broment

    This may not be a scam, as Sparse Voxel octree tech exists, and what they have done would definately increase the quality of games in conjunction with modern polygon based tech in the future (for instance this is what John Carmack is working on for idtech6 in a few years), but the marketing behind this utterly REEKS of snake oil tactics. I said as much about this a year ago the last time they popped up.

  4. Guest

    Notch never said it’s fake, he said it’s a scam. He gave many reasons on why this is faulty and why it couldn’t work for large games. If anyone attacking him(we’ll note his company makes between 200-300 thousand dollars per day so he has to be coming from somewhere) read the post, you’d maybe understand.

  5. Dan

    Jesus Christ, this is way over stated, whether Notch said it or not. You people just suck everything up, the tech for this kind of stuff in the magnitude he explained it is way off. You’re computer can’t possibly make all those calculations. Right off the bat the guy says “they’ve found a way to give computer graphics unlimited power.” and you’re really going to just watch this thing and believe what this guy says?

    1. A Graphics Programmer

      You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about; sparse voxel-tree rendering engines can actually do this and it is no magic at all (read some SIGGRAPH papers, if you will; others have shown similar feats before). However, it’s still not “unlimited”, but it’s very fast for static scenes. And that is exactly where the problem lies: static scenes with lots of duplicated (instanced) objects can really be rendered as shown in this video (at that speed), but once you try to use many unique objects and/or animation, then this technology runs into trouble. And that is exactly what one needs in games. And they don’t mention that at all in the video, which is quite misleading. Nevertheless, what is shown in the video (fast voxel-based rendering of static scenes with lots of duplicate objects) really is possible at that speed, even on a CPU instead of a GPU, regardless of what you think. The “unlimited” probably refers to the fact that this technology is not bottlenecked by the number of pixels and that it scales logarithmically (i.e., very favorably) with respect to the number of voxels (if stored using an efficient datastructure).

  6. Jack

    I cant tell whether this is a joke or not.His voice and some of the stuff he says, tells me its fake.The fact that everyone else is taking it seriously tells me its real.

  7. Pingback: The Future of Gaming - SocialPhobiaWorld.com

  8. A Graphics Programmer

    Guys, please, just shut up about Notch, okay? It’s not as if he invented voxel graphics. Even worse, he doesn’t even use a real voxel rendering engine (e.g., something raycasting-based), he simply uses polygonal blocks to represent what one might (wrongly) call voxels.If anything, it’s just a polygonal, rasterization-based rendering engine that uses discrete elements that are (probably) stored using voxel-like datastructures. It’s a nice concept, it may very well be a nice game, and I wish him all the best with respect to his endeavors, but stop dragging him into every discussion about voxel rendering when his technology is clearly not a voxel-rendering technology in the traditional sense, but a straightforward polygonal rasterization engine.

    Do yourselves a favor and read up on “real” voxel rendering (dig up some SIGGRAPH papers, if you will), read about the relevant datastructures (e.g., sparse voxel trees), and read about the drawbacks and benefits before venturing into a discussion.

    In short, the technology is great at depicting static scenes with lots of duplicate (instanced) objects (as you can see in the video) and a scene can be rendered very efficiently if done correctly, but the biggest problem is the introduction of large numbers of different, i.e., unique, objects (which all need their own storage space, which, in case of voxel-based objects, can be quite demanding) as well as the introduction of dynamics (animation, changing objects, etc.), since this necessitates the (partial) rebuilding of the (sparse) voxel-tree datastructures in real-time as well as the reevaluation of dependent visual aspects such as shadows and lighting (since normal vectors have to be reevaluated if surface topology changes).

Comments are closed.