Unlimited Detail Technology - Interview with Bruce Dell

[AngelHoof]

Round two!

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/10/euclideon_unlimited_detail_bruce_dell_interview/

So, we've all heard all the different opinions and assumptions...

"Hoax!"
"Scam!"
"It's real!"
"[insert fanboy comment here]!"

I've been one of the people convinced this is a well-thought out scam, but after watching this interview (goto the 20 minute mark to see it in action) I have become a true believer.

What do you think? Is it a hoax or is it the future of graphics?
Discuss!

[quirkyusername]

I have to say that I don't think it can possibly be a hoax. He's publicising not just the product but himself too, and if after all of the publicity this has received it was revealed as a hoax then that guy would probably never be able get a job ever again...nobody would ever trust him or his company. So in my opinion either they're onto something or they're chasing something that will never come to fruition. Everyone seems to have an opinion on this but at the end of the day it's probably more sensible to just trust John Carmack without question...legend.

[3hM2Nwbp]

John Carmack's word is law.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2011/08/is-the-future-of-immersive-3d-in-atoms-euclideoncom.html

[helios]

Appeal to authority.

There isn't really anything to gain from being negative other than an "I told you so". If these guys are wrong, we're left with crappy polygons. If they're right, we get a whole new way of rendering 3D graphics. So I say that rather than passing judgement now, it's wiser to just wait and see what comes out.

On an unrelated note, it's never a good idea to let programmers in front of a camera. Jesus Christ.
I didn't think it was possible to concentrate so much awkwardness into so little video time.

[quirkyusername]

compared to some programmers I've met him and his team actually seemed relatively normal

[helios]

I'm not saying they're not normal. Hell, that's probably not too different from how I would act. I'm saying they were really awkward, which is obviously understandable. Bruce seemed a lot more relaxed talking to the camera.

[LB]

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8423008802/but-notch-its-not-a-scam

I agree, they are misadvertising. It's cool stuff but they are labeling it wrong.

[AngelHoof]

Agreed... All that talk about 'point cloud data' (in that horrible-to-listen-to accent) in the previous videos, etc etc...

But in a WYSIWYG kind of way, it's definetly the real deal :)

[Cheraphy]

I read about this and watched the videos sometime last year. It's pretty blatantly a scam, not because what they show is faked, but because of all the things they don't show or don't mention. On the other hand, I can't wait for this type of rendering to be usable in mainstream 3D CGI

[AngelHoof]

What things that they don't show or mention?

[Cheraphy]

Read the posts from notch's tumbler that L B linked to. He pretty much sums it up there :P

[tition]

I read Notch's post, he sums up nothing.

Euclideon engine does what no other engine can. There is only one major drawback I see with this demo -all objects are arranged in square-like patterns - can they do arbitrary geometry? In the details, there certainly was arbitrary geometry. Does this arbitrary geometry scale, or does it appear only in the detail?

As far as Notch's post - Bruce Dell never claimed he stored a unit of data for every atom in the scenery, so Notch's arguments are invalid. If Euclideon stores the positions of arbitrary voxel-based objects - well, that is no different from storing polygons, ain't it? Polygons are objects; it appears that Euclideon's "library" of objects is simply larger, and that they have solved some computational problems with drawing them quickly - now that might, indeed, be revolutionary. How come none of these "experts" addressed this possibility? (This is my best guess of how what Euclideon does works; my guess is entirely based on watching the interview's demo).

Most of the criticisms of Euclideon's technology are as un-constructive and full of crap as the "marketing" arguments of Euclideon. On the link there was this researcher talking about how they won't make it work with "sparse octet trees octree" - what I didn't get is, how the hell was he so sure Euclideon use "sparse octet trees octree"? I never heard Bruce Dell say anything about octet treesoctree... And no, "octetscubes" are not the only 3D geometrical structure that exists...

[Cheraphy]

Sorry, that's my fault. I read one discussion and pointed to another O: Anyways, from notch's posts you can get a few things. For starters:

Notch wrote:

there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh, and if you do keyframe animation, you end up with a LOT of data.

Next:

Notch wrote:

To quote the video, the island in the video is one km^2. Let’s assume a modest island height of just eight meters, and we end up with 0.008 km^3. At 64 atoms per cubic millimeter (four per millimeter), that is a total of 512 000 000 000 000 000 atoms. If each voxel is made up of one byte of data, that is a total of 512 petabytes of information, or about 170 000 three-terrabyte harddrives full of information

And Lastly:

Notch wrote:

they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks, and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive. In reality, it’s been done several times before.

That last one is really why I'd call it a scam. Actually, it's probably better to call it a hoax at this point... Considering there has been no open calls for funding nor has there been an attempt to peddle their wears..

[chrisname]

AngelHoof wrote:

that horrible-to-listen-to accent

That's a British accent :( (although I really don't like the way he pronounces data as "dah-tah").

[Cheraphy]

I love British accents.. Speaking of Britannia, I freakin love Doctor Who. Grew up watching the old series' with my dad on VHS, love the new series now :P. </off_topic>

[helios]

I gotta say, the consistency of referring to 1000^4 bytes as a "terrabyte" diminishes the strength of the argument somewhat.
Too bad he didn't say "pedobyte".

Also, it's octree, not "octet tree". It's an octal tree, not a tree that stores octets.

[hamsterman]

How did Notch become an authority on this?

[tition]

there is no current fast algorithms for deforming a voxel cloud based on a skeletal mesh,

Now that is a completely arbitrary statement, which, at least on a first glance at the unlimited detail demo, might be what euclideon are doing.

they’re carefully avoiding to mention any of the drawbacks,

completely agree... suspicious!

and they’re pretending like what they’re doing is something new and impressive.

no, they aren't. It is new and impressive. So, I am still very ambivalent about what to think... As absurd as that sounds, Unlimited detail is at the same time quite suspicious and new and impressive. I guess time will show, and Euclideon got their funding, so....

Also, it's octree, not "octet tree"
oops, my bad... I'd spell it octtree, however (but wikipedia says octree, so... the word of wikipedia is law...).

[Cheraphy]

@hamsterman, He's not, but he happens to say a lot of things that others (my self included) have said or agree on.

EDIT: I'm not saying anyone of us saying these things are an authority on the matter, just that we all fall into the group who have the same opinion.

[quirkyusername]

That's a British accent :(

I love British accents

I can't believe nobody else corrected this but they're Australian not British. I'm English and the two are glaringly different to me but I guess they must sound the same to most people...