Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creating 3D Environments Without Polygons

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the too-cool-for-geometry dept.

Graphics 74

Igor Hardy writes "I've conducted an interesting interview concerning a new episodic indie adventure game series called Casebook. What's quite uncommon, especially for these kinds of independently developed and published productions, is that they include professionally created FMV — all of the footage is filmed in real locations. Yet what's even more interesting is that the games use an innovative photographic technology which recreates a fully explorable 3D environment through the use of millions of photos instead of building from polygons. The specifics of how it works are explained by Sam Clarkson, the creative director of the series."

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is it any better? (1)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031067)

It's an interesting approach but it reminds me too much of the old adventure games, I suppose it could work out all right if they make it fit in smoothly.

It'll be interesting to see what effect it has on performance though.

Re:Is it any better? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031161)

I don't know much about computer graphics, but here's my story:

I dropped a brown rope this morning the size of a small black child. At one point, I wasn't sure if I was taking a shit, or it the shit was taking me. And while I'm on that point, what's the deal with taking a shit? Shouldn't it be leaving a shit? I'm certainly not taking anything with me when I'm done.

But back on topic, computer graphics suck ass

Re:Is it any better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031221)

Screenshots: http://www.bigfishgames.com/download-games/4301/casebook/index.html

Re:Is it any better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031891)

what's the website number?

Re:Is it any better? (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031331)

Real life graphics are over-rated, almost all games bend the rules of reality significantly. The fact is even in the movies, the 'photorealistic' images we are seeing have been usually doctored to high hell. Almost everything one see's in a movie is made to be look ideal or if not ideal a certain unrealistic way that looks visually nice.

I think his point about 'not being able to connect with' polygon characters to be a overstatement, a good case study is Prince of persia: the sands of time.

The characterization in that game and banter back and forth was excellent. There's more to developing interest in a character beyond mere appearances and fancy animations people get the gist of things. I know I was disappointed to what they did to the series and it's characters after the first game, with the whole injection of the "badass prince" persona with it's sequels the warrior within and the two thrones. The game veered well away from the original princes personality in significant ways.

Re:Is it any better? (1)

Tybalt_Capulet (1400481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034259)

Isn't Prince of Persia Sands of Time in itself a sequel?

Re:Is it any better? (2, Informative)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27035307)

Nope. It's not part of the same series. The way the Prince of persia franchise has functioned is more like an isolated series of different worlds based on the core general ideas.

The sands of time is the first installment in what we might call the "Sands of time" trilogy, where the 2nd and 3rd games (warrior within + two thrones) were the same world referring to the same storyline.

Here's a wiki entry (in case you're interested)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia [wikipedia.org]

The way the Prince of persia franchise has functioned is the games that bear the Prince of persia name, are usually different games more along the lines of reimagining the series in alternative world/universe.

Prince of Persia "2008" (as many call it to differentiate it from the original), is another re-imagining of Prince of persia - new universe, cast of characters, and storyline.

Re:Is it any better? (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034491)

Real life graphics are not photorealistic. Photography does not now nor will it ever be capable of delivering a scene as a person sees it. By projecting the 3d image onto a flat page you've distorted the hell out of it.

The control of the aperture, focal length, focus and exposure are where the photo gets its meaning from. Coincidentally, all of those are necessary in order to get any image at all onto film.

If you can suggest a way of doing this without distorting it greatly, you're probably eligible for a Nobel in Mathematics or Physics.

Re:Is it any better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27037201)

If you can suggest a way of doing this without distorting it greatly, you're probably eligible for a Nobel in Mathematics or Physics.

There's no Nobel prize in Mathematics.

Re:Is it any better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27043225)

but you'd still get one if you solved this problem. ain't that just GREAT???

Re:Is it any better? (1)

GrpA (691294) | more than 5 years ago | (#27047031)

I've seen this done differently.

An image created as millions of radials. The image itself was on the computer but it was optically captured.

Also, the distance from the origin to each point was captured, so each pixel had a distance from the origin, a vector and a color.

The result was a 3-D image that could appear exactly as someone would view it. You could even adjust for optical properties of photographic equipment (including our eyes).

I suppose you could even project it back onto a curved surface if you wanted to.

The only thing it lacked was resolution, but the results were pretty good. It was being developed at a local University about 10 years ago.

I suppose the credit is due to the guys who did it, but since your criteria for the Nobel prize is only suggesting it, I guess I qualify. Please send me your prestigious award! :)

David

Re:Is it any better? (1)

Bored Grammar Nazi (1482359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27035035)

...everything one see's in a movie...

"sees"

...did to the series and it's characters...
...persona with it's sequels...

"its"

Re:Is it any better? (2, Interesting)

Jekler (626699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27036833)

As a counterpoint, everything we see in movies is altered to make things appear more real, not necessarily ideal. Video of real moments tend to look unrealistic because the camera lens doesn't capture contextual clues that you would get if you were really in the moment. The way we setup a movie set is an attempt to compensate for the disconnection of watching a series of events happen in a scenario you can't touch, smell, or taste, and your field of vision is restricted to about 90 degrees. You can't turn your head to take in the subtle details of the surroundings.

So then (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031103)

It's just photosynth but with an effort applied at hiding the individual photos all while turning it into a game?

No, it's more like linked QuickTime VRs (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031621)

Except that you get a smooth transition from one VR to the other.

A QuickTime VR - for those who have been living under a rock or just don't care - is a small file with a graphical representation of, typically, the whole environment. So 360 degrees around and 180 degrees up/down. Within a QuickTime VR viewer you can then look in any direction of that environment, zoom in/out, etc.

In some QuickTime VRs (and much better in older PanoTools-based panoramas, or even SmoothMove/etc.), you can click on a hotlink and it would take you to another QuickTime VR taken from that position/area (e.g. click on a door and you would get a VR of the next room).

This is much the same technology as far as that goes, except that instead of clicking (presumably), you move around using whatever you'd use to move around with typically.. such as the keyboard.

The nice part is where they blend smoothly between the panoramas. Sure, they have to take a LOT of them to begin with (hence the camera rig off a grid in the ceiling, probably something like 1 pano every 10 inches or whatever; from the looks of it only in a 2D plane, but 3D should be doable), but even with that you need some nice motion estimation to blend between the two panos as depicted on the screen.

However, there are limitations that they point out...
1. they can't blend in live actors -while- you move. That's an organisational limitation - you'd have to make the actor re-do their steps for every single pano vantage point. Ouch. You could mount a whole grid of cameras, but that's gonna be insanely expensive (not just in material costs but rigging that up for each room as well). Probably their best bet is to 3D digitize the actor and blend that into their panos using standard 3D compositing software.
2. they're limited to a 2D plane at the moment. As I mentioned, this could be made 3D - just means it will take a LOT more time to create
3. they're limited by storage media; granted, they're talking about their hope for a DVD release, so I guess they're stuck on CD, but even DVD or Blu-Ray would be filled up quickly if it was a more involved game than what it currently looks like.

Re:No, it's more like linked QuickTime VRs (2, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27033683)

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/178177.html [gametrailers.com]

Looks like they've done an okay job on the smooth transitions part.

If only they had scheduled release for a date other than April 1st!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF4zYu1nOMw [youtube.com]

It also appears they're doing some very fancy processing to allow limited alternate viewing angles on scenes with actors. I imagine if they allow the angles to differ from the source by too much, it'd look distorted.

The youtube vid seems to go over a bunch of the "mini-games" you do while investigating. While the FMV certainly does WOW me, watching that brought me back to reality, that this is a game/point-n-click adventure.

Re:No, it's more like linked QuickTime VRs (2, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034127)

It also appears they're doing some very fancy processing to allow limited alternate viewing angles on scenes with actors. I imagine if they allow the angles to differ from the source by too much, it'd look distorted.

They probably filmed the live-action sequences with the same extreme fisheye lens(es) that they used for the static crime-scene filming. So you would be able to "look around" a bit, but not change the position of the camera, or look rotate the POV too far in any one direction.

That sort of thing has been done with still photos for quite awhile. It's basically QuickTime VR, although I saw the same thing back in the dialup BBS era called "photo bubbles".

I'm not really sure how they managed to get a patent on this, given the amount of similar work done previously. It is an interesting technique, though, even if it's only useful (in its current form at least) for a very specific type of game.

I wonder how effectively it could be combined with computer vision software. I would think it would give a much more accurate 3D map of the area given the extensive source material to work from.

Re:No, it's more like linked QuickTime VRs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27045449)

you can map all the panoramas to a basis function. Just like light fields from stanford 1996. They will compress pretty well due to adjacent images being very similar. Also you can decode the basis function with vertex/pixel shaders.

Re:So then (1)

Berkyjay (1225604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031933)

It's just photosynth but with an effort applied at hiding the individual photos all while turning it into a game?

Yeah, it's not even 3D. It's all 2D and it uses smoke and mirrors to give the player the illusion of a real life 3D world. I watched some game play video and the player really only has about 120 degrees of movement in the camera. So just to make things clear, this isn't a game with a 3D environment. So lets drop the whole "Creating 3D environments without Polygons". Well I guess you could use Nurbs....if you wanted.

Re:So then (1)

Igor Hardy (1489235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27032319)

Erm, isn't "the illusion of a real life 3D world" what all 3D graphics is about? Anyway, I don't know what videos have you watched, but this IS a game with full 3D environment, which is explorable the same way as locations done in traditional 3D. Sure, the technology has lots of limitations, the biggest in my opinion is not being able to register things in motion (they have to be done the traditional way), but I find its possibilities very interesting nevertheless.

You mean... (1, Informative)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031105)

Something like this [wikipedia.org] ?

That's so eighties...

Re:You mean... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031187)

No, more like this [zoy.org] .

Re:You mean... (2, Informative)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031229)

why did you just link to a site containing a worm?

.DO NOT CLICK PARENT LINK (4, Informative)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031235)

Do not click parent link, it is a shock site.

Re:.DO NOT CLICK PARENT LINK (0, Redundant)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031641)

Whoa!

Someone must've changed the Wikipedia page to a shock site after I linked it!

Then someone else must've reverted the change before I got to look at it again!

Beware folks. Wikipedia is DANGEROUS!

@__@

Oh, whoa... (3, Informative)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031667)

These posts are for a REPLY to my original post; it was trolled down and thus became invisible, making it look like my original post was the malicious one.

Srsly, do not click on the zoy.org link.

Re:Oh, whoa... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27033733)

Shut the fuck up scrub.

Re:.DO NOT CLICK PARENT LINK (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#27033463)

Or you could try noticing that it isn't a reply to your comment...

Re:You mean... (1)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031243)

Don't go clicking that bad boy, GNAA Goatse + pr0n + crazy javascript bomb. Nothing like browsing with noscript disabled...er...

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031273)

this doesn't infect anything, does it? I clicked it not knowing what it was, before any warning comments. Do something bad to GP.

Re:You mean... (5, Funny)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031305)

It infects your mind with vivid images of the interior of goatse man's anus. Apart from that not sure, as long as it doesn't affect Firefox+Ubuntu I'll be fi

Re:You mean... (2, Funny)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27038443)

Apparently it signals the snipers as to your loca

Re:You mean... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031389)

Damnit, I actually had to pull the plug, the ethernet one then the power one.. how can Firefox by default let all that shit happen just by visiting a webpage?

Oh and the "shock" image is a guy sodomising his own self. Never saw that before, I always suspected it could probably be done, but never saw it..

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031439)

Does anyone have any actual information as to whether the site was actually harmful (shock images excluded...).
I was one the unfortunate few that clicked on the links before the warnings were posted. I couldn't actually close firefox because the window was jumping around so violently, but xkill stopped it in its tracks.
Does anyone know if the site actually did anything?

Re:You mean... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031635)

Yes, opened a bunch of tabs, like 40 Outlook and Thunderbird compose mail windows with spam messages in them, videos (that wouldn't open) in VLC, a crapload of telnet windows, that kind of crap..

Re:You mean... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031679)

Here's the page source if anyone's interested.
http://pastebin.com/m2a02a25 [pastebin.com]
I didn't get any of that happen, but I can see from the source that it was trying to. I just hope the telnet stuff didn't run in the background or anything like that. I didn't even realise I had it installed, but it's purged now.

Re:You mean... (2, Interesting)

Scoth (879800) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031853)

I'm kind of amused at how well commented it is, all things considered. It's like they actually wanted it to be readable or something.

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039621)

That's just because they are good programmers.
I thought everybody knew this?

Then again, everybody seems to be going absolutely nuts over it as if they haven't seen it before...

Re:You mean... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031511)

just disable the moving of the window in firefox's js settings the rest could be used by legit sites regularly.

Re:You mean... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031675)

Wow actually it even added Gayniggers from Outer Space to my eMule downloads..

Re:You mean... (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034199)

That is some of the nastiest code I have seen in a long time....

Re:You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031489)

You mean MSDNAA?

Re:You mean... (1)

MisterBlueSky (1213526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034511)

I clicked using Opera. Then simply closed the tab. Nothing like browsing with opera and javascript enabled...

</opera fanboyism>

Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27031267)

From the article:

For example, if you take any number of objects from the children's bedroom set in Episode I; say the rocking horse, that alone would take a 3D artist days to model and texture to that level of detail, where as we can just walk into an antique shop and rent a real one.

So he's basically saving money by copying other people's work without licencing it?

Re:Copyright? (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031653)

Odds are that if it's antique, it'll fall well outside of copyright legislation (even at 75 years or 95 years, if taking 'antique' as 100+ years old; wiki says 50-100 but I find it difficult to suggest something my dad might have gotten for his birthday as a kid would be considered 'antique'.. old, yes - antique, no. My grandmother (104), on the other hand..)

Re:Copyright? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031913)

Unless it is specifically "art" or "media," generally for physical objects in film purposes you have to worry about trademark questions rather than copyright. You don't think that everything on television is made from scratch, do you?

Buzzwords (2, Insightful)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031623)

This actually sounds like they are generating polygon-composed scenes from photographs. Cool, yes, but not actually without the traditional rendering method.

Of course, yes, it's possible to do this entirely with photos and without any kind of 3D rendering at all, but in that case, can it be accelerated? Will it move at a decent speed?

Re:Buzzwords (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27032037)

This is called photogrammetry, and was used to create CG environments in the Matrix trilogy, for one.

Re:Buzzwords (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27032945)

Ah that technology. Well then... good luck with looking up and downwards. What? Oh never mind...

Re:Buzzwords (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#27032985)

Who says you need 3D rendering to create a two dimensional image of mathermatical data and a databass filled with coordinates and images with RGB data?

Re:Buzzwords (2, Funny)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 5 years ago | (#27033461)

Who says you need 3D rendering to create a two dimensional image of mathermatical data and a databass filled with coordinates and images with RGB data?

Good point. We'd never be able to have fishing games without databass.

Seriously, I meant that if it's not rendered using 3D->2D polygon rasterization, how much hardware acceleration would it be able to use? Can it still be translated into OGL/DX expressions, or must it all be done in software?

Re:Buzzwords (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27033649)

To oversimplify things, these scenes are just prerendered videos with more or less all possibilities of position in a database. So no matter where you are, you're seeing a prerendered "still" picture. They just select and display the pictures fast enough that it looks like its 3d. So it doesn't need hardware acceleration for anything beyond buffering the images, which are probably rendered as textures on a flat plane.

Re:Buzzwords (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#27041547)

Can it still be translated into OGL/DX expressions, or must it all be done in software

Well since we are not talking about polygons and triangles, OpenGL and Direct3D can't render it, duh. You of all people should know that.

And seriously, what makes you think you need polygons to create a two dimensional image of a three dimensional world?

Re:Buzzwords (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#27041863)

Actually, as the above reply demonstrated, this could be accelerated using a video overlay or any equivalent 3D hardware, so yes, it could be done with OGL.

And I'm just used to seeing 3D creations constructed with rasterizers, because the only alternative that actually seems feasible is ray-tracing, and everything else falls into one of those two categories. Voxels are rasterized, 2.5D is rasterized, and this is rasterized as well.

Re:Buzzwords (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#27043713)

I was talking about raytracing. coordinates and mathemathical functions -> quadric models. Textures with RGB values -> shading and HDR data for post processing. I wasn't referring to TFA, just to show that you can construct a 2D image without the need of triangles and polygons.

Polygons (3, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031649)

A "photograph" is just a textured rectangle - i.e. a textured polygon. So the environment is created by the blending of many textured polygons. Sounds awfully familiar to me.

Sure, they are rectangles instead of triangles; and sure, they aren't arranged in a mesh. But this looks to me like the triumph of a marketing press release over engineering reality.

Re:Polygons (1)

Igor Hardy (1489235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031941)

I'm not particularly technically minded, but it did cross my mind that the title I've chosen might be considered as a bit faulty. Still, everything that is shown on a screen is a rectangle in some way. I could have titled this article "3D Environments with one polygon a frame", but everyone would immediately think that it is about some simple 2D trick.

Re:Polygons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27046679)

I'm not particularly technically minded, but it did cross my mind that the title I've chosen might be considered as a bit faulty.

Still, everything that is shown on a screen is a rectangle in some way. I could have titled this article "3D Environments with one polygon a frame", but everyone would immediately think that it is about some simple 2D trick.

I'm not picking on you, but I will point out that all a rectangle is, is two triangles.
Either way, it's still a polygon based idea.

It's kind of neat, but I'd like to see the idea of using the photographs meshed with a raytracer using true 3D geometry instead.

3D Environments without Polygons - voxels (1, Offtopic)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27031689)

Okay, so these voxels - with current generation technology - are represented as cubes which of course are 12 tri-polies, so it's not entirely -without- polygons.. but at least it's not based on polygons and it lets you do some pretty cool stuff - such as truly fully destructible environments. No, none of that "we ran a script on all objects (except for those we don't want you to be able to destroy) that pre-fragments them and call the havok engine on the object if the damage model reaches a certain level" crap. I mean *fully* destructible.

Sadly, this is the only 'worthy' example I've seen and it's still kinda 'meh'...
http://voxelstein3d.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] ...but it's got me excited for what could be done with voxel-friendly accelerators.

The biggest hurdle, however, is not the accelerators... it's the artists. Suddenly you can no longer get away with 'modeling' a house by simply putting up a façade like they do in movies.. now that house has got to have an interior because some wise-ass IS gonna be spending all of the ammo on the map to chip away at that 10" thick brick wall so they can venture inside the house WITHOUT collecting the key from the bossfight.

So... shot my own excitement down there, again... but at least there's the potential :)

Re:3D Environments without Polygons - voxels (2, Funny)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27032937)

You mean that wise-ass won't have to subject themselves to the artificial devices of game designers who worked under limitations, but that they no longer work under and yet are still designing into the new games, with the new tech, as if they didn't have the new tech at all?

Those the wise-asses you're talking about? ;p

Re:3D Environments without Polygons - voxels (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034741)

Voxels don't necessarily actually need to be rendered as cubes. Algorithmicly it is possible to draw a cube on screen without really using polygons in the conventional sense of coding. There is no need to mathematically establish a surface between 3 or more vertexes in order to UV-map your texture or gourad shade etc.

A voxel can be rendered as a point sprite, a square, a circle, a single pixel (with some kind of interpolation) just about whatever floats your boat. Voxels really are rendering without polygons as they are not at all dependant on that kind of method.

Quite impressive (4, Informative)

janwedekind (778872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27032193)

Quite impressive [youtube.com] . Not much information how it works though.

Light Fields! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27033885)

Right in the video they say they are doing Light Fields:

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/light/

Re:Quite impressive (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 5 years ago | (#27037911)

Obviously things didn't work out too well for them, though. Their website URL now belongs to site-squatting advertisers.

Link to the game (1)

sdqume (555706) | more than 5 years ago | (#27033197)

www.casebookthegame.com

Static World? (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034007)

So the lighting is captured by the camera, not an algorithm - how then, do you *remove* lighting for shadows? Or change the lighting when light-emitting objects move?

This seems like a step backwards from truly immersive worlds, where one can interact with the world and it interacts back. My prediction is that this line of research will lead to some cool proof-of-concept games (under a killing moon is still one of my favorite games of all time), but will ultimately be a dead end. We have the technology to do better than this for games.

How about a volume particle based system? (2, Interesting)

Dillenger69 (84599) | more than 5 years ago | (#27034041)

Wouldn't it make more sense to base something on a volume particle system? You could start with only a few elemental particles ... say, three (you could get smaller but we're trying to get simple) ... and make up some rules about how they combine. make them up into, oh, say, 117 or so "elements" which you can then compound according to other rules. Each step in the chain can increase complexity.

Naw, it would never work.

Re:How about a volume particle based system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27039769)

I've actually had this idea a good few years back.
I done some numbers, then realized how hard hard it would be to get it working on the scale of a game.
Shame, it would be a much easier way to do things, water would be realistic, air would be realistic, infections, etc.

This was a good few years back though, probably around 2003, and i was admittedly not as good as i am now.

How it works (probably) (2, Interesting)

bluntman2008 (1355349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27038635)

People in above comments are talking about photogrammetry and voxels. This is not the technology refered to in this article. They specifically mention having to compress the photos to a great extent to get the game under 1 GB. I am 99% sure that what they are doing is simply storing a grid of 360 degree 'fisheye' photos, and then interpolating between them based on the camera position using some clever interpolation method. The technique is pretty obvious so I am guessing the technology they are so proud of is the interpolation method. This technique seems very restrictive to me, allowing no relighting or dynamic geometry. Its pretty much only good for this game. You can see in the video linked in a previous comment that there is no extra geometry in the scene when you are exploring it, not even your own legs ...

Is this just Myst and Riven again? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27039247)

I couldn't plow through all the spam about the actors and characters and storyline, cut to the chase... is this just VRML-style backdrops like Myst and Riven again?

Re:Is this just Myst and Riven again? (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#27041359)

Looks like. Nothing innovative to see here, move along.

old school... (1)

GorillaTest (742268) | more than 4 years ago | (#27044043)

This is nothing new. That technique was a standard before the polygon technique became feasible.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?