Real Time Rendering Technology
The future of graphics is here.
Interview with Bruce Dell here
Login to rate this video.
Embed this video
Send to a friend
Comments
33 comments posted so far. Expand all comments Login to add a comment.
43 
Most high graphics games nowadays are at least 5GB so if we increase the level of detail by 10000 the game would be 50000GB that's 50TB and that would almost impossible on any device.
Just think about it
56
6. Sizzlik (admin) 274 days ago
Guys..you miss the point that they say they "found a way" to do it..tell someone 10 years ago that its posible to put 20gb on a dvd..they would call you nuts. But it its posible now..so why should this be impossible? And fuck the fact it might need thousands gb of ram..they did it it and i dont think they used a complete data center for just one video...we will see in future
35
I am confused, but I wouldn't mind throwing 100'000 US$ on this company if they you give me a share
22
8. Spartan118 274 days ago
This looks impressive but ill save my final opinion on it until they tell me exactly how it works. If I can run this on my current machine and it wount take up any more space then an average game then I will be thoroughly impressed. But right now, im going with the idea that they have a few thousand terabytes and more gigs of RAM then I can count.
24
the guy behind crysis belives that its true, but he expects no games in the near future, of course there some kind of limit but not as compared to polygon games, it would be a nice thing for minecraft, there you can see that unlimited gamespace in somehow believable for the player in terms of distance, maybe the more you zoom in the more random things you will get, the better the scan of an object the more awesome it will look like, currently this technology is useful for medicine but not for games, there are a lot of challenges that have to be mastered, imagine the huge possibilities with such low specs, maybe the gameworld is saved in the cloud and will be only downloaded to your RAM if needed, the human eye doesnt need unlimited detail btw,
German inteview http://video.golem.de/games/5617/cevat-yerli-ueber-unlimited-detail-und-computergrafik.html
21
#10 : the problem is that in the video the scene was completely fixed. Their algorithm runs just fine for fixed scenes, but there would be a serious drop in FPS if anything would move.
Also keep in mind that they only have a limited set of objects in the scene which are repeated, thus they can have a "huge" island without their program taking 40Tb of memory.
But it is really unfair from them to compare it to actual video games, because in our games objects are moving, the environment is not a repetition of a very limited amount of objects, etc etc.
Also keep in mind that this is a promotionnal video as they were trying to get some funds. So they only talk about the good aspects of their engine.
That being said, it still is really impressive.
38
lots of doubds here, anyone remember the time of wolfenstein 3d ? the first 3d game ? back then they would say that the graphics you are looking at nowaday's are impossible. nevertheless i will believe it when i see the first game running with this engine. I guess that it will take time before anything like this will be playable, but that time will come one day.
36
16. Chrisofskjern 274 days ago
An island that consists of 21.062.352.435.000 polygons? So if we assume that each polygon takes up 1 bit (the smallest amount of data a computer can comprehend) then it's still a GIGANTIC amount of data to be processed.
It would be about 2400gigabytes of data to be processed. And thats assuming the polygons are as small as they, technically, can become.
Sure, the technology may be true. But it's useless right now. It's like inventing the car before the wheel. You have everything you need to make a form of transport. You just need something to make it move.
Maybe 10 years into the future, we have the processing power needed to make use of this invention. But by then, other companies might have found a way to do this. And maybe even more effective than this. Because if they replicate it they would probably get sued anyway.
In summary. This is an amazing development. But for now, it's useless on even the most powerful gaming machines out there. At some point in the future, we might be able to make use of it.
30
17. BrianDilori 274 days ago
I dont know what the fuck ye're all on about with this nerd talk, all i know is that this guy has the most fucking annoying cheesie "game show host" voice i've ever heard!
36
18. Comment rated too low. Show this comment Chrisofskjern 274 days ago
#14 - Checked the video. Zapped through it. Where is the real-time demo? It's just an interview. And the little bit of footage that is about the engine. All the footage that you can call a demo... Looks like shit, when you think about the fact that its made with UNLIMITED POLYGONS!....
24
the next devs of big game companies should concentrate their efforts in GAMEPLAY not f*ing graphics , they are already good enough if you ask me, FIX more bugs and stop making g*damn console ports -.- , btw i have a new keyboard thats why I write so much 
#18 its still in an ealy dev state , normal game features are going to come soon from this small company
26
I thing u all missunderstand... It's not 21.062.352.435.000 polygons being read at same time, they say it the same as that but probably alot less, take the stone they showed, in polygons that stone would been read with 10.000 of polygons but with this new tech its read as only 1. Thats why it can be so detailed.
Or it's me that's just ston*d and im the one missunderstand everything 
26
dam i guess nvidia wasnt screwing around when they came out with quad SLI gtx 580s in 3gig vram...
47
What a load of shit he even has the common talking out his liein ass voice ,
Any one who has any concept on how computer graphics works in real time knows this is a scam
15
23. Comment rated too low. Show this comment fumoffu 274 days ago
Yes it's fake/scam. Even if you don't know how computer graphic work you should be able to tell from the way the guy is talking or rather bullshitting.
But people and investors are sometimes gullible, especially if you show them something shiny. That is why the first comment had -1 points despite the fact it was correct and the idiot from second comment got +6.
Just notice that in every demo of this technology there is just a bunch of the same objects being replicated. This is the only way this will ever work. Other problems are animation, lighting and shading - that is why it looks kind of crappy even with "infinite" details.
56
24. Sizzlik (admin) 274 days ago
thanks for the vid #14 really interessting. Putted it in the description
44
25. Gringo_el_Diablo 274 days ago
I can't tell the difference since the video looks like it was recorded with a camera phone.... lmao 
31
You can't do simple arithmetic based on the size of the area and the given resolution. Obviously each atom is not unique, which is the basis for the other (most on-target) criticism - they're just repeating a small set of objects over and over. Well, yes, just like any game you care to describe on the market today. The question is, how many objects, with what kind of storage requirements?
This is definitely not a scam, nor do those saying things like "if you knew how graphics worked [blah blah]" actually appear to know anything about how graphics work.
They are several years away from a marketable product. That's the only thing anyone should be confident saying.
36
28. Chrisofskjern 273 days ago
#27 - Thats what I've been trying to say. Check #16. Dunno why I get rated down. It is indeed possible. Just not with todays computers.
23
29. FatalBaboon 273 days ago
Notice how everything in the video is static, it's one thing to model something, and it's another one to animate it.
Animation requires to have leverage on each "atom" therefore no matter how they duplicate and reuse a portion of the RAM to lower the required RAM, you still need an atomic access to each "atom".
That said, in the future, maybe we can make something out of it, but that's always been the ultimate goal... why do you think we make polygons smaller and smaller?
20
30. Comment rated too low. Show this comment Siruss 273 days ago
It is fake otherwise this new graphic approach would not have been shutdown and locked away as he stated. It would have been adopted on a massive scale.
38
i've seen the entire 47 minutes long interview of this guy, however annoying his voice maybe, but i'm sure its quite something.
Its not fake, or Fake, what the hell.
Its on snotr just for the purpose of relief. Justchill guys!~
30
You guys are missing quite a lot of stuff 'ere.
If you've paid any attention to the interview, you'll piece that it's genuine. The whole key are the algorhythms. One Molecule/Atom for pixel. It does NOT render the entire map, only SMALL bits of what it sees. The demo was running on a single core computer.
I'm pretty optimistic about this. I've thought about this exact piece of graphics since I was a kiddo, and now it's coming. It's still not a finished product. I'm sure if they were 90 instead of 9 it would go a lot faster, yet they wanna keep that top-ninja-secret, so until then, we'll be watching polygons
Good luck to them
26
how come so many here call this fake, without even understanding a thing behind the technology and the programming point of view?
pls go away with something like "ouh 5 gb memory in graphicards now, so this would take 50TB to work" thats totally crap
this could very much be real.
but from comparing that footage to a game there are tons of things missing
most of all the collision checking or any interaction
what happens if you would try to destroy the environment?
would game designers have to simulate every interaction?
second of all, what about physics?
and by far not the last thing
what about the ammount of data that needs to be transfered, if you are synchronizing the environment for multiplayer
(98 votes)
-9
1. Comment rated too low. Show this comment orion 274 days ago
This is the fakest thing possible. Forget the graphics, there is no RAM in the world that can hold trillions of data points, let alone index and draw them in real time. It's not about the algorithm efficiency, in's already impossible in pure numbers, even with decreasing the detail with distance.
Or possibly, the number is hugely exaggerated.