amazing graphics breakthrough

My brother saw this video and he said all graphic cards one day have to end one day to be replaced with this engine and whatever may come in the future, this engine could be the future of next-gen 3D gaming engine

If graphics cards have to "end" one day, it won't be this engine replacing it. It will be something else that has yet to be created. Not to mention, by that time we will have enough polygon performance that the difference would be difficult to notice anyways. Also, CPU manufacturers will get better at creating chips that serve as both your main processor and graphics chip.

Polygons are not going anywhere anytime soon.

True but as we know it, day by day technology is improving fast

>

> My brother saw this video and he said all graphic cards one day have to end one day to be replaced with this engine and whatever may come in the future, this engine could be the future of next-gen 3D gaming engine

>

If graphics cards have to "end" one day, it won't be this engine replacing it. It will be something else that has yet to be created. Not to mention, by that time we will have enough polygon performance that the difference would be difficult to notice anyways. Also, CPU manufacturers will get better at creating chips that serve as both your main processor and graphics chip.

Polygons are not going anywhere anytime soon.

I understand doubting, but you're stating all this as fact as if you're from the future. Yhou don't know what will come of this, or how how long it will take to come, if at all.

*sigh*

I am not stating it as fact. However, it is the MUCH more likely outcome. Even you should be able to recognize that. This is not transition from 2D to 3D, it's a transition from 3D to alternative 3D. It's just not as needed.

If you believe even for a moment that this engine right here is the NEAR future ... wrong business for you.

And just for some added perspective, I run my own business now and have worked with major publishers in the past, including a production venture with Electronic Arts on Playstation 2.

Nobody in the industry I have ever spoken with believes polygons are going anywhere for the next 10-20 years at the least. Voxels and the like serve much better as a supplemental feature as opposed to the entire solution.

EDIT: I just want to add that of course I could be wrong, because again I am not trying to state this stuff as fact. I personally believe that the next 10+ years lies in technologies like Tessellation and (unfortunately) 3D displays ...

I think some people are confused about physics vs. 3D renderers - they're two separate things. You can mix and match any renderer and physics engine, the physics handles the logical world (which is just number crunching), and the 3D renderer just draws that to the screen. Unless there's something special about this new renderer I don't know about.

I gotcha 6fix,

On that note. I was a little disappointed with the initial tesselation stuff I've seen so far, namely the heaven benchmark. The framerate drop was more significant than I was hoping for.

Also, as far as this tech goes. Until this came alomg thered be no reason to think polygons would go anywhere. And if it proves itself to be workable, there's an entire industry of tools that would need replacing, so, no, its not going to change overnight, but the idea is intriguing, and it doesn't need to replace polygons for every developer to make it an important part of the near future.

As an aside, it seems to be a growing trend, this it-only-matters-how-many-pixels-on-screen thing. We're entering a new era of efficiency it seems. Aside from the id tech 5, and this, there's also that streaming photo gallery thing microsoft showed off when they were debuting silverlight, where there was hundreds of gigs of image data, smoothly being panned and zoomed with no lag. I predict the next 5 years are going to be sickeningly awesome for the pc end-user

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough lucid.

Speaking of Physics, I am reminded of Phys-X and how that didn't pan out. The positive though was they were bought by nVidia and now the same technologies are running off nVidia hardware, without another card needed.

And excellent point lucid about the tools. The work my company does would be set back years if we needed brand new tools. Not looking forward to that day.

Here a very good article by Santiago Orgaz, maker of XNormal, about Sparse Voxel Octree:

http://santyhammer.blogspot.com/2009/03/future-of-realtime-graphics.html

Inside, there is a good youtube video by Id, showing their future tech in games.

And a John Carmack interview about id Tech 6

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=532

.

Carmack has a much better approach to this style of rendering from what he has said both in your link and elsewhere.

That being said, his last engine wasn't used nearly as much as the Quake engines before it. If that trend continues with Id Tech 5, I wonder if he can make the impact that would be needed to adopt.

I doubt that graphics cards will ever be truly replaced. Just as the gasoline engine is to cars, and Apple is to computers, manufactures like Nvida will come up with some way to keep their fingers in the pot.

Speaking of Physics, I am reminded of Phys-X and how that didn't pan out. The positive though was they were bought by nVidia and now the same technologies are running off nVidia hardware, without another card needed.

I think nVidia made a dumb mistake there. Why would anyone make hardware accelerated physics an important part of their game, if it was going to be exclusive to either ati, or nvidia architectures? They should have licensed it to ATI, or made the implementation free, and earned their money through licensing it to game developers. They doomed it to being only a minor decorative thing, instead of something that could have drastically enhanced gameplay. And did any non-casual games ever use fluid? Now I'm sure someone will make an opencl or directcompute physics engine, or implementation of havoc.

Here a very good article by Santiago Orgaz, maker of XNormal, about Sparse Voxel Octree:

http://santyhammer.blogspot.com/2009/03/future-of-realtime-graphics.html

Inside, there is a good youtube video by Id, showing their future tech in games.

And a John Carmack interview about id Tech 6

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=532

.

Carmack mentioned CUDA alot, I thought it was strange, seeing as how he uses openGL for his engines. I'd like to see a more recent interview to see if he's using openCL with tech 5 or tech 6.

I doubt that graphics cards will ever be truly replaced.

There was a really good interview with Tim Sweeney (of Epic Games/unreal engine fame), where he talked about what would be possible graphically with a combined CPU/GPU solution, but the only links I found to that interview are broken now. Google "Tim Sweeney interview CPU GPU" to find alot of other interesting interviews on the subject.

Looking at the long term future, the next 10 years or so, my hope and expectation is that there will be a real convergence between the CPU, GPU and non traditional architectures like the PhysX chip from Ageia, the Cell technology from Sony. You really want all those to evolve in the way of a large scale multicore CPU that has a lot of non traditional computing power as a GPU has now. A GPU processes a huge number of pixels in parallel using relatively simply control flow, CPU's are extremely good at random access logic, lots of branching, handling cache and things like that. I think really, essential, graphics and computing need to evolve together to the point where the future renderers I hope and expect will look a lot more like a software renderer from previous generations than a fixed function rasterizer pipeline and the stuff we have currently. I think GPU's will ultimately end up being... you know when we look at this 10 years from now, we will look back at GPU's being kinda a temporary fixed function hardware solution, to a problem that ultimately was, just general computing.

Carmack mentioned CUDA alot, I thought it was strange, seeing as how he uses openGL for his engines. I'd like to see a more recent interview to see if he's using openCL with tech 5 or tech 6.

For the demo the interface was cuda, but according to gamestar, a german games magazine, tech 6 will use directly DirectX 11 or OpenCL, to make sure ATI graphic cards and Intel's larrabee will work also.

I think nVidia made a dumb mistake there. Why would anyone make hardware accelerated physics an important part of their game, if it was going to be exclusive to either ati, or nvidia architectures? They should have licensed it to ATI, or made the implementation free, and earned their money through licensing it to game developers. They doomed it to being only a minor decorative thing, instead of something that could have drastically enhanced gameplay. And did any non-casual games ever use fluid? Now I'm sure someone will make an opencl or directcompute physics engine, or implementation of havoc.

Oh well yes I agree with you, I meant more that the positive is the fact we dodged a bullet where they could have become successful on their own, making it so we all need physics cards.

I also wish they had gone for a more open approach. Only working through nVidia hardware is unfortunate, despite being better than an actual card.

Do all those "new" technologies help directly to 2d games?