Tom's Forum Posts

  • I still am sceptical, and hear what you are saying, but the adage "too good to be true" applies here:

    http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

    Scam is quite a harsh word, but they are basically lying if the article is correct.

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • Hold your horses! That video is quite old, or only slightly improved from the one I saw over a year ago. There is a lot of hyperbole around this engine, mainly due to the way the narrators pitch it.

    I'm hugely sceptical about it.

    Check out hacker news on this, the comments are very enlightening:

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2835383

    offeemug 7 hours ago | link

    I think what they're doing is great, but I see two problems with their presentation. First, computer rendering techniques are extremely well understood and well researched. We've picked the low hanging fruit, much of the high hanging fruit, and everything in between. There is no "groundbreaking new technology" to be invented. They're converting polygons into voxels (although each voxel is probably a sphere for cheaper computation), and using software ray-tracing to render in real time. Since ray-tracing is trivially parallelizable, the multicore technology is just about there now. A 12-core machine will give just about 20FPS. The reason why they can get away with an incredible amount of detail is that ray-tracing diffuse objects is fairly independent of the number of visible polygons in the scene.

    The second problem is that 10^4x improvement in level of detail does not mean 10^4x aesthetically pleasing (or in fact, more aesthetically pleasing at all). Ray tracing gets very expensive the moment you start adding multiple lights, specular materials, partially translucent materials, etc. It is very, very difficult to do that in real-time even with standard geometry, let alone with 10^4x more polygons. This is why their level doesn't look nearly as good as modern games despite higher polygon count (compare it to the unreal demo: youtube.com/watch They only use diffuse lighting and few lights. In terms of aesthetic appeal of a rendered image, lighting and textures are everything.

    Furthermore, one of the biggest impacts on how aesthetically pleasing a rendered images looks is made by global illumination. That's also something that's extremely difficult to do in real time with raytracing, but is possible with gpu hardware with tricks. The trouble is, these tricks look much better than raw polygons.

    Again, I love what they're doing. Real-time ray-tracing is without a doubt the future of graphics, but it would be nice if they were a little less sensational about the technology, and more open about the limitations and open issues.

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • IF people could upvote the HackerNews submission:

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832873

    This is exactly the right target audience and if you get on the front page you can get thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of people checking it out.

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • Yeah we debated whether we should target IE AND Safari, and decided to in the end. It makes it less of a IE-hate fest which we see enough of already and we wanted to separate ourselves from that.

  • I've just uploaded some images on the campaign site people are free to use on their websites.

  • Kyatric has been great giving us a French translations, all translations are very welcome!   Noga feel free to PM me a translation any time if you have the time to do so.

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • Hi everyone!

    We've released a new small campaign website:

    <font size="5">WeWantOgg.com</font>

    For reference on the problems with HTML5 audio, see:

    http://www.scirra.com/blog/46/more-on-html5-audio-codecs-and-politics

    We appreciate any support we get, hopefully we can get IE and Safari to support Ogg Vorbis which would be a huge benefit to all of us!

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post

  • You do not have permission to view this post