Good News, id Tech 5 Is Likely Coming To Linux

[sabriah]

That's because this is a case of someone performing necromancy on a really old thread.

I am the culprit...

Didn't see the dates...

[V!NCENT]

Yeah about those drivers: Carmack said that the texture lookup was the most important thing and that Intel Sandy Bitch GPUs were more favorable due to driver optimalisation than nVidia. The problem is not calculation power, but latency. In order to meet 16ms (for 60fps), AMD had released a patch specificaly for the megatexture stuff so that it could update on a per-pixel basis. Now that's where the driver problem comes from on Linux: FireGL being the best driver for Rage, but not so great on Linux.

The real pain today is shaders and Rage doesn't have a lot of them. That's because Carmack is more about artwork. He said in a Doom3 interview that he realy disliked hacks like shaders for effects and simply wanted things that are dynamic, such as real lightning in Doom3, on-the-fly texturing in Rage and on-the-fly geometry for upcomming id Tech 6.

[Setlec]

soon he will create the voxel + ray-tracing technology for id tech6 and he will dominate the world graphics once and for all!

Mark my words!

i wonder if sometime he would allow us the privilege to use megatexture from etqw and use it with voxel rendering...

[mirv]

soon he will create the voxel + ray-tracing technology for id tech6 and he will dominate the world graphics once and for all!

Mark my words!

i wonder if sometime he would allow us the privilege to use megatexture from etqw and use it with voxel rendering...

The megatexture from ETQW isn't effective in anything other than heightmaps, so it's not likely the best thing to use with voxel based systems.

[V!NCENT]

If you want something like a mega texture for geometry than look no further than sparse voxel octrees. Carmack said that for skinning those octrees are a problem, but I gues he hasn't heared of animated sparse voxel octrees yet.

He also said that he will only be using ray casting (not tracing) for that geometry, but he also said that he could get good 720p ray tracing at good framerates with CUDA and ASVO (animated sparce voxel octrees) are immensely good for ray tracing (for example; if x rays hit block then block has x level of geometry detail so only y levels down need to be looked up).

If someone could make an SVOERPT (sparce voxel octree enegry redistribution path tracing) state tracker for Gallium3D (which, if enough knowledge, is way more easy to do than shit like OpenGL, because it's so simple) then it would bring us a lot closer to unlimited detail with uber rendering. The secret sauce is in the low level acces.

[b15hop]

soon he will create the voxel + ray-tracing technology for id tech6 and he will dominate the world graphics once and for all!

Mark my words!

i wonder if sometime he would allow us the privilege to use megatexture from etqw and use it with voxel rendering...

Damn strait he will. But he's saying that is about 7 years away.

If you want something like a mega texture for geometry than look no further than sparse voxel octrees. Carmack said that for skinning those octrees are a problem, but I gues he hasn't heared of animated sparse voxel octrees yet.

He also said that he will only be using ray casting (not tracing) for that geometry, but he also said that he could get good 720p ray tracing at good framerates with CUDA and ASVO (animated sparce voxel octrees) are immensely good for ray tracing (for example; if x rays hit block then block has x level of geometry detail so only y levels down need to be looked up).

If someone could make an SVOERPT (sparce voxel octree enegry redistribution path tracing) state tracker for Gallium3D (which, if enough knowledge, is way more easy to do than shit like OpenGL, because it's so simple) then it would bring us a lot closer to unlimited detail with uber rendering. The secret sauce is in the low level acces.

You've obviously seen that "unlimited detail" engine that's been boasting about their special voxel engine. I'm a bit iffy about that engine because there are limitations to detail when volume of data is concerned. Notice in one of the youtube video's "meet the crew" he has hired a "data packer". I bet this is for the very reason that they are simply running out of space to store the large volumes of dynamic voxel sets. I call them dynamic voxel sets because it looks like euclideon is synthesising the creation of new voxels inside smaller blocks of voxels. Much like an octree but with more code to create/synthesise data than just load more data.

Notice how JC mentions that no matter the detail, the end result is the inspired content. If the game is dull and boring, graphics only prove a shallow wow factor before the fun wears off. I think this is the sole reason for the success of games like fallout new vegas. The game engine is 5 years old but the game itself has oodles of awesome content that made the game what it is, regardless of it's obsolete 3D engine. Same with minecraft, not exactly the best graphics, but the inspired gameplay gets people hooked for months.

Speaking of which, what type of storage system is a game like minecraft using? It looks like a voxel octree... It would be good to load up one of those minecraft maps in a voxel editor to play around with the data sets.

[RealNC]

The next id tech is only something that Carmack is theorizing about. The hardware that would be needed to support it does not exist. And it's not a sure bet even that it will ever exist.

[RealNC]

The next id tech is only something that Carmack is theorizing about. The hardware that would be needed to support it does not exist. And it's not a sure bet even that it will ever exist. He's only guessing at what direction graphics hardware will move in the future.

[b15hop]

The next id tech is only something that Carmack is theorizing about. The hardware that would be needed to support it does not exist. And it's not a sure bet even that it will ever exist. He's only guessing at what direction graphics hardware will move in the future.

I would argue that JC theories are 80% correct. He's pretty spot on or on the mark so to speak. Not only smart but has excellent foresight.

[V!NCENT]

I'm a bit iffy about that engine because there are limitations to detail when volume of data is concerned. Notice in one of the youtube video's "meet the crew" he has hired a "data packer". I bet this is for the very reason that they are simply running out of space to store the large volumes of dynamic voxel sets. I call them dynamic voxel sets because it looks like euclideon is synthesising the creation of new voxels inside smaller blocks of voxels. Much like an octree but with more code to create/synthesise data than just load more data.

"Sir, this computer has a... TEN... MEGAbyte harddrive! You'll never fill that one in your lifetime!"
Storage capacity grows every year. But let's look at it from another perspective. A triangle requires at least three polygons. We're approaching (tesselation) detail of more than a triangle per pixel (Crysis 2 useless PC Tesselation patch). At this point, storing models with that kind of (non-tesselated) polygon detail requires much more than a single voxel in an octree. You can actually get that voxel data down to one bit on avarage in a sparse voxel octree. That means that voxel data suddenly become much more compact to store.

Notice how JC mentions that no matter the detail, the end result is the inspired content. If the game is dull and boring, graphics only prove a shallow wow factor before the fun wears off. I think this is the sole reason for the success of games like fallout new vegas. The game engine is 5 years old but the game itself has oodles of awesome content that made the game what it is, regardless of it's obsolete 3D engine. Same with minecraft, not exactly the best graphics, but the inspired gameplay gets people hooked for months.

I just finished Ultimate Doom (all episodes). To me gameplay matters more than graphics, by far. But what I want is a total experience out of game. Doom gives me a whole better experience than Crysis, because it's much more believable.

Comparing Doom's graphics to Crysis, I find Doom a much better emersive experience. That's because Doom doesn't look like a washed out tattoo, spreaded as a wallpaper over paper-model shape with a custom shiny wax job on top.

When I play Doom, I think of this: http://v1.studenten.net/graphics/con...5-23-storm.jpg
When I play Crysis I think of this: http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/c...838_jpg_ds.jpg

It's so much cooler seeing I blast a monster's shoulder of in Doom, than seeing some model drop like a doll with a washed out stain of ketchup in Crysis.

So far what voxels can do that traingle can't. Now the lightning...
When I play Doom I think of this: http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/photos/da...ithian-bw1.jpg
When I play Doom with an OpenGL engine upgrade I think of this: http://www.destination360.com/north-...state-fair.jpg

Speaking of which, what type of storage system is a game like minecraft using? It looks like a voxel octree... It would be good to load up one of those minecraft maps in a voxel editor to play around with the data sets.

I don't know...