So the next xbox is 720? Makes sense.
Haven't watch avatar, maybe will. Still what I have heard it's really mediocre film.
And if dreamcast would have had better game developers support. I think it would have been great console.
I have owned psx1 and 2 because of the awesome gameselection. I really don't see many ps 3 games that I just could get in a pc.
Well.. that was off topic pretty much. Anyway, I said it.

Edit: English isn't hard if you read it but if I write it.. Well, I get typos in my own language too.

It is a very mediocre film, but it's worth seeing once only for the visuals.

I think FFVII: advent children looked good.
And this next link, put my monitor finally in use.

http://vimeo.com/24456787

Wonderous thing that it would be crisper if it wasn't stream.

Anyways.. sometimes I put that on just to easy my troubled mind. =)

Heh, do you think that means that they've finally managed to surpass PC graphics? Granted it would be unreasonable to expect that to last long, considering the length of the console cycle, but still. It's kind of distracting to see all that aliasing going on in the console version of games that isn't present in the PC version.

When the 360 released (Red Ring of Death and all) it was labeled high mid-range PC at that time, because that's basically what it was.

I'm assuming by that statement that MS is shooting for the current standard of a high-end PC with the next machine, but even that wouldn't be enough to equal the graphical prowess of CG in a major motion picture, so they must be eluding to tech like these atom-based graphics.

It's mostly conjecture at this point though.

How can they call it "Unlimited Detail". By very definition it cannot be unlimited as they stated themselves, they used one million atoms per cubic inch, so that in itself is a limit. And when they mentioned you can store infinite atoms, that is rubbish again by definition. If you have infinite anything, no matter how small the storage required (as long as it isn't zero which wouldn't make any sense anyway) then you'll have infinite size. Procedurally generated still wouldn't give infinite atoms, not without repetition anyway.

So, is this real? Well, it could be real and they've just used bad terms to describe it, or it could be a hoax.

As I said in some previous post in another thread.. I see more realistic trees in crysis than when I look out my window in real life. And that's something.

This. Anyone can SAY they are going to make a million dollars. Until you actually do it however, it is all hot air.

The interview was kind of disappointing for me.
First of all, using a laptop to demonstrate the technology would have been a very good idea, BUT unplugged. If you have half a dozen wires leading to the laptop and you can not even see the back of it, then I simply claim cheating right away without any bad feeling of being unable to back this up. The presentation was short enough to run on battery and showing that there's no wireless connection should have been a matter of minutes.
Next and equally important step, you don't do that with one guy in your office, but in public (e.g. at PAX) accessible to everybody (should have invited the top three well known critics to attend ;)). That won't cost you plenty more time (I doubt that a day more or less would hurt them), but increases your creditability by a thousandfold.
And when you try to refute critics, provide enough facts (I understand that they can not go into detail due to competition) instead of just saying 'You're wrong, it works'.
He never mentioned the compression rate, the actual size of the demonstration on the HDD, or any single other fact people were disbelieving.
If the intention of that video was to get most critics out of the way and leave them to silent and productive development, then the presentation was an awful fail.

I agree with you they STILL haven't proved it. But you've got to give them/him credit for showing their faces this time and proving at least that its real time instead of pre-rendered. But yeah, we still don't know what's REALLY running that demo.
They are maintaining their secrecy (if true) because its still not done yet. I would to. I never show my work until I'm satisfied with it. I have a feeling that they have some big surprises in store.

Ok, I grant them credit for showing their faces! Though that doesn't mean much to me ;)

Actually, they did never prove this point, because the whole presentation was done in secret. I don't know the reporter (haven't bothered to look him up) and for all I know that whole video could be edited or any other trick could have been used. This is why I mentioned that if you want to pull a stunt like that, you do it in public.

I'm fine with remaining secret and not showing ones work before done, but they showcased their work intentionally the moment the first video was launched on youtube. They raised a lot of very bold claims and then do nothing to back them up.
That's what I criticise.

I get the impression the technology he's showing is real, but with all the limitations people are speculating it has. He's got the optimism and energy of a pitchman, so every time he skips over specifics it stands out. Easy to say they'll work something out later. Harder to deliver. True even if he believes everything he's saying.

Just to weigh in, Voxels are not a new concept and have significant advantages in specific applications. A friend of mine in uni made a spectacular organ modeling tool using MRI Data. The voxel system worked perfectly, due to the Level of detail that could be displayed and the models needing the both the interior and exterior to be equally important. As such the processing required to create and render the models was pretty high.

Games in general however, only need to focus on the exterior which is where polygonal modelling has always had the advantage. Like comparably low processing and ability to easily lower the complexity without distorting the model (e.g. distance controlled LOD). This combined with the ability to create skeletal structures (Kinematics) and physics systems suggest that polygon systems will still be the go to for some time yet.

I'm not saying there won't ever be games using a voxel system, but even with modern processing speeds, it's just not really a suitable system for the majority of games.

Scam or not they got their grant.
Search Google for "Commercialisation Australia Euclideon" and you'll see official notice of the 2 million dollar grant they got.

I'm convinced enough that they are showing a real-time demonstration. I want to believe all their claims but there are some strange bits that still leave me scratching my head. Not only is it easy enough to completely disconnect the laptop but if Bruce Dell is such a programming genius then why does he keep saying level of distance... isn't it level of detail? *shrug*