bit-tech.net

Euclideon promises unlimited graphical detail

Euclideon promises unlimited graphical detail

Are Euclideon's promises the future of graphics or vapourware?

Small Australian tech company Euclideon has released a new demo trailer for its graphics technology Unlimited Detail, which promises to ditch the dependency on polygons in games in favour of millions of cloud point technology.

This should create richer game worlds that look more realistic, says Euclideon. The problem with polygons (as the video below brilliantly highlights) is that they’re computationally expensive and don’t give a realistic look when you look closely.

There is a better way to do graphics, which is used in medicine and the sciences, and that is to make everything out of tiny little atoms instead of flat panels [polygons]. The problem is, this particular system uses up a lot of processing power’ says the voice in the presentation video.

However, Euclideon has found a way to circumvent the processing problem, allowing it to create ‘unlimited little 3D atoms in real-time.’ The claim is that, while Nvidia and AMD might increase the polygon count by 25 per cent a year (Euclideon’s statistic), it has developed a method that increases the polygon number to such a level that ‘we could abandon polygons altogether and...run in unlimited detail.

The video includes plenty of comparisons between game worlds created with polygons and Euclideon’s demo island that uses its Unlimited Detail technology. There’s also a mention of technology that can accept polygons and transform them into 3D atoms, so perhaps games could be created conventionally and then ported to Euclideon’s method.

This should mean that game studios can adopt the technology without having to ditch their knowledge of polygon-based game design or having to learn lots of new skills. Smoother transition usually gives new technology more chance of catching on.

Let us know what you think in the forum.



Via Rock, Paper Shotgun.

88 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
docodine 2nd August 2011, 12:26 Quote
SOUNDS LEGIT. Give me a tech demo that I can run on my PC and I might believe it, they've shown nothing so far that can't be faked.


We already have a discussion going in Hardware about this, just FYI
Jamie 2nd August 2011, 12:28 Quote
My only problem with this video is the awful voice over.
douglatins 2nd August 2011, 12:33 Quote
"They depend on stancing because every distinct model requires several dozen MB of storage. This is and has always been the biggest drawback to voxel rendering. You might be able to "find" the correct voxel in an blink, and you might only need find 1920x1080 voxels to make the picture, but the billions of voxels required to represent a voxel made scene decently still have to be stored somewhere.

So... they cheat. They put the same models over and over and generate some things procedurally, which is not a bad thing to do on it's own, but is not related with their tech at all and it's just bypassing the real problem with voxel rendering. Using procedural methods, you could generate the same detail and randomness with polys, and definately when applying tesselation. What you can't do that way is to create the complex, unique snd varied scenery that we are used to see in modern games.

Quite literally everyone in the gaming industry is researching/has researched voxel rendering and literally all who did have abandoned it or delayed it to 2016 ++. Unlimited Detail is just a hoax or a scam. They are doing voxel rendering and doing it pretty fast according to them... well I'm not even going to try and refute that claim, there's over 50 other voxel renderers out there capable of similar performance (though most use the GPU), already with proper real time demos and proper papers and also patents. None of which UD has shown. It doesn't matter, none of the others are suitable for real time today and neither is UD. "

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2357574&postcount=237
VeNoM JaCKaL 2nd August 2011, 12:34 Quote
Posted it in the Forum this morning xD keep up people xD.

Well maybe it’s just the child inside or me not thinking rationally but I really hope that this idea comes to fruition as it would revolutionise the gaming industry. Whatever artists really what to create in terms of their visions will no longer be hampered by the technical restrictions anymore.
arcticstoat 2nd August 2011, 12:35 Quote
That voice-over guy is awesome - I wonder what would happen if you just gave him a LemSip?! Interesting technology, although the major reservation I have is the amount of identical objects shown off in the demo. They may indeed show off hundreds of thousands of 'atoms', but this isn't really a big deal if they're all the same - you just instance loads of the same model. If they can do the same thing with lots of different-looking models, then that would really be something.
runadumb 2nd August 2011, 12:44 Quote
douglatins
So it is Voxels then. First thing I thought when I read this. Why aren't they calling them voxels?
blohum 2nd August 2011, 12:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
My only problem with this video is the awful voice over.

+1 to that!
Mentai 2nd August 2011, 12:58 Quote
I really hope this is legit because all the flaws the video has pointed out with poly rendering have annoyed me for a long time now. Also if decent physics are implemented into the engine that would be great.
west 2nd August 2011, 13:03 Quote
whats that saying, the one about being too good to be true? ....
edzieba 2nd August 2011, 13:43 Quote
Note that everything that they've shown so far has been entirely static. Nothing moves (though they're careful to always keep the camera in constant motion to make it less obvious). Not too great for a game engine.
I've seen real-time-rendered voxel engines with on-the-fly geometry modification (e.g. Atomontage) but they're usually of a lower resolution. To have both at once, you need faster processors and MUCH MUCH more storage bandwidth.
DbD 2nd August 2011, 14:16 Quote
I think they are working on the wrong thing here. Polygon detail is not the major problem facing most games. From a static scene point of view the biggest improvements seem to be with lighting these days. That's not to say a few more polygons wouldn't be good, but there are lots of ways around that - normal mapping, displacement mapping, tessellation.

However the current challenges are more to do making stuff move and interact better. e.g. destructible environments, and animation (realistic faces and body movement).
Bauul 2nd August 2011, 14:22 Quote
Anyone else notice there were exactly no shadows in any of the test videos?

I'd love to see how they calculate how a billion voxels would interact with a dozen moving light sources.
Madness_3d 2nd August 2011, 14:30 Quote
This is the perfect logical next step in CG, Polygons have had their days numbered for a while now. If these guys get it right, they could become mega rich
Christopher N. Lew 2nd August 2011, 14:40 Quote
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 14:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
My only problem with this video is the awful voice over.

+1 he does sound like your typical voice over for parody videos... in my opinion.
feathers 2nd August 2011, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglatins
"They depend on stancing because every distinct model requires several dozen MB of storage. This is and has always been the biggest drawback to voxel rendering. You might be able to "find" the correct voxel in an blink, and you might only need find 1920x1080 voxels to make the picture, but the billions of voxels required to represent a voxel made scene decently still have to be stored somewhere.

So... they cheat. They put the same models over and over and generate some things procedurally, which is not a bad thing to do on it's own, but is not related with their tech at all and it's just bypassing the real problem with voxel rendering. Using procedural methods, you could generate the same detail and randomness with polys, and definately when applying tesselation. What you can't do that way is to create the complex, unique snd varied scenery that we are used to see in modern games.

Quite literally everyone in the gaming industry is researching/has researched voxel rendering and literally all who did have abandoned it or delayed it to 2016 ++. Unlimited Detail is just a hoax or a scam. They are doing voxel rendering and doing it pretty fast according to them... well I'm not even going to try and refute that claim, there's over 50 other voxel renderers out there capable of similar performance (though most use the GPU), already with proper real time demos and proper papers and also patents. None of which UD has shown. It doesn't matter, none of the others are suitable for real time today and neither is UD. "

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2357574&postcount=237

What are your credentials? I mean you say it doesn't work and we should believe you why? I always question everything. I will believe UD when I see it in a modern game but I don't automatically dismiss it because you come along and say it doesn't work.
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

I agree, to me the majority of games I play are for me to "escape" reality and indulge in something different. Sure a realistic game could be graphically enjoyable but I won't get the same escapism factor.
Lazy_Amp 2nd August 2011, 15:09 Quote
So I'm interested, and of course we aren't going to see anything out of it for... well 2 years optimistically. I'm interested in how they do the textures, are they simply coloring each 'atom'/voxel object to match where a texture would normally be plastered over? I'm also interested in 'procedural destruction', I guess it would be called, where these hollow voxel object can be cut or broken and fill in the pieces, that would be a major improvement over the "Cover in smoke/replace with broken model" approach to destruction.

According to the video description they have animation in the works, so if they show that and their improved shader off in the next month, I'd be very impressed. Drop a Physics engine on that and they probably will get quite a few sales.
Killbz 2nd August 2011, 15:14 Quote
Finally a reason to buy a OCZ Revodrive 3 and for companies to design a graphics card able to fully saturate a PCIE 3.0 bandwidth. With a 5ghz Ivybridge 16 thread cpu to run it all...~(dreaming)...

I am quite excited by this. With decent physics engine attached it would utterly amazing. Imagine bullets that actually removed "atoms" and make proper holes or fully destructible terrains on an "atomic" level.
TheBoyBest 2nd August 2011, 15:26 Quote
SO that's what happened to Lloyd Grossman! "Who lives in a hoooooooowse loooooooooooooyk thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis"
PQuiff 2nd August 2011, 15:38 Quote
Hmmmm sounds to good to be true......if it is using voxel technology. Meh....go look at the old Comanche or delta warrior games.
feathers 2nd August 2011, 15:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

I agree, to me the majority of games I play are for me to "escape" reality and indulge in something different. Sure a realistic game could be graphically enjoyable but I won't get the same escapism factor.

Total disagreement. There is no reason a computer game needs 80's graphics in order to let you escape reality.

I was playing BC2 recently on an urban map and noticed the incredible level of detail in the town. I was running and hiding behind sheds, behind walls etc using tactics I would use in a real batttlefield arena. It felt all the more believable because of the graphical realism. If that is turned up even higher with future engines then the level of escapism can be even greater. Already we are starting to see incredible character animation and facial expressions in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is escapism and just because it has good graphics doesn't mean it's somehow lacking immersiveness.

Do we criticise movies and say they are too real visually for us to engage fully? Bollocks. It's all down to the content and the presentation.
XXAOSICXX 2nd August 2011, 17:08 Quote
I read this same story a few years ago - funny how the PR machine works. This was "incredible" and "unlimited" in scope back then and, not so strangely, it hasn't materialised yet. Not to say this is entirely vapourware (though I personally think it is) but they've been working on this for years and still don't have anything anyone can actually play (since it requires entirely different graphics processing capabilities than Nvidia/AMD/Matrox/whoever provide for).

I wish I could find that old article on the tinterwebs... :(
karx11erx 2nd August 2011, 17:26 Quote
Medicine? Marching cubes anybody?
Waynio 2nd August 2011, 17:27 Quote
I don't understand it but hope we end up with mad detail in our games, looked awesome when it zoomed into the dirt, but 1 thing I do not like about the idea of unlimited graphical detail is it could be used for fake propaganda which I do find a bit scary to be honest if it ever ended up getting that far .

But the voice over really makes it appear like a joke wind up to wet the appetite of gamers everywhere Euclideon sounds like an STD or something :):p.
PabloFunky 2nd August 2011, 17:27 Quote
Still didnt look very realistic to me.

But as he says, will need artists to make use of it, as they were not.

However, id hapily trade of a few million voxels and pixels and polygons etc for decent game play, which seems to be whats missing in games, not realism.
DriftCarl 2nd August 2011, 17:37 Quote
I still havn't seen any of their demos with anything actually moving. It mayaswell be a picture because everything is still, the water is like a mirror. I dont care if a new version can run 80fps. It is a bit pointless if you cant actually do anything yet. I will be more convinced when they show a proper demo with a character walking around interacting with the environment. They dont have to be artistic to show that,
OCJunkie 2nd August 2011, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloFunky

However, id hapily trade of a few million voxels and pixels and polygons etc for decent game play, which seems to be whats missing in games, not realism.

Agreed, I think alot of games are already pretty high on the realism scale, there are bigger priorities...
How about fixing damn consolitis syndrome instead huh?
pendragon 2nd August 2011, 18:21 Quote
hopefully a games company tries this tech out.. as Euclideon isn't one .. .maybe we'll find out if this is the real deal or not then... interesting though
Kasius 2nd August 2011, 18:23 Quote
Time to buy some shares :D
E_Spaghetti 2nd August 2011, 18:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
I still havn't seen any of their demos with anything actually moving. It mayaswell be a picture because everything is still, the water is like a mirror. I dont care if a new version can run 80fps. It is a bit pointless if you cant actually do anything yet. I will be more convinced when they show a proper demo with a character walking around interacting with the environment. They dont have to be artistic to show that,

Exactly! They say they can scan an object and place it in their virtual world.
Scan a human..
Lets see him or her walk around and chop a tree down or pick a rock up.
feathers 2nd August 2011, 18:33 Quote
I think it's the console generation and very low end PC users who claim great graphics = poor gameplay. The battlefield series shows otherwise. I don't say a game must have cutting edge graphics to be good, what I do say is that I want cutting edge graphics and good gameplay. I still play some games with simple graphics but I don't want a diet of only low end graphic games. I also don't agree with the idea that games are "good enough" graphically. It's like saying we have 32nm CPU so we don't need anything faster now. It's small-minded and shows a lack of vision.
javaman 2nd August 2011, 18:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

this tho I want somethings to look more realistic but others not too. Like I loved GTA3 style, yet come san andreas or GTA4 everything was made of various shades of brown. It didn't know if it wanted to be real life crime simulator or a game. Same with may of these modern shooters. While I didn't like brink's visuals it was refreshing and tried something else. I still feel pop up, AA and poor textures are more of a problem than polygon count. Especially AA, I like my lines straight!
PabloFunky 2nd August 2011, 18:48 Quote
I dont think anyone said that great graphics means bad gameplay, theres many games that have bad gfx and bad gameplay.

Time just needs to be spent improving gameplay and not just spent on gfx only.

Obviously i hope theirs time to do both, but typically there is usually a sacrifice, at end of day, games companies want to make money and have to compromise between what they can do to achieve deadlines.

Im same as everyone else and want both also :D. as you say games dont need good gfx to be addictive and fun.
V3ctor 2nd August 2011, 18:50 Quote
I guess I need to update my HD5870 not to play BF3, but to play this demo tech...

Impressive, I just hope it isnt' bull
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Total disagreement. There is no reason a computer game needs 80's graphics in order to let you escape reality.

I was playing BC2 recently on an urban map and noticed the incredible level of detail in the town. I was running and hiding behind sheds, behind walls etc using tactics I would use in a real batttlefield arena. It felt all the more believable because of the graphical realism. If that is turned up even higher with future engines then the level of escapism can be even greater. Already we are starting to see incredible character animation and facial expressions in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is escapism and just because it has good graphics doesn't mean it's somehow lacking immersiveness.

Do we criticise movies and say they are too real visually for us to engage fully? Bollocks. It's all down to the content and the presentation.

Did I say I speak for everyone, no, I speak for myself.
High detail graphics does not correlate to gameplay in my opinion, and no I am not with the "console generation and very low end PC users who claim great graphics = poor gameplay" crowd that you believe exists.

I put a game on its merits and draw my own conclusions, rather than jumping to conclusions.
PabloFunky 2nd August 2011, 18:58 Quote
I tend to agree also.

If im immersed in a game, i tend not to notice how detailed a walls textures are, and if running around at fast pace blasting everything in site:D, you miss alot of the details anyway,

Well i do, perhaps my eyes arent as good as they used to be, or maybe a bigger monitor is in order.

Theres no way i want to stop progress though, so i do hope things improve on gaming front, however i dont tend to play games as much as i did when i was a nipper.
LeMaltor 2nd August 2011, 19:14 Quote
If real -> Holy **** :D
Sloth 2nd August 2011, 19:24 Quote
It'd be interesting to see if this technology could perhaps be intregrated with polygons. Things which look particularly bad and are easily repeatable like round trash cans in a city street could use voxels to smooth them out. No need to make them move, simplistic lighting, perfectly acceptable to re-use the same model over and over.
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 19:36 Quote
John_T 2nd August 2011, 19:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
If real -> Holy **** :D

Just what I was thinking! I'm still sceptical, but if true, wow...

Concerning the (complementary) side issue that's popped up about the level of realism in game graphics, I think I'm in the middle of the argument: Some games I'm happy to become as realistic over time as they can make them - and if they can eventually make them indistinguishable from reality then brilliant. Other games though, while I'm happy for them to improve on where we are now, I think there are limits as to what I would like to see. For example:

If it's a driving game, flying sim, puzzle-type game or maybe something set in space - make that as real as you can make it, I'd love that. However, if I'm going around stabbing people with broadswords, smashing their skulls in with battle-hammers, shooting them in the face with rifles etc, etc - there are limits on how real I want that to look. I'd like it to look good, but I want it to remain instantly and obviously recognisable as artificial.

As CPU's, GPU's, APU's & the software that power them get ever more powerful, I think this is going to become a really, really big issue...
Waynio 2nd August 2011, 19:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_T
Just what I was thinking! I'm still sceptical, but if true, wow...

Concerning the (complementary) side issue that's popped up about the level of realism in game graphics, I think I'm in the middle of the argument: Some games I'm happy to become as realistic over time as they can make them - and if they can eventually make them indistinguishable from reality then brilliant. Other games though, while I'm happy for them to improve on where we are now, I think there are limits as to what I would like to see. For example:

If it's a driving game, flying sim, puzzle-type game or maybe something set in space - make that as real as you can make it, I'd love that. However, if I'm going around stabbing people with broadswords, smashing their skulls in with battle-hammers, shooting them in the face with rifles etc, etc - there are limits on how real I want that to look. I'd like it to look good, but I want it to remain instantly and obviously recognisable as artificial.

As CPU's, GPU's, APU's & the software that power them get ever more powerful, I think this is going to become a really, really big issue...

:) Very much agreed :).
runadumb 2nd August 2011, 19:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloFunky
I tend to agree also.

If im immersed in a game, i tend not to notice how detailed a walls textures are, and if running around at fast pace blasting everything in site:D, you miss alot of the details anyway,

Well i do, perhaps my eyes arent as good as they used to be, or maybe a bigger monitor is in order.

I played Just Cause 2 for over 17hrs at 6000x1080p and never noticed those crappy sprite leaves in the trees. At least I don't remember noticing them, maybe I did, rolled my eyes then went back to enjoying the hell out of the game.

I'm all for huge leaps in tech but if the realism part doesn't start catching up things get weird. I think resident evil 5 is a perfect example. The game looks freaking awesome but when you can't just duck under a laser it kinda ruins things. Especially whenever you are a freaking super hero during cutscenes!

Glad too hear notch's take on it as well.
Elton 2nd August 2011, 20:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
I played Just Cause 2 for over 17hrs at 6000x1080p and never noticed those crappy sprite leaves in the trees. At least I don't remember noticing them, maybe I did, rolled my eyes then went back to enjoying the hell out of the game.

I'm all for huge leaps in tech but if the realism part doesn't start catching up things get weird. I think resident evil 5 is a perfect example. The game looks freaking awesome but when you can't just duck under a laser it kinda ruins things. Especially whenever you are a freaking super hero during cutscenes!

Glad too hear notch's take on it as well.

So much this! Sometimes things don't need to realistic, just well presented. I mean look at Morrowind, it's as realistic as...wait it's not even realisitic. But it's still incredibly immersive.
Sloth 2nd August 2011, 20:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
So much this! Sometimes things don't need to realistic, just well presented. I mean look at Morrowind, it's as realistic as...wait it's not even realisitic. But it's still incredibly immersive.
Played Killing Floor a couple nights ago, didn't notice the Unreal Engine 2 graphics at all. Got so wrapped up in the game that it just didn't matter.

The graphics are just the icing on the cake, you've got to have some icing to make it look finished and presentable, but no one's going to want to eat it if you spend all your time decorating and no time adding flavor.
kzinti1 2nd August 2011, 20:43 Quote
I've seen this before. I don't remember when, but I swear I've seen this concept before. About 5 years ago? I'm sure some of you with a clearer memory than mine has seen this as well.
Eiffie 2nd August 2011, 20:55 Quote
[QUOTE=Elton]
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
I played Just Cause 2 for over 17hrs at 6000x1080p and never noticed those crappy sprite leaves in the trees. At least I don't remember noticing them, maybe I did, rolled my eyes then went back to enjoying the hell out of the game.

I'm all for huge leaps in tech but if the realism part doesn't start catching up things get weird. I think resident evil 5 is a perfect example. The game looks freaking awesome but when you can't just duck under a laser it kinda ruins things. Especially whenever you are a freaking super hero during cutscenes!

Glad too hear notch's take on it as well.

How can you expect Chris to duck under those lasers when his huge manly muscles are in the way?! If anything it's making it more realistic! ;)
b5k 2nd August 2011, 21:12 Quote
*Search Internet for "Sparse Voxel Octrees"*
*Learn about "Sparse Voxel Octrees"*

Because the sooner you do this, the sooner you realise this "techdemo" is nothing special. Graphics of that type have been around for years, so have voxels. The test is applying them in a meaningful manner.

Voxel's PRIMARY FLAW: They are extremely difficult to animate smoothly
The model is designed in "static" form and as soon as you try to animate this model, its static form is no longer what it was. Arms get longer, skin stretches. With polygons this is not an issue, stretch them halfway across a map if you like, not a problem. How ever, since voxels are tiny little 3d pixels, as soon as you start animating a voxel model holes and tearing start to form where the voxels no longer fit flush.

Carmack talked for a while in his 2010 (i think) keynote speech @ Quakecon. He discussed the use of a sparse voxel octree to render static geometery. Terrain, buildings, etc, etc. It would allow "infinite" detail in the same way Megatexture allows infinite detail. It will stream the detail as needed from the harddisk.

During this same talk he also discussed the future of raytracing vs rasterization. His opinion is that one is not "better" than the other and for the best payoff between looks and performance hybrid systems should be considered.
feathers 2nd August 2011, 21:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Total disagreement. There is no reason a computer game needs 80's graphics in order to let you escape reality.

I was playing BC2 recently on an urban map and noticed the incredible level of detail in the town. I was running and hiding behind sheds, behind walls etc using tactics I would use in a real batttlefield arena. It felt all the more believable because of the graphical realism. If that is turned up even higher with future engines then the level of escapism can be even greater. Already we are starting to see incredible character animation and facial expressions in games like Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is escapism and just because it has good graphics doesn't mean it's somehow lacking immersiveness.

Do we criticise movies and say they are too real visually for us to engage fully? Bollocks. It's all down to the content and the presentation.

Did I say I speak for everyone, no, I speak for myself.
High detail graphics does not correlate to gameplay in my opinion, and no I am not with the "console generation and very low end PC users who claim great graphics = poor gameplay" crowd that you believe exists.

I put a game on its merits and draw my own conclusions, rather than jumping to conclusions.

Let's put it this way, if you are simulating something then you want the graphics to be as realistic as possible along with the physics. I don't think advancing graphical realism takes anything away from games. I'd love to see a horror game with hollywood level special effects just like I want to see photorealism in something like Battlefield. There is no line that needs to be drawn since as hardware advances, so we have the potential to create more cinematic game experiences.
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 21:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Let's put it this way, if you are simulating something then you want the graphics to be as realistic as possible along with the physics. I don't think advancing graphical realism takes anything away from games. I'd love to see a horror game with hollywood level special effects just like I want to see photorealism in something like Battlefield. There is no line that needs to be drawn since as hardware advances, so we have the potential to create more cinematic game experiences.

I wasn't putting the advancement of graphical potential down at all, I game more than regularly and have put 450+ hours into Bad Company 2 on the PC. I have been playing Battlefield games on the PC since 1942 and have loved seeing the games develop over time, I was recently on the Battlefield 3 Alpha for the full duration of it too (not the 1 weekend bunch) and seeing the Frostbite Engine in its next stage was pretty impressive (even though it was not at release quality).

I don't want to for one second to stop the progression of tech, especially gaming.
feathers 2nd August 2011, 22:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Let's put it this way, if you are simulating something then you want the graphics to be as realistic as possible along with the physics. I don't think advancing graphical realism takes anything away from games. I'd love to see a horror game with hollywood level special effects just like I want to see photorealism in something like Battlefield. There is no line that needs to be drawn since as hardware advances, so we have the potential to create more cinematic game experiences.

I wasn't putting the advancement of graphical potential down at all, I game more than regularly and have put 450+ hours into Bad Company 2 on the PC. I have been playing Battlefield games on the PC since 1942 and have loved seeing the games develop over time, I was recently on the Battlefield 3 Alpha for the full duration of it too (not the 1 weekend bunch) and seeing the Frostbite Engine in its next stage was pretty impressive (even though it was not at release quality).

I don't want to for one second to stop the progression of tech, especially gaming.

I have a lot of catching up to do then on BC2 because I haven't played it much this year. I completed the single player then online here and there. I do like it a lot when I play it though. I don't have enough hours on BC2 to qualify for the BF3 alpha.
chemo 2nd August 2011, 22:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Notch has spoken ;)

interesting ;)
Gigglebyte 2nd August 2011, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
I have a lot of catching up to do then on BC2 because I haven't played it much this year. I completed the single player then online here and there. I do like it a lot when I play it though. I don't have enough hours on BC2 to qualify for the BF3 alpha.

There will be an open beta in September for anyone and everyone to get their nose into the game, I look forward to seeing how it has progressed in the coming few weeks too
Roskoken 2nd August 2011, 22:52 Quote
Wonder how much theyre looking to sell this new wonder technology for. Sound like a bunch of get rich quick cowboys to be honest.
Spreadie 2nd August 2011, 23:10 Quote
Why don't they throw some realistic water effects and advanced lighting, and maybe wind. Tell you what, throw in some explosions and moving characters. Lets see how well they can pan and zoom around the map then.

Don't get me wrong, I'll welcome it if if can be incorporated into a game and still run on a medium/highend system. It just wasn't very convincing for me.
metarinka 2nd August 2011, 23:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Notch has spoken ;)

interesting ;)

the atomage demo uses polygons for the vehicle and voxel's for the terrain. There's no need for an engine to be all one or the other and I think the strengths and weaknesses would play right into the hands of each other. Most terrain and assets are static or non-deformable. They would probably benefit from voxel technology. It seems there might be programming gaps before it could be used for fluid character animation. The perfect example is those trees or other assets that could be instanced many times and are static. Same for most terrain or buildings. If voxel technology is so great than you could probably increase the level of detail a few times where you could use the voxels and increase your polygon budget on animated models.

I don't think the technology is a scam I think the strengths and weaknesses need to be understood. That being said the atomage techdemo had a very interesting artistic style and would be awesome using the larger voxels as is.
MrJay 2nd August 2011, 23:36 Quote
Imagine the damage models with this tech, throw grenade, bits of the ground go away...
metarinka 2nd August 2011, 23:50 Quote
Also I think notch is off base, he makes the point that it wouldn't be possible to do assets, assuming no compression, no instancing and that full resolution was maintained in the entire volume when in reality it's all about the spare voxel techniques. I think it would be quite possible for some procedural techniques to maintain high resolution with low total voxel count and end up at very reasonable file sizes
Yslen 3rd August 2011, 00:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
I think it's the console generation and very low end PC users who claim great graphics = poor gameplay. The battlefield series shows otherwise. I don't say a game must have cutting edge graphics to be good, what I do say is that I want cutting edge graphics and good gameplay. I still play some games with simple graphics but I don't want a diet of only low end graphic games. I also don't agree with the idea that games are "good enough" graphically. It's like saying we have 32nm CPU so we don't need anything faster now. It's small-minded and shows a lack of vision.

I've just been playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. : Call of Pripyat again. Awesome graphics? Check! Deep, involving gameplay? Check! Available on consoles? Erm... no!

I think you have a point...
dennis quaid 3rd August 2011, 01:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
What are your credentials? I mean you say it doesn't work and we should believe you why? I always question everything. I will believe UD when I see it in a modern game but I don't automatically dismiss it because you come along and say it doesn't work.

He did point out that voxels take up an inordinate amount of space. They really do. However, take Minecraft as an example - that is basically your average voxel world. I suspect a lot of "destructible environments" are already doing things with voxels to accomplish those goals. Having everything be a voxel at such incredible levels of detail is going to unnecessarily chug CPU/GPU. Basic physics haven't even been applied to their example world.

The other complaint here is that nothing moves. I'd like to see performance of each voxel moving around the world myself. I'll bet performance drops pretty quickly to unacceptable levels.
sheninat0r 3rd August 2011, 05:14 Quote
I'm gonna repost what I wrote in the hardware thread.

Notch was absolutely correct when he mentioned storage space requirements making this sort of thing for a real game impossible. Another showstopping problem with using point clouds/voxels in a game engine is animation. Notice that Euclideon has zero animation of any sort present in any of their demos; this is because animating point clouds is impossibly complex due to the need to calculate movement for every single point. With current polygon technologies, animation deforms a skeleton which is linked to vertices of the model and the rest of the model's movement is interpolated, which is a fairly fast operation. Consider that a model with 5,000 triangles could have at most 15,000 vertices; thus, animating that model would require calculating the movement of at most 15,000 objects.

Euclideon's technology would require doing that math for every single one of the millions, billions, or trillions of data points which have to move. Remember that then you would have to store each keyframe of animation data, easily increasing the storage space needed for an animated Infinite Detail model by another order of magnitude for each 10 keyframes required. The other alternative is to create groups of points, and then move whole groups at a time instead of individual points. Think one group for the head, one for the torso, upper arm, lower arm, etc. Too bad this style of animation looks terrible.

Dynamic lighting is another issue for this engine. In the demos, lighting is precalculated and then the light value of each point is stored along with its other data. Calculating lighting in real-time for every single point in a large scene (like a game world) is another processing challenge which is impossible to overcome. Again, it would require doing lighting operations on trillions of individual objects. Euclideon would have us playing a game world with zero dynamic lighting: no cast shadows, no flashlights, no explosions... and no immersion.

Their novel search algorithm may make it possible to efficiently generate scenes out of huge sparse voxel octree datasets and display them, but you can't call their engine a game engine. With infinite storage, we could store as much data as needed for highly detailed models and animations, and with infinite processing power we could calculate real-time lighting for their incredibly high detail voxel models, but we don't have infinite space or infinite power.

Please, don't waste your time on this stuff.
Elton 3rd August 2011, 06:28 Quote
Didn't plan to waste my time. The fact that there is no animation makes this a bit implausible. But if we can mesh this and make some solid environments, it's still useful.
rogerrabbits 3rd August 2011, 07:59 Quote
There could be solutions to all those issues tho. Compression for example could go a long way towards making the space problem less of an issue. And if truly real looking games needed to be big, then so be it. I have about a terrabyte more space than I need at the moment anyway.

Maybe it is all BS, although I can't see what they would stand to get out of doing that. They want to sell an engine by the looks of it, and a bunch of faked videos isn't going to work.
c0d1f1ed 3rd August 2011, 08:59 Quote
AVX2 might fix their hardware support issue, as it includes gather and FMA instructions -just like the GPU- while retaining the flexibility benefits of the CPU.
parallel379 3rd August 2011, 10:05 Quote
someone ask john carmack what he thinks
feathers 3rd August 2011, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigglebyte
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Notch has spoken ;)

interesting ;)

the atomage demo uses polygons for the vehicle and voxel's for the terrain. There's no need for an engine to be all one or the other and I think the strengths and weaknesses would play right into the hands of each other. Most terrain and assets are static or non-deformable. They would probably benefit from voxel technology. It seems there might be programming gaps before it could be used for fluid character animation. The perfect example is those trees or other assets that could be instanced many times and are static. Same for most terrain or buildings. If voxel technology is so great than you could probably increase the level of detail a few times where you could use the voxels and increase your polygon budget on animated models.

I don't think the technology is a scam I think the strengths and weaknesses need to be understood. That being said the atomage techdemo had a very interesting artistic style and would be awesome using the larger voxels as is.

Agree. It seems people are quick to call something a scam even without knowing how it works. They assume it's either fake or that the coders are idiots who don't know what they're doing. If people can't understand how something can work they dismiss it as improbable or fake. Quite illogical but that is how the masses are (largely dumb).

I on the other hand am super intelligent. I can't help it. Been this way from a young age. It's a burden actually and I have to act retarded in order to fit in with the rest of society.

I think the video is impressive. If the engine has more or less unlimited rendering then animation/deformation of objects shouldn't be too hard to imagine.
fata1_666 3rd August 2011, 13:39 Quote
Thats doesnt look all that impressive perhaps when a game is made with it and i can buy it i might be impressed.
Star*Dagger 3rd August 2011, 14:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PabloFunky
I tend to agree also.

If im immersed in a game, i tend not to notice how detailed a walls textures are, and if running around at fast pace blasting everything in site:D, you miss alot of the details anyway,

Well i do, perhaps my eyes arent as good as they used to be, or maybe a bigger monitor is in order.

This brings up an interesting point. Two things.

1) if someone is going to engage in a debate about graphics, they had better make sure their vision is 20/20, with correction. I knew a gamer who finally went to the eye doctor and came back to his computer and said "Its like a graphics upgrade", fortunately this was in RL so I punched him in the arm, hard.

2) If you do not have at least a 24 inch monitor, please stay out of the graphics threads, you simply can not see it on tiny 22 inch monitors. Quite frankly gaming on less than a 26 incher is inadequate.

3) If you want to understand why some of us have 2 graphics cards with 2 gpus each, go buy 3 26 inch monitors and join the rest of us in eyefinity glory, you will never go back to single monitor lameness

4) 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution for playing a game these days.

Yours in visual acuity Plasma,
Star*Dagger
SMIFFYDUDE 3rd August 2011, 19:27 Quote
Sounds like willy waving, Star*Dagger.

Voiceover sounded like an Australian Lloyd Grossman
Bloody_Pete 3rd August 2011, 20:17 Quote
I just want ground to look like ground...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
This brings up an interesting point. Two things.

1) if someone is going to engage in a debate about graphics, they had better make sure their vision is 20/20, with correction. I knew a gamer who finally went to the eye doctor and came back to his computer and said "Its like a graphics upgrade", fortunately this was in RL so I punched him in the arm, hard.

2) If you do not have at least a 24 inch monitor, please stay out of the graphics threads, you simply can not see it on tiny 22 inch monitors. Quite frankly gaming on less than a 26 incher is inadequate.

3) If you want to understand why some of us have 2 graphics cards with 2 gpus each, go buy 3 26 inch monitors and join the rest of us in eyefinity glory, you will never go back to single monitor lameness

4) 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution for playing a game these days.

Yours in visual acuity Plasma,
Star*Dagger

Thats 4 points, looks like you were too busy to count from your 'I haz uberrr gamer setup'...
rogerrabbits 4th August 2011, 04:03 Quote
I was playing Arma 2 tonight and realised that the ground and rocks in particular, look pretty much as good as this video :p I still think this would be way better though, if it's real. p.s. Lol at star daggers post.
badders 4th August 2011, 07:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Pete

Thats 4 points, looks like you were too busy to count from your 'I haz uberrr gamer setup'...

But he has 2 graphics cards, so it's really only 2 points each.
dhughes 4th August 2011, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

I've been musing over this for a long time, games that get close to looking like real life in some instances can really take your breath away but if they look too much like real life I don't think they will hold the majesty that they currently do, but that's my opinion and I don't t hink they are anywhere near that "real life" stage yet.

Going back to the engine itself, yes the ground looks amazing, yes the trees and the vines look great but every polygon created world they showcased look better to me and I was getting really annoyed with every example of how their technology was better was grass and stone, the same grass and stone.

Yes Polygons are limited but only by the technology and I suspect this technology will be as limited by texture bandwidth as current prefered technology, there is nothing in their showcase that indicates they have solved that little problem!!

I'd much rather a diverse, A.I. ridden, well-lit gameworld than some pretty rocks and trees (although did anyone else get annoyed with the square edged riverbanks and steps into higher terrain, that looks worse than any badly tesselated terrain to me, but that's me :)
misterbuggerlugs 4th August 2011, 11:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
douglatins
So it is Voxels then. First thing I thought when I read this. Why aren't they calling them voxels?

Remember Delta-force 1 and 2, Were they not done in voxels? I thought the issue with that was you couldn't run them in hardware? So surely you'd need a bespoke graphics card to draw them in hardware realtime???
dhughes 4th August 2011, 12:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

I've been musing over this for a long time, games that get close to looking like real life in some instances can really take your breath away but if they look too much like real life I don't think they will hold the majesty that they currently do, but that's my opinion and I don't t hink they are anywhere near that "real life" stage yet.

Going back to the engine itself, yes the ground looks amazing, yes the trees and the vines look great but every polygon created world they showcased look better to me and I was getting really annoyed with every example of how their technology was better was grass and stone, the same grass and stone.

Yes Polygons are limited but only by the technology and I suspect this technology will be as limited by texture bandwidth as current prefered technology, there is nothing in their showcase that indicates they have solved that little problem!!

I'd much rather a diverse, A.I. ridden, well-lit gameworld than some pretty rocks and trees (although did anyone else get annoyed with the square edged riverbanks and steps into higher terrain, that looks worse than any badly tesselated terrain to me, but that's me :)
feathers 4th August 2011, 13:07 Quote
Interesting, so it seems that many of you have a fear of games looking "too real". How odd. Perhaps DICE are totally misguided in their attempts to create more visual realism in their battlefield series? Perhaps they should make the game with isometric perspective and sprite animation?

I can think of nothing better than walking around an alien world modelled down to the smallest detail. I'm reminded of the incredible worlds of the Myst series (especially myst V).

I dont want to see trees that look like angled tubes with textures stuck on. I want as much visual realism as possible in my game worlds. I want to see bugs and insects crawling over a blade of grass. How on earth can increased visual realism detract from a game FFS. It can make it more immersive and engaging.

I don't know but some of you are just plain weird.
Bloody_Pete 4th August 2011, 13:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Interesting, so it seems that many of you have a fear of games looking "too real". How odd. Perhaps DICE are totally misguided in their attempts to create more visual realism in their battlefield series? Perhaps they should make the game with isometric perspective and sprite animation?

Exactly. And some bits if that Frostbite 2 trailer looked real...
Star*Dagger 4th August 2011, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Pete
I just want ground to look like ground...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
This brings up an interesting point. Two things.

1) if someone is going to engage in a debate about graphics, they had better make sure their vision is 20/20, with correction. I knew a gamer who finally went to the eye doctor and came back to his computer and said "Its like a graphics upgrade", fortunately this was in RL so I punched him in the arm, hard.

2) If you do not have at least a 24 inch monitor, please stay out of the graphics threads, you simply can not see it on tiny 22 inch monitors. Quite frankly gaming on less than a 26 incher is inadequate.

3) If you want to understand why some of us have 2 graphics cards with 2 gpus each, go buy 3 26 inch monitors and join the rest of us in eyefinity glory, you will never go back to single monitor lameness

4) 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution for playing a game these days.

Yours in visual acuity Plasma,
Star*Dagger

Thats 4 points, looks like you were too busy to count from your 'I haz uberrr gamer setup'...


Just making sure you guys (and gals) are paying attention!

Carry on.
Star*Dagger 4th August 2011, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by badders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloody_Pete

Thats 4 points, looks like you were too busy to count from your 'I haz uberrr gamer setup'...

But he has 2 graphics cards, so it's really only 2 points each.

I like the way you think.

S*D
Fizzban 4th August 2011, 17:24 Quote
So there is a bit of an Uncanny Valley type feeling about realistic graphics for some people eh. How odd.

I agree not all games are suited to realistic graphics. Sometimes stylised graphics work better. But things like racing games and shooters look and feel better the more realistic they get.
Sloth 4th August 2011, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
So there is a bit of an Uncanny Valley type feeling about realistic graphics for some people eh. How odd.

I agree not all games are suited to realistic graphics. Sometimes stylised graphics work better. But things like racing games and shooters look and feel better the more realistic they get.
The thing that gets me, personally, is the growing dissonance between realistic looking worlds and characters and unrealistic elements and actions.

Mortal Kombat 9 is a perfect example of this. Something just feels really wrong about these very realistic looking characters getting their necks snapped and flesh ripped off with exposed bone, then continuing on with the fight like nothing happened. It's just not possible, there's huge amounts of realism and unrealism mixing together in a very unpleasant manner. Older games, or modern 2D fighters? No problem. They aren't real so unreal behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

It could be in any genre. The more realistic looking a racing game the more uncomfortable it feels when you crash straight into a wall and drive off like nothing happened. The more realistic an RPG the more confusing it is to jump 5ft. Advanced graphics put more pressure on the developer to properly utilize all of the tools at their disposal, they need to think about what visual style best fits their game rather than just what looks the most realistic.
thehippoz 4th August 2011, 19:14 Quote
anyone play with the grain effect on in mass effect 1.. on a crt?

it looked like you were in a movie, lcd the effect looks like ass.. same with crysis, try playing it on a crt sometime.. it's like your looking at real ground, leaves xD

still have a sony trinitron but it's stored.. just can't stand how much room a crt takes up anymore
Fizzban 4th August 2011, 19:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
The thing that gets me, personally, is the growing dissonance between realistic looking worlds and characters and unrealistic elements and actions.

Mortal Kombat 9 is a perfect example of this. Something just feels really wrong about these very realistic looking characters getting their necks snapped and flesh ripped off with exposed bone, then continuing on with the fight like nothing happened. It's just not possible, there's huge amounts of realism and unrealism mixing together in a very unpleasant manner. Older games, or modern 2D fighters? No problem. They aren't real so unreal behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

It could be in any genre. The more realistic looking a racing game the more uncomfortable it feels when you crash straight into a wall and drive off like nothing happened. The more realistic an RPG the more confusing it is to jump 5ft. Advanced graphics put more pressure on the developer to properly utilize all of the tools at their disposal, they need to think about what visual style best fits their game rather than just what looks the most realistic.

An interesting perspective. I hadn't looked at it that way, nor had I really noticed these things while gaming. To me games are still so far from realistic that it is not apparent, to me anyway.

I prefer in racing games that when I crash I can keep going, it continues the fun rather than punishes. Unless it is a game like Burnout, where crashes are actually fun, and even rewarded.

Mortal Kombat I think I agree on. Not so much because it is unbelievable, it always was. But more because that style of fighter is tired and boring these days. Putting fancy graphics on MK or SF just isn't enough. Games like Soul Caliber are far more rewarding to play. They remind me of what the old 2d fighters felt like back in the day when those things were fresh-in terms of fun. Plus the rpg elements of armour, weapons, character creation and long and difficult story modes just makes them so much deeper.

Like I said in my post and you then reinforced, some games are better with a certain style rather than pushing for realistic. The advances made in the rush for realistic graphics will mean we will end up with amazing looking games in the end though. And that can't be a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
anyone play with the grain effect on in mass effect 1.. on a crt?

it looked like you were in a movie, lcd the effect looks like ass.. same with crysis, try playing it on a crt sometime.. it's like your looking at real ground, leaves xD

still have a sony trinitron but it's stored.. just can't stand how much room a crt takes up anymore

Nope, don't own a crt any more. And you're right, the film-grain effect on lcd looks nasty. I turned that crap off pretty fast!
dhughes 6th August 2011, 01:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
Interesting, so it seems that many of you have a fear of games looking "too real". .....
I don't know but some of you are just plain weird.

I personally don't think anyone is misguided in the pursuit for realism but I wonder if when it actually get's "real" will it be as breath taking...

Let me explain my so called fear:

When I play beautiful computer games and then I look at something in real life, real life can often be less mesmerising. Less impactful as a game engine that is doing it's best to mimick real life.

What I possibly didn't explain is that if computer game engines get too life like they may loose that surreal majesty they have...

It's always nice being called weird but I guess that I have taken the time out to explain myself means you hit a cord. Ah well. Good luck with that.

I'll be wandering around Battlefield 3 gawping my face off getting shot at for not playing as I'm too distracted by how good it looks. ;)
stoff3r 6th August 2011, 17:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
This brings up an interesting point. Two things.


2) If you do not have at least a 24 inch monitor, please stay out of the graphics threads, you simply can not see it on tiny 22 inch monitors. Quite frankly gaming on less than a 26 incher is inadequate.
<WTH.
Problem with monitors these days is they have too big distance between dots. 0.2 was standard back in 2002 on smaller screens, it's gone downhill since and it's now OK to count the pixels with your bare eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

4) 1920x1200 is the minimum resolution for playing a game these days.
Yours in visual acuity Plasma,
Star*Dagger

Ok That's a point at least. No reason to buy anything else these days. I like having unity across most gamers resolution. Makes optimizing easier for developers.
parallel379 13th August 2011, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by parallel379
someone ask john carmack what he thinks

and now they have: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Carmack-Interview-GPU-Race-Intel-Graphics-Ray-Tracing-and-Voxels-Multi-Display-a-0
Vegan Man 15th August 2011, 17:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I want my games to look like computer games, not like real life. I think the difficulty is that something that looks almost but not quite 'real' is more disturbing (and disappointing) that something that is clearly made up.

Hello,
If memory severs I remember reading an article in a pc games mag a while back purporting that if graphics look too real, the brain will look for more faults. As the conscious minds know that the game is a game, thus not being real, but as the game looks so real, the visual cortex becomes confused, so although it looks real, it becomes unbelievable, thus the brain tries to look for a disparity.
Whilst this is going on inside the deep layers of the flesh the real you thinks the games is a load of pants, but actually it looks bob on. So if a game is made to look brill but not perfect then allegedly the visual cortex and the conscious mind will accept it as a game and not real life, supposedly increasing and improving the gaming experience, which of course is what it's all about.
So no you’re not in a minority, as this has been thought about by serious boffins. I personally however would like to see this so called unlimited graphics potential. Ever seen Better than life Red Drwwwaaddddfff? GAME ON!!!
I am up for total perfection in graphics.
Cheers
Vegan Man
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums