I imagine there will be a lot of problems with animation, because voxels are hard to animate beyond simple Command&Conquer like turret rotation. Then again, many kind of animations, like water, skin and muscle deformation, are possible only with voxels, yet very expensive (realistic water simulation takes days to compute).
anyways even with infinite computational power you'll never be able to simulate the visuals of the physical world exactly like the physical world and people will still be able to tell a difference.
anyways even with infinite computational power you'll never be able to simulate the visuals of the physical world exactly like the physical world and people will still be able to tell a difference.
For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU3R0oQhkGE - you wont be able to tell the difference from photo. Although animating this will be painful, because all tissues have to be correctly simulated.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-08 18:34
>>2 Do not want realism. Do want huge cities so can play Morrowind like it was meant to be.
>>2 You don't need realistic water simulation in most forms of games. This isn't a ship sailing simulator or a water currents simulator, it's an RPG or action style game.
>>1 This engine doesn't do anything new, it is an interesting application of well known techniques. It should be quite feasible to take a free voxel engine like Minetest and modify it to perform the same way as this engine. Minetest already has its own procedural terrain generation so it shouldn't be hard to repurpose those algorithms to recreate the Voxel Quest terrain engine. Minetest doesn't have procedural building generation but that shouldn't be hard to accomplish. I'm sure there are free software procedural algorithms for buildings for Minecraft (though I haven't actually looked for one); even if there wasn't a free one, procedural buildings shouldn't be hard to write.
It has high voxel count (matching screen resolution) and pixel perfect correspondence, while minetest is optimized for smaller counts and with big cubes (indie shit at its best).
Also, I would love to game with effects like suffocation or vacuum implosion -- all require some particle-in-a-cell simulation (i.e. voxels).
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-09 2:03
>>14 That sounds like an app for quantum computing. I don't think that our current digital computers are able to simulate such a thing in 3D at interactive rates.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-09 2:07
>>13 Voxel Quest isn't the sort of game that's going to use voxels to simulate fluids (or dragon flames). I sincerely doubt that the rivers and ponds in Voxel Quest are going to do anything but look pretty. If you like that sort of thing, why don't you conjure up a proof of concept to show simulated 3D fluid dynamics at interactive rates.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-09 2:43
>>15 That isn't what quantum computing is about you fucking idiot.
>>17 Quantum computers can feasibly simulate quantum simulations interactively; digital computers won't be able to simulate quantum simulations interactively. A 3D simulation where individual particles (or voxels or atoms) interact with one another is not something that digital computers will do so efficiently as compared to quantum computer. This is the reason why destructible 3D environments are so limited in contemporary gaming - there's just too much information to simultaneously process using digital systems. Contemporary 3D games with destructible environments are quite limited in the sort of things that can be interacted with or destroyed.
As I understand in some cases they can reduce 2^n to 2^1, depending on the algorithm, if 2^n doesn't exceed the memory amount.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 5:11
>>26 All NP becomes P, according to the paper. The memory requirement is also polynomial. It is to an NDTM what our systems are to regular TMs exactly.
Name:
Anonymous2014-07-10 5:12
Simplicity makes voxels far superior to constructive solid geometry, which is very math involved when it comes to stuff like integration, raytacing and physics