I just had to make an account for this . What Kiyoris is trying to say is that EverQuest Next doesn't use voxels to render the terrain. BUT the term ''voxel-based-games'', which is highly popular nowadays, refers to games which do use a voxel based system/algoritme to make terrain interactive by enabling creation and destruction of such. The terrain itself only uses this system to calculate it's shape/polygons.
In the short time the voxel based engines (positioning large colored pixels in 3d-space instead of using polygon 3d-models) were used it could achieve better looking terrain graphics because polygons were way more expensive to render for a cpu than points/pixels in 3d-space. However, just as the voxels were being discovered, the GPU got introduced. The GPU was specialized in doing the calculations for polygons. Voxel based rendering wouldn't stand a chance anymore.
Example of voxel based rendering(preferably viewed in chrome):
Yes. (Nearly) Just replace "pixel" with "value" and you are there.
Does EQ next represent/store it's world data using Voxels?
Yes.
Voxel's are a concept. You can use the same concept in many ways on different levels of abstraction. A Voxel gfx engine is not the same as a voxel world engine, but both ARE voxel based.
Not really a good argument, as parts of it are deeply flawed, particulary when you replace pixel with value without further definition, their not the same thing.
It also changes the answer used about EQN using voxels to No.
Voxels are not a concept, and the difference is really a matter of a gfx engine that simulates voxels, to one that actually uses them, one is voxel based, the other is polygon based.
I just had to make an account for this . What Kiyoris is trying to say is that EverQuest Next doesn't use voxels to render the terrain. BUT the term ''voxel-based-games'', which is highly popular nowadays, refers to games which do use a voxel based system/algoritme to make terrain interactive by enabling creation and destruction of such. The terrain itself only uses this system to calculate it's shape/polygons.
In the short time the voxel based engines (positioning large colored pixels in 3d-space instead of using polygon 3d-models) were used it could achieve better looking terrain graphics because polygons were way more expensive to render for a cpu than points/pixels in 3d-space. However, just as the voxels were being discovered, the GPU got introduced. The GPU was specialized in doing the calculations for polygons. Voxel based rendering wouldn't stand a chance anymore.
Example of voxel based rendering(preferably viewed in chrome):
In short: Both parties were right in their own ways!
But Kyloris is not right. Kyloris said in the original post EQN does not use voxels, EQN does not use a voxel engine, only Outcast uses voxels. All three statements are incorrect.
EQNext uses Voxel Farm Engine and the ForgeLight Engine.
So it is pretty much doing the same thing as the OP is saying Outcast did.
What is the OP's point again?
Yeh, I mean, I don't see anything in Klug's interview that says Voxel Farm renders voxels. EQN uses voxel farm engine, but Forgelight renders the mesh. Saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine" is false, but saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine to render" is true, but nothing does. Nothing can.
edit: at least not on the scale of a persistent world.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
Voxels are not a concept, and the difference is really a matter of a gfx engine that simulates voxels, to one that actually uses them, one is voxel based, the other is polygon based.
Please read the Wikipedea article before posting...
"A voxel represents a single sample, or data point, on a regularly spaced, three-dimensional grid"
You are talking gfx terms, which is just ONE use of this priciple.
What EQ is doing is representing the world data in voxels, then rendering them on screen using polygon based rendering. They are still using Voxels though, just not in the limited way YOU think of them.
Yep, i agree that those statements are false. I just wanted to mention what i thought he wanted to say/should've said. Eitherway i couldn't resist sharing the things i know :P
EQNext uses Voxel Farm Engine and the ForgeLight Engine.
So it is pretty much doing the same thing as the OP is saying Outcast did.
What is the OP's point again?
Yeh, I mean, I don't see anything in Klug's interview that says Voxel Farm renders voxels. EQN uses voxel farm engine, but Forgelight renders the mesh. Saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine" is false, but saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine to render" is true, but nothing does. Nothing can.
edit: at least not on the scale of a persistent world.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
But that is still Forgelight rendering. You don't actually "see" voxels in Forgelight. It's like the math behind the scenes. Maybe that's the misunderstanding Kyloris is arguing, but the argument was still not right because voxels in Outcast were rendered in whatever engine it used as well.
EQNext uses Voxel Farm Engine and the ForgeLight Engine.
So it is pretty much doing the same thing as the OP is saying Outcast did.
What is the OP's point again?
Yeh, I mean, I don't see anything in Klug's interview that says Voxel Farm renders voxels. EQN uses voxel farm engine, but Forgelight renders the mesh. Saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine" is false, but saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine to render" is true, but nothing does. Nothing can.
edit: at least not on the scale of a persistent world.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
But that is still Forgelight rendering. You don't actually "see" voxels in Forgelight. It's like the math behind the scenes. Maybe that's the misunderstanding Kyloris is arguing, but the argument was still not right because voxels in Outcast were rendered in whatever engine it used as well.
Oh yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm as confused as everyone regarding where the problem is however. I've always thought a voxel was a entity of information with coordinate points, which in Landmark can be manipulated, and would assume the rendering is indeed done after the fact... like all video game entities.
EQNext uses Voxel Farm Engine and the ForgeLight Engine.
So it is pretty much doing the same thing as the OP is saying Outcast did.
What is the OP's point again?
Yeh, I mean, I don't see anything in Klug's interview that says Voxel Farm renders voxels. EQN uses voxel farm engine, but Forgelight renders the mesh. Saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine" is false, but saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine to render" is true, but nothing does. Nothing can.
edit: at least not on the scale of a persistent world.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
But that is still Forgelight rendering. You don't actually "see" voxels in Forgelight. It's like the math behind the scenes. Maybe that's the misunderstanding Kyloris is arguing, but the argument was still not right because voxels in Outcast were rendered in whatever engine it used as well.
Oh yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm as confused as everyone regarding where the problem is however. I've always thought a voxel was a entity of information with coordinate points, which in Landmark can be manipulated, and would assume the rendering is indeed done after the fact... like all video game entities.
EQNext uses Voxel Farm Engine and the ForgeLight Engine.
So it is pretty much doing the same thing as the OP is saying Outcast did.
What is the OP's point again?
Yeh, I mean, I don't see anything in Klug's interview that says Voxel Farm renders voxels. EQN uses voxel farm engine, but Forgelight renders the mesh. Saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine" is false, but saying "EQN does not use a voxel engine to render" is true, but nothing does. Nothing can.
edit: at least not on the scale of a persistent world.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
But that is still Forgelight rendering. You don't actually "see" voxels in Forgelight. It's like the math behind the scenes. Maybe that's the misunderstanding Kyloris is arguing, but the argument was still not right because voxels in Outcast were rendered in whatever engine it used as well.
Oh yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm as confused as everyone regarding where the problem is however. I've always thought a voxel was a entity of information with coordinate points, which in Landmark can be manipulated, and would assume the rendering is indeed done after the fact... like all video game entities.
I think voxel is somewhat of a subcategory of a genre now. It's not really the definition of what the developers have created or it does, but what it is classified as. They could have named it Little Blocks or Movable Squares, but Voxel sounds cool and is easy to say! How about we VOte for a new name like BOxel.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Originally posted by Amjoco I think voxel is somewhat of a subcategory of a genre now. It's not really the definition of what the developers have created or it does, but what it is classified as. They could have named it Little Blocks or Movable Squares, but Voxel sounds cool and is easy to say! How about we VOte for a new name like BOxel.
Voxels don't need to be represented as cubes. It just makes it easier for us to wrap our minds around it. No one's named the "space between voxels" yet, though. How about "vether", "vaether", or "viasma".
I just had to make an account for this . What Kiyoris is trying to say is that EverQuest Next doesn't use voxels to render the terrain. BUT the term ''voxel-based-games'', which is highly popular nowadays, refers to games which do use a voxel based system/algoritme to make terrain interactive by enabling creation and destruction of such. The terrain itself only uses this system to calculate it's shape/polygons.
In the short time the voxel based engines (positioning large colored pixels in 3d-space instead of using polygon 3d-models) were used it could achieve better looking terrain graphics because polygons were way more expensive to render for a cpu than points/pixels in 3d-space. However, just as the voxels were being discovered, the GPU got introduced. The GPU was specialized in doing the calculations for polygons. Voxel based rendering wouldn't stand a chance anymore.
Example of voxel based rendering(preferably viewed in chrome):
In short: Both parties were right in their own ways!
But Kyloris is not right. Kyloris said in the original post EQN does not use voxels.
From what I can tell from that interview with Steve Klug, EQNext doesn't use voxels. He seems to store some asset data in a type of octree, but most people wouldn't consider that voxels. We don't consider octree culling voxels either, they just define a region. Voxes really are about rendering aspects.
To argue EQNext uses voxels would require a lot of maneuvers to change what voxels mean. We know EQNext doesn't render voxels, and I don't think anyone considers storing assets in a type of octree, "voxels", I've never heard anyone referring to storage of assets as voxels.
Storing data in a spacial octree is just storing data, "voxels" only come into play when you actually start rendering and EQNext just seems to use meshes.
The word voxel is a contraction of Volume and Pixel. It deals with rendering, not with storage. EQNext, as far as I can tell, renders meshes, not voxels. I don't feel EQNext has anything to do with voxels.
I just had to make an account for this . What Kiyoris is trying to say is that EverQuest Next doesn't use voxels to render the terrain. BUT the term ''voxel-based-games'', which is highly popular nowadays, refers to games which do use a voxel based system/algoritme to make terrain interactive by enabling creation and destruction of such. The terrain itself only uses this system to calculate it's shape/polygons.
In the short time the voxel based engines (positioning large colored pixels in 3d-space instead of using polygon 3d-models) were used it could achieve better looking terrain graphics because polygons were way more expensive to render for a cpu than points/pixels in 3d-space. However, just as the voxels were being discovered, the GPU got introduced. The GPU was specialized in doing the calculations for polygons. Voxel based rendering wouldn't stand a chance anymore.
Example of voxel based rendering(preferably viewed in chrome):
In short: Both parties were right in their own ways!
But Kyloris is not right. Kyloris said in the original post EQN does not use voxels.
From what I can tell from that interview with Steve Klug, EQNext doesn't use voxels. He seems to store some asset data in a type of octree, but most people wouldn't consider that voxels. We don't consider octree culling voxels either, they just define a region. Voxes really are about rendering aspects.
To argue EQNext uses voxels would require a lot of maneuvers to change what voxels mean. We know EQNext doesn't render voxels, and I don't think anyone considers storing assets in a type of octree, "voxels", I've never heard anyone referring to storage of assets as voxels.
Storing data in a spacial octree is just storing data, "voxels" only come into play when you actually start rendering and EQNext just seems to use meshes.
I just googled "voxel farm isn't voxels" for the fun of it.
I don't know how to answer your question, if there is one.
I still have some university books that explain voxels, but they all deal with rendering. There's only one text that seems to match what that EQNext developer refers to as voxel, a simple octree or quadtree type system that subdivides your assets, a sort of storage management system.
But it's a real stretch to argue that constitutes as a voxel engine.
I disagree. Claims like "EQNext uses voxels" are very rarely an attempt to engage in scientific discussion about how the game engine is build. Most people use voxels as synonym for game engine that allows players the freedom to completely modify, create and destroy any terrain in-game bit by bit.
In that context it's correct to say that EQNext uses voxels. Our language allows words to have that kind of dual-meanings and inaccuracies.
I still have some university books that explain voxels, but they all deal with rendering. There's only one text that seems to match what that EQNext developer refers to as voxel, a simple octree or quadtree type system that subdivides your assets, a sort of storage management system.
But it's a real stretch to argue that constitutes as a voxel engine.
Can you cite discussions by others with advanced understanding of this technical issue who share your understanding that "voxel farm" is not "voxels"? Not being a smart ass. I want to read an opinion from someone with verifiable credentials, not a pseudo-anonymous person from the internet.
edit: Because what you're saying basically is "these guys, who sell their proprietary software to technical giants in the field of video gaming like Sony and Electronic Arts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, don't know what they're talking about".
I still have some university books that explain voxels, but they all deal with rendering. There's only one text that seems to match what that EQNext developer refers to as voxel, a simple octree or quadtree type system that subdivides your assets, a sort of storage management system.
But it's a real stretch to argue that constitutes as a voxel engine.
Can you cite discussions by others with advanced understanding of this technical issue who share your understanding that "voxel farm" is not "voxels"? Not being a smart ass. I want to read an opinion from someone with verifiable credentials, not a pseudo-anonymous person from the internet.
I still have some university books that explain voxels, but they all deal with rendering. There's only one text that seems to match what that EQNext developer refers to as voxel, a simple octree or quadtree type system that subdivides your assets, a sort of storage management system.
But it's a real stretch to argue that constitutes as a voxel engine.
Can you cite discussions by others with advanced understanding of this technical issue who share your understanding that "voxel farm" is not "voxels"? Not being a smart ass. I want to read an opinion from someone with verifiable credentials, not a pseudo-anonymous person from the internet.
I don't know what a voxel farm is to be honest.
It's the proprietary software licensed to video game companies, specifically used in EQNext, which "does the voxel stuff".
Comments
I just had to make an account for this
. What Kiyoris is trying to say is that EverQuest Next doesn't use voxels to render the terrain. BUT the term ''voxel-based-games'', which is highly popular nowadays, refers to games which do use a voxel based system/algoritme to make terrain interactive by enabling creation and destruction of such. The terrain itself only uses this system to calculate it's shape/polygons.
In the short time the voxel based engines (positioning large colored pixels in 3d-space instead of using polygon 3d-models) were used it could achieve better looking terrain graphics because polygons were way more expensive to render for a cpu than points/pixels in 3d-space. However, just as the voxels were being discovered, the GPU got introduced. The GPU was specialized in doing the calculations for polygons. Voxel based rendering wouldn't stand a chance anymore.
Example of voxel based rendering(preferably viewed in chrome):
http://potree.org/demo/potree_2014.05.23/examples/weiss_lifeboat.html
In short: Both parties were right in their own ways!
Not really a good argument, as parts of it are deeply flawed, particulary when you replace pixel with value without further definition, their not the same thing.
It also changes the answer used about EQN using voxels to No.
Voxels are not a concept, and the difference is really a matter of a gfx engine that simulates voxels, to one that actually uses them, one is voxel based, the other is polygon based.
But Kyloris is not right. Kyloris said in the original post EQN does not use voxels, EQN does not use a voxel engine, only Outcast uses voxels. All three statements are incorrect.
In the beginning Landmark had an option to disable the blending mesh so you could see the terrain as singular blocks, voxels, MIDs (material information depository), or whatever is it we're arguing their called. Was pretty cool to see a mini Minecraft looking terrain.
Please read the Wikipedea article before posting...
"A voxel represents a single sample, or data point, on a regularly spaced, three-dimensional grid"
You are talking gfx terms, which is just ONE use of this priciple.
What EQ is doing is representing the world data in voxels, then rendering them on screen using polygon based rendering. They are still using Voxels though, just not in the limited way YOU think of them.
Yep, i agree that those statements are false. I just wanted to mention what i thought he wanted to say/should've said. Eitherway i couldn't resist sharing the things i know :P
edit: woops should've used the quote option
But that is still Forgelight rendering. You don't actually "see" voxels in Forgelight. It's like the math behind the scenes. Maybe that's the misunderstanding Kyloris is arguing, but the argument was still not right because voxels in Outcast were rendered in whatever engine it used as well.
Oh yeah that makes perfect sense. I'm as confused as everyone regarding where the problem is however. I've always thought a voxel was a entity of information with coordinate points, which in Landmark can be manipulated, and would assume the rendering is indeed done after the fact... like all video game entities.
Quite right.
As long as we're all using GPU's, yes.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Voxels don't need to be represented as cubes. It just makes it easier for us to wrap our minds around it. No one's named the "space between voxels" yet, though. How about "vether", "vaether", or "viasma".
From what I can tell from that interview with Steve Klug, EQNext doesn't use voxels. He seems to store some asset data in a type of octree, but most people wouldn't consider that voxels. We don't consider octree culling voxels either, they just define a region. Voxes really are about rendering aspects.
To argue EQNext uses voxels would require a lot of maneuvers to change what voxels mean. We know EQNext doesn't render voxels, and I don't think anyone considers storing assets in a type of octree, "voxels", I've never heard anyone referring to storage of assets as voxels.
Storing data in a spacial octree is just storing data, "voxels" only come into play when you actually start rendering and EQNext just seems to use meshes.
The word voxel is a contraction of Volume and Pixel. It deals with rendering, not with storage. EQNext, as far as I can tell, renders meshes, not voxels. I don't feel EQNext has anything to do with voxels.
I just googled "voxel farm isn't voxels" for the fun of it.
I don't know how to answer your question, if there is one.
I still have some university books that explain voxels, but they all deal with rendering. There's only one text that seems to match what that EQNext developer refers to as voxel, a simple octree or quadtree type system that subdivides your assets, a sort of storage management system.
But it's a real stretch to argue that constitutes as a voxel engine.
Not sure why you needed to defend the word Voxel, and how it is being used now to generalize current tech in terrain.
Seriously why does it matter if SOE calls this Voxel tech ?
Like complaining about the use of the word Air.
Lolipops !
I belive in the nerd !!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I disagree. Claims like "EQNext uses voxels" are very rarely an attempt to engage in scientific discussion about how the game engine is build. Most people use voxels as synonym for game engine that allows players the freedom to completely modify, create and destroy any terrain in-game bit by bit.
In that context it's correct to say that EQNext uses voxels. Our language allows words to have that kind of dual-meanings and inaccuracies.
Can you cite discussions by others with advanced understanding of this technical issue who share your understanding that "voxel farm" is not "voxels"? Not being a smart ass. I want to read an opinion from someone with verifiable credentials, not a pseudo-anonymous person from the internet.
edit: Because what you're saying basically is "these guys, who sell their proprietary software to technical giants in the field of video gaming like Sony and Electronic Arts for hundreds of thousands of dollars, don't know what they're talking about".
I don't know what a voxel farm is to be honest.
EQ NEXT USES VOXELS
EQ NEXT USES VOXELS
Sorry, it's an instinctual reaction whenever someone tells me not to do something.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
It's the proprietary software licensed to video game companies, specifically used in EQNext, which "does the voxel stuff".
Hi, developer of potree here!
These examples aren't actually voxels but point clouds. Voxels are volume elements in a grid, just like pixels but in 3d.
Point clouds are elements with arbitrary coordinates and not bound to a certain grid resolution.
Both can be rendered as rectangles or circles.