Could This Australian Company Revolutionise Video Game Visuals?

73 responses to “Could This Australian Company Revolutionise Video Game Visuals?”

1. 

   Trjn

   August 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm

   Reading the reddit thread about this, it looks like it’s a hoax.

   There were similar videos released a year ago on a different YouTube channel and a lot of the comments from people who seem to understand the technology basically translate to “it couldn’t work.”

   Reply
   1. 

      Mark Serrels

      August 2, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      Yeah, wasn’t sure – I thought maybe someone who knew more about things would be able to confirm.

      Reply
      1. 

         milali

         August 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm

         I hope its not a hoax… would be nice to see some innovation…

         Reply
   2. 

      mailed

      August 2, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      Hope it’s not a hoax. These guys were apparently given $2 million in government commercialisation grants this year.

      Reply
   3. 

      Mark

      August 2, 2011 at 3:15 pm

      Not a hoax and too bad that Trjn is the first comment.

      Its like reading that the NBN got hacked last week* 😛

      * which it didn’t ffs -_-

      Reply
      1. 

         Trjn

         August 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm

         I didn’t say it was a hoax, but that it looks like a hoax. There’s a big difference.

         Also, hoax was the wrong word. Unfeasible seems much more appropriate.

         Reply
   4. 

      Bob Maharg

      August 3, 2011 at 12:14 am

      I know from other developers who have been approached and from sources within the company that the tech is legit.
      What you saw there was using software rendering but they are working on making it work better on hardware rendering (as in so it will render directly on your video card which is faster).
      This is also an early previewing!!!!! This is about getting hype generated. The key part that this tech demo was showing off was “CHECK OUT OUR TRILLIONS OF POLYGONS”.
      Which even with the poor lighting in that test level is pretty huge.
      So before dismissing it as a hoax just remember its a mid stage demo, not a finished version

      Reply
2. 

   thyco

   August 2, 2011 at 1:18 pm

   with how far technology has come within the past 31 years, i dont think this is un attainable. in the space of 30 years we have gon from the likes of space invaders and asteriod to the likes of Cysis, hell look at the CGI in movies, we gone from the cgi in the 1989 batman movies to full on toy story in under 10 years.

   Reply
3. 

   Jphillips

   August 2, 2011 at 1:20 pm

   He is pretty obviously not Australian, he sounds like a constipated limy.

   I think its a hoax.

   Reply
   1. 

      MostStrange

      August 2, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      Dude. He’s Australian. I have many a friend who sounds like that. (I’m Aussie and I’m assuming you are too)

      For some reason, many comp. sci. students/grads sound like that… 🙂

      Reply
4. 

   Adam Ruch

   August 2, 2011 at 1:24 pm

   Worst. Voice-over. Ever.

   But yeah I have no idea if it’s real or not. I’ll just say that things that ‘are impossible’ are often possible.

   Reply
   1. 

      Kizaru

      August 2, 2011 at 6:01 pm

      +1

      That voice alone seemed to validate any notion that it might be a hoax.

      Reply
   2. 

      blahblah

      August 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm

      yeah – the guy’s accent is farout. sounds like a radio DJ, but perhaps that’s just his ‘presenter voice’ like we all have our ‘telephone voice’ or ‘business voice’.

      definitely aussie though – NSW/Qld?

      Reply
5. 

   Timothy

   August 2, 2011 at 1:24 pm

   It’s voxels, but advanced to the point where it doesn’t look blocky or blobby, which is where the real innovation is. In terms of storage and the core principle, you can view some similar stuff here: http://advsys.net/ken/voxlap/voxlap05.htm (By the guy who made the non-voxel Duke3D engine ‘build’)

   Reply
6. 

   ben

   August 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

   The problem as i understand it is how current GPU’s render graphics, they work by polygons/ vector data as described in the Vid then uses rasterisation to display a 3d model into 2d space. Is this new method a form of ray tracing or tessellation? Ill be interested to see what sort of equipment or power you will need to render these scenes or if it will be a software rendered method. Either way it looks pretty awesome.

   Reply
7. 

   Piat

   August 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

   i dunno about how fake or real it is, but the guy doing the reading sounds hilarious

   Reply
8. 

   mattroe

   August 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm

   I don’t really know much about the technology itself, but the video sure as hell seemed dodgy. Unprofessional in every possible way. That guy (aside from coming across as stupidly arrogant and having one of the most annoying voices known to mankind) just kept making excuse after excuse for why things didn’t look a certain way. Seemed less like a tech demo and more this guy desperately trying to make it seem legit.

   Reply
9. 

   James Maguire

   August 2, 2011 at 1:27 pm

   It would be really cool if this was possible but I’m with Trjn, looks like a hoax to me.

   Reply
10. 

    Ryan W

    August 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Hmm, interesting theory on where the medium’s visuals are heading.

    Honestly, I’m a bigger fan of clever and effective art and aesthetic design than absolute visual realism. That said, I’m sure this type of technological approach could be used to satisfy my desire for newer, more stylish iterations of the former.

    Reply
11. 

    doubleDizz

    August 2, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    Mark, get an interview. Face to face. I reckon you’ll be able to spot if its BS or not.

    Reply
    1. 

       doubleDizz

       August 2, 2011 at 1:42 pm

       There’s a lot of comments on the youtube vid asking how it would work with moving or animated objects/models.

       Curious to see what their answer on that one is.

       Reply
       1. 

          alinos

          August 2, 2011 at 3:23 pm

          yeah that could be different story again.

          Although i think people would be willing to settle with an awesome world, regardless of whether the monsters were still constrained by common polygons. Considering thats where most of them tend to disapear to

          I’m actually curious how much effort has to go into painting the world then.

          Because in my mind thats what they would be doing, painting the atoms as if they were a canvas since i assume traditional textures don’t work because they generally assume that they are a picture on a polygon surface

          Reply
    2. 

       elhombre

       August 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm

       +1

       Reply
12. 

    Jordaan

    August 2, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    I’d say I know more than most about rendering technology, but I’m hardly an expert. I’ve programmed shader and studied GPU architecture and underpinnings at QUT.

    Nothing stated in the video gives it away as being in any way fake or fraudulent.
    I can find no info on Bruce Roberts Dell, the CEO, however,
    that is definitely a Brisbane accent.

    In any case, assuming this is real, this is a game changer (pun intended). There is no hardware available to accelerate this, other than GPGPU, which is hardly a mature technology. So, all of the results there are going to have been done through software. The equivalent of trying to run Crysis without a dedicated graphics card.

    Also, given that all of this was essentially completed with flat shading, and the detail becomes obvious.

    Another, less obvious aspect, is that now that structures can have DENSITY as well as VOLUME, advanced rendering techniques such as refraction or Sub-surface-scattering might be accomplished much more reliably.

    Reply
    1. 

       Aaron Hamilton

       August 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm

       This guy is real. I’ve actually met him in RL, and this project is 100% true.

       Reply
13. 

    xWisp

    August 2, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    I love how he says ComPUter graphics.

    . . . *shudder*

    Reply
14. 

    Simon G

    August 2, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    This has been going on for over a year now, I don’t think it’s a hoax. Unfortunately all we have to go off of are these terrible videos, Serrels, you should try to get in contact with the company for an interview and see what they have to say.

    Either put the doubters at bay, or confirm that it is indeed a hoax. I remember id was looking at this kind of technology, as are others. It’s not that far off now, it makes sense to change from multiple 2D polygons to atoms once we have the technology for it. As he said, hospitals and the such already use this kind of technology.

    Reply
15. 

    Zingi

    August 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Mark! Michael McWhertor has totally stolen/butchered your article on Kotaku US and claimed it as his own! not cool!

    Reply
    1. 

       Dain Bramage

       August 2, 2011 at 2:34 pm

       I wonder what you think journalist actually do?

       Reply
       1. 

          Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong.

          August 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm

          Typically? Reference where they got articles or information from.

          Reply
16. 

    PsyKoMunKy

    August 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    The physics processing required to power so much “volume” would surely be out of reach for current tech?
    Besides isn’t this the same as the voxel tech used in Delta Force ages ago?
    Looks good if legit though – I’ve always thought that “assets” such as rocks, trees, buildings etc should be shared amongst developers to help reduce dev time and cost…

    Reply
17. 

    gigabatt

    August 2, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    this is a fairly old vid, and anyone in the industry can easily tell you it aint gonna happen.

    Reply
    1. 

       gigabatt

       August 2, 2011 at 1:52 pm

       i dont mean tech wise either, i mean noone in their right mind would model an elephant prop at half a million polys when they can drop it to about 10k and sculpt details in the normal map in a day.

       Reply
       1. 

          Puck

          August 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

          What do you mean? To make a normal map you have to model the high resolution elephant anyway – the normal map is generated from the difference between the high res model and the low res one. The high resolution model has to be made either way, which is a very quick thing to do with programs like zbrush or mudbox.

          Reply
          1. 

             gigabatt

             August 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm

             i mean, you make the 10k poly prop, sculpt it in zbrush or mudbox, export the MAP (not the high res model) and there you go. why would you ever model a 500,000 poly prop using polys for all the detail, it’s wasteful and a bitch if it needs to be rigged and animated as well.

             Reply
             1. 

                Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong.

                August 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm

                Not to mention that a lot of the time they don’t make the high end sculpts anyway. The use of a baked normal is considered a “next-gen” technique (read: this gen), but not all developers do it that way. For the majority of objects you can get a passable representation using an automated process, and if you only want to push certain details of models (see SC2 as an example) then it’s wasteful to make a full high-res model.

             2. 

                Puck

                August 2, 2011 at 3:35 pm

                I still don’t really know what you mean when you say “why would you ever model a 500,000 poly prop” when you can just use a normal map out of zbrush… When you sculpt it in zbrush, you’re making a high res model – it takes the same amount of time to make it and export a map as it would to make it and export the high res version – it’s the same process just a different button you press at the end. You have to spend the time to make the high resolution model either way don’t you?

                I don’t know if this system would ever be able to rig and animate the model though, all they’ve shown us is static scenes. In theory you could use the same techniques for rigging it and animating it as a poly mesh, with bones and weighted envelopes… if your computer doesn’t explode first.

             3. 

                Puck

                August 2, 2011 at 3:42 pm

                That was one of the first things I thought of – the cost of asset creation is already astronomical with all these pretty engines these days. If something like this happens in games (which it probably will eventually), imagine the fact that a lot of destructible entities could have internal detail as well, like bones and muscles inside monsters, and structural supports inside buildings.

             4. 

                Puck

                August 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm

                (that was meant to be in reply to “Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong”‘s comment above sorry)

18. 

    Andrew Burdusel

    August 2, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    This is strange to say the least.

    Maybe this company is just staying hush-hush to protect its intellectual property. It could just be waiting for the right time to bring this out and make some serious cash.

    It’s not unreasonable to think that a company could have thought of a new way of doing things that produces results not seen in video games before.

    Apparently the company got a $2 million dollar grant to develop this technology from the government. So they are obviously working on something.

    I think the reason so many people are calling it a hoax is that the only paper trail to CEO Bruce Roberts Dell on the Internet leads right back to this company. Weird.

    Reply
    1. 

       Patrick

       August 2, 2011 at 11:37 pm

       Thanks for saying this!!! Thats what I was thinking. They probably wont release it until they get a patent cleared, avoiding copy-cats

       Reply
19. 

    sagarat

    August 2, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Looks really interesting, and somewhat promising, but there are still unanswered questions:
    -Animations/moving backgrounds
    -Destructible environments/objects
    -Collision detection
    -Combining cloud data with polygons
    -Memory requirements
    -Performance on standard hardware

    They do little to answer any of these practicality questions, they just show nice looking rocks.

    Reply
    1. 

       DumbparameciuM

       August 2, 2011 at 2:07 pm

       Also:
       – Render times
       – Load times
       – Impact of dynamic lights
       etc etc.

       Frankly, it’s a big list of unanswereds. I guess we’ll see in “a couple of months” when the SDK is supposedly going to be released.

       To quote Futurama “Interesting if true”.

       Reply
    2. 

       Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong.

       August 2, 2011 at 2:17 pm

       This is exactly it. As weird as it sounds, the best solution may well be to combine the two current systems of rendering, although that would be a logistical nightmare, if possible at all.

       Reply
20. 

    Jacky

    August 2, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Don’t know much about graphics rendering and stuff…but I have done research into fractal systems (mainly for surface chemistry)…so I do know some basics on surface geometry…

    What I don’t get is…yes, you can populate a grid using points instead of polygons…but the process of joining the points still creates polygons….so the rendering process is still going to output polygons (which creates a surface) (points = 1D…surface = 2-D)

    Looking more what he claims, which is to make everything so small that the detail is infinite…thats basic fractalisation of points. we do it currently with animations. (e.g. water splashes or lava flows) so its not new….

    Reply
    1. 

       Marc

       August 3, 2011 at 12:12 am

       From reading their site, it seems that the core of the tech’s innovation is not so much in how the system creates what you see (making surfaces out of the points), but in how it ignores what you don’t see.

       It sounds like they are adopting algorithms and methodologies developed for high speed search logic (aka google and bing), to ignore every data point not needed to generate the current frame at the exact resolution you are using. In other words, no wasted processing power on detail that isn’t being displayed anyway.

       No idea how they do this given that for refractive lighting and object interaction you really do need the full object defined in the system. Maybe that’s why we are not seeing more complex lighting effects and moving objects in the demo yet.

       In theory the principle seems sound. Find a way to drastically increase the allocation efficiency of 3D processing resources, allowing far more detail in the remaining elements being displayed. The question is whether it is flexible enough for the real world demands of gaming today.

       Reply
21. 

    Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong.

    August 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    This technology is interesting, to say the least. What they’ve done is step away from rasterisation, which is how we currently convert the data of a 3d scene into a “2d” image that is displayed on your screen. Assuming this is real, what this does is a ray-trace, or what would probably be called a reverse ray-trace (as a ray-trace in current computer graphics they trace the rays and then “bake” them on to the model), whereby the main limiting factor is the number of pixels you are attempting to render. If I remember correctly, John Carmack stated a few years back that this kind of tech was the future, though I’m not sure whether that was on his blog, and I don’t have a source for that.

    Another point, based on my memory, is that this kind of technology has problems with “dynamic” objects. So, for instance, you could have a pre-set animation of someone running, but, if you tried to rag-doll them, it would just fail horrendously. Again though, that’s stuff that I think I’m remembering I’ve heard.

    In terms of tech, this is entirely possible, so far as my limited knowledge goes.

    I think there would also be problems related to shaders, lighting, and other things, which can be seen in that video.

    Reply
    1. 

       Puck

       August 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm

       In regards to dynamic objects – that does seem like it would be a problem. I imagine they would actually have to have a low resolution polygon version of the world running invisibly underneath the voxels, and use that to calculate dynamic interactions.

       I think the problems with shaders and lighting in that video is just the fact that it’s a new and incomplete engine, I can’t think of any natural limitations that would stop that stuff from working.

       Reply
       1. 

          Blaghman, patron saint of doing it wrong.

          August 2, 2011 at 4:26 pm

          I guess it comes in to question as to how they calculate the advanced stuff…

          Hmm, how can I phrase this…

          Okay, typically to make a shadow map, we get the light, cast “rays” based on the position of the light source (and resolution of the map etc.) and work out when something’s in the way, and then shade the areas that are blocked out (okay, that’s a terrible way of describing it, but I’m going to assume you know what I mean, as you seem quite knowledgeable), and I’m just curious as to how the shading parts would work for this stuff (I’ll assume that they’ll have written their own shadow system for it).

          Now that I think about it, I think I remember something about them being able to apply multiple shaders to each “atom” or whatever they’re calling them, which would allow for more complex attributes (specularity for instance).

          In terms of the rigging thing, I’ll admit, I don’t know why it would actually be impossible to have a dynamic object (other than the fact that you’d be dealing with the movements of millions of points dynamically which would be a complete bitch for hardware), I just remember back when I first saw this stuff an explanation for why it wouldn’t work, but it’s entirely possible that that would have changed by now.

          Also, in relation to what you said above, with destructible things having to have internals, I imagine that would be horrendous for whoever makes the stuff, although, I can imagine a future where someone has designed a procedural system for the handling of all that stuff(like spore but less bad, and I guess the generation would not be in real time). The only way we can keep up the current increase in graphical fidelity is through the use of procedural generation, otherwise everything just gets too expensive (in my opinion, anyway).

          Reply
22. 

    Jasmine

    August 2, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    It’s real, it’s not a hoax. Whether they can get the fps working at a decent rate is another question…

    Reply
23. 

    Jamie What?

    August 2, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    The best thing about that tech demo was the brilliant Loyd Grossman impression the V/O guy was doing.

    I kept wating on him asking “Who would live on an Island like this?”

    http://youtu.be/ISOFxEWDe3I for reference.

    Reply
24. 

    Mark

    August 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    Its not the hoax,

    From what I understand its just voxels but MUCH further developed.

    Reply
25. 

    Boo Goose

    August 2, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    IM going to use it to remake tetris.

    The most realistic Tetris ever.

    Reply
26. 

    Seegrey

    August 2, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    I don’t see a reason to call BS on them, especially given most of the arguments against it seem to be “But polys don’t work that way!”. I won’t say they arguements are wrong, since I’m about as advanced in 3d graphics as pacman, but they seem misdirected at the moment.

    I can’t see why what they claim can’t be done, and the video does look legit(though the voice.. oh my), but I’m wary of how you’ll be able to use it, with processing time, etc. I suppose it’ll be a model only method, with no physics in it for all the atoms, which should help but the second someone starts using it to program perfect water that’s all shot to death anyway.

    Again, what is with that accent? That’s not a brisbane accent. WHERE ARE YOU FROM?!

    Reply
27. 

    Ty

    August 2, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Mark, pleeeaaaaase try to get an interview with these guys.

    I’ve been expecting voxels performing with higher detail than polygons for years now, expected it to surface in the next 5-10 year range. This is looking like a foreshock in the inevitable industry shift.

    The video presenter’s correct in that we’re about to start seeing a lot of drag-and-drop pre-modelled objects appearing in games, similar to the conventional pre-rendered CGI market.

    Oh, and the presenter’s voice isn’t necessarily a fake accent (if it is, it’s sure as hell more consistent than I’m used to hearing), but he’s putting on his best “Radio Commentator” voice. That’s something that media identities do when they’re required to enunciate clearly for an audience that can’t take visual cues from lip and jaw movement.

    Reply
28. 

    Gizmaluke

    August 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    I wouldn’t be surprised if it was real. I don’t expect that the first games to use the tech would have the same quality graphics as we enjoy now. Just like we moved from great looking 2D sprites to crappy, blocky looking polygons years ago. If it becomes the way games are made the technology will evolve to maximise its potential and developers will become more practiced in it’s use.

    Even if it is real and is picked up, I don’t think it’s anything to be excited about in the short term. Longer term though, opens up a lot of possibilities.

    Reply
29. 

    Charles

    August 2, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Nah it’s Brisbane man, there’s some people that sound like that. Perhaps he has a British parent or something, but I know people that sound like this. Certainly an eccentric sounding voice…

    Reply
30. 

    Luke

    August 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    The thing that gets me is that why isn’t Nvidia or AMD ATI pursuing the technology and incorporating it into their own GPUs?

    Reply
    1. 

       Jiff

       August 2, 2011 at 7:14 pm

       http://youtu.be/lpfaFrazOn4

       Reply
31. 

    Tezz

    August 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    as he has already said, they denied interviews for a year, if you cant show more than 1 video a year claiming you can improve things 100, 000% i call BS

    Reply
32. 

    Outback Jim

    August 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Heres a guy that works there

    http://au.linkedin.com/in/sstevenson

    and his blog

    http://rantspace.net/u/redwyre

    and his myspace

    http://www.myspace.com/redwyre

    someone track him down, call him and say “hey is it real?”

    Reply
33. 

    Dark_Templar

    August 2, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    One of two things will happen:

    It will either be a hoax and Aussies will look like douchebags.

    Or, it will be real and we will be celebrated as the awesomeness we are.

    Or, thirdly, it is real but everybody calling bs forces them to nuke their backups and commit ritual suicide.

    Reply
34. 

    Emma

    August 2, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    A guy from my college, his brother is part of the development team so I can confirm that it isn’t a hoax, they’re being very restrictive with the information at the moment though and it’s not even completely finalised, but they have said that within a few short years with proper funding they can wrap up the whole thing. Again, I don’t know much but there was a huge discussion on my college forum about it and lots of development videos have been posted about it.

    http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4&feature=c​hannel_video_title

    Reply
35. 

    THXultra

    August 2, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    From prevoiuse knowledge of this tech, what they didnt show/tell us in this new video is how this engine only displays the pixels that are needed at that time. So instead of displaying geometry, it only displays actual pixels at the screens current resolution, so everything is calculated in the code before anything happens in actual 3D space. Cant explain it any better, but hopefully someone gets what Im saying.

    Reply
36. 

    Dave

    August 2, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    This is the fourth time I’ve seen a presentation from these guys. Its always the story “with proper funding, we could release this in a few months”.

    Obviously no large developer has picked them up, so, obviously is bullshit. =)

    Reply
    1. 

       Bob Maharg

       August 3, 2011 at 12:18 am

       The reason no developer has taken it up yet is because they currently havent got proper lighting and animation support.
       It’s still early stages as far as the tech is concerned. They will also have to address physics issues (as they cant use their trillion polygons for collision).
       Unless they fix that this could end up being a rendering plugin for other engines otherwise they have to spend all the money to develop actual game development tools.

       Reply
37. 

    Brett C

    August 2, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    My god I want to strangle the VO guy. It’s like he’s trying to make it a segment on Today Tonight.

    Reply
38. 

    Mentos

    August 2, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/j66px/unlimited_detail_circa_2003_not_much_has_changed/

    Found this up near the top on reddit, apparently this concept has been around for a while. The fact that in 8 years, its still not mainstream leads me to believe that this is either a hoax, or there’s some massive limitation they’ve forgotten to mention in the video that explains why we’ve never heard of it before.

    Reply
39. 

    Sam Timmins

    August 2, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    …..holy…FUCK!

    And people scoffed at The Matrix being even slightly realistic!

    Well here’s your realistic world!
    All we’re missing is the headplugs!

    Reply
40. 

    Dim

    August 2, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    From a dev’s perspective, the reason that this probably won’t or hasn’t caught on, is that polygons really are no longer an issue. We can already pretty much recreate a physical world, and in 99% of cases, actual realism is undesirable. Things such as animation, physics, postprocessing, and shaders are much more important. So basically the perspective is that this is a cool technology, but ultimately pretty worthless, as it will have little positive impact on visual fidelity (and more likely a negative one).

    Also the issues that others mentioned (i.e. no dynamic objects, shaders, etc.).

    Reply
    1. 

       Adam

       August 3, 2011 at 8:33 am

       pretty much this. But as an artist…kinda want… 😀

       Reply
41. 

    Shinkada

    August 2, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    Could people stop saying “They were given 2mil AUD” to defend it? You remember that higher-end games take 100mil USD+ to develop, right? That’s chump change in AAA gaming nowadays.

    I’m not saying it’s fake or not, I have no clue, but saying they were given a measely 2mil for R&D is not a good point.

    Reply
42. 

    Gunny

    August 3, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Please stop making idiots of yourselves by flippantly dismissing this voxel technology.

    If you “understand” that this is voxel-based, then you don’t understand it.

    Reply