Hacker News Reader

Why is the product considered worthless if it can't do animation yet? The demo clearly walked through examples of inanimate artifacts that are currently rendered as bitmaps on big polygons that could be greatly improved, today, by the technology in the demo. Backgrounds, cityscapes in the distance, the trunk of a tree, etc.

The argument that it's a scam if it can't render grass blowing in the wind is ridiculous.

View on HN

Because they are claiming an increase of detail by a factor of 100,000, while the demo barely showed anything close to a detail increase by a factor of 1.

Trees & rocks are often animated in modern games, so animation is important. Additionally there is no point using a heavy duty voxel engine to render background landscapes that no one will visit in the game, especially if it's going to take gobs of RAM & CPU time to do it.

Hardware tessellation can already greatly increase surface detail, is already available in modern hardware & has better looking demos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G9anRoYGko

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT_45RFFTx8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HWZKGZcKoA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com