Is the "unlimited detail" engine viable? - Page 4

Originally Posted by GoTMaXPoWeR 

Forgive me if this sounds silly, but is there no possibility of combining the two and rendering close objects with point clouds and distant objects with polygons, or is the entire scene constrained to one rendering method?

Originally Posted by Roxborough 

I know this thread is now classed as "old", but I would just like to mention a few things about "unlimited detail" and my viewpoint on certain aspects of research.
All of the points mentioned in this thread are totally inaccurate, I've almost read through them all, got frustrated reading them. Euclideon as a company derrived their name from the mathmatical algorithm the "Euclidean". I'll leave anyone to google exactly what that means.
Basically, their algorithm allows each individual pixel on the screen to go in search for "data" so the value is just 1, for each pixel, instead of rendering everything that is in the background and foreground, it only renders each individual pixel. They're running one single core to process their "demo". Not even touching the graphics card, and that algorithm, is how they do it. It IS brand new technology in terms of how the algorithm is applied, it SHOULD take off, and anyone disputing it obviously doesn't get how they've done it or the implications of such an algorithm.
There's an interview with Bruce Dell on YouTube, it's 41 minutes long, explains EVERYTHING, I'll leave you to find that also, we're nerds here, we can find stuff on the internet. So, to the original poster, I'm sorry to say, all your efforts in disputing this, or explaining this, have just been totally negated. This is one of the major problems I have with OCN, people go to the extreme to prove their point, but the horrible thing is, you can look for ANYTHING on the internet, to back up your point, everything and anything can almost apply, if you look for it, generally, you can find it.
I have thousands of examples of this happening, I won't go through them all. I'll list a couple just to prove my point:
My Girlfriend does Fashion/Art at College (I'm just finishing university personally, so don't judge me at that level), she struggles finding things on google, has spent weeks and weeks looking (finding irrelevant information, but trying to apply it).... Within 5 minutes of me googling, I found everything relevant to her projects, just from knowing HOW TO GOOGLE, and obtaining the correct information.
My friend on Facebook wanted to know about where, how what and when to do her GRE (Graduate Readiness Examination), with one google search, I found everything, including an e-book of practice questions. She'd spent hours looking for this sort of information. I took 5 seconds and sent it to her, she was shocked.http://www.overclock.net/t/1083517/is-the-unlimited-detail-engine-viable/20
This is where it gets irritating, the fact it takes so little time, to receive so much information, how do you know what is relevant and what isn't? Regardless of how much you know as an individual? I never claim to know anything until I'm 100% satisfied with the information I have found. For example, there's no disputing pure mathematics, you can't, it exists without cognitive thought. Same applies here with what Bruce Dell is trying to explain. They know their claims are brash, they know they're hard to believe, and that is why there's so little information about them, they can't stand "haters", that will go to the same lengths as this thread, just to dispute all their hard work.
He's poured all his money, and his life into this, it has paid off with Government Grants, so who do these people think they are, disputing their work? They can't give up all information on how this works, or other companies will rip them off, it makes sense, does it not? I don't fully understand how they've done this, but applying algorithms to an individual pixel to produce a single value to reduce processing power is genius. I've done the maths for how much processing power it could take, I'll list a tiny amount of my findings:
Take the resolution 1080p which equates to: 2073600 pixels
Take the average calculations of a computer: Varies a lot, but it's way over 2073600 calculations, more like thousands of times more: 2 076 300 000
This essentially proves how this algorithm could work!