Procedural Textures the Future of Games?

An anonymous reader writes "bit-tech has posted an interview, with the head of Allegorithmic, Sebastian DeGuy. In it DeGuy again makes the statement that his software (which was used to make the Roboblitz game released on Steam recently) will be used to make games 90% smaller than what they currently are. He comments on why his procedural texturing technique is an evolution of the infamous .kkreiger. demo and how procedural texturing compares to Carmack's 'megatexturing'. The article includes some pretty extraordinary pictures of scenes rendered with just a few bytes as opposed to the ridiculous sizes of modern games." From the article: "Despite some similarities, technique-wise, we are quite different in several ways. First, the inner technology (the maths) that we use is based on modern maths. We use 'Wavelets', instead of classic maths method of 'Fourier Transform', which was the mathematical technique used in the past by all the procedural texturing techniques (including .kkrieger). Our technique works on a new mathematical model that I developed whilst studying for my PhD."

Comments

Quality

[AKAImBatman]

One thing the article doesn't quite touch on is the fact that procedural texturing can produce superior quality. We currently use tricks like trilinear mipmapping and ansitropic filtering to produce the best quality out of a resampling of a static image. However, this doesn't remove the fact that the textures are still of a fixed size, and will break up or look wrong depending on how close you come to the texture.

Procedural textures don't suffer from this. If greater detail is needed, it can simply be calculated from the texturing formula. As a result, a woodgrain will continue to look like a woodgrain (to the limits of the resolution), no matter how close or far away you get. Raytraced scenery has used this advantage to good effect in the last few decades. If procedural texturing finally makes the jump to gaming, the results could be incredible.

Of course, there is a downside. Real-time procedural texturing is costly. So if the hardware isn't up to it, the advantages of the texturing will go unrealized. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the first generation merely generates static textures on load, then uses them as if they were bitmaps included with the game. Still, once the box is opened, the potential will be too tempting to ignore.

Re:Quality

[Chris Burke]

Of course, there is a downside. Real-time procedural texturing is costly. So if the hardware isn't up to it, the advantages of the texturing will go unrealized. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the first generation merely generates static textures on load, then uses them as if they were bitmaps included with the game. Still, once the box is opened, the potential will be too tempting to ignore.

Yeah, I bet it will be a while until they are generating the textures on the fly every frame. However, as an intermediate step one could imagine being able to easily generate a larger number of textures for varying levels of detail, rather than having to pre-determine what levels you're going to include on the disk.

"Elite" used this technique over 20 years ago

[Andy_R]

Way back in 1984, the game "Elite" used procedural techniques to generate it's galaxy maps, allowing 8 galaxies with 256 individally named and described stars to fit in a tiny fraction of it's 32k memory. A derivative of the fibonnaci sequence saved the BBC's 1Mhz processor having to do FFTs. The idea of using procedures to generate 3D graphics has been around since another BBC game, "The Sentinel", where 9999 levels of 3D landscape were generated at up to 1fps (if you were lucky!)

Sony has been hyping procedural texturing recently, the PS3's Cell architecture is supposedly ideal for doing this kind of thing.

Re:Creation issue

[RightSaidFred99]

The ironing is delicious. You do know that traditional textures are often created in, you guessed it, Photoshop? Ergo, his question is perfectly valid, and his point is more valid. Do you need to sit down and write code to do these procedural textures, or can ordinary tools be modified to create them.

Please try to keep up with the conversation before you mock someone else.

kai's power tools

[Speare]

This debate, traditionally painted textures versus mathematically derived textures, reminds me of the feeling I got when I would use any one of the (in)famous Kai's Power Tool suite.

These tools were image processing tools with (to be polite) quirky user interface concepts. The output was always interesting, but never what you really planned. Throughout the literature and documentation, there were sprinkled sentences straight from my Jr. High School art teacher, about "happy accidents" and "explore" and "try a few different things to see what's exciting." The interfaces didn't explain themselves, you had to fiddle with them, and in the process of fiddling, you might get some image output that was astounding, exciting, bizarre, cool, inspiring. The creators of KPT saw that as a good thing.

However, there's a big difference between opportunistic art and production art. The opportunist is the lady on the edge of town who boldly wields an acetyline torch and welds together scraps of iron to sell as mobiles or unique garden fairies or whatever happens to come up. The production artist is told to make a Chanel No 5 ad, which entails a certain palette, a certain wispy but crisp attention to lighting, an interplay of gravity and weightlessness, and above all, black garments on gaunt 30-something models. Things are constrained very tightly for the production artist, and they let that constraint drive their creativity.

KPT is great for opportunity artists, but not for production artists. Write down a concept on a Post-It, and just *try* to achieve that concept with their tools. You can't figure out what the third blobdot widget from the left is doing, so you try to get it to where it is somewhat close. Then you hope the fourth blobdot widget from the left doesn't fuck up any progress you've made when you touch it. You may find a thousand really cool accidents on the way, but you will never really achieve that concept you wrote down on the note paper beforehand.

This comes back to procedural textures.

• You can tweak and tune and adjust for hours, just trying for the perfect simulacrum of a chunk of oak woodgrain, trying to achieve the ultimate blend of four levels of grain periodicity through natural variations in density, allowing for convolutions that resemble knots and sawblade artifacts, all within a neat 16 parameters.
• Or you can snap a photograph of the boardroom table, use some morphing and blending tricks to make it tile if necessary, and be done.

Which approach do you think will still be in use when they make Final Fantasy XXXIV?

Re:isn't it slow?

[grammar fascist]

He'll probably just comment on how "cool" the compression rates are.

He'd be right, too. Procedural texturing is just another form of compression. The big difference is that in generating textures, you work directly in the compressed space rather than letting a machine compress the finished product, so you can get totally mad compression rates.

In other words, his intuition just spanked your geeky arrogance. ;)