Also, try meshy and look at how many polygons or triangles you get from any of the model objects. Hundreds of thousands, when you retopologize still goes to the high tens of thousands.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47064884

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43944398

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42278741

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

I have to wonder at what level you want a truly accurate representation of all bridges so that anyone could see them. Bad actors can ruin a lot of cool stuff.

This all is well and good when you are just using for a pretty visualization, but it appears gaussians have the same weakness as point clouds processed with structure from motion, in that you need lots of camera angles to get quality surface reconstruction accuracy.

The collision detection problem is related heavily to having clean 3D as mentioned above. My company is doing development on computing collision on reality capture right now in a clean way and I would be interested in any thoughts you have. We are chunking collision on the dataset at a fixed distance from the player character (can’t go too fast in a vehicle or it will outpace the collision and fall thru the floor) and have a tunable LOD that influences collision resolution.

-No Collision/poor collision on NERFs and GS: to have a proper interactive world, you usually need accurate character collision so that your character or vehicle can move along the floor/ground (as opposed to falling thru it) run into walls, go through door frames, etc. NERFs suffer from the same issues as photogrammetry in that they need “structure from motion” (COLMAP or similar) to give them a mesh or 3-D output that can be meshed for collision to register off of. The mesh from reality capture is noisy, and is not simple geometry. Think millions of triangles from a laser scanner or camera for “flat” ground that a video game would use 100 triangles for.

-Scanning: there’s no scanner available that provides both good 3-D information and good photo realistic textures at a price people will want to pay. Scanning every square inch of playable space in even a modest sized house is a pain, and people will look behind the television, underneath the furniture and everywhere else that most of these scanning videos and demos never go. There are a lot of ugly angles that these videos omit where a player would go.

-Post Processing: of you scan your house or any other real space, you will have poor lighting unless you took the time to do your own custom lighting and color setup. That will all need to be corrected in post process so that you can dynamically light your environment. Lighting is one of the most next generation things that people associate with games and you will be fighting prebaked shadows throughout the entire house or area that you have scanned. You don’t get away from this with NERFs or gaussian splats, because those scenes also have prebaked lighting in them that is static.

Object Destruction and Physics: I Love the game teardown, and if you want to see what it’s like to actually bust up and destroy structures that have been physically scanned, there is a plug-in to import reality capture models directly into the game with a little bit of modding. That said, teardown is voxel based, and is one of the most advanced engines that has been built to do such a thing. I have seen nothing else capable of doing cool looking destruction of any object, scanned or 3D modeled, without a large studio effort and a ton of optimization.

I know the bill still has to go through the senate, but this is going to be a sore subject for a lot of American companies who use DJI equipment.

I guess that being a market leader means you will have a wide range of customers using your product

I know Tesla gets a lot of flak, but it’s batteries outperform most of the other cars that are listed.