>atoms
>point cloud data
<they're called voxels you pretentious twat
>>877003
>hologram room
>holotable like star wars
<holograms aren't volumetric, you dunce
<not that it's even holographic, single-viewer-per-channel location-dependent 2D video
<actually video projectors with people wearing head trackers and polarized glasses straight out of 1990s CrystalEyes CAVE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment
<misleading fake CGI promo footage of translucent glowing images sticking up above the screen and obstructing the environment
Nice culling algorithm, though! Have they tried this with some sort of raytracing/radiosity renderer so the materials don't have that typical "fluffy" voxel look?
>>877160
>>877191
>>877242
Using voxels directly is unbeatable for rigid frangible masses like stone, and amorphous volumes like clay, water, or steam. But much like >>877061 notes the different strengths and weaknesses of Gouraud shaded polygons with bitmapped surfaces, it's not an end-all-be-all.
A better approach is the one used by most 3D art software, where more abstract higher order mathematics (implicit solids, isosurfaces, Bézier hulls, NURBS, fractals, etc.) are the preferred format, and can be rendered directly using a truly global illumination system thanks to the nature of raytracing. This also makes it easier to mix different types of geometry, and animation of polygon or voxel content is eased by using higher math as an "intermediate" format to generate or interpolate between keyframes.
MP4 related is an old example of how such typical 3D art program stuff could be done in realtime even on early 2000s hardware (software, single core, no SIMD), detailed further here:
http://mpierce.pie2k.com/pages/108.php