so how long will it be...

Maybe it's just me being tired but I didn't think much of that. Don't get me wrong, its impressive but I have seen much better graphics in other CGI video's, just wondered why you picked this one to highlight amazing graphics :)

But yeah i agree, not long, i mean look at Crysis, clear example of how close we are getting to realism in games, not there yet obviously, but Crysis is a step in the right direction imo.
 
Nowhere near it. Do you realise how long it would take a single processor to render all that at that small resolution? 1 frame per 20 mins on an average processor.

All game engines and graphics are based on a flawed reality of false realtime lighting, physics etc.

Most modern games use Normal Mapping, which they create all the game models in full CG quality, render off the lighting maps and apply them onto a low poly model to give a quality effect. We are seeing higher detail models being released in modern games but nothing of CG like quality.

Games will always be as good as the hardware and I don't see the kind of hardware needed to run true realtime environments anytime soon. It takes a good supernode of computers to render CG films etc. But we'll never know. We're probably being held back so they can make their money on the low end first :rolleyes:
 
Dup said:
Nowhere near it. Do you realise how long it would take a single processor to render all that at that small resolution? 1 frame per 20 mins on an average processor.

All game engines and graphics are based on a flawed reality of false realtime lighting, physics etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a CPU has no where near the graphical performance of a GPU. Specialised hardware is always better than general purpose hardware. Not to mention the ludicrous amount of memory bandwidth (as well as the extra low latency) on a graphics card, the sort of bandwidth CPUs can only dream of (and only dream of actually being able to use).

Games do approximate everything, but then again, CG does that too. Its more accurate, yes, but far from real. If a renderfarm could render things using the same algorithms as the real world, then CG would look as real as the world really is, and of course, the closer you got to something, the more detail would be revealed.

Epic worked out how long before we get photorealistic graphics, given the existing pace of hardware. They worked out (3-4 years ago) that it would be 15-20 years before graphics were photorealistic. Thats quite scary. Imagine Prey, or Doom3 with graphics as realistic as a photograph.

BTW we use the term photorealistic to get around the whole 'the closer you get, the more detail is revealed' problem.
 
I think I did make a blooper and missed the point of it being like CG, and not being actual CG. I do hear what you say though.

I'm worried about when we get do this level of realism, because 12 months after we are used to this realism we will lose the whole wow factor in games as they're at their ultimate limit.

The next step would be inserting our full physical self into a game, Star Trek Holodeck stylee. Would add another notch on Star Treks bed post of Fiction-to-Reality breakthough ideas.
 
Dup said:
I'm worried about when we get do this level of realism, because 12 months after we are used to this realism we will lose the whole wow factor in games as they're at their ultimate limit.
Click to expand...

I really hope we lose the wow factor soon, once we stop comparing graphics between games, we can get back to what's important. Gameplay. Good graphics can help a game but cannot hold someones interest for very long IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom