DX12 Tech Demo by SquareEnix Witch Chapter 0 [Cry]

[3DVagabond]

From a technical point of view the demo looks very nice. The problem is that most gamers don't have very high end gfx cards and have low to medium gfx cards. Gaming studios produce games that basically the masses can play which means that their game has to run on a bog standard average gfx card. It will take a very long time for a medium to low gfx card to be capable of producing the results in this technical demo. I doubt we will see games with this level of detail in the next few years and only in tech demos.

I could be wrong though, maybe a studio will say f**k it and produce a Crysis 1 kind of game which REALLY pushes the limits of high end gfx cards.

That's why they have setting adjustments.

 

[alcoholbob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVX0OUO9ptU

Same woman as in the OP but without massive amount of blur and DOF.

That was run at 1080p on a single GTX 680 and obviously with much less detail levels and without the 8k textures of the new DX12 demo.

You can play Crysis 3 at 720P sure with a midrange system but it aint the same thing as running it at 4K.

 

[Final8ty]

That was run at 1080p on a single GTX 680 and obviously with much less detail levels and without the 8k textures of the new DX12 demo.

You can play Crysis 3 at 720P sure with a midrange system but it aint the same thing as running it at 4K.

It looked more detailed to me because it was not blurred to high heaven, the 8k textures are irrelevant if you cant see them due to the blur and the only reason why anyone one knows that 8 k textures were being used is because we were told so, or otherwise no one would of had a clue.

 

[Makaveli]

Got 4 Titan Xs to spare? (J/K) All that hair is costly. Give me bald/helmeted/plasticfantastic hair. Lol.

I do more realistic hair and characters, but it doesn't make or break a game.

lol true.

just give me laura croft tress FX hair and i'm happy with that for now.

 

[therealnickdanger]

the only reason why anyone one knows that 8 k textures were being used is because we were told so, or otherwise no one would of had a clue.

I don't buy that. You don't get that level of detail without some insane texture sizes.

 

[RussianSensation]

I could be wrong though, maybe a studio will say f**k it and produce a Crysis 1 kind of game which REALLY pushes the limits of high end gfx cards.

I hate to be a downer but I think we won't see that ever again. The development costs, the time it would take to make and the hardware cost required to run such a game today that produces a truly exponential leap in graphics like Crysis 1 brought over everything else in its time time would be enormous.

If it took 1 year to produce a small minute demo using 4 $1000 GPUs, the chances of any AAA developer doing a full blown videogame with such level of graphics today is close to nil. We will see that level of graphics and beyond in the next 5-10 years but I doubt it will happen in the next 1-2 years.

Crytek at the time was a 100% exclusive PC developer. In making a name for themselves, they made the most graphically impressive game of all time, across all platforms and it remained so for years to come. Today, I can't think of any major studio that can pull off a game of that size/scope because they ultimately target PS4/XB1. You'd almost need to kick-starter something like that. The thing with kickstarter projects like Star Citizen is that the more money is being added, the more the developer feels pressure to add more to the game and the game keeps getting 'delayed' to justify all that investment. There is a great risk that by the time the game is released, its engine will be 3-4 years old and what looked absolutely cutting edge in 2012 won't look that hot in 2016.

Quote below nicely highlights this point:

It runs on a powerful PC equipped with four GTX Titan X graphics cards. This tech demo, which took a year to produce, is considered to have the most advanced real-time graphics to date."

That was run at 1080p on a single GTX 680 and obviously with much less detail levels and without the 8k textures of the new DX12 demo.

You can play Crysis 3 at 720P sure with a midrange system but it aint the same thing as running it at 4K.

The diminishing returns (or YouTube compression) are kicking in I think. Even that 2012 demo was highly impressive. I can't think of any PC game today that looks that good. Looks like they've taken that demo to a whole new level with DX12 and faster GPU hardware. :thumbsup: If only PC games evolved that fast. I feel like PS4/XB1 will start holding us back from this level of graphics. It's going to be a while before the mainstream PC gamer has the power of Quad-Titan Xs SLI in a $300-400 range for AAA developers to justify this type of an investment. I think this is PS5 level of graphics or PC level of graphics in 2019+. I do love when a developer pushes for next gen graphics, even though it's just a demo. Shows us what the future holds

 

[Enigmoid]

I don't buy that. You don't get that level of detail without some insane texture sizes.

Texture size alone means nothing. Its the texture mapping and information density that is important.

For example, an 8K ground texture stretched over a large area could look like crap compared to a number of 4k textures over a small area. The amount of detail present in a large texture can easily be broken into a number of smaller textures - an 8k texture broken into 4 4k textures which are then 'painted' on the geometry in the same way the 8k texture was. What 8k textures does is reduce the number of individual textures that the game engine has to deal with.

A common way to accomplish this is to create a single texture - say 1024 x 1024 for a plant and devote different areas of this texture to the stem, the leaves, the flower, etc. mapping specific parts of the texture to specific parts of the geometry.

Good textures, detailed textures, well produced textures can often look better than arbitrarily large 4 or 8k textures.

 

[Final8ty]

I don't buy that. You don't get that level of detail without some insane texture sizes.

What detail, everything is blurred.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Good textures, detailed textures, well produced textures can often look better than arbitrarily large 4 or 8k textures.

Yes, that's why good, detailed 8K textures look so good.

What detail, everything is blurred.

You don't think her face was detailed? What standard of detail are you waiting for?

 

[Qwertilot]

Anyhow if you're looking at over the 'net its been mangled in all sorts of ways to get it to you and is being broadcast at a rather different resolution to intended etc etc

 

[Final8ty]

Yes, that's why good, detailed 8K textures look so good.



You don't think her face was detailed? What standard of detail are you waiting for?

It does not take 8k for that and again most of it was blurred and if it takes zooming in all the time to see any detail because 90% of the time everything is blurred too kingdom come then the method is flawed and i cant but help feel that the face was the only thing of any real detail as why blur everything so much, it looked good because of the lighting nothing else.

 

[therealnickdanger]

it looked good because of the lighting nothing else.

:eyeroll:

 

[Headfoot]

Some people could be handed a 20lb silver ingot and all they'd do is complain that it's not gold

 

[wilds]

I think that the closer we come to photorealism, the easier it is for it to enter 'Uncanny Valley'. So I don't see it as a bad thing if users see this demo and are not easily impressed.

 

[Fox5]

I think that the closer we come to photorealism, the easier it is for it to enter 'Uncanny Valley'. So I don't see it as a bad thing if users see this demo and are not easily impressed.

I'll be more excited about improvements in physical realism (physics based animation, clothes, fluids, hair, etc) than IQ at this point. I want a more realistic environment, not a very pretty static one.

 

[Makaveli]

I'll be more excited about improvements in physical realism (physics based animation, clothes, fluids, hair, etc) than IQ at this point. I want a more realistic environment, not a very pretty static one.

This^^^

 

[cytg111]

I'll be more excited about improvements in physical realism (physics based animation, clothes, fluids, hair, etc) than IQ at this point. I want a more realistic environment, not a very pretty static one.

Ill second that(ok third). I think it sums up my experience with DA:I, very pretty stills but bad immersion(subjective, i know, dont ambush me..).

 

[ThisIsChrisKim]

I think that the closer we come to photorealism, the easier it is for it to enter 'Uncanny Valley'. So I don't see it as a bad thing if users see this demo and are not easily impressed.

Watching this, I didn't feel like we're there yet. It still looks quite fake to me. That's me I guess.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I'll be more excited about improvements in physical realism (physics based animation, clothes, fluids, hair, etc) than IQ at this point. I want a more realistic environment, not a very pretty static one.

Anyone else remember Vigilante 8 on N64/PSX? It was the first game that I remember having destructible objects/buildings as well as deformable surfaces (mortars would make craters). Red Faction had SOME destructible landscapes, but I remember it being somewhat limited as well.

Aside from Minecraft... I'd like to be able to blow up more mountains.

 

[Erenhardt]

Anyone else remember Vigilante 8 on N64/PSX? It was the first game that I remember having destructible objects/buildings as well as deformable surfaces (mortars would make craters). Red Faction had SOME destructible landscapes, but I remember it being somewhat limited as well.

Aside from Minecraft... I'd like to be able to blow up more mountains.

Back in my days...

LOL... I have to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_Earth_(video_game)

You can play it in your browser here:
https://archive.org/details/msdos_Scorched_Earth_1991

 

[Oyeve]

Oh great, more tech demos from Square Enix...do they even make games anymore?

I know right? Seems like every FF game since 11 was a tech demo.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I am getting very excited about DX12. My biggest concern is that it seems like the rate of GPU performance advancement has tanked massively.

 

[JumBie]

Who really gives a crap about these tech demos? Tech demos from 2010 looked just like this, nothing really comes of it in the end. We aren't going to see any game use graphics like this in real time anywhere in the near future.

 

[stockwiz]

It does look like directx 12 will put my 2600K to good use.. seems like processors with hyperthreading get a nice boost with DX12.... no real reason to upgrade my rig built in 2011 for a few years yet.... (other than sheer boredom and wanting to tinker around with a hobby)

https://cms-images.idgesg.net/image...nce_simulated_cpus_updated-100575301-orig.png

 

[Adul]

I am surprised no one has caught on that they are using Direct-X 12 Multiadapter tech in that demo.

http://wccftech.com/directx-12-mult...-coherently-demo-shows-big-performance-gains/