None of this is real.

[Krynj]

Simply stunning.

http://vimeo.com/7809605

 

[nublikescake]

Amazing. The foliage was truly outstanding.

 

[slayer202]

I want a video game that looks like that

 

[Krynj]

I want a video game that looks like that

Perhaps your grandchildren's grandchildren will get to see it. Video games harboring that level of photorealism are a very long ways away. Maybe not grandchildren's grandchildren, but, yeah. Current consoles, or even PC games aren't anywhere close to that kind of power. True photorealism makes Crysis look like pong.

And to see the break down of one of the shots:
http://vimeo.com/8200251

 

[Slick5150]

Perhaps your grandchildren's grandchildren will get to see it. Video games harboring that level of photorealism are a very long ways away. Maybe not grandchildren's grandchildren, but, yeah. Current consoles, or even PC games aren't anywhere close to that kind of power. True photorealism makes Crysis look like pong.

And to see the break down of one of the shots:
http://vimeo.com/8200251

Nonsense. Look how far graphics have come in the past 10 years. Give it another 10-15 and games will look like that video.

 

[Ichinisan]

Pretty sure I saw this (or parts, at least) a long time ago (> 1 year).

It's damn impressive.

 

[Ichinisan]

Nonsense. Look how far graphics have come in the past 10 years. Give it another 10-15 and games will look like that video.

I hate when 3D visuals are called "graphics." That only applies if you're talking about 2D artwork on a surface, such as a sign, car, or skateboard.

In the world of early video games, the term was applicable. For some reason, it stuck around after games became 3D (pre-rendered or real-time). Now, the video game generation thinks "graphics" is synonymous with "visual quality" or "realism."

 

[Krynj]

Nonsense. Look how far graphics have come in the past 10 years. Give it another 10-15 and games will look like that video.

Not a chance.

Cars 2 was rendered using 12,500 CPUs. It took an average of 11.5 hours to render a single frame (per CPU). Some frames took 80 hours. Take realistic lighting and shading. Throw in physics calculations. And you have something that you won't be playing on a console in 10-15 years. CGI is finally beginning to reach 100% photorealism, and it can take hundreds of hours to render even a single frame.

 

[TridenT]

Nonsense. Look how far graphics have come in the past 10 years. Give it another 10-15 and games will look like that video.

I really doubt we can advance that far now. It's not like the level of difficulty stays the same as we get further. It's like leveling your rogue in WoW: Level 1 is pretty fast and easy... but as soon as you get to level 50 you start seeing that it takes a lot longer... same for this shit.

 

[Krynj]

Yep. And with faster and more powerful CPUs that can render faster, render engines and lighting algorithms become exponentially more complex.

 

[nublikescake]

Not a chance.

Cars 2 was rendered using 12,500 CPUs. It took an average of 11.5 hours to render a single frame (per CPU). Some frames took 80 hours. Take realistic lighting and shading. Throw in physics calculations. And you have something that you won't be playing on a console in 10-15 years. CGI is finally beginning to reach 100% photorealism, and it can take hundreds of hours to render even a single frame.

While I understand both points of view, I wouldn't say "not a chance." What with quantum computing and all, you never know what's beyond the horizon.

 

[Krynj]

While I understand both points of view, I wouldn't say "not a chance." What with quantum computing and all, you never know what's beyond the horizon.

That's fair. I'll agree with that.

 

[mmntech]

This prompted me to watch some of the Mind's Eye shorts from the early 90s again. Amazing how far computer animation has come in the last 20 years.

 

[Slick5150]

Not a chance.

Cars 2 was rendered using 12,500 CPUs. It took an average of 11.5 hours to render a single frame (per CPU). Some frames took 80 hours. Take realistic lighting and shading. Throw in physics calculations. And you have something that you won't be playing on a console in 10-15 years. CGI is finally beginning to reach 100% photorealism, and it can take hundreds of hours to render even a single frame.

And it took that much power to render the original Toy Story 15 years ago.

 

[Slick5150]

This prompted me to watch some of the Mind's Eye shorts from the early 90s again. Amazing how far computer animation has come in the last 20 years.

I remember when this was released and being blown away by it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQveVMQDJlg&feature=related

Music's still catchy anyway.

 

[Krynj]

And it took that much power to render the original Toy Story 15 years ago.

That's what I'm saying. As CPUs get more powerful, rendering still takes as long, only it looks a lot better.

 

[nublikescake]

That's what I'm saying. As CPUs get more powerful, rendering still takes as long, only it looks a lot better.

You just proved Slick's point. If the same time is spent rendering something with much more powerful CPUs, then it follows logically from your statement that something much less complex will take much less time to render with the same set of CPUs. Therefore, 15 years down the road, when we have CPUs much more powerful than today's, we'll be able to render scenes like this in much less time than it takes today.

 

[QueBert]

The arcade game Mad Dog McCree's like what 15 years old? And it had actual video for graphics

 

[Ichinisan]

The arcade game Mad Dog McCree's like what 15 years old? And it had actual video for graphics

Horrible video, yes.

 

[Krynj]

You just proved Slick's point. If the same time is spent rendering something with much more powerful CPUs, then it follows logically from your statement that something much less complex will take much less time to render with the same set of CPUs. Therefore, 15 years down the road, when we have CPUs much more powerful than today's, we'll be able to render scenes like this in much less time than it takes today.

All I'm trying to say is the level of photorealism seen in that video is wildly difficult to accomplish, and it takes tons of CPU horsepower. I'll retract my statement that video games will never reach that level of realism, as they very well could. But will $300 consoles 10-15 years from now be able to reach that level of realism? On-the-fly photorealistic rendering? Nope.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

15 years is a hell of a long time in the computer world, I have no doubts games will look just as good or even better than that by then

Go ahead and look at a game from 95... What did we have by then?

Quake 1:

Battlefield 3:

 

[nublikescake]

All I'm trying to say is the level of photorealism seen in that video is wildly difficult to accomplish, and it takes tons of CPU horsepower. I'll retract my statement that video games will never reach that level of realism, as they very well could. But will $300 consoles 10-15 years from now be able to reach that level of realism? On-the-fly photorealistic rendering? Nope.

Only time will tell.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

While I understand both points of view, I wouldn't say "not a chance." What with quantum computing and all, you never know what's beyond the horizon.

Quantum computing is the cold fusion of computer science. Maybe we'll have it some day, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

 

[TridenT]

Quantum computing is the cold fusion of computer science. Maybe we'll have it some day, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

lol this.

Every time people bring up quantum computing it is like my reaction to cold fusion.

 

[SSSnail]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."