-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Photorealistic textures
- Thread starter Triforce1
- Start date
Actually, this is a very good question, Triforce1 (although it has been asked a lot). I think that the general consensus is that it will be several years before we see the exact same quality, but I can tell you that we are getting very close. With the release of ATi's Radeon 9700, and nVIDIA's soon-to-be-released "NV30", programmers will have the ability to make a HUGE jump in realism (graphics-wise) for games.
As far as using high-resolution textures in games, that will only be able to happen when graphics cards get larger framebuffers (more RAM). If we're talking uncompressed Targa or PNG files, those puppies can get to several megabytes a piece.
I think the largest hurdle for graphics cards to overcome is real-time raytracing (especially with high polygon counts). Raytracing is the method that professional 3D software packages use to simulate reflections, refractions, shadows, caustics, and global illumination. This is a very intensive process, and even dedicated rendering computer have a difficult time accelerating it.
Hope this helps. 🙂
As far as using high-resolution textures in games, that will only be able to happen when graphics cards get larger framebuffers (more RAM). If we're talking uncompressed Targa or PNG files, those puppies can get to several megabytes a piece.
I think the largest hurdle for graphics cards to overcome is real-time raytracing (especially with high polygon counts). Raytracing is the method that professional 3D software packages use to simulate reflections, refractions, shadows, caustics, and global illumination. This is a very intensive process, and even dedicated rendering computer have a difficult time accelerating it.
Hope this helps. 🙂
When you said photorealistic textures, the first thing that popped up in my mind was Max Payne. The textures in that game do look pretty good, but the models that are attached to them look like $hit. It's kinda funny, i was looking through my Pc Accelerator magazine today (out in 1999), and they had pictures of MP before the new textures were in. Mann, did it look ugly. BUT, the funniest thing is that the models still look exactly the same as they do when the game was released 😛
For an example of what raytracing does, check out this link. The software that produced those images is called finalRender. I use finalRender at work and at school.
Even on my 2.53GHz P4 with 1GB of PC1066 RDRAM, one frame of a detailed animation takes anywhere from 7-25 minutes to render...
Even on my 2.53GHz P4 with 1GB of PC1066 RDRAM, one frame of a detailed animation takes anywhere from 7-25 minutes to render...
Thanks for the links. That info is humbling. It kind of makes the top of the line P4 look like a little biznitch. Looks like we have a long way to go to get major kick arse graphics. Also, max payne never impressed me. I bought it and beat it within a week and put it on the shelf. The graphics were not to impressive either.
littlegohan
Senior member
i dont think we will see photo realistic games in a couple of years
maybe 10, with photo realistic graphics first appearing on consoles (ps3 ?)
maybe 10, with photo realistic graphics first appearing on consoles (ps3 ?)
Consoles? 😛
PC hardware has always been more advanced than consoles. Besides, Sony's consoles aren't exactly renowned for their "photorealistic textures" if you know what I mean. Besides, consoles are more cost-oriented. No consumer is gonna pay $400 for a graphics card, let alone the rest of the console. I think that PC's will always be the bleeding edge platform for graphics.
Consoles currently have better graphics because the software is written to take full advantage.... when games are written for PCs, they are made to be playable on a 500mhz or slower cpu with a TNT2 or so. A console game is written to maximize the ues of the hardware, and that's why we see console games that look better. A console also has the advantage of only having to render a VERY low resolution for TVs.
apoppin
Lifer
Just a thought/question. Why don't we see TWO versions of the same game - the regular one and a SPECIAL one optimized for really high-end systems - it could come at a price premium and come out later after the game really sells well.
I imagine if the engine were tweaked for high-end systems, it should be much easier to adapt games using that engine.
Imagine if the Doom III engine were optimized for the R300/NV30. Everyone who had these videocards would buy games using that engine.
I imagine if the engine were tweaked for high-end systems, it should be much easier to adapt games using that engine.
Imagine if the Doom III engine were optimized for the R300/NV30. Everyone who had these videocards would buy games using that engine.
The highlighted bit is the only part of your post that is particularly true. Not only the low resolution, but the very forgiving nature of TV. I do InteractiveTV development on specialized consoles and I can tell you that a highly compressed jpeg that looks blocky as all hell and almost unrecognizeable on a monitor looks perfectly clear on even a high quality TV like a Wega.
You are correct that games are written to take full advantage of the console, but that has more to do with performance than graphics quality.
Aren't computer games already made to take advantage of high quality hardware? For example, if Doom 3 is made to take advantage of a DirectX 9 card and the features with it, it would work with older cards by simply not using features the older cards don't have.
At least, this is how I thought it was, correct me if I'm wrong.
At least, this is how I thought it was, correct me if I'm wrong.
apoppin
Lifer
The developers of DIII made it clear that it was not optimized to take full advantage of the 9700's features - it's a DX8.1 game. Developers aim at a "target platform" to optimize their engine with certain popular cards and less features and lower rez for older cards.
My question is: How practical is it for a developer to release a second Edition exclusively for the high-end cards?
For a mondo discussion especially involving Doom III, Check THIS out. 😀
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
