• 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.

Terminal technology

D

DanInPhilly

Member
We're accustomed to the constant improvement in technology. So PC gaming gets better every year. But I'm guessing there will come a time when it no longer needs to improve. This will happen IMO at 1920x1200 resolution (which will pretty much fill your field of vision) and 60 frames per second (cuz that's the refresh rate, IIRC). If a PC is fast enough to do *anything* with those specs, then we will never need anything faster. Right (?).

I just built my first PC, and would prefer to not upgrade a bit at a time, but rather go for the final setup in 2,3 years. (Then I'll buy Crysis)
 
Either we go to a new medium (holographic/3D displays) or we stick with whatever the terminal tech is and build lots of toolkits for it, bringing down the cost of development. I'd love to see the days of <10 person teams cranking out innovative games, but I don't see that happening. The nature of the industry is to push out new tech, so I don't really see any end in sight. Perhaps physical size will reach a limit at some point (it has to fit in a room), but actual pixels or DPI will likely increase. Why use a 30" monitor from a few feet away when you can use a 120" screen from 7 feet away?
 
What about 30" monitors at 2560x1600? Most of the games that I have I can play at 1920x1200 with pretty much everything maxed, but 2560x1600 is still difficult to achieve for the majority of people, with decent frames of course, in a lot of games. There will also be improved physics, lighting, environmental effects, and other things, aside from higher resolutions, that will tax our systems and require upgrades.

KT
 
And when those atoms are finally rendered and the hardware can do that with ease... someone will come out and propose subatomic particle simulation and then the hardware will be slow again.

My point is, no that will never happen, there is ALWAYS room for improvement, even at that resolution that will never happen because resolution is not the only thing that taxes a system.
 
Originally posted by: Piuc2020
And when those atoms are finally rendered and the hardware can do that with ease... someone will come out and propose subatomic particle simulation and then the hardware will be slow again.

My point is, no that will never happen, there is ALWAYS room for improvement, even at that resolution that will never happen because resolution is not the only thing that taxes a system.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of fancy stereo music systems in the 1970s and 80s. They started building super-tweeters that could produce sounds at higher frequencies than humans could hear. This lasted for a few months; even the stereo magazines that thrized on this b.s. had to admit that it was pointless.

When PC/component manufacturers try to convince us that resolutions we can't see are worth buying, then -- after a few months -- sanity will prevail and everyone will say "no, thanks."
 
There is a chance we could reach "terminal technology" at some point in the future, but your plan to build the "final setup" in 2-3 years is somewhat misguided. If you build a new system in 2-3 year, you will be lucky to play games coming out 2-3 years after that with decent performance and reasonable resolutions. The terminal technology you speak of is 100's if not 1000's of years in the future. There will always be new ways to advance until then, as others have pointed out.
 
When you have a computer in a pair of ultra light sun glasses - displaying images in similar fashion to virtual reality - with motion detection so you can use your entire body - playing a game that makes crysis on max settings look like duck hunt - 100 tb HD to store most of your games on - scratch resistant and with a nifty paint job, then you can start thinking "terminal technology".
 
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
What about 30" monitors at 2560x1600? Most of the games that I have I can play at 1920x1200 with pretty much everything maxed, but 2560x1600 is still difficult to achieve for the majority of people, with decent frames of course, in a lot of games. There will also be improved physics, lighting, environmental effects, and other things, aside from higher resolutions, that will tax our systems and require upgrades.
KT
Click to expand...

Agreed, so that requires about 80% more pixels than 1920x1200. So maybe 3,4 years to get there rather than 2,3 years. But that's still terminal technology. (And HIGHLY unlikely we'd need anything beyond that).


Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
When you have a computer in a pair of ultra light sun glasses - displaying images in similar fashion to virtual reality - with motion detection so you can use your entire body - playing a game that makes crysis on max settings look like duck hunt - 100 tb HD to store most of your games on - scratch resistant and with a nifty paint job, then you can start thinking "terminal technology".
Click to expand...

NOW you're talking. That would be great. But I'm guessing those glasses would still have a res of about 1920x1200 and a speed of 60 fps. So the bottleneck would the technology to output it thru the glasses. In the meantime, I still figure a CPU to do the job is about 2,3 years down the road.


 
I'm just curious how you decided that we would be there in 2 or 3 years? 2 or 3 years ago did you think that once we could run Far Cry at 1920x1200 at 60fps we would no longer need more power? I don't understand your logic. It's not like we've reached photorealism and accurate physics, so why stop now?
 
It's not just resolution - it's what you do with those pixels. We're not yet to the point of being able to render real-time images that are indistinguishable from real life. It's the same as the "supertweeters" of decades past that could go ridiculously high -- the technology didn't stop evolving, it just started moving in another direction.

I remember debates like this in regards to 1024x768 many many years ago, and then 1600x1200. Yes, there will eventually be diminishing returns on graphics technology improvements, but there is still a substantial difference between where we are now and where we will likely be in another two or three decades.
 
why should 1920x1200 be the max res?

My eyes can easily see a single pixel at this res. They should go back and make smaller displays with higher res, instead of constantly creating larger and larger screens with bigger pixel pitch
 
Yea, I was thinking about that too. When are we going to see 21" screens with 3000+ resolution. There's certainly a limit to that too before it's unnoticable, but I doubt it's 19x12. We're nowhere near the limits of physics though. Not until we get a space flight sim with 300+ ships where damage is determined by the holes you put in the hull and not some hit point cap. How cool would it be to bore a hole through a capital ship with torpedos and then fly through it? Or to watch a beam go clean through a ship and then watch as a secondary explosion from the reactor tears the ship appart from the inside out just like it would in real life... if there was giant space ships and similiarly giant beam weapons....
 
Originally posted by: DanInPhilly
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
What about 30" monitors at 2560x1600? Most of the games that I have I can play at 1920x1200 with pretty much everything maxed, but 2560x1600 is still difficult to achieve for the majority of people, with decent frames of course, in a lot of games. There will also be improved physics, lighting, environmental effects, and other things, aside from higher resolutions, that will tax our systems and require upgrades.
KT
Click to expand...

Agreed, so that requires about 80% more pixels than 1920x1200. So maybe 3,4 years to get there rather than 2,3 years. But that's still terminal technology. (And HIGHLY unlikely we'd need anything beyond that).


Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
When you have a computer in a pair of ultra light sun glasses - displaying images in similar fashion to virtual reality - with motion detection so you can use your entire body - playing a game that makes crysis on max settings look like duck hunt - 100 tb HD to store most of your games on - scratch resistant and with a nifty paint job, then you can start thinking "terminal technology".
Click to expand...

NOW you're talking. That would be great. But I'm guessing those glasses would still have a res of about 1920x1200 and a speed of 60 fps. So the bottleneck would the technology to output it thru the glasses. In the meantime, I still figure a CPU to do the job is about 2,3 years down the road.
Click to expand...


I remember buying a PC Format magazine years ago when the Pentium 233Mhz came out and they had a big article about it being the first CRASH proof processor. They were going on and on about are these "Insane" speeds really needed and when would it stop.

Point is that you can never predict where technology will go and what leaps and bounds it will take. In 20/30 years I bet people will still be complaining about only being able to get 30 frames a second in some new game.

Thinking we are only 2 / 3 years away from perfecting terminal technology is deluded.
 
I was going to chime in and say that 1920x1200 is a bit small for me, I definitely wish I had more screen real estate.

Since we're obviously not at the full photorealism stage yet, there'll be plenty of room for improvement. And when conventional technology has reached the point where it can display photorealism on a 2D screen, it will be time for Star Trek style holographic technology.
 
i believe there are some medical use lcd displays coming out at the 4k range(4000+ pixels) at some way tiny dot pitches. for xray and mri.

1920x1080 or 1200 is a nice point since it makes HD semi compatible. even if they decided to max out at 2560x1600, thats still only at 8bit color depth.

if they ever get to High Dynamic Range color, the information load goes through the roof. (way more than any pixel count increase) image file sizes would jump exponentially which would put a strain on the video data bandwidth to the monitor. Not sure if displayport even has enough expansion room for that. So there will still be a demand for more graphical power even if people agree to some "practical" limit on resolutions.

I personally would like a 16:6 36" display for 3d CG work, a 360deg virtual stereoscopic headset with motion tracking for games, and probably some other aspect ratio for browsing. There are so many purposes for displays that it's unlikely one aspect ratio/resolution will ever be agreed upon by enough people.
 
well, if you look at gaming consoles, you'll see that generational improvements are incremental now. In probably another 2 generations, PS5 games will look photo-realistic, and innovation will probably be coming from the interface end of things.
 
One of the reasons consoles have been able to seemingly jump ahead so far in terms of graphics is due to the use of normal mapping. What you see on screen is actually a clever software trick using 2D maps and lighting calculations to make low poly models look like more detailed higher poly models. The hardware itself has a long way to go before it's actually able to push those numbers of triangles without software workarounds. Realistic fluids are also something that we haven't even begun to simulate yet, we're not even close to "terminal technology".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top