3 ms·
But it's not down to polygons or details in the environment - the simple architecture still looks realistic with the addition of realistic lighting. In the ques
by ladon86 8y ago
But it's not down to polygons or details in the environment - the simple architecture still looks realistic with the addition of realistic lighting. In the quest for realism, modern games have so many details, dirt and grit everywhere [1]. Perhaps going forward artists can let the lighting do more work and still represent realistic clean environments. I loved this blocky room in Half Life 1 for the dramatic (prebaked) lighting: http://combineoverwiki.net/images/thumb/3/37/C2a4e_lobby.jpg/250px-C2a4e_lobby.jpg http://combineoverwiki.net/images/thumb/3/37/C2a4e_lobby.jpg...
[1] just look at Doom 2016: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20160513131806_1.jpg https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/20160...
- fwip 8y agoA whole lot of the benefit is the added "normal and roughness maps for added surface detail." If they hadn't done the hard work of basically retexturing every single surface, it wouldn't look half as good. Without depth, ray-tracing looks incredibly flat, like this: http://builder.openhmd.net/blender-hmd-viewport-temp/_images/light-ray_shadow-soft_size_3-samples_6-cube.jpg http://builder.openhmd.net/blender-hmd-viewport-temp/_images...
- a_f 8y agoI believe the origanal proof of concept didn't do the retexturing, and just focused on the lighting; it looks fantastic: http://brechpunkt.de/q2vkpt/ http://brechpunkt.de/q2vkpt/
- int_19h 8y agoHow hard would it be to automatically derive such maps from textures? After all, they are already drawn to visually imply that with shading, so wouldn't it be possible to e.g. train a model to extract that information, just as our eye does?