3 ms·

Yeah... these comments are kinda weird. Hate to say it but maybe they should go outside more lol, computer graphics always looked pretty bad at me, even the cli

Yeah... these comments are kinda weird. Hate to say it but maybe they should go outside more lol, computer graphics always looked pretty bad at me, even the clips in today's nvidia presentation looks really unnatural. That's not to take anything away from the technology and the massive advances it represents, just compared to reality it's still really far from fooling a human brain.

wiz21c 6y ago
interestingly many of us feel that there's a huge gap between the past and now. But how many of us can actually verbalize what will change in the rendering of pictures in, say 3 years. For example, I can clearly see that ray tracing produces better results. But it's a bit harder to tell how better it is, to find the words that describes how better it is. Of course, one can say that, for example, photon tracing is more physically accurate. But still, what words can we use to describe how real (or not real) a still image is ("more realistic" doesn't count :-))
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Game graphics look sterile, too clean, sharp, plasticky. The real world is messier with less clear separation between objects, things blend together more, subtle shadows, surfaces are less uniform, there is more clutter, dirt, wrinkles, details.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    In games and animations, everything is textured, but few things actually have a texture to them :)
  - nightski 6y ago
    Is that an artifact of the graphics capability? Or the art style? I think the two often get confused and many games are specifically designed for a sterile/clean look.
    - bonoboTP 6y ago
      Not sure. It's hard to analyze as it's more of a visceral impression. It could be in part the way natural environments tend to structure themselves over time, like how we throw our stuff around in natural ways. But also, the design often adapts to the capabilities. Games like GTA3 used to have thick fog just to hide the fact that they couldn't render stuff far away in time. You can say that's an artistic choice to give a smoggy big city atmosphere, but clearly it was a practical choice as well. Even today, game designers like to make things dark, blurry and rainy, so that the un-realism becomes less obvious.
Nursie 6y ago
To me the "marbles" RT demo looked amazingly real. The rest, not so much, sure.
- Retric 6y ago
  Just watched the RT demo video and the paintbrushes for example look amazingly bad. All surfaces look flat for a better word, most noticeable it’s sterile without dust. The steam blasts are terrible as they miss all the internal swirling you get from actual vapor. They cover most of this up by moving stuff around and adding clutter which tries to keep you from really focusing on anything. It’s basically using the same technique as hand drawn animation where as long as you realize what’s being represented you can automatically fill in missing details. However, this fails as soon as you focus on any one detail. Honestly, it’s not bad for what it is. I mean the physics engine was probably the worst part, but as a visual demo that’s fine.

wiz21c 6y ago

interestingly many of us feel that there's a huge gap between the past and now. But how many of us can actually verbalize what will change in the rendering of pictures in, say 3 years. For example, I can clearly see that ray tracing produces better results. But it's a bit harder to tell how better it is, to find the words that describes how better it is. Of course, one can say that, for example, photon tracing is more physically accurate. But still, what words can we use to describe how real (or not real) a still image is ("more realistic" doesn't count :-))

bonoboTP 6y ago
Game graphics look sterile, too clean, sharp, plasticky. The real world is messier with less clear separation between objects, things blend together more, subtle shadows, surfaces are less uniform, there is more clutter, dirt, wrinkles, details.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  In games and animations, everything is textured, but few things actually have a texture to them :)
- nightski 6y ago
  Is that an artifact of the graphics capability? Or the art style? I think the two often get confused and many games are specifically designed for a sterile/clean look.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Not sure. It's hard to analyze as it's more of a visceral impression. It could be in part the way natural environments tend to structure themselves over time, like how we throw our stuff around in natural ways. But also, the design often adapts to the capabilities. Games like GTA3 used to have thick fog just to hide the fact that they couldn't render stuff far away in time. You can say that's an artistic choice to give a smoggy big city atmosphere, but clearly it was a practical choice as well. Even today, game designers like to make things dark, blurry and rainy, so that the un-realism becomes less obvious.

Nursie 6y ago

To me the "marbles" RT demo looked amazingly real. The rest, not so much, sure.

Retric 6y ago
Just watched the RT demo video and the paintbrushes for example look amazingly bad. All surfaces look flat for a better word, most noticeable it’s sterile without dust. The steam blasts are terrible as they miss all the internal swirling you get from actual vapor. They cover most of this up by moving stuff around and adding clutter which tries to keep you from really focusing on anything. It’s basically using the same technique as hand drawn animation where as long as you realize what’s being represented you can automatically fill in missing details. However, this fails as soon as you focus on any one detail. Honestly, it’s not bad for what it is. I mean the physics engine was probably the worst part, but as a visual demo that’s fine.