5 ms·

Also, we've been able to generate pretty realistic images for quite some time now. For some expertly crafted ray-traced stills, it's nearly impossible to tell

Also, we've been able to generate pretty realistic images for quite some time now. For some expertly crafted ray-traced stills, it's nearly impossible to tell whether the picture was computer-generated. This looks pretty amazing, I'll give that, but you can still clearly see it's a computer game. A bit better than the last one maybe, but not "can't tell if rendered"-realistic.

pprotas 4y ago
Are you comparing 1 frame of a still that hasn't been rendered in real-time to a video game that is being dynamically rendered at at least (I hope) 30 frames per second? > you can still clearly see it's a computer game I'll give you that, but we are comparing this footage to footage of other video games from the past. Can you name a video game that looks more realistic than this? Maybe some of those realistic racing games I guess, but that is a different type of video game. My point is: currently, this is as close as we get to real-life, no? Sure, it can be better (and it probably will be in the future), but I'd say this ranks pretty high.
- riffraff 4y ago
  I think people are reacting to the tweet saying > almost can’t believe this is a video game Hyperbole is fine but it does tend to cause backlash.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    It's a video game, that is, it renders in real time on hardware costing a couple thousand dollars max. It's not trying to look impeccably realistic cinema level CGI, but it's damn impressive given the limitations of a video game, and of gaming hardware.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Is that really hyperbole considering the quality?
  - rcarr 4y ago
    I agree. I wouldn’t even say it’s backlash it’s just debugging out loud. HN users want to test how true a statement is because when you’re coding a program, any edge cases that prove your code wrong can literally break everything. I think that begins to rub off on how you perceive all kinds of propositional statements in other areas.
- shaded-enmity 4y ago
  Yeah, it's much, MUCH different to have those vistas unfold in front of your eyes at smooth 144 fps while you have control over the movement and everything compared to hyperanalizing 1 still frame or a sequence of frames with no real control.
- treis 4y ago
  All of these demos look way better than the one in the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_RW2ofkFY&ab_channel=GamingBolt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_RW2ofkFY&ab_channel=Gamin...
varjag 4y ago
It took me a whole few seconds to confirm it's a game. Mind you I've been to that place and I've rendered my first wire mesh in 1991.
- pmayrgundter 4y ago
  Love this perspective :)
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  My first thought was "ok, that's the reference video of real Amsterdam, now where is the video from the game..."
skohan 4y ago
> you can still clearly see it's a computer game But I think it's quite amazing that we've gotten to the point where people in this thread are pointing out the details which betray that this is not photorealistic, in order to prove that point. Even a few years ago, we would have been pointing to the small details which do make it seem photorealistic, like volumetric lighting or well done reflections.
- joshspankit 4y ago
  I suspect that even in 50 years there will still be people pointing out their modern equivalent of inaccurate lighting and saying how it breaks the illusion. In my decades of watching technology, those voices have always said things with the same tone.

pprotas 4y ago

Are you comparing 1 frame of a still that hasn't been rendered in real-time to a video game that is being dynamically rendered at at least (I hope) 30 frames per second? > you can still clearly see it's a computer game I'll give you that, but we are comparing this footage to footage of other video games from the past. Can you name a video game that looks more realistic than this? Maybe some of those realistic racing games I guess, but that is a different type of video game. My point is: currently, this is as close as we get to real-life, no? Sure, it can be better (and it probably will be in the future), but I'd say this ranks pretty high.

riffraff 4y ago
I think people are reacting to the tweet saying > almost can’t believe this is a video game Hyperbole is fine but it does tend to cause backlash.
- nine_k 4y ago
  It's a video game, that is, it renders in real time on hardware costing a couple thousand dollars max. It's not trying to look impeccably realistic cinema level CGI, but it's damn impressive given the limitations of a video game, and of gaming hardware.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Is that really hyperbole considering the quality?
- rcarr 4y ago
  I agree. I wouldn’t even say it’s backlash it’s just debugging out loud. HN users want to test how true a statement is because when you’re coding a program, any edge cases that prove your code wrong can literally break everything. I think that begins to rub off on how you perceive all kinds of propositional statements in other areas.
shaded-enmity 4y ago
Yeah, it's much, MUCH different to have those vistas unfold in front of your eyes at smooth 144 fps while you have control over the movement and everything compared to hyperanalizing 1 still frame or a sequence of frames with no real control.
treis 4y ago
All of these demos look way better than the one in the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_RW2ofkFY&ab_channel=GamingBolt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi_RW2ofkFY&ab_channel=Gamin...

varjag 4y ago

It took me a whole few seconds to confirm it's a game. Mind you I've been to that place and I've rendered my first wire mesh in 1991.

pmayrgundter 4y ago
Love this perspective :)
someweirdperson 4y ago
My first thought was "ok, that's the reference video of real Amsterdam, now where is the video from the game..."

skohan 4y ago

> you can still clearly see it's a computer game But I think it's quite amazing that we've gotten to the point where people in this thread are pointing out the details which betray that this is not photorealistic, in order to prove that point. Even a few years ago, we would have been pointing to the small details which do make it seem photorealistic, like volumetric lighting or well done reflections.

joshspankit 4y ago
I suspect that even in 50 years there will still be people pointing out their modern equivalent of inaccurate lighting and saying how it breaks the illusion. In my decades of watching technology, those voices have always said things with the same tone.