3 ms·

The novelty in this paper is generating photorealistic textures and scenes without using any assets.

vanderZwan 3y ago
Could you define "assets", please? What would you consider the assets in these videos by Inigo Quillez, for example? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFld4EBO2RE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFld4EBO2RE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk EDIT: To be clear, I was not being flippant, I was assuming that there is some nuance to how "assets" is used here that I'm not aware of since I'm not a 3D artist which would make this work novel compared to the work in the demoscene. Beyond being a general purpose asset generator, which is indeed very impressive but not what is being argued here.
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  The emphasis is on photorealistic. What is being argued here? I don’t see where this turned into a competition. It’s a paper presenting a system of new algorithms that can generate geometry, textures and lighting with extreme photorealism. It seems to do that very well. It’s not a study of the procedural 3D graphics evolution, pretending to be an entirely new technique or the first to do it.
  - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
    It’s not photorealistic though. It’s not even close to a modern standard of realism. Compare to an indie game https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IK76q13Aqt0&pp=ygUIdW5yZWNvcmQ%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IK76q13Aqt0&pp=ygUIdW5yZWNvcmQ...
    - ricardobeat 3y ago
      You’re comparing it to what is probably the most realistic game since the PT Silent Hill demo came out, and heavily based on photogrammetry. The paper also focuses on natural textures, not built up environments, so it’s a pointless comparison in multiple ways. Again, not a contest. The paper is exploring new techniques for generating content. Why all the negativity?
      - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
        The negativity is because the claim is strong "Infinite *Photorealistic* Worlds Using Procedural Generation" while the approach is probably a dead end and does not improve performance in any of the relevant directions. No new ground is broken here in rendering techniques, nor in procedural generation, nor in actual content. AI is generating actually photorealistic content today, AI-adjacent techniques such as NERFs as well as traditional but sophisticated rendering like UE5 are the leading edge of rendering. If you're going to make a strong claim, you should deliver something.
        ricardobeat 3y ago
        Again, isn’t UE5’s foliage generator 1) using masks instead of geometry by default and 2) using quixel/megascan imagery? Doesn’t seem like a useful comparison. I honestly don’t know what you’re reacting to, what strong claims? “Infinite” is a given for procedural assets, and is highlighted in comparison to the existing partially asset-based generators (they go over existing software on page three), and the output certainly qualifies as photorealistic. There are no claims in the paper about being the first to do anything.
  - vanderZwan 3y ago
    It's not a competition, except it sort of is: claiming to be the first as well as acknowledging previous is serious business in academia, and in an indirect way also an indicator of how much people did their homework or how willing they are to play nice with others. So if they don't view the demoscene as relevant previous work to their paper then I want to understand why they think their work falls under a different kind of procgen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- userbinator 3y ago
  Inigo has a bunch of photorealistic scenes here too: https://iquilezles.org/demoscene/ https://iquilezles.org/demoscene/
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
The paper does not say that AFAICS "Ours is entirely procedural, relying on no external assets"
- revertmean 3y ago
  I'm not sure how you missed it, it's right there in the summary: "Infinigen is entirely procedural: every asset, from shape to texture, is generated from scratch via randomized mathematical rules, using no external source..."
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    "without using any assets" vs "relying on no external assets" but it's not my area so I may be misunderstanding.
    - revertmean 3y ago
      Ok, to clear it up: "Ours is entirely procedural" == ""Infinigen is entirely procedural" "relying on no external assets" == "every asset, from shape to texture, is generated from scratch via randomized mathematical rules, using no external source" If that doesn't make it make it clear, could you elaborate on the part that doesn't click and I'll try and explain further.
      - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
        Don't worry, I'm out of my depth and I know it, I shouldn't have put my oar in :)
  - vanderZwan 3y ago
    This is not a critique of what they achieved, but that is not an innovation over existing procgen techniques. Generating assets from maths is basically what the demoscene has been all about for decades. The sheer scale of what this does, how general it seems to be (instead of a single special-purpose animation like in the demoscene), as well as the fact that the output is structured and labeled assets I would consider novel, and very impressive.

Could you define "assets", please? What would you consider the assets in these videos by Inigo Quillez, for example? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFld4EBO2RE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFld4EBO2RE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--5LwHRhjk EDIT: To be clear, I was not being flippant, I was assuming that there is some nuance to how "assets" is used here that I'm not aware of since I'm not a 3D artist which would make this work novel compared to the work in the demoscene. Beyond being a general purpose asset generator, which is indeed very impressive but not what is being argued here.

ricardobeat 3y ago
The emphasis is on photorealistic. What is being argued here? I don’t see where this turned into a competition. It’s a paper presenting a system of new algorithms that can generate geometry, textures and lighting with extreme photorealism. It seems to do that very well. It’s not a study of the procedural 3D graphics evolution, pretending to be an entirely new technique or the first to do it.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  It’s not photorealistic though. It’s not even close to a modern standard of realism. Compare to an indie game https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IK76q13Aqt0&pp=ygUIdW5yZWNvcmQ%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IK76q13Aqt0&pp=ygUIdW5yZWNvcmQ...
  - ricardobeat 3y ago
    You’re comparing it to what is probably the most realistic game since the PT Silent Hill demo came out, and heavily based on photogrammetry. The paper also focuses on natural textures, not built up environments, so it’s a pointless comparison in multiple ways. Again, not a contest. The paper is exploring new techniques for generating content. Why all the negativity?
    - AbrahamParangi 3y ago
      The negativity is because the claim is strong "Infinite *Photorealistic* Worlds Using Procedural Generation" while the approach is probably a dead end and does not improve performance in any of the relevant directions. No new ground is broken here in rendering techniques, nor in procedural generation, nor in actual content. AI is generating actually photorealistic content today, AI-adjacent techniques such as NERFs as well as traditional but sophisticated rendering like UE5 are the leading edge of rendering. If you're going to make a strong claim, you should deliver something.
      - ricardobeat 3y ago
        Again, isn’t UE5’s foliage generator 1) using masks instead of geometry by default and 2) using quixel/megascan imagery? Doesn’t seem like a useful comparison. I honestly don’t know what you’re reacting to, what strong claims? “Infinite” is a given for procedural assets, and is highlighted in comparison to the existing partially asset-based generators (they go over existing software on page three), and the output certainly qualifies as photorealistic. There are no claims in the paper about being the first to do anything.
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  It's not a competition, except it sort of is: claiming to be the first as well as acknowledging previous is serious business in academia, and in an indirect way also an indicator of how much people did their homework or how willing they are to play nice with others. So if they don't view the demoscene as relevant previous work to their paper then I want to understand why they think their work falls under a different kind of procgen.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
userbinator 3y ago
Inigo has a bunch of photorealistic scenes here too: https://iquilezles.org/demoscene/ https://iquilezles.org/demoscene/

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

The paper does not say that AFAICS "Ours is entirely procedural, relying on no external assets"

revertmean 3y ago
I'm not sure how you missed it, it's right there in the summary: "Infinigen is entirely procedural: every asset, from shape to texture, is generated from scratch via randomized mathematical rules, using no external source..."
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  "without using any assets" vs "relying on no external assets" but it's not my area so I may be misunderstanding.
  - revertmean 3y ago
    Ok, to clear it up: "Ours is entirely procedural" == ""Infinigen is entirely procedural" "relying on no external assets" == "every asset, from shape to texture, is generated from scratch via randomized mathematical rules, using no external source" If that doesn't make it make it clear, could you elaborate on the part that doesn't click and I'll try and explain further.
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      Don't worry, I'm out of my depth and I know it, I shouldn't have put my oar in :)
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  This is not a critique of what they achieved, but that is not an innovation over existing procgen techniques. Generating assets from maths is basically what the demoscene has been all about for decades. The sheer scale of what this does, how general it seems to be (instead of a single special-purpose animation like in the demoscene), as well as the fact that the output is structured and labeled assets I would consider novel, and very impressive.