4 ms·

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=BFld4EBO2R

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/

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/