http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8

Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in 
real time.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in
> real time.

yes.

while we're at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!

that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM

some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
geared at nextgen platforms.  If that is the future of games, I suspect
Hollywood better embrace the tech.  Why shoot yet another movie that can only be
watched from same old boring angles?

I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
some raytracing for reflections at least).

The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

Post a reply to this message

holy crap, the Square demo really is real-time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q9xhFpuIMX4

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
> >
> > Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days in
> > real time.
>
> yes.
>
> while we're at it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!
>
> that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.
>
> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM
>
> some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
> geared at nextgen platforms.  If that is the future of games, I suspect
> Hollywood better embrace the tech.  Why shoot yet another movie that can only be
> watched from same old boring angles?
>
> I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
> these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
> for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
> industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
> some raytracing for reflections at least).
>
> The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
> convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
> magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

Post a reply to this message

> while we're at it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h5mRRElXy-w#!
>
> that's sweet real raytracing on nvidia's kepler.

Doesn't look... completely right. Is that water deformation really 
volume-preserving? Because it doesn't appear to be. (That's the general 
problem with voxel-based methods, as opposed to particle-based. I don't 
know which this is.)

> and
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM
>
> some kind of Final Duty Fantasy that Square-Enix swears is a real-time demo
> geared at nextgen platforms.

That would explain the occasional glitches in frame-rate, the obvious CG 
look of the images, and a few other imperfections.

> If that is the future of games, I suspect Hollywood better embrace the tech.

I think they already did, about 20 years ago? :-P

> I also question what's the point of povray or Blender these days in the face of
> these kind of things.  Particularly in the case of raytracing (or pathtracing
> for that matter) I think it's clear that scanline-based techniques won the
> industry, be it Renderman (a scanline at its heart) or games (now with possibly
> some raytracing for reflections at least).
>
> The end?  No, the beginning of some exciting times ahead!  Now games have fully
> convincing human skin, HDR global illumination, DOF and motion blur, plus run at
> magnificent 1080+p at 60FPS.  The time of real-time CGs is upon us.

The time was when all a GPU could do is draw flat texture-mapped 
polygons really, really fast, with simple phong lighting. And, usually, 
pretty low polygon counts and poor texture resolution.

Seriously, look at this stuff:

http://www.unseen64.net/wp-content/gallery/half-life/barney1zu2.jpg

That's HalfLife, the game that won awards and accolades around the table 
for its ground-breaking graphics technology.

/Obviously/ an off-line renderer like POV-Ray can do far better. Even a 
scanline renderer like 3D Studio Max can do better. But what POV-Ray can 
do is render /curved surfaces/. Not to mention physically correct 
reflection and refraction (not texture mapping tricks), and full global 
illumination. (The stuff that's usually pre-computed in games like 
HalfLife. Press a button, watch a door open, and oh look, the light map 
no longer matches the geometry...)

In the POV-Ray forum, a perennial question was "why doesn't POV-Ray use 
the GPU to do this stuff faster?" To which the answer was always 
"POV-Ray does stuff that the GPU is simply incapable of doing". Games 
like HalfLife used all sorts of convoluted tricks to fake something that 
looked vaguely realistic, while POV-Ray actually /directly/ simulates 
the actual physical effects, achieving photo-realism without tricks or 
workarounds.

Fast-forward 15 years or so, and things have changed. GPGPU is here. And 
now, we find that the GPU can actually do all the effects that POV-Ray 
does AND MORE, and it can do it in real-time or near real-time.

In the old days, it was scanline for speed, ray-tracing for realism. 
Today "unbiased rendering" seems to be the new ray-tracing. And to get 
that kind of quality in POV-Ray, you seen to have to work really hard 
for it. You need complicated photon maps, clever material design, and 
ultimately endless tweaking of radiosity settings.

Or you could just fire up an unbiased renderer running on the GPU, which 
directly simulates /everything/, without effort and faster than POV-Ray.

Le roi est mort, vive le roi!

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 04:47 AM, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.

I wonder if we'll ever see this in games in my own lifetime.

I have no idea how many GPUs it took to do that. I'm guessing it was 
expensive though...

Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that?? 
It looks really slick...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 04:47 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
> >
> > Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> > in real time.

> I wonder if we'll ever see this in games in my own lifetime.

> I have no idea how many GPUs it took to do that. I'm guessing it was 
> expensive though...

> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that?? 
> It looks really slick...

  I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
on your own, just so that you could ask here?

  Fine, I'll do the googling for you, as you seem to be incapable:

http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
>> It looks really slick...
>
>    I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
> you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
> on your own, just so that you could ask here?

You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably 
recognise it on sight.

> http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/

Oh, right. So he's demonstrating the Unreal engine using the Unreal 
engine. I guess I should have seen that one coming...

So much for game development tools always being lame, eh?

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 1:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> You can't Google an image.

It is not your day ;-)

https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&authuser=0

click on the camera in the search bar


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2012 04:22 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 1:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> You can't Google an image.
>
> It is not your day ;-)
>
> https://www.google.co.uk/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi&authuser=0
>
> click on the camera in the search bar

I rephrase: It's generally not /useful/ to Google an image.

See attached. Not one single image of Unreal Editor.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'google1.jpg' (102 KB)

Preview of image 'google1.jpg'

On 6/9/2012 7:41 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
>>> It looks really slick...
>>
>> I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
>> you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
>> on your own, just so that you could ask here?
>
> You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably
> recognise it on sight.
>
>> http://www.unrealengine.com/features/editor/
>
> Oh, right. So he's demonstrating the Unreal engine using the Unreal
> engine. I guess I should have seen that one coming...
>
> So much for game development tools always being lame, eh?

I think it's a case of the developers not only having to use the tools 
themselves, but also having the time to work on the tools.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message