 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2015 03:52 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 22.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> Uh... Isn't Elite Dangerous just a thousand parsecs of EMPTY
>> NOTHINGNESS??
>
> (BTW, you don't even have the magnitude right; ED is about 30 times
> larger than that :P)
Oh, like I had ANY HOPE of guessing that right! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-6-2015 18:07, clipka wrote:
> POV-Ray has been heavily geared towards PBR in recent times, and UberPOV
> should by now be a viable PBR tool, provided you stick to the following
> rules:
Now, that is a comprehensive tutorial about do's and dont's. Thanks
indeed Christoph.
No more sad examples of reflective spheres on chequered planes :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2015 08:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 23/06/2015 03:41 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 22.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Uh... Isn't Elite Dangerous just a thousand parsecs of EMPTY
>>> NOTHINGNESS??
>>
>> As with many things you haven't actually tried out, once again you don't
>> have a clue ;)
>
> Well, as you say, I haven't actually seen the game. But I was under the
> impression that space is black. Except for a few infinitesimal points of
> white light. Doesn't sound like an amazing visual experience. ;-)
The bits where the black has things in it. Is not so black. ;-)
The level of detail at space stations makes me jealous and if I could
make one of the close ups of the stars, in povray. I would make my
fortune if it could be rendered 60+ fps.
I am envious of clipka who has an oculus rift. The view must be
spectacular, even at the lower resolution.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 09:03 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 23/06/2015 03:41 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 22.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Uh... Isn't Elite Dangerous just a thousand parsecs of EMPTY
>>> NOTHINGNESS??
>>
>> As with many things you haven't actually tried out, once again you don't
>> have a clue ;)
>
> Well, as you say, I haven't actually seen the game. But I was under the
> impression that space is black. Except for a few infinitesimal points of
> white light. Doesn't sound like an amazing visual experience. ;-)
As I said, you don't have a clue :P
The milky way and all the nebulae are impressive to behold in
themselves, when viewed from outside an atmosphere and at sufficient
distance from any star.
And then there's the places near those not-quite-infinitesimal points of
not-quite-white light - there are impressive vistas of binary stars,
sunrises behind planets, planetary rings, and other some such to be
found. Not to mention black holes, and the Galactic Core with the
supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* that I still have to visit.
Also, let it be known to you that there are Hyperjump drives in the ED
universe to travel between those not-quite-infinitesimal points of
not-quite-white light, and faster-than-light Supercruise drives to
quickly travel around in their vicinity ;).
I think they don't have the magnitudes of brightness right (central
star(s) vs. nearby planets, spacecraft & stations vs. far-away planets
vs. background stars) - effects which might make the real thing less
interesting because you might not be able to see all of this at once -
but in ED the Galaxy is a /very/ beautiful place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 10:22 schrieb Stephen:
> On 23/06/2015 08:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 23/06/2015 03:41 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 22.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>>> Uh... Isn't Elite Dangerous just a thousand parsecs of EMPTY
>>>> NOTHINGNESS??
>>>
>>> As with many things you haven't actually tried out, once again you don't
>>> have a clue ;)
>>
>> Well, as you say, I haven't actually seen the game. But I was under the
>> impression that space is black. Except for a few infinitesimal points of
>> white light. Doesn't sound like an amazing visual experience. ;-)
>
> The bits where the black has things in it. Is not so black. ;-)
>
> The level of detail at space stations makes me jealous and if I could
> make one of the close ups of the stars, in povray. I would make my
> fortune if it could be rendered 60+ fps.
> I am envious of clipka who has an oculus rift. The view must be
> spectacular, even at the lower resolution.
I wouldn't say it's more spectacular than a good 24" display, nor less
so - it's different. You do win the 3rd dimension, which is spectacular
when cruising around near stellar or planetary bodies, but at the same
time you lose the crisp view of the background stars and nebulae (which
must be impressive on a Retina Display, I'd wager).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 23/06/2015 03:52 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 22.06.2015 um 22:26 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Uh... Isn't Elite Dangerous just a thousand parsecs of EMPTY
>>> NOTHINGNESS??
>>
>> (BTW, you don't even have the magnitude right; ED is about 30 times
>> larger than that :P)
>
> Oh, like I had ANY HOPE of guessing that right! :-P
I didn't guess - I googled :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> On 22/06/2015 19:28, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> > And now, people just run unbiased renderers on the GPU which *directly*
> > simulate all manner of effects like caustics and diffuse reflection
> > properly, by simply computing *all* light paths by brute force...
>
> My mind is blown by the graphics in Elite Dangerous Sometimes I just
> look at it and stare into space. @ 120 fps. :-)
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Stephen
I am assuming PBR in games doesn't do ray-tracing, so why do they call it
Physically Based Rendering in games. Even Space Engineers has PBR now.
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2015 18:04, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I am assuming PBR in games doesn't do ray-tracing, so why do they call it
> Physically Based Rendering in games. Even Space Engineers has PBR now.
I don't know, I not really a gamer. This is my first one in 20 years.
Here is a thread about it from another scace game.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1rl7bq/could_somebody_please_explain_physical_based/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 09:28 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 22-6-2015 18:07, clipka wrote:
>> POV-Ray has been heavily geared towards PBR in recent times, and UberPOV
>> should by now be a viable PBR tool, provided you stick to the following
>> rules:
>
> Now, that is a comprehensive tutorial about do's and dont's. Thanks
> indeed Christoph.
Forgot two things:
- Always use "fresnel on" for the entire finish block (you'll need a
POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha build for this, or UberPOV; don't forget to specify
"ior"), even if you're not using "specular", unless you are using
subsurface scattering.
- When using "brilliance", always use "brilliance FLOAT, FLOAT" with
both parameters set to the same value, and specify "brilliance on" in
the radiosity block. (You'll need a POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha build for these,
or UberPOV.)
Also, my mind played a trick on me regarding the use of "fresnel on" in
the entire finish block: While I thought I had implemented it in
UberPOV, I actually put it right into official POV-Ray; thus, a
sufficiently up-to-date POV-Ray build (3.7.1-alpha.*) will do just as
well for this.
> No more sad examples of reflective spheres on chequered planes :-)
It's impressive what a difference it can make to really press for PBR,
even for something so seemingly trivial as RSoCP; I think especially
using a fully fresnel-aware model (using "fresnel on" in the entire
finish block) and blurred reflections (with specular highlights properly
tuned to match) really adds a level of credibility that you might not
even have expected to be there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 19:22 schrieb clipka:
> Am 23.06.2015 um 09:28 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 22-6-2015 18:07, clipka wrote:
>>> POV-Ray has been heavily geared towards PBR in recent times, and UberPOV
>>> should by now be a viable PBR tool, provided you stick to the following
>>> rules:
>>
>> Now, that is a comprehensive tutorial about do's and dont's. Thanks
>> indeed Christoph.
>
> Forgot two things:
>
> - Always use "fresnel on" for the entire finish block (you'll need a
> POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha build for this, or UberPOV; don't forget to specify
> "ior"), even if you're not using "specular", unless you are using
> subsurface scattering.
>
> - When using "brilliance", always use "brilliance FLOAT, FLOAT" with
> both parameters set to the same value, and specify "brilliance on" in
> the radiosity block. (You'll need a POV-Ray 3.7.1-alpha build for these,
> or UberPOV.)
Oh, and another one:
- Always, I mean /really/ always and without exception, use
"assumed_gamma 1.0".
I guess this one is so trivial for me that I entirely forgot to mention it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
