 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2015 um 19:04 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> 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.
After having googled a bit, it seems that in DirectX 11 parlance, the
buzzword "PBR" is used in a more basic sense:
(1) Perform colour computations on linear values rather than
gamma-compressed ones (in POV-Ray terms, use "assumed_gamma 1.0"). It
seems that the gaming world is only just now realizing that they've been
applying their math to the wrong type of values, and that they need to
do more about gamma than just giving us that infamous "gamma" slider to
adjust the output image to our display gamma (and that using proper
gamma handling really adds to realism - or, in other words, that the
failure to do so has been a serious limit to realism).
(2) Use high dynamic range material for environment maps.
(3) Discard the dated Blinn-Phong model for specular highlights in
favour of the Cook-Torrance model:
(3a) Make sure that the brightness of specular highlights is within
physically reasonable bounds. (In POV-Ray, this can easily be achieved
by using the "albedo" keyword.)
(3b) Make the brightness of specular highlights (and maybe also
environment maps for reflection?) dependent on the angle of incidence
according to the Fresnel function. (For non-metallic materials, this one
has only recently been added to POV-Ray as well, by allowing to use
"fresnel on" in the entire finish block. However, POV-Ray goes even one
step further there, and also modulates the diffuse component
accordingly, which the gaming industry apparently doesn't. On the other
hand the gaming industry seems to be going for a GGX-based version of
Cook-Torrance, while POV-Ray is still stuck with a Phong- or
Blinn-Phong-based version.)
(3c) For metallic materials, make sure that the specular highlights have
the same colour as the diffuse component. (In POV-Ray this has been part
of the package for ages, by using "metallic on".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.06.2015 um 18:07 schrieb clipka:
> - You can freely combine elements from different sources. In a non-PBR
> environment, only the combination of materials and lighting can be
> assessed for whether they are convincing or not, and any attempt to set
> up some "neutral" setting to assess just one or the other is moot: To
> assess whether a lighting setup is "neutral" it would have to be tested
> with known "neutral" materials, but to assess whether a material is
> "neutral" in the first place it would have to be tested with a known
> "neutral" lighting setup - a classic hen and egg problem. In practice,
> different authors will inevitably have different ideas what a chicken
> actually is. In a PBR environment, however, a material can be assessed
> simply by checking whether the parameters plugged in match the optical
> characteristics observed in reality, without rendering even a single
> image, and the same goes for lighting setups. So even if you don't have
> the facilities to measure the exact optical chracteristics of all your
> materials and lighting setups, you can jump-start your chicken farm from
> a small set of precisely known materials and lighting setups.
Seems like this is a much bigger issue in the gaming industry than I
previously thought. Apparently, up to now it has been customary in
high-end games to have different variants of one and the same material
for different lighting conditions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Going off off-topic, I think an example of this should be in the Pov-Ray
insert-menu with a RSOCP scene.
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:07:16 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 21.06.2015 um 09:44 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>> Can some explain to me what exactly PBR is. In Pov-Ray terms would be
>> nice :)
>
> PBR avoids old-school shading models and rendering algorithms that were
> designed to achieve a particular effect, and instead uses mechanisms
> that were designed to model the underlying physical processes.
>
> 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:
>
> - Don't use "ambient". Use radiosity instead, and "emission" where
> applicable.
>
> - Don't use "phong" or "specular". Rely on reflections instead (which,
> for good results, mandates that you use blurred reflections).
>
> - If you decide that you do need to use "phong" or "specular", prefer
> "specular", and /always/ use it in tandem with reflection, making sure
> that the parameters match: Use "specular albedo N" where N is the
> maximum reflection intensity, and use "fresnel on" or "metallic on" for
> the entire finish block just as you do in the reflection block. Also,
> make sure to specify the same "roughness" in the reflection block.
> (You'll need an up-to-date version of UberPOV for "fresnel on" in the
> entire finish block and "roughness" in the reflection block.)
>
> - Always use "fresnel on" for reflections (don't forget to specify
> "ior"), or "metallic on" where applicable, and always use 0.0 for the
> minimum reflection (or leave it out, specifying the maximum reflection
> only).
>
> - Don't use colours as reflection parameters. Use the "metallic"
> mechanism for this instead.
>
> - Don't use "light_source". Use objects with "emission" (or a sky
> sphere) and radiosity instead.
>
> - If you decide that you do need to use "light_source", always use a
> well-matching "looks_like" object with "no_radiosity on", always use
> "area_light", always use "fade_power 2" with "fade_distance" set to
> (roughly) half the area light vectors' dimensions, and always use
> "area_illumination" unless the light source is sufficiently far away.
> Also, do make use of photon mapping.
>
> - Use "normals on" and "media on" in the radiosity settings. Use
> high-quality settings, and/or turn sample caching off (requires UberPOV).
>
> - Don't use "filter" (unless you know what you're doing). Use a fading
> interior instead, with "fade_power 1001", or use absorbing media.
>
> - Don't use "rainbow" (does anyone?).
>
> - Do use a little bit of reflection on all your materials (typically
> with heavy blur).
>
> - If something doesn't look right, don't ask "what effect can I add or
> tweak to make it look better?" but "what phyiscal properties of my scene
> have I not modelled correctly?"
>
>
> As for HDR light probes, contrary to what Jerome wrote, the question of
> whether they're legit as a /sky sphere/ to avoid complex modelling is
> outside the scope of PBR; what's a no-go in PBR is using them for
> /environment mapping/ to fake reflections, but POV-Ray doesn't support
> that technique out of the box anyway. (You /could/ achieve a similar
> effect and possibly some of the speedup by using a HDR sky sphere and
> setting all objects to "no_reflection on", but environment mapping is
> also frequently used with different maps for different objects.)
>
>
> The advantages of PBR are threefold:
>
> - It takes far less time to achieve a convincing result, provided you
> have a basic understanding of the the underlying physical effects,
> because you don't need endless iterations of tweaking your material and
> light source parameters, repeatedly trying to figure out (A) what's
> still wrong about the resulting image, and (B) how to counter this with
> the knobs available (without introducing other undesired effects). With
> PBR, first of all your images will /always/ be physically consistent in
> themselves (and thus convincing in a very basic sense), and second, all
> you need to achieve a truly convincing look is to carefully examine the
> materials and light sources you intend to model and plug in the
> corresponding values. If you did it right, all you have left to do is
> worry about whether the image is pleasing, not whether it is convincing.
>
> - You can freely combine elements from different sources. In a non-PBR
> environment, only the combination of materials and lighting can be
> assessed for whether they are convincing or not, and any attempt to set
> up some "neutral" setting to assess just one or the other is moot: To
> assess whether a lighting setup is "neutral" it would have to be tested
> with known "neutral" materials, but to assess whether a material is
> "neutral" in the first place it would have to be tested with a known
> "neutral" lighting setup - a classic hen and egg problem. In practice,
> different authors will inevitably have different ideas what a chicken
> actually is. In a PBR environment, however, a material can be assessed
> simply by checking whether the parameters plugged in match the optical
> characteristics observed in reality, without rendering even a single
> image, and the same goes for lighting setups. So even if you don't have
> the facilities to measure the exact optical chracteristics of all your
> materials and lighting setups, you can jump-start your chicken farm from
> a small set of precisely known materials and lighting setups.
>
> - You can rely on the results being physically accurate, allowing you to
> model scenes for which you have no real-life reference image to go by.
> (Maybe one of the most spectacular examples is the black hole and
> accretion disk in the "Interstellar" movie, which was modeled solely
> from physical principles - at least as far as the distortion of
> spacetime is concerned - rather than preconceived notions of how such a
> phenomenon would look like.)
>
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
