Support NeoGAF

[ChiefDada]

It can also be precalculated in prerendered CGI there have been systems to use precaculated light in static scenes for decades., usually you choose not to, because even when static it doesn't look as good and if they choose not to it's because it clearly looks works and they don't need speed at all costs.

Being able to precalculate light does not close the gap. I'll keep saying it, the PS5 would need thousands of times more power to do so. Every technique you can think of that would largely benefit it can be done many times better on more powerful systems with no 32ms render budget.

Hey, no sarcasm when I say this, but it seems like you are pushing back against an argument nobody had made, unless I'm missing something. Has anyone suggested that console can contend with the best state of the art CG in this thread? For my part, again I'm strictly comparing the CG typically used in gaming ads, which is generally of lesser quality than the type of applications you're alluding to, such as your reference to omniverse.

 

[Lethal01]

Digital Foundry compares FF7 Remake with Advent Children.

I too compare them, to show how much more power goes into rendering the movie.
FF7 Remake may be better artistically, But the lighting and geometry in advent children outpaces it by far.

And yes, the movie from 2005 is still pushing far more geometry and more complex lighting than the Matrix Awakens demo.

And again, this is comparing to something from 2005, it's insane to expect the ps5 to beat modern CGI, when it can't even beat something that's almost 2 decades old

For my part, again I'm strictly comparing the CG typically used in gaming ads, which is generally of lesser quality than the type of applications you're alluding to, such as your reference to omniverse.

I guess that's where the confusion is coming from, the point is these gaming ads may not be Avatar 2, but they are using 50x the GPU power with 1000x more seconds to render each frame.

So it's crazy to think that the PS5 could match these ads, even if they chose to actually use the games assets, they would still have far better lighting. When I speak on this I'm thinking specifically about the last of us ad that is leagues above what's technically doable on PS5

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

I too compare them, to show how much more power goes into rendering the movie.
FF7 Remake may be better artistically, But the lighting and geometry in advent children outpaces it by far.

And yes, the movie from 2005 is still pushing far more geometry and more complex lighting than the Matrix Awakens demo.

And again, this is comparing to something from 2005, it's insane to expect the ps5 to beat modern CGI, when it can't even beat something that's almost 2 decades old




I guess that's where the confusion is coming from, the point is these gaming ads may not be Avatar 2, but they are using 50x the GPU power with 1000x more seconds to render each frame.

So it's crazy to think that the PS5 could match these ads, even if they chose to actually use the games assets, they would still have far better lighting. When I speak on this I'm thinking specifically about the last of us ad that is leagues above what's technically doable on PS5

I don’t believe FF Advent children is pushing more geometry than The Matrix Awakens tbh, I’ll have to research it…CG in general very far back does boast very high amounts of geometry, thats the nature of pre rendered graphics but…the Matrix Awakens is using the same amount or MORE…nanite is infinite (it culls and scales out unneeded detail to render infinite triangles as far as I know) Also yes Advent Children does boast more geometry and has better clothing and hair physics, but Remake actually has better materials and lighting as in PBR, textures and SSS…which is absent in advent children. So you could say Remake is better in alot of areas…The character models are also on par. 2005 CGI isn’t that great compared to realtime visuals today except the high budget films of that year…also who said PS5 would
beat modern CGI?

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

The one thing that’s bothering me about modern video game tech like reconstruction, RT effects and such is the artifacting caused by the cumulative smoothing to reduce visible noise. For example, in Control, all the reflections have this weird trailing blur to them when you move the camera… same thing happens in Ratchet and Clank. Another example is the distracting noise in RT ambient occlusion when you move the camera in games such as RE7 (remaster) and Deathloop (RT shadows mode). It can look very off putting. While it’s more accurate technically, it’s not as visually stable as something like screen space effects. I hope with time, this kinda stuff can be optimized or made to be more stable. Anyone else agree?

 

[Lethal01]

I don’t believe FF Advent children is pushing more geometry than The Matrix Awakens tbh, I’ll have to research it…CG in general very far back does boast very high amounts of geometry, thats the nature of pre rendered graphics but…the Matrix Awakens is using the same amount or MORE…nanite is infinite (it culls and scales out unneeded detail to render infinite triangles as far as I know) Also yes Advent Children does boast more geometry and has better clothing and hair physics,

Nanite doesn't render infinite triangles, it renders around 20 million, what it's good at is rendering those 20 million where they are most benefitial, it's a good automatic LOD system, not magic.

but Remake actually has better materials and lighting as in PBR, textures and SSS…which is absent in advent children. So you could say Remake is better in alot of areas…The character models are also on par. 2005 CGI isn’t that great compared to realtime visuals today except the high budget films of that year…

I can maybe agree it has better materials but that isn't due to the power but rather the workflow. The texture however, are just as high res in AC and the texture detail continues through a huge environment instead dropping off substanstantially when not focused on characters, Ac outclasses remake by far in that regard. it also technically better when it comes to lighting since it has raytraced shadows, reflections, GI.

So PS5 having some raytracing hardware does not mean much when that hardware still can't be as accurate as CGI from 2005 could be, since even back then they had more power with more time to render each frame.

Now I'm not saying I prefer the look of AC, Just that the PS5 does not have the power to do what they did with it. Luckily they don't need to, good art direction will more than make up the difference in power.

also who said PS5 would
beat modern CGI?

Chief Dada

 

[ChiefDada]

Chief Dada

...contextually speaking.

As we previously discussed and agreed, all cg isn't made equal. Surely you don't think these cinematic ads from Sony compete against the work shown from the omniverse demo you shared? Yet they can both be considered "modern cg".

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

And yes, the movie from 2005 is still pushing far more geometry and more complex lighting than the Matrix Awakens demo.

Matrix has even geometric wire fences, I seriously doubt that. In older movies and cg they sometimes use hand drawn background elements in some cases

Nanite doesn't render infinite triangles, it renders around 20 million, what it's good at is rendering those 20 million where they are most benefitial, it's a good automatic LOD system, not magic.

IF a triangle is smaller than a pixel, then it is meaningless, the subpixel triangles need to be rounded up to generate a single pixel. You can only display pixels and at 4k there are about 8 million pixels. With good enough level of detail the geometry is infinite as you cannot display more triangles than there are pixels.

 

[lovetalkgames]

You’re absolutely right and spot on with your example of TLOU2.

 

[Utherellus]

I expect vehicle modelling, material work and illumination not under MFS2020 level this gen.

 

[Lethal01]

...contextually speaking.

As we previously discussed and agreed, all cg isn't made equal. Surely you don't think these cinematic ads from Sony compete against the work shown from the omniverse demo you shared? Yet they can both be considered "modern cg".

WHAT?!? I posted the omniverse as an example of something that's not taking anywhere near as much power to render, Sony's cinematic are FAR more advanced, that's the whole point. That the omniverse demo is an example of something you can almost see running with (with drastically reduced fidelity) in realtime in 6 years or so while the those cinematics are over a decade away.

Block buster movie > Sony Cinematic > Omniverse demo > 15 year old CGI > Expected graphics from PS5

I think that brings us back to the original point of mine, that you are vastly underestimating the complexity of those cinematics, they are using 1000x more power on every frame what the PS5 is capable of.

Matrix has even geometric wire fences, I seriously doubt that. In older movies and cg they sometimes use hand drawn background elements in some cases

IF a triangle is smaller than a pixel, then it is meaningless, the subpixel triangles need to be rounded up to generate a single pixel. You can only display pixels and at 4k there are about 8 million pixels. With good enough level of detail the geometry is infinite as you cannot display more triangles than there are pixels.

I agree, but lets not start throwing around things like "infinite" for something that is extremely finite.

That aside.

 

[ChiefDada]

Sony's cinematic are FAR more advanced, that's the whole point.

The delta just isn't nearly as big as the difference that could be easily found during the PS3/360 era is all I'm saying. But let's agree to disagree I guess

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

WHAT?!? I posted the omniverse as an example of something that's not taking anywhere near as much power to render, Sony's cinematic are FAR more advanced, that's the whole point. That the omniverse demo is an example of something you can almost see running with (with drastically reduced fidelity) in realtime in 6 years or so while the those cinematics are over a decade away.

Block buster movie > Sony Cinematic > Omniverse demo > 15 year old CGI > Expected graphics from PS5

I think that brings us back to the original point of mine, that you are vastly underestimating the complexity of those cinematics, they are using 1000x more power on every frame what the PS5 is capable of.



I agree, but lets not start throwing around things like "infinite" for something that is extremely finite.

That aside.

That CGI isn’t impressive tbh…the only thing going for it is its geometry and GI solution…the Matrix demo has all of that and more…2005 CGI looks outdated…

Edit: Digital Foundry agrees that Remake looks better.

 

[GymWolf]

Ninja therory, the Coalition,machine games and 343 have been known to push visuals
Also obsidian using UE5 should hopefully be able to produce some competitive visuals.

More like pushing the visuals out of the balcony...

 

[GymWolf]

I expect vehicle modelling, material work and illumination not under MFS2020 level this gen.

Nice collection of cockpits you have there...

 

[Neilg]

IF a triangle is smaller than a pixel, then it is meaningless, the subpixel triangles need to be rounded up to generate a single pixel. You can only display pixels and at 4k there are about 8 million pixels. With good enough level of detail the geometry is infinite as you cannot display more triangles than there are pixels.

This is probably right for games, but in offline rendering / CG it's definitely not true. there's a noticable quality difference between geometry that's got a similar density to the screen pixel count and super dense geometry with good AA. You have to account for cameras moving, so it's a weird metric to judge anything by anyway - and in features that are screenspace, there's a noticeable step up in displacement quality when you drop to sub pixel triangles and let the AA handle resolving the details.

I feel like it's kind of missing the point to compare games to CG a lot of the time. Especially now, most of games looking photorealistic isnt down to the level of detail added - it's all down to human art direction and decision making.
A lot of those artistic decisions and understanding of how to make things look good translates between CG and games too, back in 2005 a ton of CG movies looked like dogshit (dreamworks) because even though they had raytracing available, the artists didnt push to raise the ceiling beyond a certain point.
This is a great read for anyone interested in lighting and creative decisions. it applies to everything - CG, games, film and photography. https://chrisbrejon.com/cg-cinematography/chapter-6-lighting-principles/
These kinds of creative decisions have only been developed and documented in the last 20-30 years. Film was doing it decades before, but for a long time in CG it just didn't occur to people to use the same principles. It all seems quite obvious and silly to think that nobody was even trying but it's kind of like the 6 minute mile.
You can really tell which games are starting to apply these ideas, it's very recent, but we're looking at the gap between the aesthetics of a game and rendered CG being on the same kind of playing field. CG can always go further more easily because the director controls the camera at all moments. It'll always have more detail. but step back from the screen, avoid triangle counting and take in the overall impression of a scene and we're getting pretty fucking close.
This is the first generation where that's actually possible, and games aren't really being held back on basic things like low light counts, extremely slow atmospheric effects or tight poly limits.

That's a very long-winded way to say, in reading this thread it's pretty clear to me that some of you are looking at aesthetic and creative choices, and some others are trying to compare pure poly count against that as if the detail is what suddenly makes something look good. it's 2 totally separate conversations.

The advent children vs ff7r debate - aesthetically, ff7r blows it out of the water. the decisions about how to use light to highlight objects, fog to layer things, digital color theory etc is all way more advanced. advent children is absolutely pushing more detail, because everything in offline CG gets subdivided to hell. It's not using that detail as efficiently, that's a given. FF7r has texture issues. I could list 20 examples where one of the two does something 'better' than the other one.

 

[Lethal01]

Edit: Digital Foundry agrees that Remake looks better.

I absolutely do too, for artistic reasons. Ac has absolutely terrible art direction. I'd also say FF9 and Kingdom hearts 2 look better... Ac was pretty ugly

But In terms of being technically impressive? AC has raytraced shadows, reflections and GI over miles through a dense city scape with higher resolution textures and more geometry . Even if Remake does have some things like SSS and PBR over it, AC is just doing far more on the technical side.


The color direction is far better but the textures, shadows, GI, Hair, Motion Blur, Physics, Destruction are a huge Technical step down.
Again though, I think I can give it SSS and better made material and I will also say that not all shots in AC are rendered equally, However when the rendering is at it's peaks it's clear that remake just can't compete against render farms rendering for hours per frame. You could use the techniques that remake used on the machines that rendered AC, but not the other way around.

VS

Real geometry with lighting vs blobs with textures over them that aren't casting proper shadows.
But Remake is a last gen game, so I'll drop it now. I very much pray Remake part 2 comes out and I can't notice a single things that Advent Children is doing that look far better.

 

[rofif]

I too compare them, to show how much more power goes into rendering the movie.
FF7 Remake may be better artistically, But the lighting and geometry in advent children outpaces it by far.

And yes, the movie from 2005 is still pushing far more geometry and more complex lighting than the Matrix Awakens demo.

And again, this is comparing to something from 2005, it's insane to expect the ps5 to beat modern CGI, when it can't even beat something that's almost 2 decades old




I guess that's where the confusion is coming from, the point is these gaming ads may not be Avatar 2, but they are using 50x the GPU power with 1000x more seconds to render each frame.

So it's crazy to think that the PS5 could match these ads, even if they chose to actually use the games assets, they would still have far better lighting. When I speak on this I'm thinking specifically about the last of us ad that is leagues above what's technically doable on PS5

of course Advent children got better lighting. It's CGI. But I think it's not that much better.
But the screenshots you attached are trash.
The game looks fantastic. One of best we have currently.

 

[Lethal01]

of course Advent children got better lighting. It's CGI. But I think it's not that much better.
But the screenshots you attached are trash.
The game looks fantastic. One of best we have currently.

The game looks it's best when super zoomed in on characters in dark scenes to hide how weak the lighting is.
Focus on the environments in daytime and it's clear that the lighting technology is very lacking compared to something raytraced, even if it does look MUCH better due to artistic design.

Sometimes the tricks they use hold up but on a technical level it still doesn't compare to raytraced Direct illumination, Global illumination, Shadows and Reflections.

 

[rofif]

The game looks it's best when super zoomed in on characters in dark scenes to hide how weak the lighting is.
Focus on the environments in daytime and it's clear that the lighting technology is very lacking compared to something raytraced, even if it does look MUCH better due to artistic design.

Sometimes the tricks they use hold up but on a technical level it still doesn't compare to raytraced Direct illumination, Global illumination, Shadows and Reflections.

First two are from cutscenes (in-game)
Last one is in-gameplay.
I have daytime pic for you too:

 

[Lethal01]

First two are from cutscenes (in-game)
Last one is in-gameplay.
I have daytime pic for you too:

Yes I know, I've played through the game like 10 times after all and yes, all these do clearly show the game is far from competing with raytraced lighting.
And even having raytraced lighting would be the first step, it would still be lacking Advent Children's Level of Cloth simulation.

So again, on a technical level remake does not compete outside of few small things, Artistically Advent Children is far worse.
Take Remakes artistic Prowess and render it with Advent Children's level of power and you get something that would easily destroy remake.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

A lot of the backgrounds in that movie are not actual geo, but matte-paintings probably.

It’s weird to compare these at some point, because apart from geo detail we are talking about how advanced the shaders are and they were pretty simple back then.
I think some materials like skin, cloth and metal definitely look better in the game.

 

[SlimySnake]

First two are from cutscenes (in-game)
Last one is in-gameplay.
I have daytime pic for you too:

Good god that hair. Kill it. Kill it with fire.

 

[Lethal01]

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

AC has raytraced shadows, reflections and GI over miles through a dense city scape with higher resolution textures and more geometry .

Are you sure the low budget 2005 AC had things that renowned studio Pixar did not mainstream till 2006? Pixar used simpler lighting in all their earlier high budget films.

Why ray tracing for Cars? • All previous Pixar movies were rendered with scanline rendering (shadow maps, reflection maps, …)

https://my.eng.utah.edu/~cs5600/slides/ray%20tracing%20for%20the%20movie%20Cars.pdf

Highly renowned Pixar itself seems to have not used global illumination till 2013(I remember the news, as a CG afficionado it was why I bought the Monster University blu ray)

But for Pixar's full CGI environments, mapping out the millions of beams of light was seen as too arduous to be practical. Instead, Pixar relied on manually placed shadows and a network of direct light sources, a setup that was becoming increasingly intricate as the models and setups became more advanced.

The new Global Illumination system did away with all that, producing automatic reflections and shadows based on a simple placement of lights. If a wall is blue, the light coming off it will be exactly as bluish as it should be, at least to start with. Since Pixar is still, as Kalache puts it, "a company that makes cartoons," the system leaves room for artists to blow out lights and shadows beyond what’s realistic, but the baseline is a naturalism that’s based on the physics of light. And instead of artists planning out soft lights and shadows, everything is moved into hardware. That leaves less work for the designers but more work for the render farm, which works at night while the designers sleep. "It's all in the memory," says Christophe Hery, the system's core architect for Monsters University. Because of the intensely interconnected nature of the light, everything had to be processed at once, which resulted in incredible RAM demands. Describing one scene, Hery says, "We had the full campus. We had the trees, the grass, the people, the crowds, all held in memory at once. At some point, the rendering engine can try to be clever" about what doesn’t need to be rendered, "but you can only hide so much."

That's a lot to keep in RAM. The biggest struggle was to keep each frame down to 20GB of memory. Pixar’s render farm uses machines with 96GB of RAM each, but since the machines need to process four frames in parallel, anything much higher than 20GB was dangerous. That might seem like a lot for a single frame, but it has to hold every object in the scene, on-and-off camera, right down to the hairs of each monster’s fur. As long as it’s reflecting light, it needs to be in memory. And if any of those hairs move, the light has to be completely recalibrated — usually in another overnight turn through the render farm.

Throwing shade: how Pixar changed the way light works for 'Monsters University'

Inside the studio's new Global Illumination system

www.theverge.com

Note that the ps5 has almost 20GB of ram but can use more advanced LOD nanite to hold even more complex geometry

 

[Lethal01]

Are you sure the low budget 2005 AC had things that renowned studio Pixar did not mainstream till 2006? Pixar used simpler lighting in all their earlier high budget films.

Advent Children had a budget than was 15 million dollars more than Pixar's Cars which released the next year

http://[URL][URL][URL]https://my.eng.utah.edu/~cs5600/slides/ray tracing for the movie Cars.pdf

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

Highly renowned Pixar itself seems to have not used global illumination till 2013(I remember the news, as a CG afficionado it was why I bought the Monster University blu ray)

http://[URL][URL][URL]https://www.t...d-the-way-light-works-for-monsters-university

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

Note that the ps5 has almost 20GB of ram but can use more advanced LOD nanite to hold even more complex geometry

True, I'm not sure about AC using it. but even without raytracing in 2005 there were other methods of global illumination, shadows and reflections which we see in Advent children.
Raytracing would still be needed to match the techniques.

my original comment though was "that even raytracing hardware, the PS5 would not be on the level of 2005 level CGI" Advent children happened to line up with that but I suppose we can just say 2007 to be sure and move past it.

The real main point that I'd rather get back to is that it's hardware does not come close to being a match for anything modern. And talking about whether it can matches 2005 or 2007 hardware is more sensible than trying to use it having raytracing hardware as a reason for to expect it to come close to modern CGI. To me saying this you responded by posting spec of the PS5 and how it's 100x faster at RT than PS4, those specs are literally nothing compared to what is being used to render those trailers and neither Lumen or nanite are enough to make up the difference but if you weren't trying to imply it would then we're all good.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Advent Children had a budget than was 15 million dollars more than Pixar's Cars which released the next year



True, I'm not sure about AC using it. but even without raytracing in 2005 there were other methods of global illumination, shadows and reflections which we see in Advent children.
Raytracing would still be needed to match the techniques.

my original comment though was "that even raytracing hardware, the PS5 would not be on the level of 2005 level CGI" Advent children happened to line up with that but I suppose we can just say 2007 to be sure and move past it.

The real main point that I'd rather get back to is that it's hardware does not come close to being a match for anything modern. And talking about whether it can matches 2005 or 2007 hardware is more sensible than trying to use it having raytracing hardware as a reason for to expect it to come close to modern CGI. To me saying this you responded by posting spec of the PS5 and how it's 100x faster at RT than PS4, those specs are literally nothing compared to what is being used to render those trailers and neither Lumen or nanite are enough to make up the difference but if you weren't trying to imply it would then we're all good.

It’s all about short cuts, work arounds and results, I’m sure if Horizon 3 and TLOU 3 were made using UE5 they would look very close to their CGI trailer counterparts…TLOU II used hand placed baked lighting and its looks better than anything I’ve EVER seen..after the Matrix Awakens demo…its been proven…

 

[saintjules]

Goddamn. That looks phenomenal.

PS6 graphics perhaps.

Perhaps yeah. I mean if they're playing that in demo form, it has to be possible at some point. If not this gen, then the next.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Advent Children had a budget than was 15 million dollars more than Pixar's Cars which released the next year

I think that was the budget for 'The Spirits Within', not for 'Advent Children' or 'Kingsglaive'.

Advent Children was relatively low resolution, so I'm doubting it had a budget higher than cars after spirits within crashed and burned with such a budget.

my original comment though was "that even raytracing hardware, the PS5 would not be on the level of 2005 level CGI" Advent children happened to line up with that but I suppose we can just say 2007 to be sure and move past it.

Well supposedly according to the news even Pixar only used lots of local lights and shadow maps all the way up to 2013, it was in 2013 when they started doing global illumination. And they said it was due to requiring massive amounts of ram to work, given ram was dropping in price like 10x every 5 years, you'd need 10x the budget to have a similar renderfarm five years previous. Lumen allows for Global Illumination in ps5. I've seen lumen compared to path tracing and the difference is not that big in some scenes.

Although these are both prerendered it shows that highest quality lumen is not far from path tracer that takes hours.


What I don't know is if PC lumen is hardware accelerated if not it could possibly be 100x-1000x faster if done using hardware acceleration.

 

[Lethal01]

Advent Children was relatively low resolution, so I'm doubting it had a budget higher than cars after spirits within crashed and burned with such a budget.

Okay, then we can't say it's high or low budget.

Well supposedly according to the news even Pixar only used lots of local lights and shadow maps all the way up to 2013, it was in 2013 when they started doing global illumination. And they said it was due to requiring massive amounts of ram to work, given ram was dropping in price like 10x every 5 years, you'd need 10x the budget to have a similar renderfarm five years previous. Lumen allows for Global Illumination in ps5. I've seen lumen compared to path tracing and the difference is not that big in some scenes.

Using Pixar as the rule is probably not a great idea, they are in a pretty unique position. Shrek 2 used a system for Global Illumination back in 2004. Robots used raytracing in 2005, Pixar not using it does not tell us about the rest of the industry, they are Pixar.

Although these are both prerendered it shows that highest quality lumen is not far from path tracer that takes hours.


What I don't know is if PC lumen is hardware accelerated if not it could possibly be 100x-1000x faster if done using hardware acceleration.

This is Lumen taking 20 seconds per frame, It's taking about 1000x more time per frame than PS5.
It's literally an example of pre-rendered CGI that I'm saying you should not expect from PS5...

Pc Lumen is hardware accelerated.

This


Vs this

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Okay, then we can't say it's high or low budget.



Using Pixar as the rule is probably not a great idea, they are in a pretty unique position. Shrek 2 used a system for Global Illumination back in 2004. Robots used raytracing in 2005, Pixar not using it does not tell us about the rest of the industry, they are Pixar.



This is Lumen taking 20 seconds per frame, It's taking about 1000x more time per frame than PS5.
It's literally an example of pre-rendered CGI that I'm saying you should not expect from PS5...

Pc Lumen is hardware accelerated.

This


Vs this

For similar look in realtime there are the gta v ray tracing mods

 

[mrMUR_96]

Okay, then we can't say it's high or low budget.



Using Pixar as the rule is probably not a great idea, they are in a pretty unique position. Shrek 2 used a system for Global Illumination back in 2004. Robots used raytracing in 2005, Pixar not using it does not tell us about the rest of the industry, they are Pixar.



This is Lumen taking 20 seconds per frame, It's taking about 1000x more time per frame than PS5.
It's literally an example of pre-rendered CGI that I'm saying you should not expect from PS5...

Pc Lumen is hardware accelerated.

This


Vs this

Lumen is real time in that video, the creator says so himself "Lumen's system generates lights, shadows and reflections in real time, but the process of saving 1200 frames to be sent to video editing software takes some time."
The path tracing is of course off the table this generation, but lumen seems to hold up quite well.

 

[mrMUR_96]

For similar look in realtime there are the gta v ray tracing mods

These graphics mods are only using screen space data as they don't have full access to the engine.

 

[M1987]

Perhaps yeah. I mean if they're playing that in demo form, it has to be possible at some point. If not this gen, then the next.

I don't know if the actual game will look like that, but I looked it up, and the game releases this year

 

[Haggard]

For similar look in realtime there are the gta v ray tracing mods

nothing about that 10m reaching low res pop in "screen space reflection"-RT is in any way "similar".... the quality difference is insurmountable.

 

[Lethal01]

For similar look in realtime there are the gta v ray tracing mods

I really don't find them similar, there is a clear gulf between them, Cyberpunk 2077 would probably be a better example but still far far behind what you can do prerendered.

Lumen is real time in that video, the creator says so himself "Lumen's system generates lights, shadows and reflections in real time, but the process of saving 1200 frames to be sent to video editing software takes some time."
The path tracing is of course off the table this generation, but lumen seems to hold up quite well.

Don't think I'm saying that Lumen is unimpressive, I've sung it's praises for the last 2 years and I'm sure that people will continue to say it looks as good as prerendered, but to me the faults holding it back from being as good as what you get from CGI game trailers are extremely clear. That's all it comes down to, expecting close to the quality of a prerendered game trailer is silly.

 

[saintjules]

I don't know if the actual game will look like that, but I looked it up, and the game releases this year

That's interesting. There's supposedly a closed beta happening this month. If a release date is somehow this year, then yeah I'd doubt that graphical fidelity will be this and would be a massive downgrade.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

nothing about that 10m reaching low res pop in "screen space reflection"-RT is in any way "similar".... the quality difference is insurmountable.

technically its not as good but appearance wise its similar

Don't think I'm saying that Lumen is unimpressive, I've sung it's praises for the last 2 years and I'm sure that people will continue to say it looks as good as prerendered, but to me the faults holding it back from being as good as what you get from CGI game trailers are extremely clear. That's all it comes down to, expecting close to the quality of a prerendered game trailer is silly.

We all saw the train station demo in UE5


It looks photoreal at times, something that even some of the latest and highest budget Hollywood cg sometimes fails to achieve.

FAQ - Is it real time? No, it's a high-res render (around 7 frames per second). I can run it in real time (30-50 fps 1440p for daytime), but image quality is worse. It's not particularly optimized anyway, you could get better performance with a little more work - Specs? RTX 2080, Ryzen 7 3700x. -from the creator

The thing is nanite tech is believed possible for deformable geometry, and for thin geometry too. We are only lacking the algorithms for such, but by late in the consoles lifespan such algorithms may've been developed.

Sony's atom view has already shown real time photo real humans in motion. Photo realism is possible, especially in simple static scenes. And that is something that even Hollywood's latest and greatest cg sometimes fails to achieve. Don't be surprised if human characters this gen outdo the characters in high budget movies like Star Wars Rogue One in photorealism.

 

[Haggard]

technically its not as good but appearance wise its similar

Maybe if you have 5+ diopters and no glasses......

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Maybe if you have 5+ diopters and no glasses......

screen space has always been good, besides the pop in, and inaccuracies in the reflection, it does give a good appearance of reflective surface.

 

[Lethal01]

technically its not as good but appearance wise its similar

They aren't at all

We all saw the train station demo in UE5

It looks photoreal at times, something that even some of the latest and highest budget Hollywood cg sometimes fails to achieve.

Hollywood CG has the challenge of actually having real elements mixed in so you can see how fake even it looks.
The train demo always looks very fake compared to what you can do prerendered in those game trailers..




Just to be clear I'm talking about the 3D CG here, not the other VFX work. The one bad thing about good 3D CGI is that when you achieve it (and we achieve it a ton) nobody notices it. People will call out the one car that's lacking while not noticing the whole enviroment was fake.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Just to be clear I'm talking about the 3D CG here, not the other VFX work. The one bad thing about good 3D CGI is that when you achieve it (and we achieve it a ton) nobody notices it. People will call out the one car that's lacking while not noticing the whole enviroment was fake.

There are scenes featuring mainly Tarkin where he looks quite fake. Even if the entire scene was CGI he would still stand out as fake

Both the real time Keanu from matrix demo as well as some of the realtime characters from this netflix series episode, outdo it in realism.





There are many comparisons between the real world and unreal engine graphics from years back where it is very difficult to tell apart the real from the real time






It would be interesting to compare the real time virtual sets from behind the scenes while filming vs the final sets used. As far as I'm seeing it seems quite close, wouldn't surprise if they use the real time sets in some cases to save budget or due to time constraints as they say sometimes there are just a few days before delivery.

 

[GymWolf]

First two are from cutscenes (in-game)
Last one is in-gameplay.
I have daytime pic for you too:

This pic clearly disprove cloud being gay.

 

[Neilg]

Pixar used simpler lighting in all their earlier high budget films.

Pixar were never ahead of the curve when it came to tech - they rendered hundreds of simple passes, layers and comped it all together.
They had skilled artists manually dial in the look instead of letting the tech handle it.

also lol, some of my work is in that vray architecture showreel.

 

[Lethal01]

There are scenes featuring mainly Tarkin where he looks quite fake. Even if the entire scene was CGI he would still stand out as fake

Both the real time Keanu from matrix demo

as well as some of the realtime characters from this netflix series episode, outdo it in realism.

That episode was not rendered in real-time. it was just created using real-time tools to preview. "real-time" does not just mean using Lumen. It's not realtime if you are taking seconds per frame. Every second you spend rendering a frame is 30x more time than you could spend on that frame on PS5.
Plus, I think the Matrix Awakens looks very clearly worse, maybe with better animation.

There are many comparisons between the real world and unreal engine graphics from years back where it is very difficult to tell apart the real from the real time

Can't agree without, as you said, actually seeing how it looks when being rendered in real time on set.

 

[rofif]

That episode was not rendered in real-time. it was just created using real-time tools to preview. "real-time" does not just mean using Lumen. It's not realtime if you are taking seconds per frame. Every second you spend rendering a frame 30x more time than you could spend on that frame on PS5.
Plus, I think the Matrix Awakens looks very clearly worse, maybe with better animation.



Can't agree without, as you said, actually seeing how it looks when being rendered in real time on set.

Tarkin looks a bit fake because he is too detailed I think. And the shadows are too defined

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

That episode was not rendered in real-time. it was just created using real-time tools to preview. "real-time" does not just mean using Lumen. It's not realtime if you are taking seconds per frame. Every second you spend rendering a frame is 30x more time than you could spend on that frame on PS5.
Plus, I think the Matrix Awakens looks very clearly worse, maybe with better animation.



Can't agree without, as you said, actually seeing how it looks when being rendered in real time on set.

old keanu also had parts in real time. In motion Tarkin looks quite fake.


The virtual sets are real time while filming in mandalorian and disney shows, not sure if the netflix show is realtime, but the realtime behind scenes looks quite similar to the final product.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

This is realtime and looks better than the Matrix Demo as far a realism in humans faces go…IMO. Also, this looks better than the Love
Death and Robots scene that I posted in the original Reeeeesetera thread…




Also this Modern Warfare 2 demo looks better than the Love Death and Robots soldier scene posted above IMO..

 

[Lethal01]

 

[Umbasaborne]

of course Advent children got better lighting. It's CGI. But I think it's not that much better.
But the screenshots you attached are trash.
The game looks fantastic. One of best we have currently.

The game looks fantastic *at times*, there is no ignoring the poor textures that are everywhere in this game, no mattee how good the characters and art direction can look

 

[rofif]

The game looks fantastic *at times*, there is no ignoring the poor textures that are everywhere in this game, no mattee how good the characters and art direction can look

It’s just poor textures. They fixed some in ps5 port.
Textures dont make the graphics