will graphics power be pushed to the limit soon

2

2gigs

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
1,200
ok guys, we are getting closer and closer to lifelike if not better graphics rendering. Thare are many games that are currently using this technology. Eventually, thare has to be a limit., I have been thinking, wiht the upcoming of this physics card, will the limit be pushed. Our body can only recognize 150 fps or less, any more is useless, exception for some mentally diffrent people, including those with add, adhd, autisim, and aspergers. Today, our graphics are very lifelike, and were thought not possible years ago. I personally think that by 2013, thare will be 100% lifelike graphics. If tis were to happen, could this change life. People always imagined the internet as a huge portal, could it possibly become one, a huge giant world, like a rpg, that you can walk around in, becuase of these graphics. Considering the fact that this is the limit, does anyone agree with my idea. I think that this may happen, and if anone disagrees, please post here, and post your opinion


do you think that graphics hardwre will reach a limit soon

thare are also many things that can be real, like a example, i think that in grand theft auto, you should have to know how to wack a guy, like virtual gloves, maybe, and a gun controller, just a possibility
 
Graphics aren't the only thing that makes life like. Interaction needs to start advancing beyond keyboard and mouse. The game engines, especially handling more and more physics need to advance. Lots of room for advancement.

I won't consider it life like until I get a holodeck damn it.
 
Games are MILES away from 'life-like'. To even get a poly count even approximately similar to reality would require tens of millions of times more poly-pushing power than PCs can do today.

And forget that literally every atom of every particle of 'reality' is effected by physics, and you can see that to TRULY simulate reality is simply impossible, period, to ever happen.

I think we might well see "close enough" in the next couple decades - using "shortcut" techniques, as games are now, to take advantages of limitations in our ability to perceive PC worlds.
 
"we are getting closer and closer to lifelike if not better graphics rendering"


Better hey, can you explain that one to me again please..... :D :D :D
 
ManicOne said:
"we are getting closer and closer to lifelike if not better graphics rendering"


Better hey, can you explain that one to me again please..... :D :D :D
Click to expand...
that means it makes things even clearer than life
 
im not really sure most games now days dont look that life like... awsome graphics but they dont grab the apeal of you acctually being thier...maybe im trippin..........the oled's most likly will make the gaming and graphics displays much more intense but the thing is..how long untill its commercail enough for average joes to go pick up decent equip...i.e. roll out oled screens and pimp graphics cards for under 150 per item..
 
With my 9600XT i still feel things aren't real enough lol.
Damn graphic card holding me back =[
 
2gigs said:
that means it makes things even clearer than life
Click to expand...


That's not possible. We're really far away from life like graphics in games. Take a look outside sometime.
 
Yeah and your talking about games just barely touching the surface of HDR rendering. I mean w0000 bloom lighting isn't that impressive when you think about bounce lighting, sub surface scattering and other such madness. Radiosity of a complicated scene at a resolution of 1600x1200 takes hours to render 1 frame on a good system. To get that in real time anytime soon will need a whole lot of optimization and a whole lot of raw power. Then you still need high res textures so ram will be an issue aswell. Then getting fluids to have a great look while still having motion and ripples and can reflect and refract stuff perfectly with the waves is going to be a problem. There is a lot of challanges still ahead in realistic looking game to come true. Remeber we have been saying we will have realistic looking games soon for the past 3-4 years already. It aint happening though for atleast another 10 years though. I think we will have Final Fantasy the movie graphics in game by the end of this decade. Whoever is saying we might have something close in decades and decades away from now is playing it way to conservative
 
The argument that our body can't see more than 150 fps is pretty much, for a lack of words, dumb. There are many sites and studies disproving the "our eyes can't see past XX fps." BTW our eyes don't see in "FPS", they work differently from video cameras and other optical devices.
 
RoffleCopter said:
The argument that our body can't see more than 150 fps is pretty much, for a lack of words, dumb. There are many sites and studies disproving the "our eyes can't see past XX fps." BTW our eyes don't see in "FPS", they work differently from video cameras and other optical devices.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the argument is not that our eyes can be measured in fps, but that we can not perceive more than XX fps. Assuming the 150 fps limit to be correct, what this means is that your eyes (and associated mental functions) wouldnt be able to tell any difference between that and a million fps.

So yeah, our eyes aren't cameras, but they can spot the difference between 10 fps and 60 fps.
 
RoffleCopter said:
The argument that our body can't see more than 150 fps is pretty much, for a lack of words, dumb. There are many sites and studies disproving the "our eyes can't see past XX fps." BTW our eyes don't see in "FPS", they work differently from video cameras and other optical devices.
Click to expand...

Actually those tests don't really prove anything because they are about perceiving an instant of change in a situation that is otherwise static. Our brains are wired to see EXACTLY that kind of thing even though we don't need to perceive at that speed 99.999% of the time. Similarly, but in reverse, in a chaotic visual situation our brains are wired to chose one thing and focus on that to reduce confusion.

As you say, our eyes don't work like camera's, and so the fact that we can percieve a change that's only technically visible for 1/150th of a second means nothing at all when it comes to videogames. In real life we mentally blur everything together to keep our brain from having to process more than it needs to. The same thing applies to videogames except that when the FPS are too low for us we can't blur them properly and so they seem choppy to us. For almost everyone out there 60fps is more than enough to allow us to blur it together to make it seem smooth, and so there is little benefit to faster FPS unless you are one of the very few people who need more fps to get the feeling of smoothness.
 
While I think those days are coming we are still a long way from truly life like graphics. Hair is still a big problem and my personal biggie that I always cannot help but notice is how badly clothing still works. It's not a body inside cloths, still looks like one unit to me. True distance and depth are still a bit beyond as well.
 
The problem between games and reality is that in reality there are unlimited polygons, for example one would be the human body. A round object in graphics has edges and is made up of polys, in real life that is not true.

I personally believe that games will never look as real as life because i think it is impossible.
 
Endurancevm said:
The problem between games and reality is that in reality there are unlimited polygons, for example one would be the human body. A round object in graphics has edges and is made up of polys, in real life that is not true.

I personally believe that games will never look as real as life because i think it is impossible.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put a limit on what man can accomplish through technology... I bet if you went back a few hundred years ago, hell, even a hundred years ago.. the people of that era couldn't fathom something as far out as Nuke, or a laser guided missile.
 
I think that realtime photorealistc 3D rendering is going to happen within our lifetime, and will be one of the revolutions in technology.

Think about it. Movies, TV and other forms of entertainment that don't require real beings. It would change the entertaiment industry from top to bottom.

And I remember reading an interview of John Carmack a year or so ago saying that we only needed about a 100 fold increase in computing power over current levels to reach the capability. That should happen within most of our lifetimes.
 
heatlesssun said:
I think that realtime photorealistc 3D rendering is going to happen within our lifetime, and will be one of the revolutions in technology.

Think about it. Movies, TV and other forms of entertainment that don't require real beings. It would change the entertaiment industry from top to bottom.

And I remember reading an interview of John Carmack a year or so ago saying that we only needed about a 100 fold increase in computing power over current levels to reach the capability. That should happen within most of our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

yeh that would be great...lets hope it happens in ALL of our lifetimes :)
 
RoffleCopter said:
The argument that our body can't see more than 150 fps is pretty much, for a lack of words, dumb. There are many sites and studies disproving the "our eyes can't see past XX fps." BTW our eyes don't see in "FPS", they work differently from video cameras and other optical devices.
Click to expand...
Our eyes can be compared similarly to an LCD.

By the way it works, an LCD is the closest thing to how a human eye works.

Since it only changes whichever pixel changed instead of refreshing the whole screen like a CRT.
 
2gigs said:
Our body can only recognize 150 fps or less, any more is useless, exception for some mentally diffrent people, including those with add, adhd, autisim, and aspergers.
Click to expand...
wtf. I think you have add, adhd, autisim and aspergers for believing that bs.
 
I have always said 60fps is good. But latley, I can tell a difference. Running cod2 at 60-80 frames.. and It seems glitchy to me, I don't get it. Maybe I personally am used to 90+fps(standard cap, but I usually turned cap off) from cod1? I nearly turned CoD2 down to med graphics because I can't handle it(It's not bad, but it kinda feels like I'm lagging when I'm hitting an avg of 30ping!).
 
what i want to see is anatomically correct wounds. like if you shoot someone in the chest in an FPS game, the cloths would rip accordingly, the skin would hang off the wound, the fat underneath the skin would ooze out a little, the muscles would tear at the fibers and the organs would leak their own liquids. blood and bodily fluids would flow out of the wound correctly and stain sorrounding clothes and environment. and then BAM BAM BAM head shot! the skull would explode and grey brain matter would splatter all over the place. yea.....

or virtual reality would be cool too.
 
Liquid_Cooled said:
what i want to see is anatomically correct wounds. like if you shoot someone in the chest in an FPS game, the cloths would rip accordingly, the skin would hang off the wound, the fat underneath the skin would ooze out a little, the muscles would tear at the fibers and the organs would leak their own liquids. blood and bodily fluids would flow out of the wound correctly and stain sorrounding clothes and environment. and then BAM BAM BAM head shot! the skull would explode and grey brain matter would splatter all over the place. yea.....

or virtual reality would be cool too.
Click to expand...

What about rocket launchers? :-P
 
Rocket Launchers....... *guh dunk fwoooooooooooooooooooooo BOOOOOM* the explosion from the rocket sends chunks of human flying in all directions. as each peice flies off, little bits of bone, muscle and sinew leave a meat trail in its wake. the whole sorrounding environment is littered with man peices and blood. theirs a faint red cloud left over by the vaporized blood (volumetric blood). 15 seconds later, the rest of the peices fall back down to the ground, pummeling you as you retreat for cover.
 
Spiff1333 said:
Shit.... I remember when Max Paybe looked like real life. Photo textures...ohhhh ahhhhh
Click to expand...

Hey, now - photo textures can go an AWFUL long way to making something look 'real'.
 
Any translation to a formal system (binary in this case) will lose information. Thus, it is techinically impossible to have a computer game that truly represents the real world, as all computer games have to run on a formal system, by definition.

That being said, there is still much progress to be made, and it is theoretically possible to represent the world to a point that we cannot tell the difference (the matrix).
 
Liquid_Cooled said:
Rocket Launchers....... *guh dunk fwoooooooooooooooooooooo BOOOOOM*
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen a Rocket's noise described so good. Kudos
 
Liquid_Cooled said:
Rocket Launchers....... *guh dunk fwoooooooooooooooooooooo BOOOOOM* the explosion from the rocket sends chunks of human flying in all directions. as each peice flies off, little bits of bone, muscle and sinew leave a meat trail in its wake. the whole sorrounding environment is littered with man peices and blood. theirs a faint red cloud left over by the vaporized blood (volumetric blood). 15 seconds later, the rest of the peices fall back down to the ground, pummeling you as you retreat for cover.
Click to expand...

Talk about having an uber mature^1000000000000 rated game....... :eek:
 
No matter how good you think the games look and feel now, they are FAR from life-like. There is much room to grow on the graphics side of things and MUCH more than that needed on the physics side.

Until we have Holodecks, nVidia and ATi Aegia aren't finished.

As to dying in Holodecks, it's hard to do. Unless the saftey protocols are over ridden or flat out fail. :D
 
tacosareveryyummy said:
Talk about having an uber mature^1000000000000 rated game....... :eek:
Click to expand...
Sadly, this "game" happens almost once a week in Israel... :(
 
tacosareveryyummy said:
Talk about having an uber mature^1000000000000 rated game....... :eek:
Click to expand...
I can only the imagine the do gooder "video games invented violence" lining up against that. I'd buy it. :D
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
As to dying in Holodecks, it's hard to do. Unless the saftey protocols are over ridden or flat out fail. :D
Click to expand...
What if you're in it and your PC that's commanding it BSOD? :(
 
I think we're in for a short run if power limitations aren't overcome first (kilowatt power supplies are not unheard of today). Assuming that power consumption isn't a limit, I'd guess 7-15 years on the rendering side of things (when texture quality, map sizes and all the bells and whistles are not a consideration).

To render a fair to good scene would take my computer 16 hrs plus for a single frame. Every new advancement makes older technology look cartoonish and we haven't even come close to simple radiosity and sub-surface scattering New implementations dramatically speed things up, eg. T&L, engines using normal maps and specular, etc... but acceptable radiosity is a real killer and I can think of few ways to cheat (and will be absolutely amazing when/if ever implemented).



BTW, if you're interesting in seeing what average Joe's and Jane's are putting out, check out 3dtotal. (the page is slightly broken but the galleries and forums are working fine).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top