Support NeoGAF

[Sosokrates]

I don`t know the inner workings of the tool and the wording is ambiguous, "enabled by NVIDIA RTX-based ray tracing and path tracing."
If NVIDIA has proven one thing with their fantastic RT Denoiser and DLSS it is that they can cut corners in the background with a much less noticable impact on the result than one would think. I guess they`re doing the same here in some capacity. The marble demo comes to mind.

I think the marble demo will be possible next gen, and the marble demo is similar to the ramen shop demo.

God knows what kind of hardware next gen will be. 100+tflops, 2tb mem bandwidth, 30gb SSD bandwidth, 3 OR 4x the CPU performance and vastly better RT performance.

 

[Lethal01]

Some of you are really bullish about stuff you don't know about.

Omniverse is fully real time. It's designed for design/enterprise needs and is cloud based. You may have seen in the article that shop has something like 3,000 4k textures. You're looking at a single environment that probably uses north of 30gb of assets.

The point of omniverse is that you don't need to optimise - just throw high detail assets in and it will scale to match. It's going to end up being a pretty solid guide as to where real time graphics can go, but home consoles and PC's may never have the memory to run that ramen shop (as part of a larger game) without optimizing in a way which seriously downgrades the overall look.

Yes it's a great look into the future, posted it because it was an example of something that you can sorta do in real-time *if you render with multiple 3090 level GPU's nvlinked
(the actual video is of course taking second per frame so not at all real-time) but you can see what it looks like in real-time right here https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/on-demand/session/gtcspring22-s42109/.

It's just not at all an example of what to expect out of a PS5 and is a look at why it's crazy to think the quality of actual pre rendered CGI trailer which is many times more expensive can be matched because the PS5 is a few times stronger than PS4.

 

[Neilg]

It's just not at all an example of what to expect out of a PS5 and is a look at why it's crazy to think the quality of actual pre rendered CGI trailer which is many times more expensive can be matched because the PS5 is a few times stronger than PS4.

yeah. we're a long way off this being in games. It would take a shitload of time to optimize that scene to run on a ps5 (maybe doubling the budget), and there would be a noticeable step down in asset, lighting, reflection & texture quality.

we're about to see a bigger gap with graphics for enterprise solutions (vfx & omniverse) start to eclipse what games can offer. used to be games were always the gold standard of 'real time' (by that, I mean 'interactive', i'm used to 2 hour a frame render times), but now that memory is no issue if you have $10k to drop on hardware, suddenly the optimization step can be skipped and it opens a few more doors for certain industries.

 

[ChiefDada]

Add the new GoW trailer to the list of CG trailers that just don't wow me to the point where I don't even understand why they wouldn't show a finely curated cinematic running in real time on the console. Honestly folks, which one impresses you more? GoW CG rendered on a super duper computer over a significant period of time, or the Demon's Souls intro running in real time on a $400 console???

 

[CamHostage]

Add the new GoW trailer to the list of CG trailers that just don't wow me to the point where I don't even understand why they wouldn't show a finely curated cinematic running in real time on the console.

They do this because external studios can produce the clip as a separate media bit from the actual production at the game studio (who are very, very busy making the actual game.)

This CGI studio can make footage in the style of the game (I assume with lender assets modified and upgraded for cinematic use,) do a separate voice recording session, process a cinematic to generally match the style and tone of the games but with its own specific purpose, cut it to exactly the length requested by the publisher (and make a variety of different-length edits for other media purposes,) and put that out to a worldiwde mass audience (who aren't necessarily the same pixel-counters or bullshot-concerned crowd as GAFers, a lot of it is just kids and people going, "Oh, that looks cool.")

It's much easier as a separate production.

It also avoids spoilers, which is an issue that supposedly is a huge concern for the GoW team. (I doubt it goes this far, but there could be game-altering story events ala TLoU2 that they would want to hide...) They can put a character anywhere that looks good, throw in the enemies that look best for that scene, pull out any character that would be on that scenery but that they don't want shown, make a disassociated clip that is clearly design to sell the product and tease the story, and that all gets done by somebody else while the game designers design the game.

(There's also other reasons, such as that these are videos made for commercial purposes, so there's a different budget that the video production pulls from, or that they're produced at a different fidelity level for running in TV commercials or theater advertisements. Corporate reasons like that factor in.)

 

[ChiefDada]

They do this because external studios can produce the clip as a separate media bit from the actual production at the game studio (who are very, very busy making the actual game.)

This CGI studio can make footage in the style of the game (I assume with lender assets modified and upgraded for cinematic use,) do a separate voice recording session, process a cinematic to generally match the style and tone of the games but with its own specific purpose, and put that out to a mass audience (who aren't necessarily the same pixel-counters or bullshot-concerned crowd as GAFers, a lot of it is just kids and people going, "Oh, a new one of those, that looks cool."

It's much easier as a separate production. It also avoids spoilers, which is an issue that supposedly is a huge concern for the GoW team (I doubt it goes this far, but there could be game-altering story events ala TLoU2 that they would want to hide...) They can put a character anywhere that looks good, have the enemies that look best for that scene, pull out any character that would be on that scenery but that they don't want shown, make a disassociated clip that is clearly design to sell the product and tease the story, and that all gets done by somebody else while the game designers design the game.

Well color me enlightened. This makes a ton of sense.

 

[Sosokrates]

Yes it's a great look into the future, posted it because it was an example of something that you can sorta do in real-time *if you render with multiple 3090 level GPU's nvlinked
(the actual video is of course taking second per frame so not at all real-time) but you can see what it looks like in real-time right here https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/on-demand/session/gtcspring22-s42109/.

It's just not at all an example of what to expect out of a PS5 and is a look at why it's crazy to think the quality of actual pre rendered CGI trailer which is many times more expensive can be matched because the PS5 is a few times stronger than PS4.

What's interesting though does it really matter at this point?

No doubt the lighting is more realistic in that ramen demo. But its still an imitation, its kind of like the uncanny valley effect, where while it may look more realistic then PS5 level UE5 realtime ramen shop, its still jist a better looking fake,
They can jave more rays and higher res assets but it still looks artificial.
Its pretty much diminishing returns.

However ray tracing are pathtracing were created and regardless of how many rays they use its still an imitation which still does not look real.

Kinda reminds of when mouse in the matrix film was talking about if the machines got the taste of wheat or chicken correct.
The people who made these cgi and game engine tools still dont have lighting quiye right yet and adding "more" wont solve this issue.



Another example is sex robots made from rubber, now they look really fake, people can create more realistic rubber sex dolls but no matter how detailed they get they still dont look real, the only way to get more realistic sex robots is to try a new method for skin.

I kinda feel current realtime and pre rendered visuals are still in the "rubber" stage.

 

[Lethal01]

What's interesting though does it really matter at this point?

Does what really matter?

The point was that it was claimed that you would expect a theoretical native PS5 games to surpass a modern pre rendered scene easily. I was explaining why that's insane.

No doubt the lighting is more realistic in that ramen demo. But its still an imitation, its kind of like the uncanny valley effect, where while it may look more realistic then PS5 level UE5 realtime ramen shop, its still jist a better looking fake,
They can have more rays and higher res assets but it still looks artificial.
Its pretty much diminishing returns.

However ray tracing are pathtracing were created and regardless of how many rays they use its still an imitation which still does not look real.

With pathtracing you can absolutely create things that are indistinguishable from reality, it doesn't matter if it's fake. personally I am very excited for better looking fakes even if they aren't photorealistic. The jump from PS4 games to something like the Matrix Awakens is massive and gets rids of issues that have bothered me for the last decade or so. and if we can keep improving hardware at this rate I think there will be more than enough of a jump for me to not worry about dimishing returns.

Since PS1 we've just been making "better imitations" of reality, better imitations are as exciting as they've ever been.

Another example is sex robots made from rubber, now they look really fake, people can create more realistic rubber sex dolls but no matter how detailed they get they still dont look real, the only way to get more realistic sex robots is to try a new method for skin.

I kinda feel current realtime and pre rendered visuals are still in the "rubber" stage.

I'd say you've most likely seen tons of CGI that you didn't realize was CGI. That's the point of it after all. When CGI looks bad the "limitation" of using pathtracing is absolutely not the issue.

 

[saintjules]

Maybe by the end of the generation?

 

[Sosokrates]

Does what really matter?

The point was that it was claimed that you would expect a theoretical native PS5 games to surpass a modern pre rendered scene easily. I was explaining why that's insane.




With pathtracing you can absolutely create things that are indistinguishable from reality, it doesn't matter if it's fake. personally I am very excited for better looking fakes even if they aren't photorealistic. The jump from PS4 games to something like the Matrix Awakens is massive and gets rids of issues that have bothered me for the last decade or so. and if we can keep improving hardware at this rate I think there will be more than enough of a jump for me to not worry about dimishing returns.

Since PS1 we've just been making "better imitations" of reality, better imitations are as exciting as they've ever been.



I'd say you've most likely seen tons of CGI that you didn't realize was CGI. That's the point of it after all. When CGI looks bad the "limitation" of using pathtracing is absolutely not the issue.

Yes in certain conditions cgi can look imperceptible to reality, Im talking about the times it does not and the state of the art realtime graphics..

Sorry, I should of made it more clear that I was not commenting on what you said, but talking about the ramen demo.

 

[Neilg]

Sorry, I should of made it more clear that I was not commenting on what you said, but talking about the ramen demo.

The purpose of the ramen demo was to show enterprise users how much data you can throw into their tool. flawless photorealism is not the aim of it. they want clarity, sharpness, and all details to be visible.

Often what people mistake for bad CG is a product of the people working on it being reluctant to 'hide' work and not push the contrast hard enough. every edge is lit and there's a level of clarity in a lot of it that simply doesn't exist in real life. it looks cool because it's an onslaught of detail. For many studios, this is the end goal. They're not trying to replicate reality or what it would look like if that thing was happening for real and being filmed.
Basically, what you don't like is a stylistic choice, all the advancements of the PS6 won't solve your dissatisfaction. I could take a frame of the ramen demo into photoshop, spent 10 minutes pushing it around and end up with something a lot more photorealistic.

Lots of movies that aren't CG heavy do this too - you'd be amazed to know how much work goes into lighting any given shot in some movies to pick out detail and layering. Your complaint is basically like saying dave LaChapelle's photography doesn't look like reality. it's very intentional.

 

[Sosokrates]

The purpose of the ramen demo was to show enterprise users how much data you can throw into their tool. flawless photorealism is not the aim of it. they want clarity, sharpness, and all details to be visible.

Often what people mistake for bad CG is a product of the people working on it being reluctant to 'hide' work and not push the contrast hard enough. every edge is lit and there's a level of clarity in a lot of it that simply doesn't exist in real life. it looks cool because it's an onslaught of detail. For many studios, this is the end goal. They're not trying to replicate reality or what it would look like if that thing was happening for real and being filmed.
Basically, what you don't like is a stylistic choice, all the advancements of the PS6 won't solve your dissatisfaction. I could take a frame of the ramen demo into photoshop, spent 10 minutes pushing it around and end up with something a lot more photorealistic.

Lots of movies that aren't CG heavy do this too - you'd be amazed to know how much work goes into lighting any given shot in some movies to pick out detail and layering. Your complaint is basically like saying dave LaChapelle's photography doesn't look like reality. it's very intentional.

e: 4 minutes. couldve gone much further but I think it's better than their output

They said photorealism was a goal in the documentry video...

And i dont have a complaint, im just stating the reality of the current state of technology.

No its not me disliking an art style, the best cgi in a lot of daylight conditions are still a way off looking like reality.

I guess my broader point is, i think after a certain point better visuals is not that exciting as a gamer.

If RDR2 had visuals as good as avatar way of water, yes it would be great, it would be a better experience over what we have now, but it would not be massively better, once the visuals have been absorbed into your brain people would be only be marginally happier with that version then the version we have.

This is probably not the thread to discuss improvements in other simulations in games, but the ramen demo got me thinking about the topic.

 

[OZ9000]

Maybe by the end of the generation?

Goddamn. That looks phenomenal.

PS6 graphics perhaps.

 

[TxKnight7]

What an absolutely ignorant statement. They always had exceptional, out of the ordinary suble tech in their games ever since the first Uncharted. Their GI lighting tech for instance:








Started on PS3 with The Last of Us, unparalleled until ray tracing came along.
The first Uncharted had the best water ever seen at the time, along with first wet shaders and most insanely high resolution textures on the platform. Uncharted 2 the best per object motion blur, SSS and AO. Uncharted 3 the best cloth physics, volumetric lighting, the most technically complex level ever made at the time (sinking ship in real time on a fully procedural ocean), best fire and sand tech. Uncharted 4 the very best IQ seen on a console when it came out, some of the best physics display.. etc.

All ND games were behind crysis games in tech and graphics in the 7th generation even DF approve that with facts, crytek games were far superior saying uncharted 2007 had the best water or better water than crysis 2007 is just .. i don't even
Did you see the water and physics in crysis 2007 at max settings ? no game on console can compete with first crysis and warhead in physics/destruction/world
environmental interactions in that time.
even cutscenes in all ND games were pre rendering video files , while crysis games even though they got a way more open levels and a bigger world yet the characters models in real time in game has better graphics etc than ND games

this is console version of crysis 3 with Uncharted 3 ,one is a pre render scene the other in real time you can move the camera also in that image of crysis

digital foundry
Where Crysis 3 really shines is on the PC, in which we are presented with a huge leap in graphical quality that gives us a tantalising glimpse of visual accomplishment on next-gen hardware "

The fact that Crysis 3 runs on console at all is a remarkable achievement, with Crytek deploying a wide range of advanced rendering techniques"

Crysis 3 on PC effectively offers a "next-gen now" experience - a preview of the level of technical prowess we should expect in the years to come from the new wave of consoles".

2018 DF
It's been ten years since Crysis first released on PC. In 2007
it pushed real time rendering to new heights and spawned the memetic phrase, "but can it run Crysis?". Never had a game released that pushed hardware and engine technology so much, and never has one since."
- There's a level of simulation here you just don't see any more in modern games". "Some rendering effects we saw in Crysis do still persist into present day titles.

From there on out, the game continues to throw high-end effects at you - like the impact on the ocean itself after your parachute fails, the water caustics based upon the surface normal and with a partially volumetric effect in the water volume itself and you also see the refraction above the water surface. As you swim around you can see your own feet and arms moving about you to communicate presence. And then there's the beach, where you get your first interactions with objects

And then there was the character rendering - and bam, it's right in your face. At this point in time, Crytek knew that its character technology was way ahead of its contemporaries
Some rendering effects we saw in Crysis do still persist into present day titles. There's the debut of screen-space ambient occlusion (SSAO), along with a glorious showcase in parallax occlusion mapping, an effect that only really came into its own on the current-gen consoles. Essentially a way to fake geometric depth on a surface, the game also supports shadows being cast from the parallax maps back on to themselves. POM only really gained momentum in the current-gen era and most games either just have parallax occlusion maps with no shadows, or just with shadows from one light source. It illustrates just how far ahead of the curve Crysis was

Crysis games had real time GI did ND uncharted games had it on ps3 ?

Richard Leadbetter
Crysis 2
Central to the game's look and feel is the implementation of real-time global illumination."

"games like Uncharted 2 Among Thieves use offline processing to "bake in" GI.

Crytek the only ones who released a game on ps4 pro with real time ray tracing

even switch ver has SVOGI ,Now let's wait and see how Crysis 4 will be and if they can do it again.

 

[TxKnight7]

Can't wait for this game, that trailer is from 2018 can you imagine how much better it looks now

 

[TxKnight7]

Sony exclusives and some 3rd party titles, along with select PC games are the ONLY games pushing tech and milestones IMO…

Why exclude microsoft games ?
i mean this what we saw from DF two years ago look at microsoft flight sim

Best Game Graphics of 2020

1. Cyberpunk (on pc)
2. Spiderman Miles Morales
3. Microsoft flight simulator
4. Half life Alyx
5. The last of us part 2
6. Demons souls
7. Doom eternal
8. Ori and the will of the wisps
9. Minecraft Rtx

Honorable mentions:
Teardown
Final fantasy 7 remake
Call of duty cold war
Ghost of tsushima

 

[nominedomine]

Why exclude microsoft games ?
i mean this what we saw from DF two years ago look at microsoft flight sim

Best Game Graphics of 2020

1. Cyberpunk (on pc)
2. Spiderman Miles Morales
3. Microsoft flight simulator
4. Half life Alyx
5. The last of us part 2
6. Demons souls
7. Doom eternal
8. Ori and the will of the wisps
9. Minecraft Rtx

Honorable mentions:
Teardown
Final fantasy 7 remake
Call of duty cold war
Ghost of tsushima

Flight simulator isn't even made by a MS studio and landscapes in that game leave a lot to be desired when you get close (at least in the Xbox Series X version I played). The interior of the planes and the clouds are the most impressive parts, the 3D scan part and AI generated terrain needs to improve a lot.

The guys behind Forza and id are probably the only ones inside MS really pushing graphics tech.

Why exclude microsoft games ?
i mean this what we saw from DF two years ago look at microsoft flight sim

Best Game Graphics of 2020

1. Cyberpunk (on pc)
2. Spiderman Miles Morales
3. Microsoft flight simulator
4. Half life Alyx
5. The last of us part 2
6. Demons souls
7. Doom eternal
8. Ori and the will of the wisps
9. Minecraft Rtx

Honorable mentions:
Teardown
Final fantasy 7 remake
Call of duty cold war
Ghost of tsushima

This list is laughable.

 

[TxKnight7]

Flight simulator isn't even made by a MS studio

The guys behind Forza and id are probably the only ones inside MS really pushing graphics tech.

I know ,same with Detroit become human ,Heavy rain and beyond two souls with other games Death stranding ? Spider man 2018 before acquisition ?
some were so happy with DF choosing death stranding for 2019

I will add Ninja theory too for microsoft who is a very talented dev Hellblade 2 look almost real CGI i hope 2023 is the release date

 

[Sosokrates]

Robocop and skull + bones being current gen only is a bit depressing, i mean these are "next gen games"

They look very last gen, but I suspect they are ditching last gen because its just easier to develop for current gen.

 

[Sosokrates]

Flight simulator isn't even made by a MS studio and landscapes in that game leave a lot to be desired when you get close (at least in the Xbox Series X version I played). The interior of the planes and the clouds are the most impressive parts, the 3D scan part and AI generated terrain needs to improve a lot.

The guys behind Forza and id are probably the only ones inside MS really pushing graphics tech.


This list is laughable.

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.

 

[nominedomine]

I know ,same with Detroit become human ,Heavy rain and beyond two souls with other games Death stranding ? Spider man 2018 before acquisition ?
some were so happy with DF choosing death stranding for 2019

I will add Ninja theory too for microsoft who is a very talented dev Hellblade 2 look almost real CGI i hope 2023 is the release date

Ninja Theory was pretty much an indie studio just the other day, when I think about studios that are really pushing graphics tech forward I think about studios that use their own custom engine, not you average studio using Unreal. Ninja Theory were all about performance capture and trying to make good looking gaming with small budgets, maybe they've changed we'll see, they haven't released a AAA game in almost 10 years.

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.

I can't even take you serious if you say something like that.

 

[Sosokrates]

Ninja Theory was pretty much an indie studio just the other day, when I think about studios that are really pushing graphics tech forward I think about studios that use their own custom engine, not you average studio using Unreal.

I can't even take you serious if you say something like that.

Halo 4 had great visuals for console at a time, and halo 5 being 60fps was also pretty good at the time.

You can have your own individual definition for "pushing graphics tech forward" but there is an real defintion.
Hellblade 2 is the most impressive game shown so far for current gen. And it probably will be because its using current gen tech.

 

[nominedomine]

Halo 4 had great visuals for console at a time, and halo 5 being 60fps was also pretty good at the time.

No, sorry. You guys are here complaining that current gen games are not impressive while saying Halo 4 and 5 were impressive? Please.

If anything 343 is know for their lack of technical competence.

 

[Sosokrates]

No, sorry. You guys are here complaining that current gen games are not impressive while saying Halo 4 and 5 were impressive? Please.

At the time they had good graphics.
While at times infonite can be a very attractive game, its lacking and several areas comapred to the best visuals.
But it does seem to be a tech problem, halo 4 introduced some great lighting which was very good at the time and halo 5 was a solid 60fps, sure it had compromises but it was still considered a technically pleasing game.


Also grow up with the console war crap, "you guys". Maybe some but not me, ive praised rift apart, flight sim and returnals visuals many times.

 

[UnNamed]

Maybe by the end of the generation?

I feel Chinese developers are good to make demos but fail to release a final product.

 

[nominedomine]

At the time they had good graphics.
While at times infonite can be a very attractive game, its lacking and several areas comapred to the best visuals.
But it does seem to be a tech problem, halo 4 introduced some great lighting which was very good at the time and halo 5 was a solid 60fps, sure it had compromises but it was still considered a technically pleasing game.

Maybe we just have very different ideas of what pushing graphics tech forward mean. I'm talking about studios that are a reference in that regard like, ND, R*, Guerrilla and Epic.

Bend made what is probably one of the best looking Unreal 4 games but they aren't the first studio that comes to mind when I'm thinking about pushing graphics forward. It's not going to be like suddenly just using Unreal 5 is going to magically make every studio a tech powerhouse.

 

[Sosokrates]

Maybe we just have very different ideas of what pushing graphics tech forward mean. I'm talking about studios that are a reference in that regard like ND, R*, Guerrilla and Epic.

That maybe so, but at the end of the day, its how released games visuals is what matters, and hellblade 2 will likely have some of the best visuals for a while.

 

[nominedomine]

That maybe so, but at the end of the day, its how released games visuals is what matters, and hellblade 2 will likely have some of the best visuals for a while.

I hope so, so far it looked really impressive and I hope they have success. But the game has to actually release before they get credit for it.

I'm a little more skeptical than most when it comes to Unreal 5, for as much hype as it get it's getting a really slow roll out as far as actual games releasing. That Matrix demo was impressive but the 30fps cap and performance in general left a lot to be desired.

 

[Sosokrates]

Maybe we just have very different ideas of what pushing graphics tech forward mean. I'm talking about studios that are a reference in that regard like, ND, R*, Guerrilla and Epic.

Bend made what is probably one of the best looking Unreal 4 games but they aren't the first studio that comes to mind when I'm thinking about pushing graphics forward. It's not going to be like suddenly just using Unreal 5 is going to magically make every studio a tech powerhouse.

I would say UE4 that bend used is actually better tech then Naughty Dogs engine, especially at outdoor daytime lighting, but the reason why ND are so good is because they sepend so much time polishing and taylor making the environments. Basically ND games are hand crafted in nearly every aspect compared to other games. On other games u can see areas where they cut corners.

 

[nominedomine]

I would say UE4 that bend used is actually better tech then Naughty Dogs engine, especially at outdoor daytime lighting, but the reason why ND are so good is because they sepend so much time polishing and taylor making the environments. Basically ND games are hand crafted in nearly every aspect compared to other games. On other games u can see areas where they cut corners.

All I know is that when a ND game drops like Uncharted 4 or The Last of Us Part II it blows everything out of the water when it comes to graphics. Guerrilla has been able to do the same (when it comes to graphics at least) and when Kojima used their engine he was able to achieve spectacular results.

 

[Sosokrates]

All I know is that when a ND game drops like Uncharted 4 or The Last of Us Part II it blows everything out of the water. Guerrilla has been able to do the same as far (as graphics at least) and when Kojima used their engine he was able to achieve spectacular results.

It blows stuff out the water because of the attention to detail, and they are super polished (lining up cube map fallbacks perfectly with ssr etc..) but from a pire technology persoective the ND engine is not doing anything special. In terms of image quality I would say its behind other AAA solutions.

I would say Guerillas tech is actually better then NDs. But ND will be using there engine for a reason, probably for workflow, convenience and the particular goals they have for the type of games they make.

I do kinda wonder why sony try and unify an engine because there big games to seem to be going in a open world/semi open world direction.

 

[nominedomine]

It blows stuff out the water because of the attention to detail, and they are super polished (lining up cube map fallbacks perfectly with ssr etc..) but from a pire technology persoective the ND engine is not doing anything special. In terms of image quality I would say its behind other AAA solutions.

I would say Guerillas tech is actually better then NDs. But ND will be using there engine for a reason, probably for workflow, convenience and the particular goals they have for the type of games they make.

I do kinda wonder why sony try and unify an engine because there big games to seem to be going in a open world/semi open world direction.

ND games were made for the PS4, you have to take that into account, when comparing it to the likes of Cyberpunk or Control that run like complete shit on a PS4 and brute force a lot of stuff. I think knowing how to use resources efficiently is more impressive than brute forcing looks by including a bunch of stuff that even most PCs will struggle to run.

I doubt Sony is going to unify their engine but if they do it's probably going to be under Decima and I bet their studio already share a bunch tools and knowledge behind the scenes.

 

[Lethal01]

I'm a little more skeptical than most when it comes to Unreal 5, for as much hype as it get it's getting a really slow roll out as far as actual games releasing.

Not at all, there is always a delay between a new engine coming out and games being made for it. taking a year or so is nothing and it's only been months.

 

[nominedomine]

Not at all, there is always a delay between a new engine coming out and games being made for it. taking a year or so is nothing and it's only been months.

Months since it was made public, studios that use their own engine were not sitting still. Unreal 5 will have to be judged against what studios will be putting out when the Unreal 5 games start releasing. There is no incentive for the likes of ND or R* to promote their engine for years without releasing games that is only something Unreal and Unity will do.

When is the first big AAA Unreal 5 game going to release?

 

[CamHostage]

Not at all, there is always a delay between a new engine coming out and games being made for it. taking a year or so is nothing and it's only been months.

Right, people forget previous UE timelines took a while to actually launch big products on home platforms.

UE4:

• Announced March 6, 2012 (private) / June 7, 2012 (public).
• PS4/Xbox One consoles release November 2013.
• Engine officially finalized March 19, 2014.
• First games launched:
  • Daylight, April 29, 2014 (indie)
  • Mind: Path to Thalamus (indie) August 15, 2014
  • Alone in the Dark: Illumination June 11, 2015
  • Tekken 7 (arcade) March 18, 2015, not released for console until 2017
  • Games of 2016 include Hardware: Rivals (January), Street Fighter V (February), Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade (Feb), Postal Redux (May), Dead by Daylight (June), Gears of War 4 (October), Batman: Arkham VR (Oct), Batman: Return to Arkham (Oct), Moto Racer 4 (Nov)

(*lots of other indies mixed in there, but basically it wasn't until over 2 years after console launch that what probably would be considered "big games" came out)

And then, just for fun:

UE3:

• Announced May 2004 (E3 showing of "Unreal Engine 3.0")
• Xbox 360 console released November 2005 / PS3 console released November 2006
• Engine unofficially "finalized" 2006/2007?
• First games launched:
  • RoboBlitz, November 7, 2006
  • Gears of War, November 22, 2006
  • Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas, November 22, 2006
  • UT3: November 19, 2007

(*So, 1 year into the console cycle, albeit year 1 of PS3 because it came out a year late.)

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

If I were trying to make a next gen game that looked impressive I'd just focus on making it look alive as possible. Destruction, good animation, weather effects etc. I think that's where the biggest gains are.

I'd then just fit in the other stuff like resolution, poly count, even frame rate, around that.

I disagree…whatever makes a game look photo realistic should be done first. Its the result not the method that matters… polycount, animation, lighting first. Physics are only partially required and destruction isn’t that important in a linear game aiming for the best fidelity possible IMO. Take TLOU II for example no RT at all and perfectly placed baked lighting.




Another example The Order 1886, looks CGI and photo realistic…baked lighting etc. only whats needed is used to complete the experience thats MY philosophy

 

[ChiefDada]

I disagree…whatever makes a game look photo realistic should be done first. Its the result not the method that matters… polycount, animation, lighting first. Physics
and destruction aren’t that important in a linear game aiming for the best fidelity possible IMO. Take TLOU II for example no RT at all and perfectly placed baked lighting.

Such a tricky balance. I've been replaying TLOU2. When the lighting is great it is a thing of beauty. Stepping into Joel's house *Chef's Kiss*. But some areas are given more attention than others. This is where RTGI could really keep things consistent throughout a game, especially for smaller studios. If a dev can allocate time and manpower to ensure vast majority of areas in the game are accurately lit with precomputed data then I'm all for it, especially if it gives them more render time for other aspects that bring the visuals that much closer to reality.

Another example The Order 1886, looks CGI and photo realistic…baked lighting etc. only whats needed is used to complete the experience thats MY philosophy

It's all in the PBR materials. PBR shaders are the reason games like The Order and Ryse still hold up extremely well and often look better than games releasing today.

 

[Hunnybun]

I disagree…whatever makes a game look photo realistic should be done first. Its the result not the method that matters… polycount, animation, lighting first. Physics are only partially required and destruction isn’t that important in a linear game aiming for the best fidelity possible IMO. Take TLOU II for example no RT at all and perfectly placed baked lighting.




Another example The Order 1886, looks CGI and photo realistic…baked lighting etc. only whats needed is used to complete the experience thats MY philosophy

I think it's a false dichotomy. Good CPU-driven effects ARE a part of high fidelity visuals.

I just think we're much further into diminishing returns territory with the sort of things you're talking about than destruction, physics, weather etc, which barely even exist in games at this point. I've got little interest in pretty but dead worlds becoming even prettier but still dead worlds.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

There is no reason to thing the PS5 being lets say 10x stronger than a PS4 means it should be able to use techniques that are 50x more complex with scenes that have 100x more geometry.

The ps5 has ray tracing acceleration, it is probably 100+X faster at ray tracing than a ps4. Nanite has essentially allowed for infinite geometry to be used, and nanite alone runs at 60+fps 1440p on ps5.

We have seen that nanite like tech is likely applicable to deformable mesh, developers just haven't develop the software techniques yet but it is on the development horizon.

I think it's a false dichotomy. Good CPU-driven effects ARE a part of high fidelity visuals.

I just think we're much further into diminishing returns territory with the sort of things you're talking about than destruction, physics, weather etc, which barely even exist in games at this point. I've got little interest in pretty but dead worlds becoming even prettier but still dead worlds.

What is amazing is that they still use sticker like clothing in modern games, when a bit of physics based clothing even if baked would be far better and far more believable. It is very immersion breaking to see characters with inflexible clothing that looks like it is molded plastic.

 

[Lethal01]

The ps5 has ray tracing acceleration, it is probably 100+X faster at ray tracing than a ps4. Nanite has essentially allowed for infinite geometry to be used, and nanite alone runs at 60+fps 1440p on ps5.
We have seen that nanite like tech is likely applicable to deformable mesh, developers just haven't develop the software techniques yet but it is on the development horizon.

that's nice, but it doesn't even put the PS5 on the level of 2005 CGI and it's ridiculous to think it's going to be matching modern CGI no matter how powerful you think the PS5 is, understand that you can put thousands of times more power into a CGI scene. The PS5 is 100x faster at raytracing? cute, but it still doing thousands of times less than is required for those CGI scenes.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

that's nice, but it doesn't even put the PS5 on the level of 2005 CGI and it's ridiculous to think it's going to be matching modern CGI no matter how powerful you think the PS5 is, understand that you can put thousands of times more power into a CGI scene. The PS5 is 100x faster at raytracing? cute, but it still doing thousands of times less than is required for those CGI scenes.

I think most cgi from 2005 and before lacked ray tracing in most scenes. Pixar itself didn't mainline ray tracing till 2006. Something like lumen is probably more advanced than pre 2000 hollywood cg lighting.

Already we know the technology exists for doing in realtime Hollywood CG level moving assets.


Nanite is good tech it seems to be using triangles to do what is being done by others with voxels or other techniques.

We have only seen a glimpse of the power of these nextgen consoles, it is clear that with the right software they can do far more impressive visuals.

 

[ChiefDada]

that's nice, but it doesn't even put the PS5 on the level of 2005 CGI

 

[Lethal01]

2005 level CGI

I think most cgi from 2005 and before lacked ray tracing in most scenes. Pixar itself didn't mainline ray tracing till 2006. Something like lumen is probably more advanced than pre 2000 hollywood cg lighting.

Already we know the technology exists for doing in realtime Hollywood CG level moving assets.


Nanite is good tech it seems to be using triangles to do what is being done by others with voxels or other techniques.

We have only seen a glimpse of the power of these nextgen consoles, it is clear that with the right software they can do far more impressive visuals.

Again, not matter how good you think the PS5 is, its realtime graphics can be overpowered by a factor of a thousand with any modern path tracing renderer, it's simply not a content, Realtime and realtime are simply different dimension of CGI and we are far from a time where diminishing returns puts them anywhere near the same league.

 

[ChiefDada]

2005 level CGI

Also 2005 level cgi

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I disagree…whatever makes a game look photo realistic should be done first. Its the result not the method that matters… polycount, animation, lighting first. Physics are only partially required and destruction isn’t that important in a linear game aiming for the best fidelity possible IMO. Take TLOU II for example no RT at all and perfectly placed baked lighting.




Another example The Order 1886, looks CGI and photo realistic…baked lighting etc. only whats needed is used to complete the experience thats MY philosophy

Lighting in these 2 games is clearly not aiming to be "realistic". Visuals are highly stylized and over-saturated. Clearly the artist intention was not to pursuit a realistic looking game but an interesting and pleasant to the eye looking game. They look great, I just don't understand how anyone can look at this and be "shit, this looks exactly like the real world outside my window!".

This is an example of game that aims to mimic real life:

 

[Lethal01]

Also 2005 level cgi

Okay? well technically

This is CGI in 2022 but surely you can understand that we are talking about what is achievable rather than some random example..

Or do you think that this

Is a good example of what the PS5 is capable of?

So again, thinking the PS6 can compete against modern CGI that has 10,000> more power behind every single frame is insane.

 

[ChiefDada]

Okay? well technically

This is CGI in 2022 but surely you can understand that we are talking about what is achievable rather than some random example..

Or do you think that this

Is a good example of what the PS5 is capable of?

So again, thinking the PS6 can compete against modern CGI that has 10,000> more power behind every single frame is insane.

None of my examples are random. All of my comparisons have been confined within the context of the gaming/advertising intersection where CG as opposed to console hardware has been used to generate interest for an upcoming release. Of course there are "levels to this shit" in terms of cg quality but I've really been confined to discussing the quality associated with the type of cg trailers Sony and the like have been using to advertise.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Again, not matter how good you think the PS5 is, its realtime graphics can be overpowered by a factor of a thousand with any modern path tracing renderer, it's simply not a content, Realtime and realtime are simply different dimension of CGI and we are far from a time where diminishing returns puts them anywhere near the same league.

Lighting can be precalculated and baked in realtime if the scenes lighting is static.

 

[Lethal01]

Lighting can be precalculated and baked in realtime if the scenes lighting is static.

It can also be precalculated in prerendered CGI....

there have been systems to use precaculated light in static scenes for decades, When they choose not to, it's because it looks clearly worse. Do you think baking is so secret console only tech that only game devs use?

Being able to pre-calculate 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.

Real-time graphics will not "catch up" to graphics that can take a thousand times more seconds per frame while running on 50 gpus.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

that's nice, but it doesn't even put the PS5 on the level of 2005 CGI and it's ridiculous to think it's going to be matching modern CGI no matter how powerful you think the PS5 is, understand that you can put thousands of times more power into a CGI scene. The PS5 is 100x faster at raytracing? cute, but it still doing thousands of times less than is required for those CGI scenes.

2005?

This alone blows out 2005 CGI




Digital Foundry compares FF7 Remake with Advent Children.