Portugeezer
Member
So, uh, how do you start the cutscene? I just have control over the landscape and it looks alright.
I was having trouble where I'd seen that kid's face and what do you know its from a 2006 CG movie, Monster House.
Guess we're reaching the point where games can near or pass CG animated movies.
So, uh, how do you start the cutscene? I just have control over the landscape and it looks alright.
This demo is extremely impressive. Especially the draw distance but I wouldn't say we're anywhere near close to CG.I was having trouble where I'd seen that kid's face and what do you know its from a 2006 CG movie, Monster House.
Guess we're reaching the point where games can near or pass CG animated movies.
This demo is extremely impressive. Especially the draw distance but I wouldn't say we're anywhere near close to CG.
Modern CGI is ridiculous. I don't think we'll ever be able to surpass it as it's always getting better.
How old are we talking though?Älg;167762945 said:I think what he meant is that modern realtime looks better than old CG. Obviously CG is always going to look better; I mean, how will a regular consumer PC ever be able to do what takes a render farm 5 days.
How old are we talking though?
This demo is extremely impressive. Especially the draw distance but I wouldn't say we're anywhere near close to CG.
Modern CGI is ridiculous. I don't think we'll ever be able to surpass it as it's always getting better.
Toy Story 1 is pretty ugly guys.
I'm curious how this performs on 4 core vs 6 core. Would love to see some benchmarks showing that.
At least Toy Story 1 has proper shadows for every light source (here we go again with getting the basics down first) and geometry that is smooth for every character/prop in the scene.
These are first requirements IMO to approaching film quality that the latest hardware just can't seem to match even today.
Couldn't we also talk about all the things that Toy Story 1 lacks as well though?
I'm curious how this performs on 4 core vs 6 core. Would love to see some benchmarks showing that.
Has anybody found the location of the kite cave from the demo on the map?
I can't find it.
I just installed this demo to play around with it.
Honestly, W3's rendering of environments look better. The foliage has more detail in this demo but everything else isn't "wowing" me at all. And yes, this is far far from CGI.
Runs better than I'd have expected on my GTX 860M-powered laptop.
...which, granted, is still terribly. Really wish there were configuration options so I could dial down the resolution and motion blur a bit.
I have never heard of the term 'stoichiastic' before. Could somebody please explain it to me?
Pertaining to a process involving a randomly-determined sequence of observations.
Not impressed. UE4 can look *fiiine* but I would believe you if told me this demo was Arma II.
Running at 30 fps on GTX 980 at 1080p. Amazing. Witcher 4 could look this good + all the special effect of magic and monsters.
Anyway, saw some weird stuff lol
No one that watches CG media cares about perfectly smooth curved edges unless they're a huge nerd.Yea, I just ignore those comments now. Even Monster House was using a ray-tracer and has perfectly smooth curved edges. Games can't even get that right yet.
Most screens look great, but this one's awful. What kindof material is that T-Shirt meant to be made of? And the backpack straps are low poly and badly textured.
Why skimp on those things when you're gonna have close ups of your character?
Hands down not even close. Subjectively speaking that is. A little bit objectively too. Just tried this kite demo and it blew my mind. Infinitely farther visibility than TW3 and much more advanced vegetation. Especially since the lighting is superior in every way. This demo to me looks very realistic and I can't stop thinking about getting to actually play a game with this scale and graphical fidelity. This is realtime. We have this tech realised in games now. Taking the complete composition into account I think this is really close to CGI. CGI per say doesn't necessarily look good. Remember the CGI cutscenes from PSX era Final Fantasy? We've had gameplay looking infinitely better than that for so long now.
Honestly, W3's rendering of environments look better. The foliage has more detail in this demo but everything else isn't "wowing" me at all.
Hands down not even close. Subjectively speaking that is. A little bit objectively too. Just tried this kite demo and it blew my mind. Infinitely farther visibility than TW3 and much more advanced vegetation. Especially since the lighting is superior in every way. This demo to me looks very realistic and I can't stop thinking about getting to actually play a game with this scale and graphical fidelity. This is realtime. We have this tech realised in games now. Taking the complete composition into account I think this is really close to CGI. CGI per say doesn't necessarily look good. Remember the CGI cutscenes from PSX era Final Fantasy? We've had gameplay looking infinitely better than that for so long now.
The foliage has a level of detail that popins in about 50% of the screenspace. That's not a technical achievement in my book. Stop and look down at the ground with the foliage.. still using sprite cards that don't cast individual shadows on the ground. The ground underneath isn't even detailed enough like W3's ground. The rocks are even worse -- still polygonal silhouettes. Sky and clouds look standard.. no atmosphere fog in the distance..
Other than that, what else is there to look at.
Lastly, you really need to look at proper CGI for grass. Some companies use individual fur hairs with many segments for 1 strand of grass along with an actual SSS shader for capturing illumination.. on top of it casting a shadow with AO.
W3 is also not different when it comes to sprite cards. They don't cast individual shadows either.
Just to compare TW3 (maxed out at 1080p without motion blur and depth of field) with the Kite demo: TW3
Kite:
While the demo looked good overall, the chromatic aberration in it made everything seem extremely blurry, giving it almost the same look as 3d without glasses. I was never bothered by CA in games but this one seems to be dialled to the max. Now I question, what the hell is the point of that effect?
Well, that might be because he spelled the word wrong The word he was looking for was "stochastic" which means effectively what E-Cat described:
Pertaining to a process involving a randomly-determined sequence of observations.
I think the word is supposed to be stochastic. It means randomly-generated.