Is the pixel density really such a good idea when what you see looks so bland and last-gen(for a lack of a better phrase)?
Ehh....
Pixel throughput, in both density, quality and temporal frequency. And yes, if you are doing VR it's a very good idea indeed to sacrifice flashiness and postprocessing for 90Hz, stereoscopy, resolution and high-quality pixels.Is the pixel density really such a good idea
What I love about Source in particular is just how damn clean it looks. UE4 and Cryengine and all these other more recent engines have really cool features and complicated lighting models, but it's damn near impossible to get them to look clean. Frostbite is probably the worst offender, to the point that even at 4k with 4xMSAA you end up with a screen full of artifacts. It's not helped by the level designers at DICE really loving their fences and telephone cables.
And with Source 2 being so closely tied to VR, it's obviously going to continue that tradition of focusing on image quality over cool effects. I'm all for it.
Well, I'll tell you what that demo looks like on the Source engine: nothing. Because OG Source would curl up and die with a 600k poly model.
Is that 600k poly model a character model? Seems kinda high considering The Order had 100k+ poly character models.
Now people will look at these, compare them to what they see in their latest sub-1080p 30FPS post-AA'd frame of reference, and conclude that it's not impressive.
While disregarding all of this (and all the other challenges of VR rendering, such as latency and geometry amplification):
Context, my dear friends, is everything.
wow, does Valve care about gamers these days or are they solely focused on profits now?
Now people will look at these, compare them to what they see in their latest sub-1080p 30FPS post-AA'd frame of reference, and conclude that it's not impressive.
While disregarding all of this (and all the other challenges of VR rendering, such as latency and geometry amplification)
What a hilarious premise for a thread. Here's a section from a demo actually meant for presentation
http://a.pomf.se/ggbwxs.webm
Are you actively trying to misconstrue that post?
That was basically just a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant is that you have 2x (or less than that due to smart tricks, but still more than monoscopic) the geometry load because of stereoscopic rendering, in addition to the pixel load outlined on those slides. But the term "geometry amplification" is used mostly in the context of hull/geometry shading and tessellation, so I see how that can be confusing.Can you elaborate on the last bit, geometry amplification?
That was basically just a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant is that you have 2x (or less than that due to smart tricks, but still more than monoscopic) the geometry load because of stereoscopic rendering, in addition to the pixel load outlined on those slides. But the term "geometry amplification" is used mostly in the context of hull/geometry shading and tessellation, so I see how that can be confusing.
I wouldn't be surprised if L4D3 came to consoles considering it's always done well there.Do you guys reckon Valve with still support consoles with their next full retail priced efforts such as Half Life 3 or Left 4 Dead 3? Havn't updated my PC in a while and i'm not sure I want to.
I wouldn't be surprised if L4D3 came to consoles considering it's always done well there.
But so much of Valve's philosophy is based around semi-regular updates and Workshop and things like that - so who knows. They might never do another console game.
That was basically just a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant is that you have 2x (or less than that due to smart tricks, but still more than monoscopic) the geometry load because of stereoscopic rendering, in addition to the pixel load outlined on those slides. But the term "geometry amplification" is used mostly in the context of hull/geometry shading and tessellation, so I see how that can be confusing.
Given how the graphics are duplicated and running in parallel, would VR be one of the few applications where you could get close to full performance out of both cards in an SLI setup?
Given how the graphics are duplicated and running in parallel, would VR be one of the few applications where you could get close to full performance out of both cards in an SLI setup?
out of the box no, since you are still rendering one image 2160x1200 but nvidia is working on something called VRDirect, which does just that. having 2 970's would be better then one 980
Valve already tested AMD's multi-GPU solution and that almost doubled their framerate.
honestly looks fine, kinda surprised at the negative reactions. VR shots are never top notch in terms of graphics since you're basically showing off something else
Portal 2 had better graphics. These must not be a real indication on what the system is capable of. They can't be...
I wouldn't be surprised if L4D3 came to consoles considering it's always done well there.
But so much of Valve's philosophy is based around semi-regular updates and Workshop and things like that - so who knows. They might never do another console game.
Portal 2 had better graphics. These must not be a real indication on what the system is capable of. They can't be...
They're not. This is VR stuff.Portal 2 had better graphics. These must not be a real indication on what the system is capable of. They can't be...
Source 1 reveal compared to this was night and day different. Can we have that valve back?
You'll have to not buy anything VR related first and after it fails you'll probably get your Valve back.
Which is unfortunate really as I seriously suspect that this is exactly how it'll end up - a lot of effort spent on helm VR tech which won't take off and all of this will go to waste essentially.
Well, this isn't a "reveal" as such. Just a quick glimpse at how a VR demo looks on the engine.Source 1 reveal compared to this was night and day different. Can we have that valve back?
I was really expecting more from them. Even the last year's pics didn't look that groundbreaking: http://www.gamersbook.com/News/Article/ID/378/Source-Engine-2-Screenshot
Valve really missed their oppurtunity to stand out if they released it 2 years ago! Now they really have serious competition that will eclipse them. I hope it will be at least easy to develop with.
If you are based on - this is VR and not representative of the true quality of the engine- I gave how Source 2 looked in non VR mode: http://www.gamersbook.com/News/Article/ID/378/Source-Engine-2-Screenshot : which still doesn't look that special ! It may have looked good 2-3 years ago !
Also UE4 looks very good even in VR: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=154482016&postcount=1073
As a programmer myself, flashy images doesn't excite me that much, it's the tools and workflow that matters. Consumers being excited by an engine doesn't mean anything.
As a developer and programmer too, I agree. An engine interests us the most in its ease of use and the techniques it has in its workflow. Consumers may be impressed by sth that looks great artistically and weak technically and many times they don't consider how sth is great in tech because it didn't appeal to them.