The GT300/Fermi Thread

[Jowy Atreides]

good post

Photo realistic gaming won't happen in our lifetime.

I'll raise your bet and say it happens in the next 4 years. Well within any of our lifetimes .....unless you get hit by a photorealistic bus of course

Feel free to quote me when the time comes.

We'll also have robot servants within 10, to the elite at least. Already exist btw.

[Jamesrt2004]

I'll raise your bet and say it happens in the next 4 years. Well within any of our lifetimes .....unless you get hit by a photorealistic bus of course

Feel free to quote me when the time comes.

We'll also have robot servants within 10, to the elite at least. Already exist btw.

i'd say 10 but easily within out lifetime

[Jowy Atreides]

i'd say 10 but easily within out lifetime

Yeah, 10 is more likely for 'proper' games.

I was just meaning one of those tech demo minigames to show off hardware.
Like the ATI ball pit or the human head demo

[Stevethegreat]

I'll raise your bet and say it happens in the next 4 years. Well within any of our lifetimes .....unless you get hit by a photorealistic bus of course

Feel free to quote me when the time comes.

We'll also have robot servants within 10, to the elite at least. Already exist btw.

Yet the evolution of graphics stopped in 2007. Crysis's level of graphics has yet to be reached and that's 2.5 years ago. Now that consoles took over there is no incentive for (much) better graphics. The next gen of consoles will only match Crysis level of graphics and that would be by 2012, half a decade after crysis itself.

PC gaming is dead and that means that an industry which was moving in the pace of an F1 car now it is moving no faster than a donkey. It like a switch gone off. I don't think that a lifetime is enough for those who wish to see photorealistic graphics, a millenium would be more accurate...

[saaya]

Yet the evolution of graphics stopped in 2007. Crysis's level of graphics has yet to be reached and that's 2.5 years ago. Now that consoles took over there is no incentive for (much) better graphics. The next gen of consoles will only match Crysis level of graphics and that would be by 2012, half a decade after crysis itself.

PC gaming is dead and that means that an industry which was moving in the pace of an F1 car now it is moving no faster than a donkey. It like a switch gone off. I don't think that a lifetime is enough for those who wish to see photorealistic graphics, a millenium would be more accurate...

i wouldnt be so sure... the pc segment is about to collapse, yes, but pc gamers wont just dissapear and go back to inferior interfaces and image quality... the market will continue to evolve, at console pace unfortunately... so it will be very slow steps... but big ones...

[Stevethegreat]

i wouldnt be so sure... the pc segment is about to collapse, yes, but pc gamers wont just dissapear and go back to inferior interfaces and image quality... the market will continue to evolve, at console pace unfortunately... so it will be very slow steps... but big ones...

Sure, I was bit over the top to my speculation. Still my line of thought stands considering that the PC segment was the training ground for next gen graphics. Now that game devs are completely untrained to the new techniques introduced by DX10 and DX11 (since there is no incentive not to be so), they would have to develop those skills from scratch by the time that the next gen of consoles will be released, which won't happen overnight.

X360 looked impressive at first but that was because developers were using techniques which they already knew from the PC arena (DX9, shader 3, HDR), X720 (or however it will be named), it would be far less so; since games are still written in DX9 code there would be no prior experience for anything new by then...

Maybe it won't take a millennium but certainly more than a (normal) lifetime to see photorealistic graphics.

[zalbard]

I'll raise your bet and say it happens in the next 4 years.

No.
For example, Crysis.
So, let's say it represents the current level of our gfx tech advancement. Let's try and get it to the realistic level.
All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).
So add a year for the tech to catch up at least (++ computing power requirements).
Texture quality is also lacking. Need 2x-4x higher texture quality. 2-3 more years (++ computing power requirements).
Geometry... is WAY behind. If you want photo realistic image quality in a 3D game you need 10-20x more polygons at least. That's 5-6 more years till it's actually possible to render that (++ computing power requirements).
Current lighting is crap. We need raytracing. Realistic raytracing with huge resolutions won't be possible really soon, 5 years at minimum (++ computing power requirements).
Summ up all the hardware performance requirements... this is quite a huge jump needed in order to keep a decent frame rate of such a realistic game. This can not be achieved in 2-3-5 years, for sure.
Once the hardware is out, we can create such a game!
And now imagine creating such a game. The content. Each model would take a TON of time to create. Such a game would take 5 years to develop for a HUGE studio.
So don't expect anything within the next 10 years for sure.

[Florinmocanu]

No.
All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).
So add a year for the tech to catch up at least.
Texture quality are also lacking. Need 2x-4x higher texture quality. 2-3 more years.
Geometry... is WAY behind. If you want photo realistic image quality in a 3D game you need 10-20x more polygons at least. That's 5-6 more years till it's actually possible to render that.
Current lighting is crap. We need raytracing. Realistic raytracing with huge resolutions won't be possible really soon, 5 years at minimum.
And now imagine creating this game. The content. Each model will take a TON of time to create. This game will take 5 games to develop for a HUGE studio.
So don't expect anything within the next 10 years for sure.

Your wrong about the bolded part.

Right now, a 3d artist, when creating an object/character in a next gen game creates a really high-poly, photorealistic model, using 3dsmax/maya and zbrush or mudbox for finer details, than creates another identical, low poly version of that model (which will be the in-game model) and bakes all details in normal maps, displacement maps and Ambient occlusion maps from the high poly to the low poly model, so in game, with proper shading, the result looks good even if the geometry lacks.


So, in the future, you won't have to create the extra low-poly model, and bake everything from the high to low version. You will just create a high-poly model and use it in-game.

You will actually cut down on production time.


here is an example, made by Vitali Bulgarov.

High poly model, made in XSI and fine tuned in Zbrush. All the small details are actual geometry, everything is real and not a shading trick (bump maps etc..):



Low poly model, with all maps baked in to it from the high poly (normal maps and ambient occlusion maps) + color textures.

[Jowy Atreides]

No.
All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).
So add a year for the tech to catch up at least.
Texture quality are also lacking. Need 2x-4x higher texture quality. 2-3 more years.
Geometry... is WAY behind. If you want photo realistic image quality in a 3D game you need 10-20x more polygons at least. That's 5-6 more years till it's actually possible to render that.
Current lighting is crap. We need raytracing. Realistic raytracing with huge resolutions won't be possible really soon, 5 years at minimum.
And now imagine creating this game. The content. Each model will take a TON of time to create. This game will take 5 games to develop for a HUGE studio.
So don't expect anything within the next 10 years for sure.

Photo-realistic.

Not physically perfect and exact to real life environments. Just has to look like it.

Slap some better lighting and massive AA onto gran turismo 5. That's photorealistic.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/a...alLifeJuly.jpg

[zalbard]

Photo-realistic.

Not physically perfect and exact to real life environments. Just has to look like it.

Slap some better lighting and massive AA onto gran turismo 5. That's photorealistic.

Lol, come on... That's in motion... Just stop driving for a sec and look around, should be enough to ruin the impression unless you're blind.

[Jowy Atreides]

Lol, come on... That's in motion... Just stop driving for a sec and look around, should be enough to ruin the impression unless you're blind.

You're thinking of hyper-realism.
Not photo-realism. We're practically there for photorealism right now at this very point in time.

If the brain can mistake something for being real, that's enough to qualify.

We're not going to be taking electron microscopes to game footage to verify their physical correctness. There comes a point when you cross the barrier of what realism is in terms of game graphics.

I think it was the 4k x 3k resolution comment. You can't view a photograph or video at 1920?

[Andrea deluxe]

Photo-realistic.

Not physically perfect and exact to real life environments. Just has to look like it.

Slap some better lighting and massive AA onto gran turismo 5. That's photorealistic.

http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/a...alLifeJuly.jpg

color is more important.....

[Decami]

No.
All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).
So add a year for the tech to catch up at least.
Texture quality are also lacking. Need 2x-4x higher texture quality. 2-3 more years.
Geometry... is WAY behind. If you want photo realistic image quality in a 3D game you need 10-20x more polygons at least. That's 5-6 more years till it's actually possible to render that.
Current lighting is crap. We need raytracing. Realistic raytracing with huge resolutions won't be possible really soon, 5 years at minimum.
And now imagine creating this game. The content. Each model will take a TON of time to create. This game will take 5 games to develop for a HUGE studio.
So don't expect anything within the next 10 years for sure.

I love how you say "this game," as if these advancements would only be used in only one game before it anyone else used it. I also love how you seem to be adding the years together, as if one company and one will do this. Thats not the way it works.

Even if everything took as long as you said, its within a 10 year time frame.
People pull the Crysis theories out of your head. That game was no massive advancement, just a lot of semi recent methods put into play
and optimized visually. No one is doing, or has done this because in most cases this doesn't make them money.
I guarantee you in exactly 1 year hardware will have caught up with Crysis, and thats an awesome thing, thats technology moving faster than you think it is.

[zalbard]

I love how you say "this game," as if these advancements would only be used in only one game before it anyone else used it. I also love how you seem to be adding the years together, as if one company and one will do this. Thats not the way it works.

Grats, you have completely missed the point of my post while picking on my use of English...
I went ahead and heavily edited my post to reflect this.

Even if everything took as long as you said, its within a 10 year time frame.

No.
Hardware might be, yeah (barely, probably), but the developers will not have enough time to actually finish a serious game with such a level of gfx by then, the creation process itself will take a while as well.

People pull the Crysis theories out of your head. That game was no massive advancement, just a lot of semi recent methods put into play and optimized visually.

Yeah, sure, there are so many games that look a lot better these days! Oh wait...

[Decami]

Grats, you have completely missed the point of my post while picking on my use of English...
I went ahead and heavily edited my post to reflect this.

No.
Hardware might be, yeah (barely, probably), but the developers will not have enough time to actually finish a serious game with such a level of gfx by then, the creation process itself will take a while as well.

Yeah, sure, there are so many games that look a lot better these days! Oh wait...

I did nothing to pick on your english. Didnt seem to be any mistakes in the previous post, at all.

I'm curious, you do know much about the industry, or are these guess assumptions out of thin air?

Yeah, sure, there are so many games that look a lot better these days! Oh wait...

No one is doing, or has done this because in most cases this doesn't make them money.

^ did you purposely completely ignore that line.

lets face it, Crysis was not a very good game, not terrible, but everyone will agree with less focus on its trying to be photo realistic and
more focus on gameplay it might could have been in a top 10 great games of all time.

Crysis is popular and sold what it did cause of its hype, no one else is going to be able to hype graphics like that and sell copies for a while.
This doesnt mean i dont like or dont respect he game for what its done, its pushed hardware and thats a great thing, but this explanation is the reason my above quoted statement is true.

You sir, are the one missing the point, the point of your post was clear. But to an extent I do agree with you, exact photo realism of life in a game
I see not happening for some time, it will come close sooner than we think, but i could be wrong. But the advancements being worked on at the current moment are looking bright.

to add, what in the world does this mean.

All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).

4kx3k, where did you even get that number, I will tell you, this subject is a specialty of mine, and theres really no such thing as a proper realistic resolution.
that is based on so many things its ridiculous.

[zalbard]

lets face it, Crysis was not a very good game, not terrible, but everyone will agree with less focus on its trying to be photo realistic and more focus on gameplay it might could have been in a top 10 great games of all time.

No doubt, I was just looking at it from a technical standpoint.

But to an extent I do agree with you, exact photo realism of life in a game I see not happening for some time, it will come close sooner than we think, but i could be wrong. But the advancements being worked on at the current moment are looking bright.

4kx3k, where did you even get that number, I will tell you, this subject is a specialty of mine, and theres really no such thing as a proper realistic resolution.

This is the resolution of a human eye, I don't remember the absolutely exact number, but this is pretty close. I read about it a few years ago.
Edit: seems like the article I read a few years ago wasn't exactly correct.

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

This seems to be reliable source.

He argues that if you want a lot of complex geometry in a game, than surely it will take a huge amount of time to create it.

I'm saying that in today's games they are already creating high poly models along with the normal, low poly in-game model. They use the high poly model to create normal maps, bump maps, ambient occlusion maps etc.. to enhance the shading on the low poly one. They are already creating high poly models for each box and each character in the game.

Well, yeah, 2x less work since you don't have to create a low poly model at best, fine. No arguing here. But do you think that your current high poly models are absolutely realistic? Do you not think that they do not look the same way as the stuff you can see through the window?
And the same applies to textures...

[Florinmocanu]

This is how a high poly model made right now for a game model looks.
I say it looks pretty damn convincing. And you should imagine that texturing already is quite good, even in games. The future will bring only improvements since a lot of texture resolution limitation will disapear.

[Florinmocanu]

Grats, you have completely missed the point of my post while picking on my use of English...
I went ahead and heavily edited my post to reflect this.

No.
Hardware might be, yeah (barely, probably), but the developers will not have enough time to actually finish a serious game with such a level of gfx by then, the creation process itself will take a while as well.

Yeah, sure, there are so many games that look a lot better these days! Oh wait...

Damn dude, you don't actually read what i said.
Your pulling stuff out of your imagination/personal assumption while i do 3d graphics for a living and still you actually think that high geometry will take a lot to implement.


Guess what, High poly models are created these days for every damn model in a game, coupled with a low poly model to be inserted in-game

You have no idea how a game pipeline works, so stop posting BS.

Don't take it as an offense, but you have no clue about this subject.


About high res textures, that is not such a big deal actually. Right now, they use 512pixels and 1024pixels textures. a 2k-3k texture usage will need video cards with 4-6GB of ram per gpu, but that is not actually such a big deal.

Main issue for the future is tesselation and displacement in particular and actually, we just need more render power so GPU can calculate displacement faster, a lot faster so we can use it everywhere in-game, but properly, not Stalker or Dirt2 style.

[kgk]

About high res textures, that is not such a big deal actually. Right now, they use 512pixels and 1024pixels textures. a 2k-3k texture usage will need video cards with 4-6GB of ram per gpu, but that is not actually such a big deal.

Then why do 4096x4096 texture packs for stuff like Oblivion run just fine maxed out on 1GB video cards?

Honest question

[Florinmocanu]

Because they do not affect everything. Nobody does a 4k texture for a rock, planks, leaf or some rat/cat in a game, they are only for enviroments, walls, backgrounds , some characters etc....

If you would have film quality texturing (4k textures for almost everything), then you would need a lot of RAM.

[***Deimos***]

No.
For example, Crysis.
So, let's say it represents the current level of our gfx tech advancement. Let's try and get it to the realistic level.
All the modern accelerators even in multi-GPU setups struggle with Crysis with proper realistic resolution (4k x 3k).
So add a year for the tech to catch up at least (++ computing power requirements).
Texture quality is also lacking. Need 2x-4x higher texture quality. 2-3 more years (++ computing power requirements).
Geometry... is WAY behind. If you want photo realistic image quality in a 3D game you need 10-20x more polygons at least. .............

THE LIMITS
Why are we still powering games at 100fps+, where fps looks like a cardiogram?

What happens when #triangles is > #pixels? 19x10 .. is 2MP. A 100 mtri game would have 50 triangles/pixel... inefficient.. you think so?

What happens when #SP is > #pixels? Just a couple quick years and we already have 1600-3200SP. Once we reach millions of SP, we'll have enormous inefficiencies.

1. First of all, Crysis is over 2 years old (Nov 2007). I don't exactly see the likes of Batman Asylum pushing the envelope. The "saddest" part is that it took Carmack from id, 15-20 lines of code to implement mega-textures.. something even he was astonished nobody did yet.

2. Bigger texture and more triangles is an uphill battle of diminishing returns. ex. 3x bigger texture uses 9x more bandwidth/space. This brute force is wrong approach.

3. Every game, ESPECIALLY those like Crysis, use clever tricks to drastically reduce amount of work being done with minimal loss of detail. This is not a bad thing. This is why Radeon 9700 could do AA so easily.

4. Chumbucket843, thanks for sparse voxel example. THIS is what I want to see more of. More innovation. Not just more of the same. I think Fermi is VERY AGGRESSIVE step in the right direction.

PS: Gene/DNA computers are supposedly super at parallel tasks. So 3D gaming on "embroys" is a go?

[saaya]

4. Chumbucket843, thanks for sparse voxel example. THIS is what I want to see more of. More innovation. Not just more of the same. I think Fermi is VERY AGGRESSIVE step in the right direction.

hmmm why? whats the agressive step nvidia took with fermi?
the ability to handle more geometry?

Maknig a game that has Avatar level of graphics will take a lot of time. It's not only about the technology, but also and mainly about hell of the amount of time to spend on the project and work. And of course money. Zalbard is right here it would take a decade to create a game that would look like Avatar at least.

i dont think so... right now there are many games using many game engines which use different lightning models... the market of game engines is consolidating and this trend will continue... its less and less about the engine, and more and more about a set of objects and textures that come bundled with the engine... so you dont actually have to build the same thing over and over and over... there will be more and more objects that get recycled in various games... and as such, artwork wont require that much more time and money i think...

plus afaik a lot of work right now on artwork is spent on lightning things... manipulating the code to make the scene look the way you want... once you have raytracing for lighnting, you wont have to do that... unless you want abstract lighnting, and even then it should be very easy to do compared to ligghtning now...

[Florinmocanu]

yup, a lot of time takes right now to fake GI by using multiple light sources to give the impression of light bouncing through the scene.

With raytracing you have you normal light source, lightbulb, sun etc.. and the rest is calculated by the engine.

[***Deimos***]

hmmm why? whats the agressive step nvidia took with fermi?
the ability to handle more geometry?

..

different approach to geometry processing (polymorph engine), and native C++ support through unified memory architecture.. kinda reminds me of 286 segmented memory space.

Can't believe something so basic took so long to come to GPU.

Just want to clarify earlier comments about Crysis and rendering quality. Having users choose between "MEDIUM", "HIGH" etc, is an abomination. LOD where distant trees pop out of nowhere is pathetic. Not to mention the unsightly mess of "rock" textures stretched and smeared over long triangles and poorly stiched together.

I'm very optimistic about Carmack's general approachs. Its exactly what's needed. Virtual textures (just like GoogleEarth) where details show up gradually and automatically.

Sparse Voxels for geometry to finally fix the impossible to tell difference of 100 triangles/pixel. Geometry that automatically and gradually scales, and circumvents need for parlor tricks like normal maps. I'm looking forward to somebody making Abyss water tenticle or T1000 soon.

Some games are even using smarter networking algorithms which get better ping for characters near or in FOV of you. What's the point of constantly sending you updates of characters on other side of map?

[BigCactus]

I would love to see a game that looks as good as avatar without the 3d glasses. I have a feeling we won't see this in a good 10-20 years.