- Status
septagent
Distinguished
- Jun 5, 2008
- 31
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]ares1214[/nom]HA! Yeh right! Better graphics, sure, CGI that wasnt even rendered in real time, not in 5-10 years.[/citation]
Just remember, we're talking about a console that might debut at E3 in 2012, meaning it will be released late in 2013. They are trending toward a 7 year lifespan on consoles. Are you guys really doubting that a console will be able to have graphics comparable to Avatar CGI by 2020? Even without ray-tracing, coders find cheap tricks to emulate effects that most don't envision yet. I never would have thought a 360 would play graphics like it does in Crysis2 5 years ago when they were introduced. I don't think it will be equivalent to studio quality CGI, but i don't think the claim is as outrageous as everyone thinks, either. It's not like it will have today's top end GPU in it either. It will have Q1 2012's top end GPU in it, and a custom version at that.
Just remember, we're talking about a console that might debut at E3 in 2012, meaning it will be released late in 2013. They are trending toward a 7 year lifespan on consoles. Are you guys really doubting that a console will be able to have graphics comparable to Avatar CGI by 2020? Even without ray-tracing, coders find cheap tricks to emulate effects that most don't envision yet. I never would have thought a 360 would play graphics like it does in Crysis2 5 years ago when they were introduced. I don't think it will be equivalent to studio quality CGI, but i don't think the claim is as outrageous as everyone thinks, either. It's not like it will have today's top end GPU in it either. It will have Q1 2012's top end GPU in it, and a custom version at that.
No way... Compare (hours) to (1/60 of a second) on hundreds of machines to one or 4 graphic cards and you may start to get the picture.
I do 3D rendering all the time with GI, photon emissions, mental ray, physics, complex animations and not 2 million polygons but 8 or 10 million at 1080 resolution. But also I do some work on gaming engines. And the same scene on a 3D rendering app is about that, 3 to 8 million polys, but that models wont even start to move in the gaming engine. I need to reduce the models so much they are about 1/50 or even 1/100 the total polycount in the scene. A high end model or character on a gaming engine is about 20,000 to 50,000 polygons. But the same model on a movie like Avatar is ten times that numbers and more. But where the scene on the movie gets heavy is when you add layers of the same model, other models, props and the environment combined with the post processing work. And you can get explosives amounts of meshes, textures, displacements, particles and lighting. All this will give you the illusion you are seeing one solid image when you have a lot of layers and effects on each frame.
In a movie like Avatar not one frame on any scene is rendered at once on even a huge render farm. But in fact you get one layer. The most important one maybe the beutypass. But then you need the occlusion layer, some others for particles, others for lighting and textures. And the same goes for many additional models on the same scene. So you end up with more than 10 passes on any single frame on a complex 3d effect shot.
In a gaming engine and if you are lucky enough all this happens in 4 cpus and as much as maybe 4 graphic cards. But the "quality" on every level is not even comparable. It may look close sometimes for a general person but if you compare one high definition frame on Avatar with the best gaming shot you will discover they are rendered very differently. The way softer and rich movie image is very smartly scaled down on even a 2560 gaming resolution. In general and in the best scenario it may be a 1 to 10 proportion for quality in general animation, but way bigger for special effects.
Literally as the "same" or "very close" I think this will be possible in the next decade. But of course, what we have today is very satisfactory, impressive and it gets better every year. I will love to get there and if this happens in 5 years I will feel very good. Consider raytracing alone. It may be the next big thing on gaming quality and it is about 2 or 3 years away. That is what may be possible on a PC, but consoles are behind PCs.
I do 3D rendering all the time with GI, photon emissions, mental ray, physics, complex animations and not 2 million polygons but 8 or 10 million at 1080 resolution. But also I do some work on gaming engines. And the same scene on a 3D rendering app is about that, 3 to 8 million polys, but that models wont even start to move in the gaming engine. I need to reduce the models so much they are about 1/50 or even 1/100 the total polycount in the scene. A high end model or character on a gaming engine is about 20,000 to 50,000 polygons. But the same model on a movie like Avatar is ten times that numbers and more. But where the scene on the movie gets heavy is when you add layers of the same model, other models, props and the environment combined with the post processing work. And you can get explosives amounts of meshes, textures, displacements, particles and lighting. All this will give you the illusion you are seeing one solid image when you have a lot of layers and effects on each frame.
In a movie like Avatar not one frame on any scene is rendered at once on even a huge render farm. But in fact you get one layer. The most important one maybe the beutypass. But then you need the occlusion layer, some others for particles, others for lighting and textures. And the same goes for many additional models on the same scene. So you end up with more than 10 passes on any single frame on a complex 3d effect shot.
In a gaming engine and if you are lucky enough all this happens in 4 cpus and as much as maybe 4 graphic cards. But the "quality" on every level is not even comparable. It may look close sometimes for a general person but if you compare one high definition frame on Avatar with the best gaming shot you will discover they are rendered very differently. The way softer and rich movie image is very smartly scaled down on even a 2560 gaming resolution. In general and in the best scenario it may be a 1 to 10 proportion for quality in general animation, but way bigger for special effects.
Literally as the "same" or "very close" I think this will be possible in the next decade. But of course, what we have today is very satisfactory, impressive and it gets better every year. I will love to get there and if this happens in 5 years I will feel very good. Consider raytracing alone. It may be the next big thing on gaming quality and it is about 2 or 3 years away. That is what may be possible on a PC, but consoles are behind PCs.
LORD_ORION
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2007
- 814
- 0
- 18,980
Ugg you guys are all retarded, it says "Avatar-levels of detail".
Level of detail is something completely different from "same level of graphics" in game design.
All this is, is the MESH detail and how much it changes depending on the size of the object.
Level of detail is something completely different from "same level of graphics" in game design.
All this is, is the MESH detail and how much it changes depending on the size of the object.
CoryInJapan
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2008
- 276
- 0
- 18,780
All I can say is finally...Hopefully. Pc graphics will be able to move on at a good pace if this is true. I hope this is true...Im just glad at least rumors are floating around now. Thats how its always worked...Rumors..then a year or so later Real news hits.
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]Yargnit[/nom]Was the recent Unreal engine demo that required Tri-SLI GTX580's even Avatar quality? I can't imagine the new Xbox having that much graphics horsepower if it's coming out within the next two years unless it's going to cost more than the PS3 did at launch. I'd be impressed if it had more horsepower than a single GTX580 if it launches by holiday 2012 at $400 or less.[/citation]
Graphics cards that launched 2 years ago that required extra power cables and massive heatsinks have since been revised down to single slot cards with small fans and bus powered, whilst at the same time being less than a quarter of the cost.
Do you have any reason to doubt that a GTX580 will be revised down the same in the time it takes to release the next Xbox?
Graphics cards that launched 2 years ago that required extra power cables and massive heatsinks have since been revised down to single slot cards with small fans and bus powered, whilst at the same time being less than a quarter of the cost.
Do you have any reason to doubt that a GTX580 will be revised down the same in the time it takes to release the next Xbox?
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
as far as AI, they said the same thing about the 360.. fact is devs dont have the time, skills, or desire to do any of that. the game will sell for profit w/o the stuff. its sad but true.
master9716
Distinguished
- Jul 27, 2006
- 271
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]Yargnit[/nom]Was the recent Unreal engine demo that required Tri-SLI GTX580's even Avatar quality? I can't imagine the new Xbox having that much graphics horsepower if it's coming out within the next two years unless it's going to cost more than the PS3 did at launch. I'd be impressed if it had more horsepower than a single GTX580 if it launches by holiday 2012 at $400 or less.[/citation]
Well lets see. BF3 Tank demo is the most realistic game ever made, We dont know what it takes to run that game yet. But since its 1 year away b4 720 is announced Amd might have big news coming early 2013. If anyone remembers how huge the improvements were when the 8800gt came out,so big that Amd didnt know what to do. If Amd does comes out with a new card that doubles performance then I can maybe see graphics of avatar quality on consoles for a reasonable price, as it stands now of course its not posible.
Microsoft Made so Many Millions of Kinect that it might seem like they are puting that money into development. Wonder what Sony has in stores.
Well lets see. BF3 Tank demo is the most realistic game ever made, We dont know what it takes to run that game yet. But since its 1 year away b4 720 is announced Amd might have big news coming early 2013. If anyone remembers how huge the improvements were when the 8800gt came out,so big that Amd didnt know what to do. If Amd does comes out with a new card that doubles performance then I can maybe see graphics of avatar quality on consoles for a reasonable price, as it stands now of course its not posible.
Microsoft Made so Many Millions of Kinect that it might seem like they are puting that money into development. Wonder what Sony has in stores.
sigh*
the models used by cinematography is completely different from the models used for realtime visualization, skilled artist will use an array of techniques to fabricate details (bump mapping, baking textures etc) to ensure smooth realtime visualization.
During my working life i have come across some interesting hardware, one of which was called the infinite reality made by SGI, it was a beast of a machines designed to render (pre-optimized) scenes at 60fps, admittedly it was no where near avatar level graphics but this was back in 1998 and it blew my mind that this was done without any kind of render farm, in fact you were able to interact with the object in real time (albeit it with some latency issues)
current generation gfx cards have far exceeded the processing capabilities of the infinite reality machine, and though i am skeptical i will not dismiss it as impossible to have avatar like graphics in a game
the models used by cinematography is completely different from the models used for realtime visualization, skilled artist will use an array of techniques to fabricate details (bump mapping, baking textures etc) to ensure smooth realtime visualization.
During my working life i have come across some interesting hardware, one of which was called the infinite reality made by SGI, it was a beast of a machines designed to render (pre-optimized) scenes at 60fps, admittedly it was no where near avatar level graphics but this was back in 1998 and it blew my mind that this was done without any kind of render farm, in fact you were able to interact with the object in real time (albeit it with some latency issues)
current generation gfx cards have far exceeded the processing capabilities of the infinite reality machine, and though i am skeptical i will not dismiss it as impossible to have avatar like graphics in a game
[citation][nom]moonshire[/nom]Ugh guys. I think the future is.... a console which brings you into a virtual reality world. E.g. the movie Gamer. Now that would be awesome. No more handling of controllers or mouse or keyboards, You a gamer? You better start working out and jogging everyday to be able to keep running on unlimited sprint in games. Accuracy problem? Time to train your arm muscles.guns jamming? learn to clean your gun dang it. The future will blur the line between reality and virtual reality.[/citation]
I can see it now. All the over weight people will be getting owned in CoD since they couldn't effectively take cover... Just reminds me of paintballing with my old man, the poor guy never had a change once he hid by the small barrels!
I can see it now. All the over weight people will be getting owned in CoD since they couldn't effectively take cover... Just reminds me of paintballing with my old man, the poor guy never had a change once he hid by the small barrels!
Well, if you was given one hardware set to work with for the software, you'd probably get many things done against anything else on the idea. The thought of being able to get more of it for the fact against less of something else, is on the idea of probably more direct then indirect, cause who wants to make something that would just crasha system probably for the fact of working?
Otherwise you;d just be able to cover more the hardware and software and where would the next development and/or sale be at? And with Multi-player being the bigger parts of things to take off at, and work with. The limitations speak for themselves. But saying Avatar graphics would be a limitation, would be to say, you'd get the in-depth development within other releases at times with the graphics. Something like Avatar graphics would say, you would need it though given, the detail in it all would explain itself.
But on thoughts of more, probably isnt enough, so to say, it would be something worth the fact of it, would be to probably say that there isnt anymore to work with at all. Which probably last to the point to say it only and only for that point.
A.I. For a GTA example, is interesting. Especially on the idea of that, you probably havent gotten in a gang war yet, and the cops probably havent found you either. Some pedestrains have guns, but some dont. And to say theys a differences between a pedestrain and a gang member after awhile, is probably far and inbetween. So for AI, to say, should be interest for where any developments will be at for many things.
Think the idea of high-end graphics of "granny" beating away at with a purse is better placed when another "gang" member comes up and robs you. Then takes your car you stole. While trying to complete a mission to rob someone else. But to say, there couldnt be some more A.I. for that, who knows. But we'll have to wait and see of course and hope there isnt anything to out there, even for kinda "bogy" gameplay to say.
But dont worry, you still end of going to jail. Broke, weaponless, and still on the same mission. Idk, but for something to look forward to on the idea of examples to say for the new Xbox, rather GTA is a good, who knows. Usually any good release has better graphics as an interest against things, probably that are more of a playable option or feature set. A.I. tends to be environment alot, many here think as well. For some thoughts, idk. Rambling. Should be good though.
Otherwise you;d just be able to cover more the hardware and software and where would the next development and/or sale be at? And with Multi-player being the bigger parts of things to take off at, and work with. The limitations speak for themselves. But saying Avatar graphics would be a limitation, would be to say, you'd get the in-depth development within other releases at times with the graphics. Something like Avatar graphics would say, you would need it though given, the detail in it all would explain itself.
But on thoughts of more, probably isnt enough, so to say, it would be something worth the fact of it, would be to probably say that there isnt anymore to work with at all. Which probably last to the point to say it only and only for that point.
A.I. For a GTA example, is interesting. Especially on the idea of that, you probably havent gotten in a gang war yet, and the cops probably havent found you either. Some pedestrains have guns, but some dont. And to say theys a differences between a pedestrain and a gang member after awhile, is probably far and inbetween. So for AI, to say, should be interest for where any developments will be at for many things.
Think the idea of high-end graphics of "granny" beating away at with a purse is better placed when another "gang" member comes up and robs you. Then takes your car you stole. While trying to complete a mission to rob someone else. But to say, there couldnt be some more A.I. for that, who knows. But we'll have to wait and see of course and hope there isnt anything to out there, even for kinda "bogy" gameplay to say.
But dont worry, you still end of going to jail. Broke, weaponless, and still on the same mission. Idk, but for something to look forward to on the idea of examples to say for the new Xbox, rather GTA is a good, who knows. Usually any good release has better graphics as an interest against things, probably that are more of a playable option or feature set. A.I. tends to be environment alot, many here think as well. For some thoughts, idk. Rambling. Should be good though.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 1,280
- 0
- 19,290
[citation][nom]Yargnit[/nom]Was the recent Unreal engine demo that required Tri-SLI GTX580's even Avatar quality?[/citation]
Um no, no it was not. Not by a long shot. To say this estimation made by the AMD representative is a bit of an exaggeration would be an epic understatement. But AMD said it so I guess it's okay, right?
I suppose the point AMD's trying make is less literal then a lot of people are making it out to be. I can remember similar statements being made for the past two console generations, by both Sony and Microsoft. Basically what it's indicated in the past is graphics performance that's back up to par with modern reasonably high-end gaming PC's. But like so many other's have said, it will not be capable of real time graphics remotely close to what we saw in Avatar, so don't take the statement literally.
Um no, no it was not. Not by a long shot. To say this estimation made by the AMD representative is a bit of an exaggeration would be an epic understatement. But AMD said it so I guess it's okay, right?
I suppose the point AMD's trying make is less literal then a lot of people are making it out to be. I can remember similar statements being made for the past two console generations, by both Sony and Microsoft. Basically what it's indicated in the past is graphics performance that's back up to par with modern reasonably high-end gaming PC's. But like so many other's have said, it will not be capable of real time graphics remotely close to what we saw in Avatar, so don't take the statement literally.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
[citation][nom]k-zon[/nom]Well, if you was given one hardware set to work with for the software, you'd probably get many things done against anything else on the idea. The thought of being able to get more of it for the fact against less of something else, is on the idea of probably more direct then indirect, cause who wants to make something that would just crasha system probably for the fact of working? Otherwise you;d just be able to cover more the hardware and software and where would the next development and/or sale be at? And with Multi-player being the bigger parts of things to take off at, and work with. The limitations speak for themselves. But saying Avatar graphics would be a limitation, would be to say, you'd get the in-depth development within other releases at times with the graphics. Something like Avatar graphics would say, you would need it though given, the detail in it all would explain itself. But on thoughts of more, probably isnt enough, so to say, it would be something worth the fact of it, would be to probably say that there isnt anymore to work with at all. Which probably last to the point to say it only and only for that point. A.I. For a GTA example, is interesting. Especially on the idea of that, you probably havent gotten in a gang war yet, and the cops probably havent found you either. Some pedestrains have guns, but some dont. And to say theys a differences between a pedestrain and a gang member after awhile, is probably far and inbetween. So for AI, to say, should be interest for where any developments will be at for many things. Think the idea of high-end graphics of "granny" beating away at with a purse is better placed when another "gang" member comes up and robs you. Then takes your car you stole. While trying to complete a mission to rob someone else. But to say, there couldnt be some more A.I. for that, who knows. But we'll have to wait and see of course and hope there isnt anything to out there, even for kinda "bogy" gameplay to say. But dont worry, you still end of going to jail. Broke, weaponless, and still on the same mission. Idk, but for something to look forward to on the idea of examples to say for the new Xbox, rather GTA is a good, who knows. Usually any good release has better graphics as an interest against things, probably that are more of a playable option or feature set. A.I. tends to be environment alot, many here think as well. For some thoughts, idk. Rambling. Should be good though.[/citation]
google translate fail?
google translate fail?
cuecuemore
Distinguished
- Aug 2, 2010
- 2,190
- 0
- 20,460
[citation][nom]Julius 85[/nom]Could anyone tell me why would anyone in his right mind thumb this guy down?I'm getting sick of intelligent comments getting thumbed down and hidden.[/citation]
Yes, I can tell you exactly why. It's because he's wrong.
Yes, I can tell you exactly why. It's because he's wrong.
chickenhoagie
Distinguished
- Feb 12, 2010
- 517
- 0
- 18,980
I really hope their claims are true..that would be quite, quite amazing..it'd definitely enthuse me to start gaming it up more.
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Ugg you guys are all retarded, it says "Avatar-levels of detail".Level of detail is something completely different from "same level of graphics" in game design.All this is, is the MESH detail and how much it changes depending on the size of the object.[/citation]
I disagree with you.
Is exactly the "level of detail" what differs between movie quality and gaming. "The terms "quality", "level of detail", "mesh quality" refereed to a gaming hardware Vs the movie Avatar is simply put geometry and pixel passes. When you refer to "mesh detail" being the idea that inspired the comparison I disagree with that. An Avatar MESH for a main character is some million polygons on a single rendering pass per character model. The same character on the best game today is around 50,000 or 1/20 to 1/50 the mesh used in the movie. And when you get a first plane action shot is when you need to produce a bigger difference. For an object very near the camera in a movie you can have a superb amount of polygons smoothed with 3d motion blur, something very difficult to calculate as this could be achieved in several passes. I am going to say 20 million or more. In a game it can get over a million or even closed to 3.
Textures in games and in a broad sense could be around 1/2 or 1/4 the size the ones used in movies in the best case. And this is where gaming does the trick or the illusion to get "close" to a movie. But textures are not related to meshes as you could have an 8 megapixel or 16 megapixel image mapped to as few as one or 2 polygons. The best example of this is the sky where in gaming you could easily map a 3 to 6 megapixel texture to a simple cube. The same sky in a movie with CG could be around 16 megapixels mapped to a more real semi sphere of around 10,000 polys.
Is the MESH of polygons or the geometry exactly what you need to handle carefully inside a gaming engine and for gaming rendering on commercial graphic cards.
I disagree with you.
Is exactly the "level of detail" what differs between movie quality and gaming. "The terms "quality", "level of detail", "mesh quality" refereed to a gaming hardware Vs the movie Avatar is simply put geometry and pixel passes. When you refer to "mesh detail" being the idea that inspired the comparison I disagree with that. An Avatar MESH for a main character is some million polygons on a single rendering pass per character model. The same character on the best game today is around 50,000 or 1/20 to 1/50 the mesh used in the movie. And when you get a first plane action shot is when you need to produce a bigger difference. For an object very near the camera in a movie you can have a superb amount of polygons smoothed with 3d motion blur, something very difficult to calculate as this could be achieved in several passes. I am going to say 20 million or more. In a game it can get over a million or even closed to 3.
Textures in games and in a broad sense could be around 1/2 or 1/4 the size the ones used in movies in the best case. And this is where gaming does the trick or the illusion to get "close" to a movie. But textures are not related to meshes as you could have an 8 megapixel or 16 megapixel image mapped to as few as one or 2 polygons. The best example of this is the sky where in gaming you could easily map a 3 to 6 megapixel texture to a simple cube. The same sky in a movie with CG could be around 16 megapixels mapped to a more real semi sphere of around 10,000 polys.
Is the MESH of polygons or the geometry exactly what you need to handle carefully inside a gaming engine and for gaming rendering on commercial graphic cards.
cuecuemore
Distinguished
- Aug 2, 2010
- 2,190
- 0
- 20,460
[citation][nom]ureda[/nom]Well, technology is advancing at a exponential rate at which that rate is also growing exponentially so everyone who thinks it will require 10+ years for a console to reach Avatar quality should really only expect 3 or 4 calendar years. That aside, I doubt they'll ever put the most recent hardware in a console since it'll raise the costs and the console will seem less appealing to consumers. Nontheless, I just wanted to point out it isn't too far fetched to have a console that can render Avatar quality[/citation]
I can give you a lesson in exponents if you need it that badly.
I can give you a lesson in exponents if you need it that badly.
pocketdrummer
Distinguished
- Dec 1, 2007
- 1,090
- 37
- 19,310
Considering it took Weta Digital 40,000 processors and 104 terabytes of RAM via their array of HP BL2x220c blades to render Avatar, I highly doubt this will REALLY have "Avatar-level graphics". Unless each xbox comes with the 10,000 sq ft facility needed to render it all with every Xbox 720 purchase...
masterofevil22
Distinguished
- May 13, 2010
- 229
- 0
- 18,690
I'm not saying I'm sold on this, BUT games have been getting made for the least common denominator(s), aka dx9 based consoles for the last forever. We haven't seen a single triple A game (should've been Crysis 2) that was made from the ground up for dx11 and specifically top tier performance dx11 parts/systems. With the forthcoming technology from Intel/AMD/IBM/Nvidia/ATI we could see something with the potential for Avatar like graphics. It may take a couple of years or more for software developers to fully exploit the Nextgen consoles (Xbox/PS), but I wouldn't put it by the industry as a whole.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
-
-
-
Question Any way to overclock DDR3 1066 RAM to 1600 with a Xeon X5680?- Started by Crazyy8
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram