It looks okay I guess. Ill stick to chuck rock

don't say things like that, this is the kind of thinking that fuels invention

This a tourist attraction at best. The world's largest wicker basket of gaming. The scope of it may catch your attention at first but it still fails at it's own purpose making it worthless. It doesn't lead to or prove anything. It's inventive in the same way motion controls where for the Wii. In that it isn't.

Developing an engine that can run like this at 60fps on with the current technology available to the public would be fucking incredible. This... not so much.

i said maybe 2 or 3 years ago that 3D graphics will never reach the point where they'll fool my eyes.  the dirt in the above pic still looks artificial when you analyze it but god dammit this shit's coming pretty close to fooling me!

now if only these engines could render humans realistically.  environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex

i said maybe 2 or 3 years ago that 3D graphics will never reach the point where they'll fool my eyes.  the dirt in the above pic still looks artificial when you analyze it but god dammit this shit's coming pretty close to fooling me!

now if only these engines could render humans realistically.  environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex

i feel the same way, i mean it's getting closer but you can still tell that it's not real...i think that's one of the reasons i like fmv games so much, because no matter how poor the graphics are, you still know they're REAL PEOPLE just filmed poorly, and it still adds an interesting feel to the game, i have yet to see a cgi character that felt real to me though


back when that emily (or whatever that cgi girl's name was) interview came out, i thought i was fooled, but then i realized that it was a rendered face on a real person, and it was the BODY that looked real whereas the face looked a bit off...i was really disappointed by that, because i thought they had at least gotten body movements to a realistic standard, but instead it was just the odd face that they had done

how far off is decent ray tracing in games?

wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?

because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.

give the game industry 3 more years and i bet you graphics this good will be the standard among new PC games! consoles idk, but i bet the next generation of consoles will be so powerful that it'll really narrow down the gap.

now if only these engines could render humans realistically.  environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex

http://cubo.cc/

Think we've crossed the uncanny valley yet?

Haha, but this image here is about the closest I've seen to a truly photorealistic CGI human:
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g46/199846/199846_1156997804_large.jpg
Still not *quite* there but nearly mistakable as a human at glance.

wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?

because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.

It's the lighting.  Game engines still seem to render shadows too sharply.  Under ambient light shadows should be gentle and blend into the colors of the object.

An example of what I'm talking about.  Even in a dense forest, shadows blend into the object, not starkly contrast against it.

EDIT: Now if someone was saying "I'm playing with some filters on my hi-res camera" then yeah, I'd probably be fooled.

also those plants are rendered strangely, they don't really look real

i would like to see someone try that though.

the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.

the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.

i think that's partially because small foliage (like grass, shrubs, etc.) isn't rendered at that distance making it look more like a flat texture wrapped around a mountain shape.

i'm saying if no one told you to take a second look I don't think anyone would have. even if you thought "huh dark shadow" or "mountain looks like bryce" it would stop there.

the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.

terra gen*

wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?

because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.

i dont think i am tooting my own horn by saying that there is no way i would believe that picture is real

it probably took months just to render that damn frame

if my PC can play Crysis quite comfortably on high I can't see how it'd take a really good PC that much more to render that real time.
But yeah Crysis is really gr8 looking and the engine can do great stuff, when I first got it and started messing around looking at the map scene some of those guys were doing amazing shit with near-photo realism. These're just average nerds, doing that kinda stuff on commercially avaliable gaming pcs.