The pinnacle of Graphics

gemini8026 · Nov 7, 2002

Hi fellows,

I was just sitting here rendering a file in 3dsmax, and I came upon a few ideas I would like to share with you on what I think will be the pinncale of "graphics of today". Im sure theres lots of 3d displays and stereoscopic stuff thats possible, but im talking about general viewing on a regular monitor (22" and less for the most part)

I think we will have reached that "pinnacle" when we are able to display full screen graphics at 1600x1200 with 4x antialiasing at 32+ bits of colour at 60 + frames. All this under full raytracing demands with millions of polygons and basically a "3dsmax" scene, with all the texture, polygon, pixel options that you would have in any renderer such as 3ds, lightwave, maya, softimage, etc.

Imagine seeing some of the scenes you see on digitalblashemy.com running at 60+ FPS at 1600x1200 with no visible line artificats or issues.

I am excited about when that day will come. Here's the kicker, this will be all done WITHOUT graphics cards. I read a great thread a while back about how 3d cards are just a "current fad" that will be wiped out once CPU's are fast enough to deal with all the graphics chores again. It makes perfect sense to me, eventually the CPU WILL be fast enough to do everything on it's own without the need for extra EXPENSIVE graphics cards with compromising features.

However, I see this goal as being quite far off. Keep in mind all you renderers how long it takes for a large scene in 3dsmax with some heavy raytracing, shadows, complex lighting and tons of tricky little bezier curves in there. Scenes can take HOURS to render even on todays fastest desktops.

What do you all think? I know the 1600x1200 number is debatable (bigger always seems to be better) but I think for a 22" monitor that resolution looks fine to me with a little antialiasing. Or possibly such a high resolution that antialiasing doesnt play a role at all, which is another thought.

Anybody else agree, disagreem or will we see changing trends in the industry that will make us rethink the grand scheme of things.

thanks for reading, I look forward to opinions and comments about the "pinnacle of graphics"

ARGON · Nov 7, 2002

I agree with you that the CPU will not take over graphics processing anytime in the imagineable future. Here is my argument. Users have specific needs and wants. We want a fast a CPU for bovious reasons. We also want good and fast graphics. Until CPU's are so fast that there is no longer a demand for a marginal increase in speed, GPU's will remain separate. I don't think that will ever happen. For technical professionals dealing with extremely large calculations like protein folding, astrophysical modelling, and encryption/decryption, there is always a demand for a faster CPU.

For the basic user, the computer industry, hoping to sustain its life and profits, creates the demand. Unreal2003 is a great example. It was produced to humble even the most high-end gaming machines.

Col_Kiwi · Nov 7, 2002

By the time we get to the kinda complexity you're talking about, it'll be more like 16xFSAA and 64xAF...

Computer graphics are in their infancy still. With time, things will get much better, although I don't think high poly counts are the way to go.

It "costs" a lot less processing power to DOT3 bump-map and pixelshade one polygon then to render 10 "plain" polygons. Effects is where the industry is headed.

I don't see CPU taking over GPU any time soon, due to what the last guy said (forgot his name).

In my opinion, the pinnacle of graphics as they are today will come when GPUs can keep up with CPUs again. Back in the voodoo2 days, the graphics card was much faster then the CPU and was that way for quite a while. More recently the CPU has become far faster and the GPU is now usually the bottleneck. NV30 and R300 are a step in the right direction for this. I think the pinacle of todays style of graphics will come when the GPU can keep up with the CPU again.

As for beyond todays graphics, i think near-photorealism is obtainable within a 10 year time frame.

-Col.Kiwi

tombance · Nov 7, 2002

Assuming that graphics cards will always exist, I think in the future it would be good to see graphics on the motherboad. Think about it, you could have a socket on the motherboard for the GPU and also a few slots for Graphics ram. This way you could update your graphics card at anytime, without needing the extra expene of a new PCB. The socket would be universal (for any brand) and each different type of memory will use the same slot design (by then perhaps well have DDR5). Or , perhaps even the chipset could be socketed...

My sig's faster than yours, and it overclocks better too....

Ghostdog · Nov 7, 2002

I don´t think that socketed GPUs would work out of the companies testing rooms, the chip is only the "brains", it needs the card to work. And card designs are so different that it would be impossible to make a universal board for all GPUs as technology advances.

I don´t think that we´ll ever see the "pinnacle". Technology goes forward all the time, it gets better, goes up - not down.

I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.

eden · Nov 7, 2002

While I am all for Doom III's advancements, and am in love with them, I have a side that does not like what's coming after. Our goal is to reach photorealism, but if we achieve that at some point, graphics will be less important to focus and once the card is strong enough to create such graphics with any effects and animation frames possible, it could mean the competition for better cards will decrease, and there might be even a stop to making better ones!
It's the stop of innovation in a certain area that worries me.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden

Col_Kiwi · Nov 7, 2002

I agree fully. I love advancements in graphics, but I don't ever want to stop seeing new cards coming out with better features.

-Col.Kiwi

dhlucke · Nov 8, 2002

Two Words:

VIRTUAL REALITY


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A>

LtBlue14 · Nov 8, 2002

Two Words:
I agree!

eden · Nov 8, 2002

Please exploit that statement to its utmost possible extent!

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden

Col_Kiwi · Nov 8, 2002

I'd argue that VR and 3D are entirely different things. The question he asked was really what we thought the pinnacle of 3D graphics would be. I see VR as something entirely different that will replace 3D at the end of its lifespan, much as real 2D (like EGA) replaced Tandy, and 3D replaced 2D, someday VR replaces 3D.

-Col.Kiwi

Lamoni · Nov 8, 2002

I believe that achieving photorealism is still a long way off. I believe with still frames, computer graphics can get pretty close, but with games with a lot of movement? I don't think so. I don't think that we will have to deal with photorealism in my 'active' lifetime (maybe another 30 years if I am lucky). Instead I think that we will reach the level of graphics in monster's Inc. done in realtime. They don't necessarily have to look cartoony like Monster's Inc does, but even as lifelike as Sully's hair looked, it was still distinguishable.

The concern that I have is that as soon as we reach that level, there won't be much motivation to develop bigger and better things. Who needs a game to look exactly like real life if it can look as good as Monster's Inc. Games create a fantasy world to play in. I think that there is more of an appeal if they retain a small grain of a fantasy look. If you blow someone's head off in a game, do you really want it to look and sound exactly as it would in real life? That is just sick and wrong in my opinion and it would make me not want to shoot anyone. Doom III in my opinion has already crossed the line of acceptable violent graphics. But not for most people and there is no way you could replay some Doom III scenes on TV and have people believe they were real.

Anyway, these are just my opinions. I don't believe that we will see the video card be eliminated within the next 20 years, but I do believe they will eventually come out with acceptable onboard graphics. Onboard graphics with the same capabilities of the successor to the Radeon 9700pro might just be 'good enough graphics' for all games. Of course if you want to activate all the effects, add-in 3D cards will still be required. Technology is just a fun journey and I am glad I am here to watch it. I don't think I would have had near as much fun 100 years ago.

dhlucke · Nov 8, 2002

If you blow someone's head off in a game, do you really want it to look and sound exactly as it would in real life?

I never thought of it that way. Now I'm kind of disgusted. You know that it's going to get very close to crossing that line in the near future.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A>

dhlucke · Nov 8, 2002

Sure, I guess I could buy that argument. I'm just saying that the graphics cards we'll have won't really go away or run out of things to work on.

Soon we'll have more photo-realism, then we'll have complete worlds to play in. Then men will get pregnant.

Anyone remember how amazing games like Tomb Raider looked to you back in the day? Now Doom III is supposedly it. One day you'll have graphics systems running VR holodecks for every possible use imaginable, including games. I could easily see better VR goggles with photo-realistic graphics in our lifetimes. Imagine playing a game like Dungeon Seige II in VR with photo-realistic, yet fantasy driven, graphics.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A>

eden · Nov 8, 2002

I'd like a VR goggle which transforms the world around you to its own fantasy equipment, so even an old man's cane will be looking like a sword for you to use. Of course then whacking your mom the Vile Swamp Creature would not amount to good news after playing!

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden

Ghostdog · Nov 8, 2002

I´ve got to say Lamoni, that was a pretty good post.

I don´t think "real" violence is a good idea either, thanks for getting us thinking about it. The reason games are fun is because they are a fantasy-world were you can play around and do stuff that you can´t in real-life. Would anyone here really wan´t to go through things that happen in Doom III, Resident Evil or Nocturne? Besides, government officialls would probably step in long before we would have "real" violence.

I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.

Lumathix · Nov 8, 2002

"Besides, government officialls would probably step in long before we would have "real" violence."

You're scaring me dude.
I mean, you know it's a game......right? Government involvement in sensoring *anything* is very very scary, my friend.

We can never stop improving technology, be it computer graphics, or the modern combustion engine. No, I wouldn't be satisfied if we stopped at "Monsters Inc" quality. I want my games (if that's what I am doing with my PC at the moment) to be realistic as possible. I want to be immersed in the game. I play these games so that I can do things I normally can't do in real life. Does that make me a sick person? No.

 Mix it with the relish!

Ghostdog · Nov 8, 2002

I agree, technology will always go further, evolve. And I´m glad I still have time to see it advance.

Censorship is bad, but would you really have little 8 year old kids running the streets killing people in a game that looked exactly as good (as in real, not good/bad) as the violence on the news everyday?

I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.

dhlucke · Nov 8, 2002

Stepping away from insane violence though, a game like Tony Hawk would be awesome if the graphics were more realistic; WWII fighters, The sims, Jedi Knight 2, Stronghold, etc etc.

Yes, MOHAA and SOF2 would be too much, but look how much we've been conditioned in the last 25 years.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A>

eden · Nov 9, 2002

I agree with you, and I also suddenly realized what Lamoni said about real violence.

I also can see Lomathix' point.

I do agree on censorship having its limits. We cannot live in a world censorless (there has been a discussion on this by me in the OTHER forum). I will never agree with someone who will not mind kids learning curse words and watching pornography. I will never do.
So as to violence.

But as we all agree, video games are fantasy. That bound is where it stops. If we achieve photorealism to almost feel like we shoot real people, I disagree, it has to stop there. If fantasy is added, you would see special effects, less photorealism, more VR FX. That is what we want, not reality in our eyes. Besides, I even would dare say sometimes VR or video games, look more beautiful than real life colors.

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -Eden

dhlucke · Nov 9, 2002

Isn't it still fantasy if it looks real, but you really aren't there?

If you play GTA3 and it's photorealistic, but you aren't doing any of that in real life, isn't it fantasy?

This line is going to get crossed and people aren't going to like it.


<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A>

gemini8026 · Nov 9, 2002

oh geez, now we're getting into the politics of graphics

I kinda wish I was being "born now". Im still only 22, and I have seen the evolution of computer graphics. But think, kids born today will be bale to see it at a point where things are a lot better then they used to be.

Simplcity was nice, but they have more time in life to ewnjoy the current state we have reached. Without spending all that money and RESEARCH on how to get things done on worse equiptment. For example, some people learned graphics editing on Photoshop 1.0. Well, lots of the stuff is an asset, but stuff has changed a lot for the better and they will have the advantage of the "greater state" Oh well, evolution is a part of life

It's a shame that VR got put on the backburner. I remember that one game with the platforms with the big helmet. I just CANT remember the name, but why DIDNT they evolve on that theory. current 3d is great and all but we all know that true 3d immersion will be AMAZING.

Imagine Quake 3 with a VR helmet. It tracks your head movement , and you hold the gun in your other hand and aim manually. A LOT more immersive, yet we dont see progress on these ventures (at least i dont) It's all being done on making 3d look good on 2d platforms (monitors, etc)

Im sure someone could take 4-8 Radeon 9700 pro's and come up with some kinda VR solution with a tracking helmet.

they just DONT though. Maybe it has a lot to do with the great decline in Arcade's. Who wants to go to one when they have their Xbox or PC to play on at home.

*shrug*

eden · Nov 9, 2002

By saying that, it seems we are surrendering to bad technology than creating innovation. I disagree with your statement here.
From what my literature learning has taught me, fantasy means anything not possible or found in real life. If one day you saw a dinosaur on earth walking, is it fantasy?
Now if I asked this: If one day you saw an alien on earth walking, is it a fantasy now?

If you know what fantasy means, you'll know why one isn't and the other is, and that's what I am trying to say. Video games always have some fantasy element no matter what, that's because they are games with HUDS, scoreboards, tabloids, information text on the screen. But to come up with something that's reality but modified, where you can actually be offended killing people, is something I do not want to take part in, and I think a lot here agree. Not if they somehow started making a terrorist training video game with photorealistic appeal, can you imagine how it'd feel shooting innocent people in the game, and what its possible influence or sensitive content could cause?

--
The worst of enemies shall be prone to later be the best of friends. -EdenEdited by Eden on 11/09/02 09:22 AM.

Guest · Nov 9, 2002

Eden you're starting to sound like a real software burner, or worse yet Tipper Gore.

The point is people have the freedom to choose what kind of video games they get to play. That is as it should be. As long as nobody's going to force doom 3 on anybody, then anybody has the choice of whether or not to play the game.

knowan · Nov 9, 2002

I have to agree with Eden. I certainly wouldn't want my kids playing photorealistic first person shooters, and hope that some censoring body steps in before that happens. Even is it's just something simple like blood can't be red, thet would be enough for me.

IMHO, if you want to play a photorealistic FPS, and you WANT to see realistic blood, gore, etc, then you should seek professional help. The few times I have seen real life blood and gore it sickened me. And I'm glad that it did.

Some ex-military person wrote a book back in the eighties about a government conspiracy theory. He did make one or two valid points. For instance in WW1 and WW2, a military study found that less than 20% of the American soldiers involved actually aimed before shooting their gun. A few years after that study was completed, censor orginizations started allowing more violence on TV and in the movies. Then in the Vietnam war, the same study found that 80% of the American soldiers did not shy away from actually aiming their gun at an enemy soldier. That kinda made me wonder.

--------------
Knowan likes you. Knowan is your friend. Knowan thinks you're great.

The pinnacle of Graphics

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Champion

Polypheme

Distinguished

Champion

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Share this page