As you can see. That's how games will look in the future, are you ready for them?
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
I don't think so...REDDemon wrote: reality is not the limit. one day simulated details will be better than real details.
What I think would be needed is maybe 4 times as many particles to simulate a real one. It is virtual, so no matter how efficient our tech. gets, in order to simulate something at 100% realism I think this is true:bitplane wrote:The only way to make a perfect simulation of a small room is to use at least that much real matter to do the simulating, that's assuming we have quantum computers and the part that's doing the computations is as massive as the room, it doesn't include the support structures holding the machine together.
I'm personally with lpersona on this one though, realism is a poor substitute for imagination. Realistic graphics have a wow-factor that lasts about ten minutes, a unique artistic style lasts a lot longer.
Of course, you cannot render every single atom of a room, but human eyes can't be called really a "high definition vision sytem".serengeor wrote:I don't think so...REDDemon wrote: reality is not the limit. one day simulated details will be better than real details.
I think that even a small room would be too hard to simulate in real time.
It is just too complex for a machine to simulate real world stuff.
Imagine a piece of paper, and how you can interact with it in real life, how many particles it has, and how many things can change its form or physical properties.
Even that would be very, very complex and I think unachievable In the near future.
Besides It would take so much data to store all that detail.
It only has to be sufficiently complex to fool the watcher. Which can probably be reached a lot sooner. Like raytracing for the consciousness, the simulation only has to create sufficient realism when the observer watches it. Hey wait - isn't that how our universe works anyway? ;-)bitplane wrote:The only way to make a perfect simulation of a small room is to use at least that much real matter to do the simulating
Well, I think that if we are looking at particle-based world simulation with a high realism value, you shouldn't only take the visuals into account, but also the physics and accoustics of the whole systemCuteAlien wrote:It only has to be sufficiently complex to fool the watcher. Which can probably be reached a lot sooner. Like raytracing for the consciousness, the simulation only has to create sufficient realism when the observer watches it. Hey wait - isn't that how our universe works anyway?bitplane wrote:The only way to make a perfect simulation of a small room is to use at least that much real matter to do the simulating
Yeah, that's what I meant with raytracing for the consciousness. You start with everything someone can experience and calculate from there on backwards a world which is sufficiently realistic.Radikalizm wrote:Well, I think that if we are looking at particle-based world simulation with a high realism value, you shouldn't only take the visuals into account, but also the physics and accoustics of the whole system
I think I just got a project Idea...also, augmented reality. (or is it mediated reality). What could be better than running around in the *real* world, with space monsters superimposed on top. Or imagine in some huge open park space battling a colossus. It would bring new meaning to games like paintball. You could even have team mates from around the world superimposed in your real world. (assuming you all have a similar environment such as a football pitch to play in)