Irrlicht Engine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyCyzB0CedM

As you can see. That's how games will look in the future, are you ready for them?

let's hope developers won't abuse their technology for digital hyper realism, but use it for elaborate art-directions instead

The reality is the limit. But in fact, i think the violence is partly necesary towards the realism indeed, even though it can be disgusting, that is what reality has.

I don't believe it is a real3d application that video. It must be a trick video

the most realistic graphics you can see can be found if you seach "unlimited graphics power"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ATtrImCx4

and there are lots of differences respect of a real environment

reality is not the limit. one day simulated details will be better than real details.

REDDemon wrote: reality is not the limit. one day simulated details will be better than real details.

I don't think so...

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.

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.

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.

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:

amount of matter&&energy doing simulation > amount of matter&&energy being simulated

I don't believe it is a real3d application that video. It must be a trick video

Of course it's not real. It is made by that guy on youtube who makes all those good looking action videos(sorry don't remember his name) plus it is clearly a call of duty spoof.

serengeor wrote:

REDDemon wrote: reality is not the limit. one day simulated details will be better than real details.

I don't think so...

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.

Of course, you cannot render every single atom of a room, but human eyes can't be called really a "high definition vision sytem".
You can't simulate more details than a real world, but you can have more details than details that your eyes can notice(and you can generate more details when needed, such some modern are just doing).. maybe now it is clearer what I mean

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

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? ;-)

CuteAlien wrote:

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

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?

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

A game engine with great graphics but horrible physics and sound is a horrible game engine in my opinion, so to get the complete picture we should also emulate these aspects on a molecular/atomary level

This would include the ability for soundwaves to travel through particles with different properties, real breaklines when cracking an object (eg. straight and smooth breaklines for ionic crystals aligned to their packing), real light refraction/scattering, material expansion/contraction based on temperature, etc.

The human brain is exceedingly good at pattern detection, so the slightest bit not close enough to the real thing will trigger our 'fake' mechanism, so we'll still be needing a whole sh*tload of particles


This is giving me some nice ideas for my engine's material system

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

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.

Look guys were's the point in simulating reality?? I mean first of reality is our perception of things, and we really don't percieve allot at all. Also it is therefor obvious that everyone has a different reality...
And lastly if its there allready in alot more detail than we can imagine, think of how a reality like games features todo list would look like... Then Why make a pointless copy of it???

We need more immersion... perfect VR goggles which you can look around in. Perhaps some kind of feedback/haptic harness you can be suspended in, e.g. so you can jump and your avatar jumps etc.

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)

Hmmm... now that you mentioned it:

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)

I think I just got a project Idea...