Half life 3

I think the highest level of graphics that video games will reach is a look of stylized reality, like a painting. "Real Life" looks very different for different people.

It's not about looking real, it's about looking better than real.

I dont know what it is, that picture just resembles HL2 so well, even more than the in game screen shots.

But those effects of real life are impossible to achieve on the current
system that we have (eg: polygons), if someone came up with a different
way fro a computer to "draw" things, those effects should become
reality.

I dont know what it is, that picture just resembles HL2 so well, even more than the in game screen shots.

But those effects of real life are impossible to achieve on the current
system that we have (eg: polygons), if someone came up with a different
way fro a computer to "draw" things, those effects should become
reality.

We have many different ways to render.
It's just that they're far too inefficient to be rendered real-time.
Polygons are about the least detailed construction method for 3d
models. If there were a way for do some straight nurbs modeling you'd
notice an incredible difference.
I forget what the other type is.
It's like a combination between nurbs and polygons which apparently
looks really nice.
I think most game models are created using
nurbs then transfered to polygons, then optimized etc.

In
short, physical computer hardware is no where near efficient enough.
And it all has to do with the system bus. The problem no one wants to
fix. (mainly because the only options are insanely expensive.)

I wish the price of more efficient ram
would go down, because that would be a step in the right direction.

There's also voxel mapping, but it uses A HELL OF A LOT OF memory (more than 4 gigs?!?). It's basically like a 3D bitmap, like how polygons are like 3D vectors.

I dont think the lighting is the biggest issue. I think the
lighting in games has and will improve to a point that will be close to
reality. Same with sound. My problem is the textures.
In real life everything is so detailed. In video games things
look good far away, but crappy up close all because of textures that are
not detailed (and likely never will be detailed) enough.

Combo nurbs/polys sounds like its modeled as a nurbs surface and then
tessellated as polygons to be rendered. The tessellation would of
course be view dependant so you arent rendering thousands of polys in 1
pixel's space. All that sort of view dependant tessellation has
come a long way with the easy implementation of lod terrains and
algorithms like SOAR and ROAM. Adding that kind of algorithm to
an arbitrary curved surface seems a trifle more difficult. But
I'm sure its being worked on :smile: and im sure we will see more of it in
the future.

Compare todays textures to those ten years ago. It's a huge leap.
Consider also that the textures in current games are lacking detail
only because of the hardware limitations of the average gamer.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Crono</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
In short, physical computer hardware is no where near efficient enough.
</DIV></DIV>
According to a recent Scientific American article, today's fastest computers have approximately the same amount of processing power as a guppy. :biggrin:

That's in interesting comparison.

SG,
believe me, light is very complex when it comes to recreating it (and
since sound is the same thing just different frequencies, they are
linked). In games you do not hear proper re-verb or echoing or even
muffling. The same goes with light. rays or beams bouncing off
everything near infinity times (as well as continuous) doesn't sit
well with computing. Thus the invention of light maps and
such.

Granted textures do need upping. I think in a perfect
world, every texture will be at AT LEAST 1 Giga-Pixel size, allowing
separate rendering depending on how close you are (bad ass to say the
least). However, we're REALLY far away from that.

Most of my
point was there isn't a proper architecture for computing the type of
real time effects people are speaking about. It's as simple as
that.
In a perfect world, it would eventually reflect upon the
real world. That would even allow us to experiment with objects in
the virtual world to save us from risky and hazardous environments.
Not to mention, it's a really nifty way to check our formulas and
methods. To see if they really produce what we think they do. (so far
we're pretty damn close in the physics department)

The demo of Unreal 3 is, unfortunately, the most realistic lighting I've ever seen. Unfortunate because if I ever want to use it, I'll have to submit to subtractive geometry

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Crono</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
In short, physical computer hardware is no where near efficient enough.
</DIV></DIV>
According to a recent Scientific American article, today's fastest computers have approximately the same amount of processing power as a guppy. :biggrin:

</DIV></DIV>
Mhh, I have two guppy's at home... shall I devote them to my compiling processes? :biggrin:
As for Unreal 3... it's not going to be the only one with such good lighting by the time it hits the shelves... or at least I hope others won't be very late... so let's just stick to additive geometry (wich, personally, I find much more intuitive. Perhaps because that's what I started with and never really liked playing with clay).

I played with blocks as a child. I suppose, in a way, I still do.

It won't take 5 years to make.

...more like 7.

I think its going to be the same as the matrix trillogy. The first was a fluke, which turned out to be original, mind blowing, and fantasticly popular. With the following films being normal films with gimmicks, put out to satisfy the money grabbers behind the operation. The confusing ending at HL2 even follows the bilge from 'the architect', and the end of the matrix 2. In the end, the original, is alway the best.

/ 2 pence. :smile:

I think its going to be the same as the matrix trillogy.

/ 2 pence. :smile:

The idea for halflife was stolen from an innocent lady?!?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting TwoKnives</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I think its going to be the same as the matrix trillogy.

/ 2 pence. :smile: </DIV></DIV>

The idea for halflife was stolen from an innocent lady?!?
</DIV></DIV>

hehe :biggrin:
yeah she had the whole black mesa thing all figured out

I think that's just gone right over my head? Explain?!...

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting xconspirisist</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I think that's just gone right over my head? Explain?!...</DIV></DIV>

Oh my. Too lazy to get the link.
Oh, and your theory is ridiculous; HL2 had problems because most of it was strung together in the course of a year because of the September 30 release date fiasco deal.

I think that's just gone right over my head? Explain?!...

There was a thread about this lady who
claims she came up with Terminator and The Matrix and is now sewing
the Wachowskis and Warner Brothers. (However, if you know ANYTHING
about story development or film making you'll know that there is far
more of the film makers in that movie and their hobbies then anything
anyone else would have come up with)

Ooh bless, I'll have to google this :biggrin:

The demo of Unreal 3 is, unfortunately, the most realistic
lighting I've ever seen. Unfortunate because if I ever want to use it,
I'll have to submit to subtractive geometry

Yeh, that demo really rocked it to the top. That moving glass in front
of the light source (reflections on the walls). Unfortunately, we will
all need very, very, very leet puters to use the engine.