Yikes. This is primarily why I still give the nod to The Order for most visually impressive modern title - the consistency.26 png captures from chapter 4 on high settings on PC with upscaling turned off (native 1080p) and AF forced to x16 through nvidia driver
http://abload.de/img/quantumbreak5_2_20161vtkb1.png
http://abload.de/img/quantumbreak5_2_20161imj95.png
I don't mind the upscaling so long as it's optional. I'll take prettier pixels (with good AA) over more pixels any day. Hell my current monitor only does 1600x900 (lost my good monitor ) but with lots of AA I can hardly tell a difference vs the old 1080p one.http://abload.de/img/quantumbreak5_1_2016430j4p.png
I think the reconstruction technique fits the style and asset quality of the game more, as you up the resolution more things become obvious, while they are cleverly hidden with the normal reconstruction technique.
Isn't that just the screen-space specular?While playing QB today, I noticed something that I never did before -- which makes QB even more impressive graphically!
The PBR materials in this game are pretty good but what the dev team has done is incorporate actual reflections on materials that are NOT completely mirror. As an example, you walk up to a shiny surface that clearly has some diffuse on it like a shiny table. The table has what I would call a "clear coat" layer where it will have a high roughness but still reflecting. Shooting a box on this table, for example, will yield the true reflection of that box on the table wherever the box moved after shooting it. So it's not just a capsule AO affect like The Order with no color information. It's another big step up to trying to simulate reflections on a rough surface.
I can imagine having that on along with the stellar GI implementation would make for a very power hungry game.
Isn't that just the screen-space specular?
As far as how it compares to The Order's capsule-based occlusion, it contains more information but also lacks the stability.
Isn't that just the screen-space specular?
It's screen space yeah, made this couple days ago
And it seems to be a hack not some complex calculation, seems like the rendering engine thinks the orange parts of the screen would bounce light against the monitors there (which wouldn't happen realistically), see how the orange hue disappears when the orange parts in the tv screen are out of screen space. So technically, it's an "error" but can look good in quite a few places, can look weird in others (like the screen i posted).
Edit: It's the same as the screen "bouncing" light exactly behind it in the screenshot above, which is impossible.
When you are talking about hardware are you specifically talking about Xbox One? There might be a connection there, but it's definitely on Remedy to decide if they want to use something more stable or something less stable and have inconsistent results, with things looking good in some places and bad in others. QB is using screen space info for almost everything, i bet you Remedy know what the problems are right now and their next title won't be as reliant on screenspace techniques as QB was.
Not really. That's one of the reasons I'm not generally fond of it.Yes, it is.. but it's use is quite conservative in games these days.
There are plenty of counterexamples though, and have been for years (i.e. KZSF).Only being noticed on perfect mirror surfaces most of the time.
Sampling color in screen-space specular is typical.QB seems to use it liberally and as an extra term for the final BRDF color.
Not sudden. I've been complaining about screen-space reflections since they started to catch on.Why are we all suddenly complaining about screenspace computations
Older games, implementations that sacrifice completeness for stability (like Order 1886 capsules), games which have fairly generalized volume irradiance representations (this isn't yet very typical, but upcoming cases like Tomorrow Children do a huge amount of stuff in world space).Where are the world space calculation games at?
Sort of. Especially in games that have reasonably free vertical camera control, I think SSR often looks worse than classical sketchier methods with less-complete reflections. Yes, it looks subtly more accurate when it works, but it's also actively distracting when it doesn't, and in many cases you're getting obvious artifacts on-screen constantly.The fact that they at least have SOMETHING resembling reflections as opposed to nothing at all is an achievement in my book.
There are plenty of counterexamples though, and have been for years (i.e. KZSF).
Sampling color in screen-space specular is typical.
Not sudden. I've been complaining about screen-space reflections since they started to catch on.
Older games, implementations that sacrifice completeness for stability (like Order 1886 capsules), games which have fairly generalized volume irradiance representations (this isn't yet very typical, but upcoming cases like Tomorrow Children do a huge amount of stuff in world space).
Sort of. Especially in games that have reasonably free vertical camera control, I think SSR often looks worse than classical sketchier methods with less-complete reflections. Yes, it looks subtly more accurate when it works, but it's also actively distracting when it doesn't, and in many cases you're getting obvious artifacts on-screen constantly.
This doesn't simply not look right, it actively jumps out with wrongness:
Even in implementations where the cubemaps match power with expected SSR, you get weird smudge bubbles dangling around objects.
There are ways of increasimg the stability and hidjng some of the artifacts of Screen Sapce effects, at the cost of making them less pronounced. QB consistently favoured good looks on non-problem scenarios in detriment of stability in harder situations, in all the SS effects implementations they used.