R500 and NV50 to sport PS/VS 4.0 ??
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Chalnoth said:
Obvious chops.... 
j/k!
j/k!Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
digitalwanderer said:Obvious chops....
What, you think Chalnoth is going to agree with me now he's got a load of evidence, or do you think he will continue to insist his point, simply saying "they don't look like that in real life, it's just the way they've been photographed, lit, walking, the background, loads of other beetles that don't look like that, can't be installed with one click or need a reboot, Nvidia beetles don't look like that so your beetles must be buggy etc...." ?
Bouncing, most of those photos were taken with macro lens and studio lighting, they are not representative of what you would see with sunlight or an overcast day. Only the first two look like some natural light is involved, and I am willing to bet that the macro lens used had a lamp on it. Hell one of them is obviously shot at night.
DemoCoder said:
Well they are obviously not luminescent, so light would have to come from somewhere, the fact is they clearly have a 'shiny' quality when you do introduce light.
Just because its cloudy in those hl2 shots doesn't mean there isn't a light source for those bugs.
Then again, who's to say what a 9' bug would look like in full daylight as in the HL2 tech demo?DemoCoder said:
The context of this discussion is what more you can do beyond HL2 and with VS/PS2.0. The point of response is that specular lighting and shiny surfaces are not that impressive or hard to do. Global illumination and getting diffuse lighting correct is much harder to do realistically. Most of HL2's environmental lighting is statically computed just like in every other FPS since Quake1.
Shiny beatles or shiny anything is not that impressive to me, even HDR overbright shiny. I hate running around in a game where 90% of the surfaces are diffuse and flat (and quite unrealistic) and then run into a hyperrealistic lake/river/water, or a shiny character model.
There are too many games that look like DX7 titles, until you run into metal, water, ice, or glass, and then all of a sudden, they look much more realistic.
In those shots of the beatles, a typical FPS would have shiny beatles, but the wood or leaf they sit on would be thorougly unconvicinng, as would the non-shiny parts of the animal.
Shiny beatles or shiny anything is not that impressive to me, even HDR overbright shiny. I hate running around in a game where 90% of the surfaces are diffuse and flat (and quite unrealistic) and then run into a hyperrealistic lake/river/water, or a shiny character model.
There are too many games that look like DX7 titles, until you run into metal, water, ice, or glass, and then all of a sudden, they look much more realistic.
In those shots of the beatles, a typical FPS would have shiny beatles, but the wood or leaf they sit on would be thorougly unconvicinng, as would the non-shiny parts of the animal.
Can't agree more DemoCoder,very few "good looking" games our there have uniform visual experience.
But this is what we have to bear with nowdays,it's just the current gen GPUs(including next gen,maybe?) can not delivery acceptable performance with real-time lighting enabled on every object.
But this is what we have to bear with nowdays,it's just the current gen GPUs(including next gen,maybe?) can not delivery acceptable performance with real-time lighting enabled on every object.
I call it "piecemeal shaders". It's what happens when you design an engine for one generation of hardware or API, and then late in the decision, attempt to add something more complex. If you want a consistent look, you must design your lighting system from the start to take, for instance, PS2.0 shaders into account.
I hate game engines that throw in a few specialized PS2.0 effects (or bumpmapping or EMBM as in previous DX7/DX8 generations) and expect you to be impressed. That's why none of the first generation PS2.0 titles really show you what a game designed from the ground up for PS2.0 is capable of. Maybe in 2005, we'll see. Neither Doom3 nor HL2 push the edge of what is possible. And Womb Raider, Cradle of Sh*t certainly doesn't even come close.
But stencil/shadow buffer is atleast a step forward. Doom3 looks good, so does Xbox Topspin, and the upcoming EQ2. I am dying to have HL2, I just don't think it represents a fundamental advancement in lighting. The look of the game has more to do with the quality of the content than the techniques employed.
I hate game engines that throw in a few specialized PS2.0 effects (or bumpmapping or EMBM as in previous DX7/DX8 generations) and expect you to be impressed. That's why none of the first generation PS2.0 titles really show you what a game designed from the ground up for PS2.0 is capable of. Maybe in 2005, we'll see. Neither Doom3 nor HL2 push the edge of what is possible. And Womb Raider, Cradle of Sh*t certainly doesn't even come close.
But stencil/shadow buffer is atleast a step forward. Doom3 looks good, so does Xbox Topspin, and the upcoming EQ2. I am dying to have HL2, I just don't think it represents a fundamental advancement in lighting. The look of the game has more to do with the quality of the content than the techniques employed.
Heh, no. Those were some very nice pictures, and I think that they describe precisely what I stated. One only needs to take a glance at those pictures of beetles and the beetle-like creature in Half-life to see that the lighting in the Half-life picture is seriously lacking.Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:What, you think Chalnoth is going to agree with me now he's got a load of evidence, or do you think he will continue to insist his point, simply saying "they don't look like that in real life, it's just the way they've been photographed, lit, walking, the background, loads of other beetles that don't look like that, can't be installed with one click or need a reboot, Nvidia beetles don't look like that so your beetles must be buggy etc...." ?digitalwanderer said:Obvious chops....
(I wonder where I've misplaced that bugspray...)
Anyway quite honestly if there is something concerning HL2 that keeps my interest high, then it's all purely in the gameplay department.
What senseless shoot-em-ups concerns I'm also very interested into what CroTeam is working on (hopefully they'll manage a release in H2 2k4)...
Anyway quite honestly if there is something concerning HL2 that keeps my interest high, then it's all purely in the gameplay department.
What senseless shoot-em-ups concerns I'm also very interested into what CroTeam is working on (hopefully they'll manage a release in H2 2k4)...
