What can we reasonably expect from next gen graphics?
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
If that Unigine demo is what to be expected of the nextgen graphics, then I would be very disappointed judging from its features. Sure it's got FP32 HDR but so did some current gen games, sure it has high quality SSAO but they aren't that much more noticeable than the ones used in current gen games neither. So yes, the tessellation is about the only worthy entrance as shown here, apart from the dreadful performance impact on the fastest GPU available. I'm more impressed by Cryengine 3.0 to be honest and specifically the "Nextgen ready" features .
http://tinypic.com/r/2r40r5f/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNmeKp6CxXI
If this is what nextgen would look like on consoles or PC for that matter, then we are already there more or less.
http://tinypic.com/r/2r40r5f/6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNmeKp6CxXI
If this is what nextgen would look like on consoles or PC for that matter, then we are already there more or less.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Unigine is not really the best of anything. Only impressive features it possesses are tesselation and perhaps light translucency.
Next gen we'll get better DYNAMIC GI solutions, which I think will have the most impact on the look of a game (not on screenshots though). Also, I wonder if we'll see more on 3D particles, like the smoke on some parts of STALKER.
Next gen we'll get better DYNAMIC GI solutions, which I think will have the most impact on the look of a game (not on screenshots though). Also, I wonder if we'll see more on 3D particles, like the smoke on some parts of STALKER.
I think GPU PhysX and DX11 is paving the way for that. It should become more common in the future.
Now imagine all that with tessellation
Cryengine 3 looks great but i don't see any "graphics" feature that is not already in Cryengine 2
Yes they might improved physics and animation, polished performance etc. but graphics wise you can get all this in cryengine 2 and cryengine 2 so far beats what they presented in console versions of CE3
As you can see in thread "Eternal Thread of Screenshots of Ridunkulous Quality and Size", Crysis can look a whole lot better by just tweaking few settings like time of day etc.
corduroygt
Banned
If the improvement in graphics between this gen and next gen isn't so great, maybe standard 60 fps could be a selling point (I still maintain that not all games need it), as the improvement from 30->60fps is easily perceived by the general public.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Did you forget about Global Illumination
Which hopefully will apply to point lights as well, and not only the sun, as seen so far
Did you forget about Global Illumination
http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=53849
Not perfect but it looks great
L. Scofield
Veteran
Well, those videos are indeed representative of the shader, but the screenshots aren't. They're faked using hand-placed point lights.
Which reminds me of another advantage of CE3 over CE2: Massive amounts of point lights with little cost each. CE2 can barely use 20 before it glitches out and by then the performance is awful. In CE3 you can manage thousands of point lights at once without problems.
http://www.crytek.com/fileadmin/user_upload/inside/presentations/2009/Light_Propagation_Volumes.pdf
But they all cast shadows and then perfomance tanks. Otherwise perfomance wont be reduced that much. It also has some system to scale them or such becouse you could place lots of dynamic lights in say a hall along the path and it would be quite OK except if you 'stack' them (or if they are close and all cast shadows). IIRC there is sections in the vanilla "Core" level where the counter hits upwards ~30-32 dynamic lights rendered in some LOD form or as is. Anyway CE3 will be awesome together with their new Sandbox editor.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think next-gen graphics are going to benefit hugely from not having to increase much further in terms of resolution. If we look at SD games that were say 720x480 at 16bit per pixel?, and current gen games working hard to manage, if we're lucky, something like 1280x1080 upscaled to 1920x1080 at 32bit per pixel, a lot of the processing power advantages this gen had over last gen are spent on this resolution increase. For the next gen, games can target a similar resolution, and so can use the extra power instead to fill up the screen more, get better framerates and so on.
So I really do think there's a very big potential for some serious graphical improvements, provided of course they're not all spent on 3D But even for that, I think there's some room available. The longer it takes for next-gen to get here after all, the bigger the step up in terms of hardware is likely to be.
And of course this also goes hand-in-hand with the reinvention of the rendering pipeline, which I think should come to full fruition in the next-gen as well.
So I really do think there's a very big potential for some serious graphical improvements, provided of course they're not all spent on 3D
But even for that, I think there's some room available. The longer it takes for next-gen to get here after all, the bigger the step up in terms of hardware is likely to be.And of course this also goes hand-in-hand with the reinvention of the rendering pipeline, which I think should come to full fruition in the next-gen as well.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Well, their performance is very dependant on the area they cover. Small lights don't add much of a performance cost, but big lights do.
No doubt about
Xbox was 640*480 at 32 bit: 307,200 pixels.
X360 is supposed to be 1280*720 at 32 bit: 921,600 pixels, a triple increase.
Many performance intensive games however went for 1152*640 at 32 bit: 737,280 pixels, only about double the pixels.
1920*1080 at 32 bit is going to take 2,073,600 pixels, which is either a double increase from 720p or a triple increase again from 640p.
Then it may also have to do 3D somehow, which no matter the implementation will increase pixel load, or drop the image quality.
All in all I don't expect a sudden explosion of 1080p 60fps games, particularly because the main bottleneck is still bandwith and not GPU speed.
X360 is supposed to be 1280*720 at 32 bit: 921,600 pixels, a triple increase.
Many performance intensive games however went for 1152*640 at 32 bit: 737,280 pixels, only about double the pixels.
1920*1080 at 32 bit is going to take 2,073,600 pixels, which is either a double increase from 720p or a triple increase again from 640p.
Then it may also have to do 3D somehow, which no matter the implementation will increase pixel load, or drop the image quality.
All in all I don't expect a sudden explosion of 1080p 60fps games, particularly because the main bottleneck is still bandwith and not GPU speed.
Well lots of things are important!
But what may hold back 1080p are those devs targeting 720p with lol-ALU shaders.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if games simply target 1080P vertical resolution and leave the horizontal resolution somewhere between 1280 and 1440 pixels wide, 1.4 -> 1.55 megapixel. Its a good compromise between the 720P sets out there. People as a whole don't tend to make much of a resolution difference so long as the console can push 1080 vertical lines.
My (very humble) guess is that full1080/1920 will be the limit for next-gen graphics - as there wont be TVs with higher resolution in the next 5-10 years.
Most probably the gain in power will go toward 3D games - meaning in fact 120 fps.
Just saw Avatar yesterday - man, I WANT a game that looks like this - even if remotly.
Most probably the gain in power will go toward 3D games - meaning in fact 120 fps.
Just saw Avatar yesterday - man, I WANT a game that looks like this - even if remotly.
youre forgetting one important point
the difference in generation time is gonna be greater
xbox nov 2001
xbox360 nov 2005
== 4 years gap
we have now based that point with the xbox360's successor which we wont see this year, prolly not next year either, most likely 2012.
I stand by my original assertion 1920x1080 is gonna be common next generation
Im working on it j/k, well sorta I was last night looking at making some glowing trees. Dont know if Ill go with it though
If nextgen consoles can output what was shown in the Cry Engine 3 "next gen ready" @ any reso above 720p with 8*AF, 4*MSAA or some sort of uber morphological AA with perfect 30FPS without any tearing..then I'll be more than happy
"Only" CE3? That is too disappointing to contemplate!
BTW have you all seen Nvidia presentation of Fermi gaming side? I swear they must have read some of my thoughts....or i think like Jen himself, because it is exciting times again when the GPU development budget is bringing back the good old polys/tris per second grading!
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1263608214xxTstzDnsd_1_4_l.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1263608214xxTstzDnsd_1_6_l.gif
Dang...now i might want a Nvidia GPU in PS4....power to the polys!
As good as KZ2 looks, i can still tell the "last gen" polygon edges! ... now i can hope KZ3 will look like this....at 720p 4XAA 16AF and full, voluminous 3D! Its what i would call a next gen leap in graphics fidelity....boo to HDR bloom and FHD....
BTW have you all seen Nvidia presentation of Fermi gaming side? I swear they must have read some of my thoughts....or i think like Jen himself, because it is exciting times again when the GPU development budget is bringing back the good old polys/tris per second grading!
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1263608214xxTstzDnsd_1_4_l.gif
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1263608214xxTstzDnsd_1_6_l.gif
Dang...now i might want a Nvidia GPU in PS4....power to the polys!
As good as KZ2 looks, i can still tell the "last gen" polygon edges! ... now i can hope KZ3 will look like this....at 720p 4XAA 16AF and full, voluminous 3D! Its what i would call a next gen leap in graphics fidelity....boo to HDR bloom and FHD....
Similar threads
- Locked
