PC Unbelievable 3D engine graphics

B

bobrpggamer

Refugee
Check this out:


Spoiler


The thing that gets me is the lighting and to be this photorealitic and smooth 30-60 FPS seems impossible to me.

 
@OP: very nice. But to be honest, it's just another simple FPS... if you remove the great eye-candy first impact, it's nothing I'd buy anyway.

 
Jost Amman said:
@OP: very nice. But to be honest, it's just another simple FPS... if you remove the great eye-candy first impact, it's nothing I'd buy anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah but if the engine (Unreal Engine) is capable of this, then perhaps we will see more later on. I think this is probably a Counterstrike type game so if you like running around in a certain level shooting the enemy, I suppose that would be great.

I do not know much about the game itself but the engine is showing better quality than most high end renderers (Vray, Corona Render etc.) in just the outdoor lighting itself. I have tried to build a daylight system in both renderers and I could not achieve this quality GI. The lighting is probably image based HDR to get the almost perfect light setup that is here.

I know 3D graphics, although not much anymore, but in the past, so this blows my mind. I kept trying to disprove it as being real life, as I have never seen anything of this quality before.

I can blab all day about the quality and I still think this is Aprils fools joke or something.

Here is one of my tries with image based lighting outdoors, the sun never looks right, believe me.

FFGqBFy.jpg
If I were to point the camera towards a wall or something this image would not be anything like we see in the Unreal Engine. This is an image based HDR in the reflections and lighting. Yes it is simple because I am a simpleton I guess, but it was not even necessary to the project, just a test render for no real reason.

I just noticed the haze outside around the trees, with no real sunlight, this is a trick to use when you cannot get sunlight to render properly or the distance would require too much detail that would ruin the photorealism, or you can use depth of field as well, which I have done in one of my projects, It is still amazing though.

Depth of field to hide the unrealistic terrain and and terrible lighting.

VAwUeJW.jpg
So have I blabbered enough. I must be a really lonely person.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know about the lighting, but the realism of the walls and rooms is probably due to photogrammetrie. That can be done with any engine, as it just uses textures made of photographs essentially.

 
meganoth said:
I don't know about the lighting, but the realism of the walls and rooms is probably due to photogrammetrie. That can be done with any engine, as it just uses textures made of photographs essentially.
Click to expand...
I used a level editor in the mid 2000s and I could swear that it did not matter if you used 8k photographs, (back then I believe it was a limit of 1024 x 1024) the textures will get pixelated based on distance.

I am convinced the lighting is GI and GI takes a lot of possessing even with 2 RTX A6000 quadro's it cannot be done smoothly at even 30 FPS.

Example:


Spoiler


It was incredibly slow and the engine would get pixilated when viewing a texture in game at a distance and then walking toward the texture. This used to be mipmapping and then I think it was anisatropic filtering, now I do not know what is used.

 
Remember these days (Skip to 1:26):


Spoiler


They had shrink the 3D engine (if that is what it is) to half the size of the screen to may it playable. I honestly love retro RPG's but I am not sure if I could play it. I prefer tile based games until about Might and Magic 6, when they had a perfectly playable engine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bobrpggamer said:
I used a level editor in the mid 2000s and I could swear that it did not matter if you used 8k photographs, (back then I believe it was a limit of 1024 x 1024) the textures will get pixelated based on distance.
Click to expand...


Sure, there is more to this than just applying a fixed texture. the software needs to be able to handle very big textures and resize them without artifacts or pixels appearing. Such algorithms need CPU power that wasn't available in 2000. When I said any engine I meant current engine. Just checked and it seems Unity can do photogrammetry as well and it looks realistic as well. Though I'm sure that "realistic" has a multitude of quality levels as well and I don't doubt that UE can reach a better quality than any other engine on the market currently.

6 hours ago, bobrpggamer said:
I am convinced the lighting is GI and GI takes a lot of possessing even with 2 RTX A6000 quadro's it cannot be done smoothly at even 30 FPS.

Example:



  Reveal hidden contents

Click to expand...


 
meganoth said:
Sure, there is more to this than just applying a fixed texture. the software needs to be able to handle very big textures and resize them without artifacts or pixels appearing. Such algorithms need CPU power that wasn't available in 2000. When I said any engine I meant current engine. Just checked and it seems Unity can do photogrammetry as well and it looks realistic as well. Though I'm sure that "realistic" has a multitude of quality levels as well and I don't doubt that UE can reach a better quality than any other engine on the market currently.
Click to expand...
I do think you are right though. It would seem somehow the lighting and textures are completely baked in and the game never really does much per frame calculations and leaving the CPU to do the AI of the NPCs in the game. possibly limiting amount of dynamic lighting and using only ambient lighting, therefore being true ambient light so no calculations are needed for realtime GI.There is no way that the GPU is doing full ray tracing and GI, at 60FPS, its just not possible.

Ambient light is the easiest way to render a scene but it make for a completely unrealistic render, whereas GI renders (physically based preferably) has the most photorealistcic renders, but takes a lot of calculations. When I was working in the early to mid 2000s and was rendering basic brute force type GI, the renders would take up to 4 hours per scene depending on the complexity of the scene, on a basic mid range CPU. This was all done via CPU which had no help from GPU at that time.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top