Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

Yea I remember seeing some good attempts at fur rendering last generation, while not perfect they were at least great efforts, and since they were from last generation, I thought they could easily become the norm and improve, this gen some developers completely gave up on trying...

Out of curiosity, have there been any great fur simulations in games with deferred rendering?

Stacking polygons are a huge problem when you have deferred rendering, so that might be prohibiting fur if that's how they managed it last generation.

Edit:

It would probably cause problems with grass as well.

 

[NBtoaster]

Out of curiosity, have there been any great fur simulations in games with deferred rendering?

Stacking polygons are a huge problem when you have deferred rendering, so that might be prohibiting fur if that's how they managed it last generation.

It's not fully deferred, but Ratchet and Clank uses a light pre pass, and has good fur.
http://www.abload.de/img/959038_20091030_screepsan2.jpg

 

[ScepticMatt]

I've been wondering, why do we still got ugly grass in video games? You know the really flat floor with green grass textures, is there no way around it? I remember seeing mods for skyrim and you could increase the density of the grass patches and bushes, with modern computers, I'm sure it is possible to fill up an entire area with them, but why don't they fill it all up?

Wait for next gen?

/Edit:

check this out
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?164835-FiberMesh-Preview

nice!

 

[Dennis]

"I've certainly seen how even today people are having a lot of trouble rendering shadows without a lot of blockiness or dithering.

HC: That's kind of the problem with computer game graphics these days. A lot of things people consider solved problems are actually quite far from being solved, and shadows are one of them. After all these years we don't have a very satisfactory shadow solution. They're improving; every generation of games they're improving, but they're nowhere near the perfect solution that people thought we already have."

Goddamit

Are people really under the impression that shadows have been solved though?

The only game to have most excellent shadows is Crysis 2 but at a hefty cost.

Look at Skyrim....*shudders*

I hear people complain about shadows all the time....I am one of them.

It is especially annoying when PC devs don't allow you to get really high quality shadows even if you have high-end hardware.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Bungie: Our game will have 16x AA, zero jaggies, perfect hair, megatextures... and on a console

Game: Runs at 240p

 

[Dennis]

Bungie: Our game will have 16x AA, zero jaggies, perfect hair, megatextures...

Game: Runs at 20 fps

 

[TheSeks]

Bungie: Our game will have 16x AA, zero jaggies, perfect hair, megatextures...

Game: Runs at 20 fps

You are Commander Shepard... and YOU are the biggest graphics whore in all the consoledel?

If Megatextures run like they do in Rage, no thanks. Having textures popping in that badly is bad and you should feel bad for going along with it.

 

[Wazzim]

Bungie: Our game will have 16x AA, zero jaggies, perfect hair, megatextures...

Game: Runs at 20 fps

Because all you do in games is taking screen shots lol, have you finished The Witcher 2 already?

 

[Durante]

This coming from the company that put out what is probably the worst AAA game in terms of IQ of the entire generation is interesting.

Anyway, IQ is something that is pretty easily fixed by just throwing power at the problem. As such, if they are serious about this, the first step to reach their goal would be to release their games on PC.

Skyrim:
Those sad looking bushes doesn't even stretch more than 50 meters on the ps3 =(

 

[FreeMufasa]

If Rare had "survive" and was allowed to keep making AAA games, modern graphics standards would be different from what we have today. And they would have been Microsoft's Naughty Dog.

I've been saying this for a few years. Rare would have easily been one of the top contenders in terms of graphic fidelity.

I think Viva Pinata was over looked in this department due to the massive hype of Gears 1. People would probably be going nuts for its look had it released in 2011 with no changes.

 

[Haunted]

Looking at "the usual suspects" (water, shadows, grass/foliage, cloth, hair) we've always checked out as far as gaming benchmarks are concerned, I think we can recognise various tiers of accomplishments.

For [still] water, we've come a long way.

Shadows have improved, but we're clearly not there yet. Flowing water has also been improved, but most games are still faking it instead of actually simulating it.

Grass, cloth and hair are still in the beginning stages and only very few titles have even bothered to make them look really good. Witcher 2 has good grass. Flat grass textures and bush sprites/bitmaps don't really cut it anymore. Alice did some interesting stuff with hair simulation and while clearly "a first step", it's something that stands out and is immediately noticeable. Mirror's Edge (PhysX) does good stuff with cloth, having it actually react to the world, tearing realistically... but we've seen games get one thing right but not bother with the others, always making compromises.

I mean, the tech to solve these individual issues seems to be there, we've all seen the various tech demos that offer convincing hair simulation (nvidia mermaid was 2006 ffs), fluid simulation (tons of demos), and we have seen some games get one element right but not the others... it's definitely a lot of work for effects that seem minor (but actually have huge impact on the immersion and believability of the game world) - and when you have limited (and at this point, frankly, outdated) resources available as is the case for the current consoles, it's no wonder that people can still be disappointed with the state of these things today.



That said and going by their previous work... I don't think Bungie of all people will be the ones to solve these.

 

[jet1911]

This coming from the company that put out what is probably the worst AAA game in terms of IQ of the entire generation is interesting.

I think they redeemed themselves with Reach.

 

[Feindflug]

I'm no expert, but I think their games would be less aliased if they weren't sub-HD.

Well being sub-HD doesn't always mean bad IQ - look at Halo Anniversary, the game runs at 1152*640 (same as Halo 3 which is lower than Reach's 1152*720) and the IQ is so much better than both games from Bungie, in other words if Bungie implemented FXAA instead of the totally worthless IMO TAA on Reach the IQ would've been so much better.

Really curious to see Bungie's engine on their next multiplatform game (differences between PS3 and 360 mainly since they always looked like they had "problems" with Xenos edram) and 343i's take on the Halo engine.

2012 looks like a really interesting year graphics/tech-wise - Wii U is coming, the current systems are pushed to their limits and maybe we'll see some things also from the next XBOX.

 

[Togglesworlh]

Yep. Kameo still look outstanding. And then you have games like Xenoblade for the Wii that can do this.

Which stretches out for miles.

Oh man you had me thinking it was a grass shader or something but the video with the storm makes it look so much less good. I hate those flat texture "bushes" of grass in video games. It's almost (not really) worse than nothing at all!

That said and going by their previous work... I don't think Bungie of all people will be the ones to solve these.

Bungie has some pretty amazing graphics programmers in employ, as my roommate tells it. My roommate is a graphics programmer and kind of, um, crazy about it.

 

[PumpkinPie]

What does it matter to them? Master Chief never takes his hat off.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Bungie has pretty low credibility when it comes to graphics.
Their games have decent art design but that is it.
They really need to work on their human character models too.

Well, one, I'd say that isn't true, because they have quite a lot of credibility when it comes to skyboxes and lighting.

But, two, I'd say that what the developers are capable of doing, especially on a research basis, is not necessarily what the Xbox 360 is capable of outputting. I don't think it's a reflection on a lack of talent on Bungie's part that Halo 3 ended up being sub-720p or that Master Chief has looked terrible since the beginning.

Shadows have improved, but we're clearly not there yet. Flowing water has also been improved, but most games are still faking it instead of actually simulating it.

The scripted sequence at the beginning of BioShock where the plane hits the pipe and the water flows out is spectacular, but like you mention, totally rigged. I think a lot of devs are willing to fake it given the relatively low game completion rate and presumably even lower replay rate; as long as the initial effect is "WOW", it doesn't really matter if it doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny from a resource allocation POV.

 

[pieatorium]

I don't think it's a reflection on a lack of talent on Bungie's part that Halo 3 ended up being sub-720p .

I don't think people would harp on this as much if it wasn't also 30 fps.

 

[NBtoaster]

Such a shame that FXAA wasn't invented in time for Reach. I don't think the resolution of the game is important, but the AA they used is terrible.

It's otherwise great looking, really impressive vistas and lighting. I don't doubt they have technical skill.

 

[infinityBCRT]

Their bit on how they wanted to use voxelization was quite interesting as well. I'm curious to see if anything ever comes of it.


Also, the response to this was amazing. To expand upon what you already highlighted:


They basically do a great job going "Yeah... this is actually kind of useless for us... or almost anyone really." :lol

Well its a choice between having unique textures across the whole world or being okay with recycling a bunch of textures over and over again and therefore saving space and allowing them to be more detailed as well (which is basically what Skyrim does). The downside of course is tiling; when viewed from a far enough distance, the illusion of being in a virtual world is broken when you see a bunch of tiling. The other downside is having everything look the exactly the same-- every dirty wall in the game has the same stains on it, every door has the same wood pattern on it, etc. And finally, it also takes a little more thought in terms of resource management if the artist has to deal with tiling textures, whereas with megatexture that becomes an afterthought.

Megatexture may not make sense on current consoles, but it will soon enough.

 

[infinityBCRT]

Such a shame that FXAA wasn't invented in time for Reach. I don't think the resolution of the game is important, but the AA they used is terrible.

It's otherwise great looking, really impressive vistas and lighting. I don't doubt they have technical skill.

Alan Wake showed that you can make even a sub-HD game look great with good AA.

 

[i hate bees]

That said and going by their previous work... I don't think Bungie of all people will be the ones to solve these.

What? Bungie do phenomenal on the hardware they've got to work with.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Is it feasible for Flower's grass tech to be integrated into other games?

 

[Durante]

What? Bungie do phenomenal on the hardware they've got to work with.

Maybe so (though I haven't really seen it), but in the specific area of IQ their output is sub-par even compared to the console standard.

 

[Y2Kev]

In terms of implementing the findings of their research, hopefully this means that they will be abandoning their temporal AA solution for their next game.

I don't so much mind jaggies, but my biggest "disruptor" is microhitching. I see it in a lot of PC to console ports, and even in the recent Halos as well. It really makes me somewhat nauseous.

 

[dragonelite]

Maybe so (though I haven't really seen it), but in the specific area of IQ their output is sub-par even compared to the console standard.

I thought reach looked super. Halo 3 looked like it was originally planned to be a xbox game.

 

[zoukka]

Well its a choice between having unique textures across the whole world or being okay with recycling a bunch of textures over and over again and therefore saving space and allowing them to be more detailed as well (which is basically what Skyrim does). The downside of course is tiling; when viewed from a far enough distance, the illusion of being in a virtual world is broken when you see a bunch of tiling. The other downside is having everything look the exactly the same-- every dirty wall in the game has the same stains on it, every door has the same wood pattern on it, etc. And finally, it also takes a little more thought in terms of resource management if the artist has to deal with tiling textures, whereas with megatexture that becomes an afterthought.

Megatexture may not make sense on current consoles, but it will soon enough.

The only real limiting factour is the workload for the artist. You just cannot expect unique textures everywhere if the art team isn't humongous.

 

[jett]

In terms of implementing the findings of their research, hopefully this means that they will be abandoning their temporal AA solution for their next game.

I don't so much mind jaggies, but my biggest "disruptor" is microhitching. I see it in a lot of PC to console ports, and even in the recent Halos as well. It really makes me somewhat nauseous.

Isn't their next game a "next-gen" game?

 

[StuBurns]

I thought reach looked super. Halo 3 looked like it was originally planned to be a xbox game.

Really? The IQ is ass, and that fucking ghosting, awful.

 

[ElRenoRaven]

Gamasutra has a very interesting interview Bungie's Senior Graphics Engineer, Hao Chen.








They talk about lots of interesting stuff like:

Megatextures
Aliasing
Shadow dithering
Texture pop-in
How to find graphics people


Teaser: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39332/The_Big_Graphics_Problems_Bungie_Wants_To_Solve.php

Interview proper: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6579/all_that_glitters_an_interview_.php

Oh very interesting. Nice to see Bungie talking about something. I really can't wait to see what they're doing. The wait has been so hard. Sounds like it's going to be amazing to see.

 

[Pranay]

I dont think we should expect 60 fps in most games, 30 fps will do imo. Even though 60 fps as a standard is great but this will just end up as disappointment.

However would love to have the option of 720p 60 fps and 1080p 30fps if possible.

 

[chubigans]

The guys at Sony Santa Monica had a specific code/engine for shadows in GOWIII, and I haven't seen anything come close to that on consoles since. Wish they'd share the love.

 

[Sophia]

Really? The IQ is ass, and that fucking ghosting, awful.

I'm inclined to agree. Reach wasn't that great, graphically. Most of my friends went to CoD because they preferred the attempt at 60 FPS.

 

[Fezan]

people said some thing about grass...and this animates too

 

[Cels]

bungie's visuals have been subpar this gen. halo 3 and odst looked awful, with the only bright spot being the lighting.

reach showed massive improvement, but even though reach was STILL sub-hd the game couldn't even handle a steady 30fps during the campaign (certain cutscenes and lots of on-screen action cause reach to stutter).


wonder if bungie's new franchise will make an appearance on PS360 or if they are waiting for next gen.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

Wait for next gen?

/Edit:
nice!

I don't believe that is going to happen to next iteration of consoles. The hardware cost would be prohibitive, unless ms or sony are ballsy enough to try another 599.

 

[vumpler]

I know these is old news these days but from their vanilla claims it appears we could be taking advantage of this now? Wouldn't this be a solution for the jaggies? Why is this unrealistic at this point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4&feature=related

 

[Respawn]

I'll beleive it when I see it Bungie.

 

[StuBurns]

I know these is old news these days but from their vanilla claims it appears we could be taking advantage of this now? Wouldn't this be a solution for the jaggies? Why is this unrealistic at this point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4&feature=related

Even if that worked for game development, how would it help jaggies? In fact, it'd make them much worse. The more detail you have in an environment, the more sub pixel geometry you have, and the more jaggies you have.

 

[Plywood]

"The other challenge is selling a dynamic world," Chen said. "In terms of what we think is important, we will even lower some of the quality in order for us to have a more dynamic world. This means dynamic time of day, lots of things that move in the wind, lots of things reacting to players moving through them, and when you walk on soft surfaces like sand and mud, you leave footprints. So basically everything we do to sell that this world is moving and dynamic is important to us."

Bungie is trying to make an MMO which is affected by what the users actions. Unless the effects are temporary(footprints), in which case I am digging too deep.

 

[vumpler]

Even if that worked for game development, how would it help jaggies? In fact, it'd make them much worse. The more detail you have in an environment, the more sub pixel geometry you have, and the more jaggies you have.

does... not... compute...

This sounds as if you're saying the exact opposite of what they are saying?..

 

[Emily Chu]

1920x1080 4xAA 16AF 60 FPS does alot imo

 

[bengraven]

I't seems like no one besides Rare (and soccer and football games flower developers ) ever took interest in better short grass. And they've been pushing that since gamecube era.

Edit:
Oh, and the sames goes to fur. Even a amazing looking game game like The witcher 2 has a poor solution when trying to replicate a furry coat.
If Rare had "survive" and was allowed to keep making AAA games, modern graphics standards would be different from what we have today. And they would have been Microsoft's Naughty Dog.

Agreed completely.

Rare has some great tech and it's a shame MS doesn't at least share that with other studios. Rare fur, alone, was years ahead on Gamecube.

 

[StuBurns]

does... not... compute...

This sounds as if you're saying the exact opposite of what they are saying?..

They're saying you can improve detail in the simulation, but as you do that, you need even greater image quality to discern that detail. That's why something like Crysis with no AA at all looks far more jaggy than the average console game with no AA. You have lots of sub-pixel size geometry that's still being displayed as some ugly jaggy mess.

Virtualized geometry would allow for more resources to be spent on image quality, but that technology as it stands could only really be used as a skin on top of a game. For example those fancy trees, if you actually built a tree from a billion voxels, when you hit it, you need to calculate the trajectory of a billion voxels, which isn't going to happen. So you'd still need the same technology under the fancy little balls.

 

[Kleegamefan]

I'm no expert, but I think their games would be less aliased if they weren't sub-HD.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Really interesting article. Since I do a lot of animation/video editing work, image quality is one of the first things I notice, and it can drive me absolutely bananas. I do love console games, but every time I play games on my PC (especially ports of games I've seen on my 360), the clarity is the first thing that sticks out to me. I'd love to see a console dev really push for better AA and overall image quality.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Bungie talk a pretty good game, but I don't think I've been wowed or seen them execute to a higher level since the smoke and mirrors of their Halo 2 E3 showing that all got scrapped.

 

[Haunted]

The scripted sequence at the beginning of BioShock where the plane hits the pipe and the water flows out is spectacular, but like you mention, totally rigged. I think a lot of devs are willing to fake it given the relatively low game completion rate and presumably even lower replay rate; as long as the initial effect is "WOW", it doesn't really matter if it doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny from a resource allocation POV.

True, sadly.

But I think there's a point where it actually becomes more efficient in terms of workload to just let the underlying tech/simulation take over for these sorts of effects so they don't have to fake these things "by hand" anymore - provided they have the horsepower available.

It was said in one of the Uncharted 3 behind the scenes videos that it was initially planned to fake all the swaying and rolling caused by the ocean waves in the ship levels by having the ship "rigged" and Drake animated accordingly to get that illusion, but then one of the tech guys said that it's feasible to actually simulate all the ocean waves procedurally and just let the physics take over "naturally" at that point - less work for the animators and level designers because of the underlying tech.


When we actually reach the point where the necessary horsepower is there and it's the manpower and man hours that are more precious (we're already pretty close to that in some cases, actually), actually simulating this instead of faking it will become the norm.

 

[Stallion Free]

Halo: Reach had some of the worst post-process AA induced ghosting I have ever seen.

Hopefully this means they picked up on that.

 

[Dennis]

I thought reach looked super.

Yeah, me too. I was very impressed with Reachs graphics and am always surprised at the hate.

For a console as old as 360, I found the visuals spectacular.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Reach is gorgeous apart from the weird ghosting, which I assume is a byproduct of the post-processing AA. The game had awesome particle effects, though, and tons of stuff going on at once.