FRESHBRU Yeah, I agree. He has done a great job with this but really similar results could be had by anyone with even a smartphone and a decent computer.
It's not a joke but dan428 is a joke lol. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. You can create AO maps in crazybump and awesomebump and other 2d->3d map utilities, but you probably want to bake AO from geometry, which you can do in Blender, Xnormal, Substance Painter, and I'm sure Quixel and others. AO can intensify light effects and help details "pop", but AO is also used by 3d texturing apps as an input for mask generators, but I doubt he did any of that.
Yeah look at fucking rainbow six siege lmao. Everyone was fucking hyped up as shit when the trailer was out. Then once we played the game we immediately asked for a refund. Trailer wasn’t even gameplay it was animated.
Graphics in 2025 will still be nowhere near that lmao Consoles will always hold graphical progress back, which means in 2025 the Playstation 5 will probably be the current gen console, or the PS6 will have only recently come out, and going by logic the PS6 in 2024-2025 will probably only then get the power of a current 1080 Ti.
Games will improve whether you like it or not. It's already insane how far we've come in the last 10 years. Add another 10 and I bet we'll all be amazed.
It is a higher poly than your current game content, however, this detail can be quickly removed by changing lods when the player moves further away, making it more optimal for performance.
I'm a 3D artist and I'm blown away that this is possible at all, let alone on a game engine. What amazing work. I know there is a hellava lot of craft involved in this, but the fact it is possible at all makes me hopeful that this is a level of quality that many games could achieve in 5 - 10 years from now.
Thank you for the kind words! I think we will be there sooner, at least that is what I am aiming for. The future of gaming is going to be pretty damn sweet!
Well, lucky you. The game "The vanishing of Ethan Carter" achieved this 3 years ago. You don't have to wait :) www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/visual-revolution-vanishing-ethan-carter/
Don't get me wrong, The vanishing of Ethan Carter looks amazing (tried it myself), probably one of the best looking games out there, but it's far from what we're seeing here. I mean, do you ask yourself "Is this real life ?" when looking at Ethan Carter's gameplay ? I don't. Whereas in this video, I did.
thanks to Unreal Engine 4, i think it's safe to say that real time photorealism is only limited by hardware, wheres before it was limited by hardware and software.
I think they go hand in hand still. Unreal engine has allowed for amazing realtime simulations of static environments and I think in terms of software it needs to be way more optimized for interactive environments ,relying only on hardware progression wont help make games look like this. But its getting there, fast.
It was never limited to hardware... It's just they can make really good graphics but mainstream computers wouldn't be able to handle it and so they would never be able to sell the engine. Millionaires who can afford supercomputers could have had these type of graphics well over 10 years ago.
Did you use procedural generation for the pebbles and such? This is amazing, the only part that didn't fool me was the lighting on the water. Everything else is indistinguishable from reality.
haha ya the water shader is unfinished. It is not generated, however I recaptured a large amount of single rocks to be used with houdini to simulate them falling to the ground, into place. This way I can reconstruct entire areas with more detail than just photogrammetry would allow me.
Davey Butler Photo scans are a bitch to which is kinda why its not really used in video games. I wish there was easier ways for photo scanning because it would make games look incredible.
GoogleEarth is photoscanned but on a giant huge scale in very low detail if you are looking up close. But zoom out and your graphics card starts skipping a beat because there's so much going on. GoogleEarth doesn't have to be super optimized, but a video game has to be incredibly amazingly optimized because there are a thousand things going on at the same time. Photoscanned results are often huge and the detail is just way too high.
Photogrammetry is becoming much more frequent in video games. DICE has been using it for nearly every object, character, and landscape for Battlefront and Battlefield 1. Others use it for single objects like rocks, cars, plants, etc. It's possible to buy game ready assets that use this technique. It's quickly becoming the new standard for video games, and it probably the most realistic and easiest way to get good graphics if you are doing so in a controlled environment.
How the hell did you do this? This is incredible. I'm getting ready to be working on an open sourced VR project(decentraland.org) and would love to be able to develop graphics of this quality for it.
You are blowing my mind! Keep up the great work! Can't wait to see the finished product. Your work is really making me think about switching from an offline renderer, to real-time with Unreal.
Thank you! I am making use of Unreal + Nvidias VXGI build, its really powerful. Bit difficult to install as you need to compile it from code, but absolutely worth it.
To simply put: offline rendering is not real-time, thus the rendering can last hours or days and only time (besides the caps of the renderer) is the limit for output quality. If my thinking is correct, there are no 3d games with offline rendered gfx. About 10-20 years ago, there were many games that used some pre-rendered images for sprites (2d image that moves on the screen) and backgrounds. However the quality of those images are far poorer than any modern real-time rendered games can offer.
Offline means using a 3D application that has or can use a standalone system to calculate lighting very accurately. This process can take up several hours per image to get realistic results. For video games you recalculate an image, every time it is done it starts again, making it real time. You need 30 or 60fps, so the image needs to be created rapidly and is not able to use the same sampling for its lighting for instance.
*1:33** The same structure (all rock) on the left side as on the right side rotated 90 degrees* truly amazing! *La misma estructura (toda la roca) del lado izquierdo que del lado derecho rotada 90 grados*
This looks better than what an amateur could capture with a regular camera! The light is set to perfectly, one would be hard pressed to stumble across this in real live. This all adds up to something wonderful! It give this in parts a hyper realistic quality! Great work!
Any way you could turn this into a Screensaver? Put it on steam and sell it for about $4.99 USD and release $.99 dlcs for new scenes and people will eat it up. I'll definitely grab it.
I am definitely subbing to you. This makes me excited for the future of games. I have said this before though the unfortunate drawback can be that you look at older games and they look terrible lol. It's hard to beat a game that's really good looking and playing.
Dirty Gingy if you are willing to pay for these images as screensaver you could as easily record them yourself in the actual world. As VR this is much more impressive.
Teddy, only with silicon based cpu's would it be impossible. It might be quite doable with a quantum computer (eventually). I've read scientists estimate that with the level of progress we are making with those, in just 20 years we'll have computers that can each make more calculations per second than there are particles in the universe. It sounds insane until you learn that with each "bit" of gained computing power, the quantum computer increases its computational power by a square. So basically, if it goes from handling 4 bits at a time to 5 bits, it jumps from X calculations to X squared calculations. From 4 bits to 6 would be X to the fourth power increase.
Teddy, what evidence suggests permanence is the way of the universe vs "only existing when someone's there to see it"? I've seen a lot of quantum mechanics vids, but they all suggested the wave form of all probabilities exist until someone makes an observation. Then, the waveform collapses to a single event. Yes, that means even more computational power is needed, but quantum physics is just something I've seen a lot of videos on. I haven't had any official classes on it, nor have I given reality-vs-simulation much thought. On another thought: If we are a simulation in a computer, wouldn't that mean that a program inside the computer would necessarily have no where near the computing power of the actual main computer? That'd be just like how emulators for an NES need to be ran on an PC much more powerful than an NES. It'd be impossible for an NES to run software that emulates its own hardware, let alone also play a game.
Teddy you are thinking in terms of human limitations, truth is anything is possible, we are far from knowing anything and far from having the best possible tech.
@Teddy Signs You and goldenheartOh both lack imagination. It is highly unlikely that we live in some kind of simulation as depicted in 'The Matrix' or similar scifi movies (for what seems to me quite obvious reasons), as Teddy already kind of indicated. Here are my thoughts on the subject matter. Philosophically speaking, our universe itself can be considered to be a "computer", there are many analogies to make. If you look at it on the smallest scale, it may be just discrete interactions with the area around it, not quite different from a computational machine. We could be the natural result of these interactions, that is, we were not explicitly "programmed" (although it could be that the evolution of life may have been the goal). If we are able to find certain boundaries in this computer, then we could perhaps prove that it is in fact a machine, and that there is a "parent" world that we are embedded into, possibly created by something that is hard to imagine to us. Well, if this is indeed the case, what we can do with that information? I guess not a lot, right now. But when that time comes, humanity will already have evolved into something that is unrecognizable to us. That is, in the unlikely case that humanity will survive. It is likely that massive space exploration will be done with a new species (possibly mechanical) that we created ourselves. But this is a whole different matter, of course. At this moment there is no way of knowing, and the chances of us living in an embedded world by means of a "machine" or "computer" is undeterminable (thus, 50/50 I guess?). Right now it would be interesting to know what the input/output of such a simulation is in our "parent" world, and if there is a way to interact or observe our simulation from that world. But it seems unlikely that there is interaction, since so far we haven't observed any inconsistent behaviour with respect to the local laws by which the universe (/simulation) operates. We are only just starting to understand our universe. Time will tell. But personally speaking I think it is more likely than not that we do live in a simulation, since we are building "simulations" ourselves (and especially with the analogies between computers and the universe). Looking at what we do ourselves, may give a greater understanding about our "parent" world. Similarly reliable is how looking at history can tell the future.
this is an amazing video, but really far from this possibility, even in the future. Indeed in this video there are not plants, waterfalls, all details are just rocks. Don't misunderstood me, it's incredibly good, but it's even the easiest way to fake reality, in other videos, where there is vegetation, where volumetric and inirect light is needed, where nature show all its superiority of our poor simulation, it's all different, if you have the right eye.
Fuck me man, that was outrageously realistic... Not just photorealistic, but pure, unadulterated realism, indistinguishable from anything in nature. Even in 1080p. I am out of words...
Rens you are a legend! A magician of our time. This is coming from a guy who actually knows what it takes to capture and process photogrammetry then understand everything Unreal Engine has to offer in terms of lighting, baking and de-shadowing directional light. Every subtlety is masterfully displayed through your work. You're an inspiration and a pioneer.
Watch the segment around 0:46 seconds, the water is uneven and its motion appears realistic- yet the shadows cast by sun on the rocks would have to be timelapse. The odds of having both are astronomically low in real life conditions.
there will be a time, not too far off where we're not limited by processing power but by the work required to model and texture such highly detailed scenes.
the real force in this video are scanned object, composition and light setting, they make it so real! It is even a great demonstration of the possibilities offered by UE4, just a bit of flickering in the shadow is a bit annoying in this perfection.
Wow, i have to say this is the best, realistic looking realtime graphics i ever saw. Very impressive work. Years ago, when Nvidia and AMD/ATI released new Graphiscards, they also released very pretty Demos. But since a few years, nothing more. It was always cool to see what is technically possible. But your demo shows what is possible when you invest enough time.
I had to do a double take; somebody shared this at work and I thought it was just a demonstration of photorealistic rendering. It's all the more impressive that it's realtime; can you move around in the environment like you would in a game? (Assuming 6DOF movement is implemented in the runtime) This gets me thinking about the future of simulated physics and materials, such as what it takes to make the things in this demo act like their counterparts in the real world (water that splashes and gets muddy and still looks real, rocks that chip and break when struck with a hammer, etc.)
Actually PS4 & XBOX-ONE brought 8 cpu cores to the mainstream, which are now pushed towards the PC market by AMD. CPUs are needed to calculate many different objects like the stones in the video, the more cores the better. So yeah, consoles brought us actually further and also they keep helping gaming companies to get a broader audience. TL; DR consoles support PC gaming and are not holding it back, blame it on (some) lazy developers with short budget.
ur a fucking dumbass. a majority of these companies could make a PC exclusive game, but they never will, because they wouldn't get their money back. it's all about ROI (return on investment) You fucking PC virgins spend $1,000,000 on a PC, yet Pirate everything. Fuck you losers. YOU GUYS ARE WHAT'S HOLDING GAMING BACK
If you think about it consoles are holding us back in the sense that it is another market that companies have to use resources on. Porting games, creating software, cheap hardware and whatever other process a company has to go through in order to make console gaming possible. However you also have to consider the fact that it is also making a lot of money for the companies. Due to the consoles being the "cheap" alternative for gaming many people buy a console which is quite powerful for the price that they pay but they later have to pay a shit load of money for the games that they play because the companies have realised that they can bait in customers with a cheap console and then make the price of console games shoot up sky high. This is due to the difficulty of actually pirating a game in a console because of its software and also because the majority of the gamers who use consoles are young and have a limited knowledge when it comes to software etc. If the price of pc games where to go that high the pc gamers would have an outburst and the total profit that a company would get from pc games would drop.. In reality if you were to actually calculate and think Mega you would see that getting a pc is a lot cheaper and better than getting a console. Because the games are cheaper on a pc in general and because getting a pc that rivals the power of a console is not as expensive as you think....... Now if everyone in the world where to realise that then the console market would shut down and companies would have one less burden on their shoulders. They would be able to solely focus on pc gaming and they would be able to push the quality of the games that they produce very far. It is just that they find it more profitable to invest more in console gaming since they know that console gamers all believe that it is the cheaper alternative therefore they are able to trick them and gain more money. There obviously are pc gamers who pirate games but there are also console players who pirate games.... It is actually extremely easy to do it on a console as well...... But the majority of the people around the world buy their games on both pc and console.... Don't be so biased. Did I forget to mention that console players have to pay for online gaming? And did I also fail to mention that you cannot pirate an online game? There honestly aren't that many people who pirate games...... Just think before you talk next time.....
+Deus Vult: Actually we will hit photorealism in a couple of years. We would have already, but consoles were indeed hindering the progress in this field for quite some time.
I'm very curious how it's been made and how much time it took. By photogrammetry or by hand it must have taken a hell of work and time. Manyway, making 3D for almost 20 years, this is surely one of the most amazing stuff i've seen, considering this is realtime btw.
It's photogrammetry.....how am I supposed to be impressed? Granted, it's detailed.....it would be great for google earth if you could capture and store whole places to explore.....but the moment you try to use it for something like a player model or vehicle running over it, the illusion will be broken. I'd say the only reason why it's taxing at all, is because of rendering real time lighting/shadows, but some of the illusion is already lost, as you can see shadows in areas where they shouldn't be as the light moves around. It's kind of like one of those photo's where the more you look at it, the more you notice wrong with it. -Expert in all things 3D, from modelling to texturing to rendering.
You can't see baked shadows...He removes the lighting in the texture, to learn more I'd suggest you start with the videos unreal made at GDC in 2015 to find out how to remove lighting from photogrammetry based assets. If that's to much work browse polycount.com for photogrammetry based projects, someone rebuilding a car with it and its fascinating stuff. If that's all beyond your comprehension just check out megascans.com to see their library of photoscanned assets, why not download one and see for yourself. The lighting is stripped out of the texture by an expert in all things 3D, its really rather simple photoshop work, 20 minutes max.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bXouFfqSfxg.html Here you can clearly see real world shadow areas on this rock that don't change when the light is shined directly on it. So it's a clear case of shadows in the presence of direct light.
clearly just AO...why do you think removing lighting for a texture is so hard? XD it's so damn simple! lightmap and the divide blend mode in photoshop. Even just a high pass filter and a fade out with luminosity blend mode would work, it's been done for years.
I remember a few years back Euclideon was working on trying to do this with Unlimited polygons. I really think this will be the next jump in gaming. It will be quite a few years yet before we will see it in home consoles. The cost in the GPU cards need to go down and be capable of doing this in a costly manner.
I can always seperate animation from real life by the mathematically smooth camera flow. if you add a natural (minimal?)shake, or copy the movement of drones you could improve the realism
My whole life I have been fascinated with realtime photorealism. This might be the most impressive demo I've seen yet. I just bought a 1080 Ti... I greatly anticipate your playable demo. :)
This is amazing, imagine in the future these type of graphics in virtual reality. All they would need is some sort of sense of touch and it would feel real. I think its possible within our life time.
Unbelievable, this is one of the best rendering movie I've ever seen. I work with C4D, but to create such a world with all these sand, stones and rocks will take a lot of time - super great graphics engine and good work.
Realisticly we can't really utilize these environments in games like everyone hopes we could. Until we can make very advanced movement to be able to move on these efficiently without having to constantly hop to get higher up, looks beautiful though.
