Ok its not true photorealism, but instead of whining about it just take some time to appreciate and respect the fact that its all being done in real-time and its available for everyone to use and experiment with.
I think you won't answer my question but why didn't you implement the material definition language (MDL) into Unreal Engine 4? Then we could use the same material that we use in Maya or 3ds max.
The real reason why Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) got scrapped is because it was too heavy for the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 (an 2012 GFX Highend card) to handle it In-engine, let alone handling it In-game.....And the consoles couldn't even come close handling it, so they opted to another GI solution (much easier to handle and almost gives the look of SVOGI), that's all. But they should have that SVOGI running in game now because a GFX card like the GTX 1070 or even the GTX 1080 can handle all of that even in game too, don't know why they're not implementing it into new games right now let alone talking about it...
Rich of Cucumber Eater USA well it's not SVOGI that's at fault per say, just unreal engines implementation of it. Cryengine currently has SVOGI and it runs extremely efficiently with only 3-5 ms hit on the Xbox one and 2-3 ms on a GTX 780.
Seriously? Changing resolution of a cube map? Using high precision normal maps? What an unbelievable advancement! Good job... (irony) Also what your rendering is missing the most is indirect lighting. It will never look real unless you use quality indirect lighting (or some screen space fake like AO). Just give us quality real-time HDR-correct indirect lighting. That would be something.
The program has those features, but they're extraordinarily expensive on the hardware in their current state. They already had a rather high tris count and number of component managers, so I can understand why they didn't want to enable it.
You can already do this yourself in the engine, you just have to be able to use C++ Also, the current indirect lighting and AO is more than good enough for photorealism. The stuff you propose is too hardware expensive, and you wont see much of a difference unless you're playing on a 4k HDR monitor.
Actually global illumination is one of the most obvious qualitative differences you can get in real time rendering right now. It's probably the last biggest hurdle to jump. But as you say, it is very hardware expensive, and you can (with a good lighting and materials artist) get the current system into a place where a lay person would have difficulty even spotting how the scene looks off compared to a real scene (at least if you don't show them the A-B contrast).
If you feel bad then don’t say will there be a English version. Say something like will there be another version with a more understandable version. And the obvious answer is no. So don’t even say it. Your just trying to be racist
Appreciate the talk, but the real-time aspect is missing. Compiled shaders are of course not real-time, and the car doesn't move and you show zero performance figures. - And the stuff that moves does not look as good as some 2011 games, which may or may not mean anything. "Look good" does not mean it's not accurate or competent, anyone can add some glossy shaders to a 2009 engine to make it look good - and unrealistic. On the other hand, gamers look for good games, not stranded hair and realistic leather... that's for doll-makers...
The graphics component of Slightly Mad Studio's Madness Engine is by far superior to this. Want photorealism? Look at Project Cars 2 screenshots. Not this rubbish.
