2000x GPU Performance Needed To Reach Anatomical Graphics Limits For Gaming? 331
Vigile writes "In a talk earlier this year at DICE, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney discussed the state of computing hardware as it relates to gaming. While there is a rising sentiment in the gaming world that the current generation consoles are 'good enough' and that the next generation of consoles might be the last, Sweeney thinks that is way off base. He debates the claim with some interesting numbers, including the amount of processing and triangle power required to match human anatomical peaks. While we are only a factor of 50x from the necessary level of triangle processing, there is 2000x increase required to meet the 5000 TFLOPS Sweeney thinks will be needed for the 8000x4000 resolution screens of the future. It would seem that the 'good enough' sentiment is still a long way off for developers."
Your generation is not special, more will follow (Score:5, Insightful)
there is a rising sentiment in the gaming world that the current generation consoles are 'good enough' and that the next generation of consoles might be the last
If developers can't find a way to improve games beyond the next generation, it's not because we've reached some peak of gaming possibilities, it's just because those particular developers have reached the peak of their imaginations.
Somewhere right now their is a young guy sitting somewhere who has an idea in the back of his head which will become the next great innovation in gaming. It will require a lot more computing power than the current generation of PC's, much less consoles. If he were to pitch it at EA, he would be laughed at. If he tried to explain it at a Game Developers Conference, he would be greeted by blank stares and derision. He's probably already used to hearing responses like "That can't be done", "Who would want THAT?", "That could never be done on a console", etc. But one day people will look back and say "Wow, how could they *not* have seen that that was the future?" and "How could they have been so arrogant as to think that gaming had peaked with the millionth variation of the FPS?".
What's more, I suspect that even Sweeney is off-base. The next real innovation won't be about improving resolution or framerates to some theoretical max, or making an even prettier FPS. It will be some whole new way of thinking about gaming that is just in the mind of that weird guy right now. Most of us can no more imagine it now than some guy playing Pacman could have foreseen Half-Life 2. But it's coming.
Every generation thinks it's special. But never be so arrogant as to think your generation has somehow reached the pinnacle of achievement in ANY area.
Anatomical? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. There were no better words in the dictionary, and rather than taking the sensible approach of creating a new one, they opened to a page at random, stuck their finger on it, and started using whatever their finger touched.
2. Author was trying to sound trendy and interesting.
As a footnote, salahamada is a made-up word waiting patiently for its debut. Give it a little love?
Re:Development costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't make a huge difference, actually. Things like trees and faces are already rendered to a complexity beyond where it's reasonable to create them by hand. That's why there are 3rd-party utilities to render these things easily, with some simple inputs, like plugging a formula into a fractal generator. You don't have to hand-design an NPC's face any more than their parents had to piece their fetus together. You plug in the DNA and the code does the rest.
Re:Rasterization (Score:5, Insightful)
And he's only talking about rasterization. Expect a switch to raytracing somewhere in the not so near future.
But that won't really matter either. The problem at this point isn't the number of pixels, or the number of polygons, or the depth or resolution of the textures. It's the fact that the image is being projected on a rectangle with a strip of plastic around it. In the end, what we really are shooting for is what literature people call "Suspension of disblief". You can only get so far looking into a glowing rectangle. The wrap-around screens of eyefinity help some, and 3d glasses have the potential to help a little bit.
The reality is that hte most immersive gaming experience I've had was in the mid to late 90's when i was hooked up to a real VR system with a helmet, and held a gun with approximately wii-controller input capability. The ability of that system, despite its craptacular by today's standard rendering capability, to be immersive was much higher, because the ability to see my entire environment by moving my neck and body was more important the the quality of the environment itself.
Anatomical Peaks (Score:5, Insightful)
While describing the layer and textures, it is going to be offset by what is known as "uncanny valley". There is a point at which the reality is flawed because it looks too real for the context.
I'm even starting to see uncanny valley on magazine covergirls after they've been photoshopped till they are almost unrecognizable. There is a point where you stop fixing flaws and start making them.
Re:Development costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the cost of the games, but cost of the hardware. That's one reason I got out of the gaming scene -- to play a new game you had to have the latest, greatest, fastest, most expensive hardware.
Sweeny and company need to get a clue. I'm a nerd, but I'm not Steve Wozniac. I have bills to pay and much better things to do with my time and money than to spend half a C-note on hardware, take the time to install the hardware, just to play a $50 game I might not even enjoy that much.
I mean, its a GAME. I don't care that every hair on Duke Nukem's head is perfectly rendered. I just want it to be FUN.
What about AI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone talks about how far we can push graphics.
But what about pushing the AI?
What about procedural generation of the game?
What about vastly improved physics including a destrucable world?
I'd rather see these things pushing hardware development than how many polygons you can crunch in a second.
Re:Your generation is not special, more will follo (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of us can no more imagine it now than some guy playing Pacman could have foreseen Half-Life 2. But it's coming.
The guy playing pacman (released in 1980) only had to move a couple cabinets over to play Battlezone (also released in 1980) to foresee Half Life 2 and FPS's in general.
We dont realy need 8000x4000 with eye-tracking (Score:5, Insightful)
By using eye tracking, we dont really need to render the whole screen at high resolution.
We only need to render the part the eyes are looking at at high resolution
The ability of the eye to percieve high resolution is only limited to a very small area, and the brain fakes it by moving the eyes around.
By superimposing a small image with high dpi on top of a larger image with low dpi, we get a high resolution window into the larger image.
If this high res window follows the eyes around, the brain will percieve a large high resolution image.
Naturally for this to work, the smaller image has to be updated to show the same part of the scene that it is replacing.
This can also be used to emulate a high resolution screen by keeping an area your screen black, and using a projector to project the smaller high-dpi image on the black area.
Oh, and by the way. Remember this post and use it as prior art in case some troll patents "A method of simulating high resolution images by combining multiple images of different scales and resolution"
Re:Development costs? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you come up with new algorithms. His point was that those algorithms mean you spend a lot of effort on the first tree, then the next 1,000,000 are at almost zero effort. Even if you have to come up with a new set of algorithms you're still saving time overall.
Fractal based ones should never become inadequate - the whole point of fractals is that you endlessly get more detail the closer you look, so they'll always give photorealistic results no matter your resolution.