dunno, but I'd love to see 16 sample CSAA.Originally Posted by zed
dunno, but I'd love to see 16 sample CSAA.
yeah, a big blurry mess.
Bah. The real future is in floating-point render targets and full-on motion blur (ie: temporal anti-aliasing). Unfortunately, most engines aren't even close to designed well enough to do real motion blur. That is, rendering at effectively hundreds of frames per second, with intra-frame position and animation interpolation. Even 4x motion blur just isn't likely with most game engines.dunno, but I'd love to see 16 sample CSAA.
I think vector motion-blur at strictly-locked 60Hz is mostly enough, from what I've played with: nVidia's single-frame method, smudging in one direction only the endpoint of the last frame (this method is used in Crysis), and much better-looking simple improvement of mine, that renders only mid-frames and smudges together with the previous frame-buffer in two directions. Though, I haven't tried the latter with nicely-lit skinned human characters yet.
true, though i meant going from 400x300->800x600 makes a larger difference to the viewer than 800x600->1600x1200, even though the ratio increase is the same.dunno, but I'd love to see 16 sample CSAA.
and once monitors hit 600DPI (long way off though) further increases of resolution will make no difference whatsoever.
I dont know about motionblur, whilst nice, ild prefer decent unified lighting.
most games even the top ones coming out now still use lightmaps! comeon quake2 was using those (true in 8bit but still)
I prefer lightmaps to (almost) hard-edged on/off shadows. Some radiosity is very important in some types of scenes, too (even outdoors ones).
Sunny scenes with no clouds- ok, but anything cloudy like all of Resistance:FoM, and unified lighting just doesn't cut it.
totally, zed. I wasn't disputing what you said, just thought it'd be interesting to compare 8 to 16 sample CSAA in general ('twas a 8-is-great, but-16-is-peachy-keen kind of thing)
No, that is not enough. That in fact, is an ugly, brutal hack. It's about as realistic looking as the old embossed "bump mapping" technique was.I think vector motion-blur at strictly-locked 60Hz is mostly enough
Here's a good rule of thumb: if you can actually see the motion blur, then you're not doing it right.
Well, if you're striving for super realism then it's less than perfect, but some of these approximations take on a charm of their own, don't really look all that out of place amidst all the other approximations going on, at least to my eye. Although in the context of a game I suppose getting whacked with a blurred pipe is no better than one you can see coming with complete clarity.
I get some cheap, low quality motion blur for free on my LCD ;-)
That brutal hack is used in offline video rendering, afaik. Though there they also add real 4x temporal antialiasing. Or advanced vector motion-blur, that splits the scene into 2D layers and handles rotation.
We as gamers are used to varying low choppy framerates, so we don't notice that anymore - thus we are bound to notice any ingame motion-blur, be it truly real or not. And many might start feeling motion-sickness if realistic blur is present in games with quick camera movement (FPS), and the gamers have gotten immersed in the game, imho.
Posting Permissions
