Real Life vs. Crysis Engine

[MattKeil]

Yeah, I know it was only running at like 15 fps, but I'm still impressed.

[Becoming]

Damn I'm excited about this one. I really enjoyed Far Cry a lot and a good jungle environment is something that almost no game really does right which is a damn shame.

I did spot a video posted on another forum though that showed about a 14 minute presentation with a lot of neat stuff in it. This is one game I'm sad to say I'd probably consider upgrading for if need be.

The sandbox tools for map making and such were really nice in Far Cry so I'm hoping some talented mod makers get their teeth into this baby. I'm dying for a vietnam game/mod that doesn't completely suck.

[E-phonk]

I really hope their engine gets some support this time. Some variety besides doom3/unreal(/source) would be nice.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I'm not sure what's more impressive, how it looks, or that they modeled an actual shanty.

[andrew_fm]

What a crappy engine I can totally tell the difference what gives!!!!

[Brendan]

I think that anyone who can make maps, textures and models that complex are probably working in the games industry already. The sad thing is that as graphics get more complex there are less people out there who can actually mod the games decently, thus there are less mods decent mods.

I know I tried creating a few Doom 3 mods for fun but the complexity of the tools just depressed me. I have fond memories of editing Quake 2 though.

[HRose]

That hut looks actually more realistic in the game than in real life... if it wasn't for the crappy grass.

[nutsak]

That hut looks actually more realistic in the game than in real life... if it wasn't for the crappy grass.

And the shadow...

[Hetzer]

so its only a few years to real life graphics?

Damn i waited so long... Then games can get better instead of graphics....

[deccan]

Obvious "glowy" effect in the picture of the shack that I dislike too.

[FIDGAF]

In a few years you're not going to be able to tell the difference between a picture and a game's rendering of the same terrain.

All critizism aside, it's still impressive.
(Yeah, the grass and shadows need work but still...)

[Coca Cola Zero]

And the shadow...

The shadows on the shack in the game shot are surprisingly decent. Yeah, when you compare them side-by-side to the real-world, they come across as overly simplistic because they are being cast by one single infinite light source, but without the other photo as reference, I doubt very many people would ever notice anything 'wrong' with those shadows.

The previously mentioned long grass and the dubious filtering on the fence texture are the only real giveaways, IMO. Everything else is spectacular.

[Ephraim]

I just did a small test with my significant other.

At a glance she correctly identified the "fake" ones. When asked how she determined this, she pointed out the ocean water, the grass, the shadows, and weirdly (to me, because I don't see this) the texture of the mountains.

She's a total non-gamer. I think we're still not quite at "photo-realistic" but I'm still impressed.

[tromik]

Looks fantastic, but what's with the chain link gate? It's making me dizzy.

[Kirian]

There is a particular Crysis image that petrifies me.
The head. It is too large to post, but my word. It's *gasp* uncanny!

[Charles]

90% of the realism in those screens is simply color balance. They definitely have some good artists, but realistically that level of 'realistic' look could be achieved by good artists on almost any engine right now. It's just like how there was that color balance mod for Oblivion that made a lot of stuff seem far more realistic -- an eye for color goes a long way, and traditionally there's been no room for artists on that note, since there wasn't enough control over the rendering.

[Rob_Merritt]

And the computer to run this will be.....

[instant0]

And the computer to run this will be.....

Nintendo$oft 360!

The pictures are from a 360 game site...

[claybob]

Holy balls! That is awesome. Far Cry caused me to buy a new rig. I wonder if Crysis will do the same.

[Gendal]

Looks like crap to me.

Woops, sorry, been reading GAF for too long. That's pretty impressive, so impressive I wouldn't believe it if they hadn't of released Farcry earlier. I don't know about 90% of the realism coming from lighting. A large margin, sure, but the foliage, and foliage shadows looks to be a large step up from any engine out now. Especially when you consider it collides with other objects in the environment, though I expect that to be the first feature they drop or turn off.

[Kevin Grey]

Are these just engine capabilty shots and not the actual game? Because the Crysis E3 footage, while undeniably impressive, wasn't nearly as photo-realistic.

[Zylon]

This confirms my belief that engine developers seriously need to get over "bloom". Aside from the cloned grass textures, it's the most fake-looking element in that bottom shot.

[Rob Beschizza]

Sometimes there's nothing like sitting down and having a good farcry.

Best yet, definitely. You take a chap from the 1970s, put him in front of it -- as far as he's concerned, it's just a photo.

But the clues are still there for the CG generation. The grass is just a mess, let's give them a gimme and not even factor it in. The simplified geometry (notice how the shanty is just a little less ramshackle?) is noticable, perhaps just in comparison. The thing that gets me, however, anytime we see the latest and greatest CGI, it the airlessness. The mountain shot is a good example: the photo has the light moving toward blue in the distance, the game doesn't. You can fake it with fog, but that would be even more distinctively CG.

In the shanty shot, look at the forest in the background. The real world has a light haze. With oil paints, you might add a white glaze to accomplish that. But the game version just gives you the crisp plastic trees.

Maybe it's a fundamental problem with the abstraction tricks used to make fast FPS possible? Last time I tried to read up and understand 3D game graphics, it looked like the way it works is, we don't want to model rays of light diffusing through air. It all has to be clever tricks like rendering fog, bloom lighting, filters and pixel shading, none of which actually models diffusion.

Or am I completely wrong.

I get the same feeling from those clever lenses that make giant cities look like tiny models, so maybe it's also about developing more natural or dynamic depth of field stuff.

[Charles]

Best yet, definitely. You take a chap from the 1970s, put him in front of it -- as far as he's concerned, it's just a photo.

Actually, he'd probably not know what to make of it, and mention that it looked unnatural.

As for the rest of your post, yeah, you are pretty accurate. Bloom is used to represent the natural light diffusion we perceive, as well as make 'bright' objects truly bright looking. Without bloom, things don't look even remotely realistic as it stands right now. Of course, some games over do it.

[mouselock]

Maybe it's a fundamental problem with the abstraction tricks used to make fast FPS possible? Last time I tried to read up and understand 3D game graphics, it looked like the way it works is, we don't want to model rays of light diffusing through air. It all has to be clever tricks like rendering fog, bloom lighting, filters and pixel shading, none of which actually models diffusion.

Or am I completely wrong.

I get the same feeling from those clever lenses that make giant cities look like tiny models, so maybe it's also about developing more natural or dynamic depth of field stuff.

I think part of the problem too is effective infinite depth of field. In addition to the color shift for the haziness of the trees behind the shack, there's a slight blur. It's not substantial (primarily because the aperture would have been locked way down in a photo with that much sunlight) but it's there in the photo and it's not in the render.

Both are the same class of problem, too: Nonlinear secondary optical effects. Those cause havoc on computer rendering realism; they can be done when time isn't a factor, but I don't think we're looking at realtime renderings getting close any time soon.

[Jason McCullough]

Inquiring minds want to know - how photorealistic is the sewer level?

[Zylon]

Bloom is used to represent the natural light diffusion we perceive, as well as make 'bright' objects truly bright looking.

I'm no 3D programmer, but my understanding was that bloom and HDR are different (albeit related) things. HDR has been used at least as far back as Giants: Citizen Kabuto, to excellent effect.

[instant0]

Bloom seems to give everything a ghostly glow.

[Fugitive]

You can check out some competition entries to see what full ray tracing is capable of. Although the models aren't always realistic, the lighting and focus are definitely far more natural. It just takes a hell of a lot of power to process...

[Charles]

I'm no 3D programmer, but my understanding was that bloom and HDR are different (albeit related) things. HDR has been used at least as far back as Giants: Citizen Kabuto, to excellent effect.

Yeah I always mistakenly call HDR bloom, cause they are similar. HDR is just a more refined version.