How long will it take for graphics/vision technology to look

I'm going to guess 8-10 years.

how is current VR?

Do people see pixels and shit?

>>57828093
I don't know. You tell me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JyUD79ky8s

File: 20161031174557_1.jpg (1MB, 3840x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2400px

>>57827997
looks like shit

Sixteen years.

>>57827997
It will never happen.

I think we're starting to get close

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyaR2sSBkA

Around 10-15 years.

>>57827997
There is a reason why it wont happen.
MONEY !!!! There isnt the incentive to spend more making games look realistic. It is very possible right now but each game would cost the consumer about 5 times more. It just wouldnt be worth it. Those costs wont go down either. In addition to this the hardware manufacturers would need to sell you equipment double or treble the cost of what it is now

We already have the graphical capacity to do this. We were "close" back in 2007 when Crysis came out.
It's just nobody wants to fucking spend all that time and effort to do it.
GTA V is another example of this because that game looks fucking great, but nobody wanted to put in the time to optimize the engine for that extra bit of realism

>>57828093
I mean the resolutions aren't terrible but it's still trustingly unoptimized. Either way realistic graphics and vr aren't mutually exclusive, but vr will take a while to catch up

I'd rather get a cranial implant that gives me AR desu.

>>57829147
>MONEY !!!! There isnt the incentive to spend more making games look realistic.
There is PLENTY of money put into already doing the research to make it possible.
Of course the incentive is there, but it's more of a long term one.

People are seriously delusional if they think graphics will suddenly stall. 4k textures, very clever graphics and camera tricks, and 120 hz should do it and the progress is being made. Will be another decade imo.

File: treble-clef-black-w-white-outline-clip-art-at-clker-com-vector-clip-6u0y1F-clipart[1].png (30KB, 210x593px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 210x593px

>>57829147

>>57827997
This is not a hardware question, it's an economics question. For those environments you need more objects, more complexity on those objects, more vertices, more texture resolution, etc. These things cost money and the market only buys so many games. Maybe if the audience for games continues to grow we'll see it eventually.

But what good will it be? It's just going to be a worse version of the problem we currently have where the graphics bar is so high that only endless remakes and sequels of existing franchises can get the top notch treatment, anything else would have too niche an audience or be too much of a gamble for investors to take.

>>57829259
>These things cost money and the market only buys so many games.
The budget of games over time goes up for exactly these reasons though.

The audience of course is still growing. The entire industry is pretty much booming.

>But what good will it be?
It will start the true transition into a virtual reality. Graphics capability will hit a critical mass and the appeal of life like simulations goes without saying.

Provided we don't destroy our own planet, graphics WILL soon look indistinguishable from real life. It's not a matter of if but when.

>>57829259
>But what good will it be? It's just going to be a worse version of the problem we currently have where the graphics bar is so high that only endless remakes and sequels of existing franchises can get the top notch treatment, anything else would have too niche an audience or be too much of a gamble for investors to take.

That's fine though. If a small studio makes some fun, well selling, reasonably pretty games, they can start to afford better artists and more funding. If the company grows large enough and is smart about where to put its resources due to having good leadership/vision (i.e. CD Projekt Red), then it's easier to risk starting a new franchise without hurting aesthetics.

Not very long, maybe in another ~4 years.

The problems in vidya and why they don't look "real" is as follows:
1.] Textures are low-res and upon up-close inspection look blurry or like shit.
2.] Ray tracing is not used
3.] tesellation is only applied to a few things or not at all
4.] Most objects in games are frozen in time, not being affected by things like wind or player interaction throught the game (ie that indestructable shrub/post)

The first 3 can mostly be fixed by more compute performance, vram, and vram bandwidth. The last requires game devs to put in a ton of extra work.

The main thing holding games back right now is not using ray tracing but understandably so because it's very resource intenaive. Some day a breakthrough will come in CPU tech and affordable CPUs that have over 10 TFLOPS of FP64 (thing that accurate ray tracing uses) will become a reality.

Another important aspect is animations and facial expressions. You can have all the 4k textures you want, but unrealistic animations will completely spoil the effect.

>>57829483
Yeah I agree with this.
Animations are incredibly fucking hard to have life-like. So much is still reliant on archaic scripting.

Still seeing some progress though.

File: C2D2PN0.webm (2MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x404px

>>57829483
>>57829572
idk, I think we're pretty much there

File: disgust.gif (83KB, 395x281px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 395x281px

>>57828932
Literally stopped after one sec.

How can anyone listen to these insufferable morons.

What I'm surprised by is that no one is mentioning consoles. A lot of devs hold back especially on visuals because of console limitations.

The irony is that consoles are fast losing the convenience they once had of simply putting the disk in and playing. Now they're arguably worse than pcs. You can just get steam and it'll sort everything out for you and everything out. Updates happen while generally using the computer and you can easily find the right controller or keyboard and mouse combo to fit your required ergonomic needs.

Regarding price, any AMD build can be on par if not more so than any console.

Finally, an itx build can be made just as portable than any console so they don't even have that.

I just fucking wish these plebs would finally realise that pcs overtook consoles in every argument now and the only thing is the exclusives. Which, if the pc market grow enough would force publishers hands to do good optimised pc games and the only thing left for consoles are moonrune games that'd never come to the English speaking market to start with.

>>57829777
Cloud will take care of this in next decade. It will all converge.
Let's not forget that most games are throttled to work at just the fps cap.
Developers literally gimp their game to make it work under the proper conditions, not the other way around typically.

Gaming is going to the cloud, provided you have the bandwidth.

Thinclients are the future, no doubt. It is beneficial for everyone.

>>57828093
I had a look-see at the vive.
You can see pixels. It's just a lot better than the Oculus development kits.
Everything is perfectly readable. But you can still see pixels.
I estimate you need 8K resolution for pixels to stop being visible. But we're at 2K resolution and it isn't really that bad.

>>57828932

wew lad, kys for even being aware of that video

>>57829870
I wonder if they will increase the refresh rates on the next iterations.

>>57829609
Plenty of flaws. We're getting there but that's still pretty distant. Still is in uncanny valley

>>57827997
Wait another 34 years.

>>57830550
moore's law already failed, so without heavy optimization the answer is never.

>>57828932

Why is he screaming? Is his microphone broken?

File: 1480755390474.gif (1MB, 540x556px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x556px

Consider The Following:

All games that have achieved graphical realism will look pretty much the same.

There's no reason to have multiple engines. once it's done, it's done.

At this time, it'll take so much work to get it all done.

But once you've made a photorealistic 55 gallon drum, you've made it. there's no need to make it again. there's no reason it'd look different across games.

So we're heading for a 'singularity' in games.

i suspect we'll need something like 1000+ fps and 32k resolution with those graphical engines to get to the point where you have disorienting effects from looking at a computer screen, and you can't really convince yourself that you're not looking through a window.... put that on a 75 inch display and surround sound, and you're going to start hallucinating sensations.

also, anyone who says, 'the eye can only see 30fps!' is fucking retarded. you can see the difference between 120fps and 144fps clear as day. i suspect you can tell the difference between 1000 and 2000 fps. the upper limit isn't under one fucking thousand, i know that though.

>>57829372
>t. underage

shit will take 10 times that long.

>>57832175
nice post

by the time we have 'super realistic video games', you won't be playing them since you'll have a whole lot of other shit to worry about, like defending your home from third world invaders