• UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Getting the vibe that OP is being serious while using a template supposed to be ironic.

    Seems odd to be angry about game graphics progressing. Imagine how it was during the 90s.

  • nickiam2@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    To be fair, lighting is the most important part of generating photorealistic graphics. Having realistic and real-time lighting makes it look so much more realistic

    • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      photorealistic … realistic … real-time … more realistic …

      We had a tool for that: it was called IMAGINATION

      The graphical fidelity fetish has complete ruined gamers’ ability to immerse themselves in make believe worlds without the game doing all the work for us

      My tone is /s, but despite my hypocrisy I do believe this is half true

      • overjustic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Its not like games that tried to be realistic before didn’t exist and not like games that purposely go for a non realistic style now are not a thing. I’m pretty sure we have more pixel style graphics games coming out now yearly than when they were actually a thing.

  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m surprised they didn’t go with the fact that ray tracing shoots rays out of the camera rather than having light radiate from light sources.

    “That’s a scientifically outdated view of how light works! Light enters your eyes, not the other way around! What is this? Emission theory? Are we back in the 1600s? They’ve played us for absolute fools.”

    • Pulptastic@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s clever. Only trace the rays that the camera can see and probably cheaper to send some rays from the camera to the sun than vice versa.

      • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Exactly ! this makes the problem potentially millions of times easier, since you know with certainty that every ray fired is going to contribute to the image, whereas firing rays from the light source would guarantee you never see most of them, the processing power is wasted and your image never converges

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Rather than have someone paint a light and shadow to lighten the weight of processing graphics on your machine they are leaving ai to do it.

      AI comes with a price. Which is why bit coin was the problem on energy grid. In the case of raytracing it’s nailing your pc hard and it offers no gain