When will video games look as good as real life?

2»

Comments

  • V-PV-P State College, PA Member
    edited February 2006
    tmh88 wrote:
    hes kidding once again....sarcasm, tough concept for some to grasp.
    I'm sorry i couldnt see the carcasm on his face or in his voice. Must have missed his email?
  • dstyle347dstyle347 Boston
    edited February 2006
    RWB wrote:
    Ohh yeah the military sims I have seen look like they were made back in the early 90's, with grayscale textures and vertex colors :rockon: Tanks would be at best a BOX with a tank picture on it. Actually it kind of reminds me of the original DOOM :tongue:

    I don't know who get's to use the military sim's you see on TV every now and then but I never used one. They must save those for the people who really need combat simulation training like supply and finance...
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited February 2006
    One of my lecturers from school did work for the government doing 3D Modeling. This being back in the day when you did it in a text editor plotting out vertices and normals using code. He mentioned that they had a polygonal editor, but that after 300+ poly's it would be unstable. He also mentioned they're still using the crap they made back then today.
  • edited February 2006
    100% real?

    JOIN THE ARMY :)

    its a war game that is very realistic, has the best graphics ever. the downside is you only have one life to start with :(

    oh wait.. were we talking about computers? :P
  • NightwolfNightwolf Afghanistan Member
    edited February 2006
    Orfu wrote:
    100% real?

    JOIN THE ARMY :)

    its a war game that is very realistic, has the best graphics ever. the downside is you only have one life to start with :(

    oh wait.. were we talking about computers? :P
    I was thinking about joining the army, but i heard there was no spawn point in RL...
    ^anyone guess what thats from?
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited February 2006
    I DONT NO WHO TOLD YOU THAT BUT ITS A BUNCH OF BULL****.

    That's definitely not a bunch of bull ****.

    For example, Monsters Inc.--made primarily in Maya--took six hours for a single frame to render on Pixar's rendering farm. You were rendering the output of whatever you were doing at a tenth of the size required to go through film post processing. My work is primarily based in architectural visualizations, but it's not unusualy for an 800x600 render to take two hours or more to finish.
  • V-PV-P State College, PA Member
    edited February 2006
    Nomad wrote:
    That's definitely not a bunch of bull ****.

    For example, Monsters Inc.--made primarily in Maya--took six hours for a single frame to render on Pixar's rendering farm. You were rendering the output of whatever you were doing at a tenth of the size required to go through film post processing. My work is primarily based in architectural visualizations, but it's not unusualy for an 800x600 render to take two hours or more to finish.

    I'm sure it took that long, but thats really not long. Think about it, how long does it to film a movie with very little rendering that needs to be done like the first or secong Terminator movies. It takes 10-12 months at the least maybe even up to 2 yrs, and if you think about Monsters Inc., at that rate, it would probably take about 1-12 mnths to render the whole movie, probably shorter because you're going to have more than 1 or 2 crews working on it. So it isn't really a LONG process if you compare it to other movies.
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited February 2006
    SCAR wrote:
    I'm sure it took that long, but thats really not long. Think about it, how long does it to film a movie with very little rendering that needs to be done like the first or secong Terminator movies. It takes 10-12 months at the least maybe even up to 2 yrs, and if you think about Monsters Inc., at that rate, it would probably take about 1-12 mnths to render the whole movie, probably shorter because you're going to have more than 1 or 2 crews working on it. So it isn't really a LONG process if you compare it to other movies.


    The average CG movie takes one to two years longer to 'film' than a non-CG film does. CG films are generally, 1-2 years of creating models, textures, voice acting, animation, etc., and then another year for rendering and post-processing. The average film now is about a year to do completely. It is a much longer and more arduous process for the most part.
  • V-PV-P State College, PA Member
    edited February 2006
    Nomad wrote:
    The average CG movie takes one to two years longer to 'film' than a non-CG film does. CG films are generally, 1-2 years of creating models, textures, voice acting, animation, etc., and then another year for rendering and post-processing. The average film now is about a year to do completely. It is a much longer and more arduous process for the most part.
    Aite I'll just end this now and agree with you now, you happy now?
  • NomadNomad A Small Piece of Hell Icrontian
    edited February 2006
    ... Uh, okay?

    :wtf:
  • NightwolfNightwolf Afghanistan Member
    edited February 2006
    I think monsters inc. took them 5 years to make, remember hearing something about it on the disney channel...lol

    http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html# crazy, said some of the frames took them 90 hours to render.
  • rykoryko new york
    edited February 2006
    just wake me up when we have a holodeck...
  • V-PV-P State College, PA Member
    edited February 2006
    ryko wrote:
    just wake me up when we have a holodeck...
    I'm sure we'll ne able to render cgi movies and stuff a bit faster when we have holodecks.
Sign In or Register to comment.