/3/ - 3DCG

[Anonymous No.943615]

>https://youtu.be/IK76q13Aqt0
What is this sorcery??

[Anonymous No.943618]

>>943615
Scanned assets + blair witch project shaky cam. No way the gameplay isn't complete shit with that camera.

[Anonymous No.943619]

Everything is captured by photogrammetry anon, and then reprojected into UE5. I'm not even sure the elements are shaded correctly. but reprojected as captured maybe ?
I could be wrong.

And of course, there is a tons of effects to sell you the "reality" of it, as the vignetting (black border), the movement, the lens distortion and even some chroma aberration.

Here you go !

[Anonymous No.943620]

Scanned assets and replicating the shitty qualities of a cheapo camera with barely any dynamic range, lens distortion, jittery motion and most things hidden in pitch black crunched shadow.

[Anonymous No.943621]

Man the rubble, dirt and leaves on the ground really sell it

[Anonymous No.943622]

>>943618
>No way the gameplay isn't complete shit with that camera.
probably is, but i'd put up with it for like ~3hrs for the novelty. doubt the game is going to be longer than that.

[Anonymous No.943623]

Do you think the scans kept baked lighting here? At that point it's basically a photo with some lumen help, so not that hard to make it look realistic. + All the things already mentioned.

[Anonymous No.943624]

>>943623
And to add to that, you can then say that even sketchfab renderer is amazing because all the uploaded scanned environments obviously look perfectly real because they are literally photos with real lighting baked in. This is not the first scanned scene imported in UE5 that people became obsessed about. It looks great anyway though.

[Anonymous No.943629]

>>943623
>>943624
>literally photos with real lighting baked in
You seem deeply confused. The only impressive thing about this is the accuracy of the crap-o-cam. Other than that it's no different to any other UE5 scene.

[Anonymous No.943630]

>>943623
>
I would not think so, because as soon as you throw a bit of dynamic lighting (like the flashlight) it would show. Anyhow, they did scan on a cloudy day, you can feel it, which avoid any hard shadows.

[Anonymous No.943631]

>>943630
Yeah that's what I meant, the soft indirect light is baked in I assume

[Anonymous No.943638]

>>943629
kek

[Anonymous No.943639]

Looks like you rendered it with NVidia RTX

[Anonymous No.943640]

>>943615
>>bootlickers, the game
ACAB

[Anonymous No.943644]

>>943623
If it's not that hard, why nobody did achieve this level of realism yet?

[Anonymous No.943646]

>>943640
Die, commie.

[Anonymous No.943647]

>>943644
the mainstream media would ban it

[Anonymous No.943648]

>>943644
They did but it took meme shakycam to get the zoomers to sit up and notice
>>943640
wtf I love this game now

[Anonymous No.943658]

>>943615
>tfw you spend weeks getting basic shit working in vulkan meanwhile people have already achieved photorealism in their games

its over

[Anonymous No.943698]

>>943629
>Other than that it's no different to any other UE5 scene.
Well sort of. This is certainly an offline render with the cinematic preset.

[Anonymous No.943714]

> high rez scanned textures
> blurry shaky camera
> "omg it's so realistic"
Also where's the fun?

[Anonymous No.943719]

>>943640
I agree, all criminals are black

[Anonymous No.944015]

>>943623
i don't think it's just photogrammetry. maybe a mix.

[Anonymous No.944017]

>>943719
Chud, am I seeing generalization racism on a 3D board? Do you want to get reported?

[Anonymous No.944053]

>>944015
The process goes like this:
start with a short video clip
generate a point could and a camera path
generate a mesh from the point cloud
do some extensive manual cleanup
reproject the original video clip as a texture
add lens flares, layers and other nonsense

I remember toying with that than 10 years ago. It's annoying. The results are what they are and most importantly, you need real locations and you need to go there in person.

The amount of editing you can do after the fact is limited because whatever was occluded in the video clip is simply not there at all in the 3D scene, so you can change the point of view a little bit, but not much.

Long story short photogrammetry is garbage as OP clearly shows.

[Anonymous No.944068]

>>943615
Overcast lighting, this game will never have a sunny day

[Anonymous No.944135]

>>943615
Everyone is talking about scanned textures/objects and shaky cam, but that's not what makes this look so real. Like 80% of the work here is being done by the lighting. Few games have lighting anywhere close to realistic, but the few that do are gorgeous. The other 20% of the work is being done by the bodycamesque post-processing shaders, which hide a lot of crimes.
If you had the shaky cam without the sick lighting and post-fx, this would look like extremely bog-standard VR game fare. I swear most of the people on this board have no taste.

[Anonymous No.944136]

>>943623
Very very unlikely. If someone is doing large-scale photogrammetry, they're probably doing industry-grade work which means using more fancy equipment (lambert grey and chrome balls, color card) and completely de-lighting during processing. I don't know if that process is mathematically 100% clean, but it's as close to a true photographic albedo as I've ever seen for sure. Pic related is one such image. Keep in mind that this is a normal photo, taken with a normal camera.

[Anonymous No.944140]

>>943615
Seems like they are reusing the digital abilities of the 90s Era. This cgi is absolutely a joke if you factor 30 years of development just to get to this.

[Anonymous No.944151]

>>944135
Everyone knows UE5 Lumen can do this type of GI interior well, the thing that's making normies shit their dumbfuck pants is the accurate replication of the bodycam exposure curve, blown highlights and all. The environment is mostly stock off the UE marketplace and megascans. The same ignorant cunts likely to say they hate motion blur, even though that's 90% of what this is, and they're probably asking for HDR mode too.

[Anonymous No.944156]

>>944151
>UE5 Lumen
>accurate replication of the bodycam exposure curve
It's a video clip projected on some machine generated geometry.

[Anonymous No.944185]

>>944156
That is very obviously not the case. Look closer.

[Anonymous No.945667]

>>943615
its called living in a modern age. Realtime is now industry standard. If you're baking lightning or rendering you're going to be left behind.

[Anonymous No.945680]

>>945667
Pic related is 15 years old and mogs 50% of whatever is on the market today. Nothing substantial would be added by making the lighting dynamic. Someone made a Lumen demo of one of the levels in UE5 and it looked just the same while wasting lots of performance.

[Anonymous No.945686]

>>945680
and that took days to render. Now this is made in realtime. The only thing stopping UE5 from being used as a one stop tool is there cucked relationship with Autodesk. The second you can actually model it's over

[Anonymous No.945714]

>>943615
Its just good ass environment art direction, good textures, nice lighting and great camera and animation work. Big ass studios are too busy coding micro transactions instead of making good games. This is not sorcery its just love.

[Anonymous No.945717]

>>945714
>ass
Exactly. That's what that games looks like.

[Anonymous No.945731]

>>945680
it's mirror's edge right?

[Anonymous No.945732]

>>945667
>its called living in a modern age. Realtime is now industry standard. If you're baking lightning or rendering you're going to be left behind.
dogshit bait.
realtime wont be industry standard for another 10-20 years

[Anonymous No.945748]

>>943615
I'm still unclear on what people are freaking out about and find so impressive about this... Someone please tell me

[Anonymous No.946078]

>>943615

[Anonymous No.946083]

>>943615
you can do it too anon, just toss whatever assets you want into UE5. it doesn't even have to make structural sense, no one's going to care anyway

[Anonymous No.946086]

Lumen does not rely on RTX cores.
How fucking mad is Nvidia? They thought real time ray tracing was the future, but it's not.

[Anonymous No.946087]

It died the day they released the Quake 2 RTX. It couldn't compete with 90s technology.

[Anonymous No.946662]

>>943615
The sorcery is that the devs are actually emulating real body cams, the concept of that in a video game is what sells the realism.

[Anonymous No.946721]

>>946086
Who could've guesses the creators of PhysX, Hairworks could bring another failed gimmick to the table. No reason to use raytracing therefore no reason to buy those expensive ass cards.

[Anonymous No.946795]

>>946721
>No reason to use raytracing
How can someone knowledgeable in 3d actually say this. The difference when turning on raytracing is huge to me, the only reason it's a shitty feature is that only garbage games implement it (except for capcom games which are good)

[Anonymous No.946802]

>>946795
You need to go back to offline rendering archviz.

[Anonymous No.946840]

>>946795
>How can someone knowledgeable in 3d actually say this.
Because you still don't have a full realtime pipeline where raytracing replaces the entire pile of hacks bolted together to make modern PBR with moving light sources. So long its main gimmick is being used as a supplement for certain GPU variants, its going to remain completely irrelevant for realtime usage.

[Anonymous No.946855]

>>946795
We are three or four order of magnitude lacking in GPU processing power before real time pathtracing would be vaguely feasible. Going by the hard limits of miniaturization process, we'll likely never reach this point, unless we invent a new tech out of nowhere (possible, but unlikely).

Nvidia cheats by having AIs that:

1. Denoise the output
2. Create new frames from the previous one entirely
3. Up the resolution

That's good, but yeah, it's a hack. In fact modern RTX raster pathtracing is like ten differents kind of hacks put together. On top of raster engines, which are big piles of hacks to begin with.

I do like the additional fidelity of RTX, but it's the cutting edge of what you shouldn't do on hardwares that are most likely to catch fire.

Cyberpunk 2077 can run on a pure pathtracer, last I heard, as long as it is in low resolution (AI augmented), very noisy (AI denoised), and very low framerate (AI upped). Which is not a valid way to move forward, I think.

[Anonymous No.946897]

>>945680
Time to try to recreate this in Hammer

[Anonymous No.946902]

>>946662
This. It's also not about replicating human vision, it's about replicating a bodycam video and that makes it seem much more realistic.
Also didn't realize how many crabs were on /3/. Reminds me of that time Notch stole Minecraft and everyone on /v/ told him it was dogshit and he was a faggot. Then he sold it for $2bn.

[Anonymous No.946915]

>>943615
Nanite and Lumen.