Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Is Unreal

fxguide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 237 posts

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#11

Post by nix23 »

gentleman11 wrote: post #9
dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

A lot of newer, fancier cg in movies and games is deep in the uncanny valley for me. I can’t watch/play for more than 15 minutes without realizing I’m in a game that doesn’t look right, it’s distracting. I suppose the tech can’t get across the valley without first passing through it

No they are just getting cheaper with their CGI...not better, i would bet that if someone would invest the money and time as they did in the 90-00 we would be absolutely astonished.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#12

Post by throwawaysea »

I know there are companies using virtual models to showcase clothing. Is replacing actors and actresses next? In some ways I don’t mind it, and decentralizing away from celebrity culture may even be a societal good. But I feel like some experiences are better off organic. Is there any point to appreciating - as an example - ballet performed by a virtual dancer with unrealistic athleticism? Will sports matter? Should they? I am not sure how things will play out but I expect all these norms to be challenged in the next 50 years.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#13

Post by [deleted] »

nix23 wrote: post #11
gentleman11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of newer, fancier cg in movies and games is deep in the uncanny valley for me. I can’t watch/play for more than 15 minutes without realizing I’m in a game that doesn’t look right, it’s distracting. I suppose the tech can’t get across the valley without first passing through it

No they are just getting cheaper with their CGI...not better, i would bet that if someone would invest the money and time as they did in the 90-00 we would be absolutely astonished.

[deleted]

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#14

Post by agumonkey »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

To be fair, old~ Keanu Reeves made my brain hurt .. because I was lost and not sure if there was a shift between model and live footage at some point. Only the gait gave it a too unnatural aspect.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#15

Post by mantaraygun »

throwawaysea wrote: post #12

I know there are companies using virtual models to showcase clothing. Is replacing actors and actresses next? In some ways I don’t mind it, and decentralizing away from celebrity culture may even be a societal good. But I feel like some experiences are better off organic. Is there any point to appreciating - as an example - ballet performed by a virtual dancer with unrealistic athleticism? Will sports matter? Should…

> decentralizing away from celebrity culture may even be a societal good.

I agree, but I don't think that's likely to happen. More likely, I think, is that established celebrities start licensing out their likenesses and remain celebrities for far longer than their natural lifespans would otherwise permit. Instead of celebrities aging out and making room for new celebrities, they'll stay in the game longer, maybe indefinitely, and continue to grow their personal brand.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#16

Post by bick_nyers »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

There's not a whole lot of good physics libraries to run on GPUs just yet, and lots of the physics you would want can absolutely eat up 16-64 cores of a CPU to get a somewhat decent frame rate with high realism.

Similar to ray-tracing, where you get great realism, but it is just an absolute resource hog. The number of vertices in soft-body physics animations come to mind. The real world has curves and deformations, and hair, with millions of strands, that each need tens or hundreds of physics-enabled vertices to look ultra realistic. Walking through a city, you might have 100 NPCs on the screen at once, who all have hair.

You simply need so much freaking compute power to pull this stuff off, I can't wait to see what it looks like in 10-20 years.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#17

Post by Stevvo »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

Movement is usually more in service to game design goals than realism but it's a solved problem with many different approaches from Mirror's Edge to Death Stranding

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#18

Post by ardit33 »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

The city feel is perfect though. It is just the interactions/movements of some of the characters.

Also the acceleration of people and cars feels still too artificial. It is not the looks, but the physics that are still full on the uncanny valley.

I think as graphics get more and more realistic looks wise, game designers need to slow down the game, and make it feel more real.

One of my favorite car chases is from the movie Ronin. It feels extremely real, like you are there, as they didn't use any outlandish effects, but kept it grounded on how a real car chase would feel.

https://youtu.be/2m-ofGDLNlM?t=61

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0_UqwsYoGY

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#19

Post by rightbyte »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

> Part of the problem here is that real humans don't bash into walls. So how do you realistically represent that, when in fact it's just Johnny pressing forward on his controller?

You could animate that as hugging the wall, leaning against it or something, instead of a 0mph walk.

Re: The Matrix Is Unreal

#20

Post by dTal »

dash2 wrote: post #5

Meh, these guys are still stuck in the uncanny valley. Objects are often absolutely beautiful and realistic, but interactions between objects are ridiculous. Some of this is probably just "not enough processing power", but it is also due to where the rendering bumps up against the primitive controls. For example, you have a very realistic human. But then the human walks against an object, and she does this standard v…

> Part of the problem here is that real humans don't bash into walls. So how do you realistically represent that, when in fact it's just Johnny pressing forward on his controller?

That doesn't seem like much of a theoretical obstacle to me. The primitive controls only signal intent - you don't have to animate the human shuffling against the wall, you can just not move. The controller should be like whispering into the avatar's ear, not QWOP.

Or if you do want to grant the player lower-level physical control, you can have the human actually collide realistically with the wall. After all, people do bash into walls, just not commonly. You can even make them bump their head, and take damage.

Post reply on HN