Live data from Hacker News

Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

nothings.org

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#81
Back in 2012 was the tail of the "make games look realistic" era. Maximum realism was achieved around then, and the industry has either kept that up, made it worse by random drift without reference to reality (I admire this article for taking actual measurements), or has gone in the direction of stylisation instead.

I'm reminded of a lecture I saw yesterday (on YouTube) by an artist with an optimistic view of AI. (I'm not about to talk about AI, it was the rest of the lecture that was more interesting.) He pointed out that the first movies were just recorded theater plays, but didn't attract big audiences because the experience of seeing the play in person was better - you had sound, depth perception, and maybe audience interaction. Only when cinematographers started exploiting the medium's own advantages did it really become a thing.

There was a first person who realized that you could literally cut and paste film together to put more than one location into the same film, there was a first person who realized that you don't need continuity in the real world to make continuity in a film. He used the example of a film that showed people climbing into a cannon, then cut to a different angle, then the cannon was fired, then cut to a shot of the moon getting bigger and bigger. In reality these were three completely separate filming arrangements, probably two different cannons, but when run together consecutively they tell the impossible story of people shooting themselves to the moon with a cannon. And you can't do that in a play. Nobody realised you could do that with cinema until someone did realise. By today's standards it is obvious you can do this, but it wasn't back then!

There was the same thing with the sound recorder. Initially people just taped bands playing and played it back as a substitute for a band. But then you eventually got bands that would play looping samples (literally tape pasted into loops) and use tape machines to speed up and slow down their sound and make weird effects you couldn't do live. And just what the heck is electronic music anyway?

The guy's point was that's going to happen with AI too, but that's not my point.

I think 3D rendering in games is at or slightly past the midpoint of the same cycle. At first the goal was to recreate reality on the screen. Humanity achieved that goal around the time of Crysis. And it's a fine state to be in - it does work well - but there is more that a computer do. Actual reality is better than perfectly simulated reality on a screen, just like a live play is better than a recording of one, so the point is to go beyond reality.

Games have traditionally not really cared about stylizing the graphics so much as stylizing the gameplay, but I can think of some games, like Antichamber, where the graphics are doing completely unrealistic things.

idk what my point is here but just do darkened corners if you think they look good in your game.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one, the article is 14 years old. two, the point of ambient occlusion was not about making geometry look good, it was about making lighting look good. The main issue it solved was normal lighting at odds with the world, it was for fast general approximation of global illumination.

I think the prime example of SSAO being helpful was Fallout 3. FO3 has very simplistic lighting even for its time, kind of looking like "fullbright"/non-shaded mode in Source engine. SSAO, when it was added as a graphics driver feature, suddenly gave interiors depth that they were severely lacking, and while it didn't always look "realistic", it almost always looked much better than without.

When I look around me at my actual room it feels like if I saw it accurately depicted in a video game I'd call it lacking depth. The walls are flat colors, and there's barely anything delineating the wall from the ceiling - only a slight change in the light intensity. I know it's there and I have binocular vision, but by raw pixels, there isn't much to tell them apart. It may be that such things have to be exaggerated to get across through the medium of a game, like how cartoon characters always have to squish and stretch when they jump to make it obvious that they are jumping.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#83
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is true at all. I've been experimenting with a physical sky / atmosphere modeling, and it really seems that the most physically accurate sky is the most beautiful. I think this applies more generally to all light and shadows, and all natural effects which people perceive as beautiful, and at the same time difficult / expensive to recreate on a computer.

I recall a GDC presentation about a physically-based atmospheric model developed for a (good) AAA game released sometime in the last decade, and it reportedly took up a noticeable part of the frame budget, so evidently you’re not alone in this opinion.

I'm not sure you would need that unless you're making a space simulator. Surely the model just spits out a color gradient which you might as well hardcode?

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#84
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's common for games to have an intentional designed aesthetic ... to create specific emotional impacts and effects. And before games this was true of movies and before that photos and paintings. A master cinematographer can spend hours lighting a shot that will later be praised for its 'gritty realism' :-).

One theme that is common to almost all visual art that strives for some form of realistic appearance is that they start out with real material appearances and physical lighting behavior. Both are inescapable parts of the reality in our physical world, anyway. By extension, this means that it is highly desirable to have a renderer capable of reproducing the real world as a baseline for highly controllable aesthetic tw…

If you want something realism-adjacent that makes sense. If you want to create Antichamber, which is a game about non-Euclidean geometry, maybe not. You can carefully try to match up the lighting on both sides of an invisible teleporter, but it's going to be much easier if your engine doesn't try to do lighting at all. (Antichamber is mostly flat colors, basic flat shading, and hand-drawn accents)

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#85
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangential, but sometimes real images can also seem unreal. I remember seeing a photo of Earth and the Moon with the Moon on the foreground that looked like a bad CGI. But it was actually a photograph taken by a space probe. Or, one can think about those photos of the Apollo lunar module that looked "wrong" (and probably helped some conspiracy theories spread), but were obviously correct - just there's no atmosphere…

Condensed rant: Humans are blind to the most common gasses on our atmosphere (N2, O2) and sometimes have difficulty perceiving its most common liquid (H2O). This is sensible, since otherwise we'd be helplessly wandering through "visible" fog to fall off cliffs or be eaten by giant carnivorous bats. Our "colors" are mostly a quirk of where we're from. Now suppose some aliens arrived at our planet and said: "Wow, your…

We're living in a weak force superconductor. If we were living in an electric superconductor we'd see nothing because electromagnetic waves would be blocked from entering our eyeballs. Because we are living in a weak force superconductor, the weak force is blocked from entering our eyeballs (in fact it's blocked at all but sub-nuclear distances) and so we didn't develop weak force eyeballs.

If there's an alien living outside of the superconductor it probably has eyes that can sense all four components of the electroweak force, including the combination that we call electromagnetism, which is the only one that can pass through the weak force superconductor. Such a being would see the superconductor "material" as something like a block of red jello, only allowing one "color" to pass through and would be as surprised to see us there as we would be if we saw sentient beings inside a block of YBCu superconductor alloy.

Although we wouldn't have a way to see sentient beings inside a block of superconductor alloy, because we don't have any more long-range forces to probe it with, besides gravity. Our outside-weak alien could still see us with electromagnetism which is the one remaining long-range force we have, but that's disabled inside an electric superconductor too.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

these materials are transparent to light it is not a property of the human vision system that light goes trough N2

These materials are transparent to some light. They absorb a lot of infrared and ultraviolet. The human vision system can see the light that isn't absorbed and as a result is abundant in our environment.

The good news is that most stars have a spectrum very roughly similar to ours, so we can expect that aliens can probably see these wavelengths.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#87
post #85
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Condensed rant: Humans are blind to the most common gasses on our atmosphere (N2, O2) and sometimes have difficulty perceiving its most common liquid (H2O). This is sensible, since otherwise we'd be helplessly wandering through "visible" fog to fall off cliffs or be eaten by giant carnivorous bats. Our "colors" are mostly a quirk of where we're from. Now suppose some aliens arrived at our planet and said: "Wow, your…

We're living in a weak force superconductor. If we were living in an electric superconductor we'd see nothing because electromagnetic waves would be blocked from entering our eyeballs. Because we are living in a weak force superconductor, the weak force is blocked from entering our eyeballs (in fact it's blocked at all but sub-nuclear distances) and so we didn't develop weak force eyeballs. If there's an alien living…

[dead]

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#88
post #12
post #7

I agree with his overall point, but I would point out: realism is not usually the point, the point is to look good. The problem with realism is once you get past "wow the computer can do that now", it's not very interesting -- most of reality is pretty dull looking!

I think there’s a value in realism, ARC Raiders is one of my favorite games right now and it reminds of of movies like Stalker or The Shape of Water, movies that show old run down buildings and industrial complexes in their full glory, paint flaking, water in the wrong place, it’s just fantastic. It really sells me on being in a once busy space that’s been abandoned and fallen from its former glory.

I watched a video essay about the nightclub in Hitman 3 and this is basically what they said, too. The place doesn't have to look completely realistic, it has to sell the vibe of the space. Plenty of nightclubs in games that have fine graphics and props but actually don't feel like nightclubs. That was the point of the video actually.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#89
post #53
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not on the ARC Raiders art team, nor have I even played the game. But I can say with some confidence that what people react to in computer graphics isn’t realism per se, it’s verisimilitude .

Right, too many games pitch the "realism" of "really like a Hollywood movie", reproducing effects which are really telltale flaws in cameras, microphones, or the theater-experience. This is in contrast to the realism of "if you were there in person". If you step outside and look towards the sun and see lens-flares, consult an eye-doctor. If you see polyhedral lens-flares or bokeh... consult a roboticist.

I think you have to exaggerate certain things to get them over certain mediums.

The lens flare isn't telling you the sun literally makes polygonal shapes. It's telling you the sun is fucking bright and it's dazzling you, and it's doing that by reference to something we've seen in films shot with cameras.

You can achieve it other ways. HL2 Lost Coast - Valve's HDR tech demo - conveys the same basic fact by delaying the tonemap change. As you walk from the dark area to the bright area, the tonemap stays set for the dark area so your whole screen is washed out in white, until it gradually shifts to normal over about half a second. This is also how your pupils work, of course.

Re: Corners Don't Look Like That: Regarding Screenspace Ambient Occlusion (2012)

#90

Unrelated, but how would one fake splashing raindrops via a shader?

I'm assuming you can't see the actual splash but only the ripples it causes on a puddle, so maybe the surface of your puddle should displace what's under it by an animated noise texture?
Post reply on HN