People just don't understand. Its not about the quality of graphics its the light information that is received to the texture which should be noticed in the video.
i guess somebody was in a coma for the last 10 years and the first thing he saw after waking up was this old video game and thought "omg! this graphics are amazing!"
Ever heard of reading a game's release date? Ever heard of a series with roots going back to 100MHz? Ever heard of logic or relevancy? All the arrogant little kids care about today is "OMJ UR GHAIME HAZ GRAFFICKXZ!!!11". Well if the game runs decently and has good audio, good gameplay, a decent story, and expansive multiplayer, then if it's at least OK graphically, WHO GIVES A FUCK?
Ever heard of FUCKING WITCHER 2, CRYSIS 2, CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS, CRYSIS WARHEAD, FAR CRY 2, AION EMPYREAN'S CALLING AND FUCKING OTHER STUFF INCLUDING UNCHARTED 2 AND BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2?!!
lol well its not anything crazy but yea it looks pretty damn good, you gotta remember this game came out in what 2005? I just so happen to be currently playing it for the first time hence why Im looking up quake vids. While the game does look decent enough, this is a deffinate noticable difference, everything just seems smoother
@MuToiDMaN I'm not even a tech junkie but even I found this very impressive. I am fascinated by seeing varying layers of shadows of multiple objects and real-time reflections. I am waiting for the day that these techniques are used in real-time along with high-res graphics and they run well. Maybe in a year or two, unless Crysis 2 already does it.
@Killicon93 I thought I noticed some worse looking textures in Crysis 2 but again, I'm not big on tech so it's not like I have a PC to run either of them, especially at max settings. I used to love PC gaming (Rainbow Six, UT, AoE, Diablo.......Rollercoaster Tycoon) but I chose instead to game on consoles because it was the only way to play the same stuff my friends did. I don't have any regrets about it though, I still have fun.
This video should be taken as a proof-of-concept. Not more than that.
If you put raytracing in the hands of trained artists, they know how to use off-colored dim lighting + bump-map surfaces to give a scene photographic realism. I would say this demo is limited to a single light source per scene. Enormous changes have been made since 2007 in the GPU processors.
and the graphs came out just just meh couldve been pushed even further not realy for me in the top 10.. the game completely didnt even made sense let stand of how much the story whas a fail to that i stopped playing cusi couldnt play cus of falling in sleep..
I think people are also losing sight of the fact that this game came out in like what 05? It's still a pretty damn good looking game. I don't think I've ever played a game that much like a tourist just taking screenshots of everything.
@EvilLamas crysis over rated its nothing special its boring the graphics arent to amazing there is no real fun in it the game has no real potention to em the game is one epic fail they where better of just making theatre preformance graphic vid or somthing like that atleast it would be more intresting to watch and maybe fun to but crysis no it whas realy boring the only things that whas great about it whas suppsoed to be the graphics but yes.. there whas way to much expatation to the graphs
@Dante112 very perdy graphics aside- I, and many others, think Crysis has great Gameplay!
And I dont see how you can say it has no potential, its quite sandbox, with lots of cusomisation etc, whereas most FPS's at that time were all based in corridors or other linear paths, where allt you did was run around shooting people with little variation on how you went about shooting them
Would I be going out on a limb to say that you tried crysis and either sucked at it, or your computer didnt play it?
@EvilLamas Crysis was horribly linear for a game whose engine is capable of such expansive environments.. Runs well on my machine and I'm well versed in FPS gameplay, but I found the design, concept, gameplay all very generic and dull. I tried to like it, just not my cup of tea. It's everything I'm tired of in gaming, to be honest.
People are forgetting when commenting on the poor graphics, that non of what you are watching is pre-rendered, its all real-time. THATS the amazing thing about raytracing.
You have to be an idiot to say that Graphics are bad on this.. Bear in mind this video was uploaded in April 2007! Idiots. The graphics could have been immense at the time!
Jebus! This makes the game look like crap! There's no bump mapping, and every room is far too bright. The only difference I saw was a few reflective surfaces and the reflective spider thing, and that thing being reflective would have made it look retarded. It's just not a good idea Ray Tracing a game that looked fine without it.
@TheJakeDTH The primary reason why raytracing looks like crap is because the graphics this game depends on bumpmaps. If instead of bumpmaps real additional polygons were used instead, it would be much better, and it wouldn't have much of an effect on the framerate.
@nfwu I know. Is there not a way to do bumpmaps with Raytraceing? I believe the new engine used for RAGE uses additional polygons whenever possible. Can't wait to see that game fully Raytraced (if someone does it and if current hardware will handle it).
@TheJakeDTH Yes, it's possible, since the bumpmap is just a specification of the surface normals of the object. But I've never actually seen a raytracing engine bother to do that before.
absolutely magical. However, raytracing is far too complex for most game systems, so don't expect to see these kinds of graphics on any commercial games for years.
@Kilerfear Nothing can produce better graphics than raytracing.......Raytracing is the pinnacle of graphics technology. Go look at a real raytracing demo.......The graphics and effects are unbelieveable compared to current software.
@MujaRagHeadKillaUK True, to an extent. Raytracing does not, however, inherently produce better graphics than a rasterizer. Both can produce the same quality graphics, but both have their strengths and weaknesses: Raytracing performs better when rendering huge vertex data sets, and it unifies effects, such as lighting, shadowing, reflections and refractions. A rasterizer can do this also, but at a reduced speed. As of now, we have not really hit the vertex volume in games to justify raytracing.
to all those who are thumbing this down and post some silly comments. LOOK AT THE UPLOAD DATE. 3 Years in computergraphics are a lot of time. These kind of things are outdated pretty fast.
Quake 4 already looks quite raytraced due to its sharp stencil shadows, so this doesn't really make a difference. In this video at least, there is another one with RT reflections and portals.
Yeah, it actually looks quite poor with the normal maps missing, it just has accurate shadows now. Big deal. I think it's going to be computationally less taxing to just fake it really well.
People don't realize that the cell processor is rendering graphics as well. So the GPU isn't the whole story. Uncharted 2 blows all other games out of the water. Gamespot said it was possibly the best game ever on any platform.
You are aware, i assume, that the graphics hardware (gpu) used in the Playstation 3 is a nVidia Geforce 7 series? Desktop PC graphics options from nVidia have moved on by three generations since then. 8 series, 9 series and then the GTX cards (what would have been series 10).
Lets not even get started on the PS3 processor, jumped up secondary gpu that it is.
can we do it on PS3 with Linux and the Cell processor? Quake 3 is OpenGL compatible so why don't give a shot on it and trying to unlock the RSX GPU under Linux OS.
There is absolutely nothing "unbelievable" about the graphics in this demo. It looks very similar to any rasterized graphics output on a high quality video card.
well thats not the point of this video, maybe the title is a little off, since yes, its not unbelievable.
the unbelievable part is the fact that it was raytraced in realtime, the additional detail level acquired with this method is not perceptible on a youtube HD video window. I agree that many raster solutions out there look better, but realtime raytracing is the way to go if we plan to achieve photorealism.
I think there will be many other priorities in game developers minds before ray tracing. The average guy on the street wouldnt really know the difference. Until graphics become hyper realistic it wont be that noticable. I remember when Ray Trace demo's on the Amiga were a big thing. Of course I think it took a week to render demos in those days!! There, an opinion from someone who has a very high level idea about these things!!!
What about actually transforming your scene? In rasterizing you have to transform all the vertices in a scene first. In raytracing you can just physically shoot rays through space. If you optimize your space properly with some kind of octree or a BVH, you can increase the scene complexity without wasting too much CPU power.
... if the opaque stuff is drawn AFTER translucent stuff, it will be hide the translucent stuff, which should be in front.. so.. primitives must be sorted. Sorting means that you cannot efficiently feed the data into the graphics processor. This is a HUGE overhead, performance will drop few orders of magnitute.
This is why the solution to this "dilemma" is massive amount of ad-hoc. Raytracing solves this problems in a very elegant way.
Raytracing is more elegant solution than brute-force rasterization; it avoids the biggest problem of scanconversion based rasterizer: translucency sorting. The visibility of fragments is determined using depth buffer. This allows to draw the primitives in any given order. But. When you throw translucency into the mix, translucent primitives should NOT block stuff behind them, so, writes to depth buffer should be disabled.. but then, the opaque stuff behind translucent stuff, if
The recent prevalence of multi-core and hyperthreaded processors had made raytracing much more viable than it has been in the past. But we still aren't to the point where it can be done without a huge hit to fps. Also, it isn't really necessary; people have been finding workarounds for years that work very well.
@etak00: You're right, but upto a point. Rasterization is faster than raytracing upto a certain scene complexity threshold. Beyond that (e.g. if you have volume data, or micropolys, or very very large scenes, so the size of an average bit of geometry is subpixel), raytracing can be more efficient since object-space complexity far outweighs image-space complexity.
I agree, carefully crafted LODs etc muddy the waters a bit. But "rasterization will always be faster" is not a bulletproof assertion.
Nothing in the video is impossible with rasterization, while being significantly less efficient. The hype around raytracing is the product of misinformation.
1. Only secondary ray effects (refractions, reflections, shadows..) are of interest. Primary ray stuff can be done with rasterization just fine. Due to the lower complexity, rasterization will always be faster.
2. Raytracing does not magically add global illumination. Get your facts straight, people. RT and GI are two different things.
Raytracing is great, but I think the quality of realtime raytracing right now isn't that impressive compared to the quality of accellerated polygon-based 3D graphics.
These actually are still polygon based. Raytracing has to do with how the lighting in a scene is rendered. So the model detail is still dependent on the original designer and whatever is being used to render it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
but you said it couldn't run it. if you build an engine to run it and the ps3 has ran it why couldn't the ps3 run it? the ps3 has only hit about 40% of its potential power. xbox already maxed out. now it just shades everything. but i see your quick to jump on some cock. whiney bitch.
why are you even bringing up xbox what the fuck, i'm saying home electronics in general arent advanced enough to implement ray tracing. also, what you said about mgs4 is bullshit. however, if you search "ps3 ray tracing" on youtube you can find a video of a dude using THREE ps3's to generate a raytraced model of a single car... yeah man, sounds like the ps3 can totally do it! fucking idiot
ray tracing on a car of what quality. i never said good or bad. how high quality is his tracing. and no if you ever played mgs4 you would clearly see it in the mirrors.
hahahaha what the fuck, i can't even tell what you're saying
the point is MGS4 doesn't use ray tracing, there aren't any commercially available games that do. it's still experimental and common hardware, particularly consoles, are nowhere near rendering it. you don't need ray tracing to create mirrors in video games jesus christ
never said it was used to create mirrors. you say it cant be rendered on console? yet didnt you say it was on 3 ps3s? ray tracing as a technology is experimental the practice is in application. you obviously can use ray tracing in this 2 year old video and other demos why is it hard to think that mgs4 used it in several cutscenes. all that requires is the have something process it record it and play it back. the ps3 wouldnt need to re render it again. just like a video clip. faggot!
Sorry buddy... but you're wrong! Every cutscene on Metal Gear Solid 4 it's in real time! And BaneOfFreeSpeech? Yes! PLAYSTATION 3 can do ray-tracing because it has 8 cores! In the future you will see games using ray-tracing running on the PS3. But the ray-tracing technic needs to be perfected first.
I'm not sure what real-time thing is but i think i do because im MGS4, you can shake the controller at anytime in a cutscene and you go back to your sneaking suit, neato!
p3on is correct. WoW only uses Ray Casting, not Ray Tracing. Seriously, with modern systems and ray tracing, you need 1CPU core for every frame per second you get. On most WoW's players' systems, the game would be unplayable at 1fps or slower.
LMFAO rashin you fail ps3 and Xbox 360 dont even have ray tracing, and yes you can do ray tracing on ps3 as long as you have THREE of them!! fucking get real, you Won't see ray tracing on YOUR 1 ps3 alone. n00b
you noobs are stupid! AND YOU'RE TOTALLY NOT EVEN GETTING IT!!
The lightning effects and reflections are IMPOSSIBLE ON XBOX 360 and PS3
like 95% of you kiddies looked at the dated visuals and not the never before seen ray tracing lighting effects, omfg you guys fail, great video! i totally got it!! sweet!
Uuuh, Am I supposed to be amazed by this crappy demo? I find it very very lauglahble when the gaming community sees a minute improvement in graphics and starts WOWing how incredibly realistic and stuff this is. Until i see area lighting and at least real-time ambient occlusion in games I'm not impressed at all.
crysis is awesome looking, but Killzone 2 raytraced would be the daddy of all games graphically. the only way crysis can compare with Killzone 2 in detail and realism is for it to be raytraced by caustic.
Of course crysis is going to look better, it was designed from the ground up to get the most out of todays technology! Quake 4 is using a old engine now.
my eyes are bleeding ughhh
Amunication 3 months ago
Need this in 720 or 1080.
cookiehead2 3 months ago
"Raytraced"
People don't see that word, but instead a blur.
OSDolphin 3 months ago
People just don't understand. Its not about the quality of graphics its the light information that is received to the texture which should be noticed in the video.
meetajhu 3 months ago
i guess somebody was in a coma for the last 10 years and the first thing he saw after waking up was this old video game and thought "omg! this graphics are amazing!"
Haalef 3 months ago
@Haalef You seen the resolution on these shadows? Raytracing is the future.
It's just that they never made proper use of the raytracer in most of the shaders.
WolfosDotOrg 3 months ago
Cool story bro ..
Ayoubsss 5 months ago
@Marbas777
Ever heard of reading a game's release date? Ever heard of a series with roots going back to 100MHz? Ever heard of logic or relevancy? All the arrogant little kids care about today is "OMJ UR GHAIME HAZ GRAFFICKXZ!!!11". Well if the game runs decently and has good audio, good gameplay, a decent story, and expansive multiplayer, then if it's at least OK graphically, WHO GIVES A FUCK?
BoctorPoo 5 months ago 4
@BoctorPoo Amazing (not OK or average) graphics aren't in detriment of everything else. Look Crysis (1), for example...
NordicRuneProject 5 months ago
@BoctorPoo More like, get a life.
Black7Cloud 3 months ago
@Black7Cloud Because that's never been fucking said. At least I'm not worried about death now that I had no life to begin with.
BoctorPoo 3 months ago
the shadows - the reflections - the light
man! let's get philosophical?
dirkfanick 5 months ago
Ever heard of FUCKING WITCHER 2, CRYSIS 2, CALL OF DUTY BLACK OPS, CRYSIS WARHEAD, FAR CRY 2, AION EMPYREAN'S CALLING AND FUCKING OTHER STUFF INCLUDING UNCHARTED 2 AND BATTLEFIELD BAD COMPANY 2?!!
Marbas777 5 months ago
Look at the date people ffs
Qbopper77 5 months ago 3
WOW THATS AMAZING GRAPHICS
jorsak 5 months ago
I liked when the spider thing's model passed through the scene models.
Mikemc 5 months ago
lol well its not anything crazy but yea it looks pretty damn good, you gotta remember this game came out in what 2005? I just so happen to be currently playing it for the first time hence why Im looking up quake vids. While the game does look decent enough, this is a deffinate noticable difference, everything just seems smoother
AntiSwam91 5 months ago
The concept is lost on these simpletons.
MuToiDMaN 6 months ago 2
@MuToiDMaN I'm not even a tech junkie but even I found this very impressive. I am fascinated by seeing varying layers of shadows of multiple objects and real-time reflections. I am waiting for the day that these techniques are used in real-time along with high-res graphics and they run well. Maybe in a year or two, unless Crysis 2 already does it.
Chotahater 6 months ago
@Chotahater Crysis 2 has some really low-res textures.
The best ones are half the size of the textures in Crysis 1.
Killicon93 5 months ago
@Killicon93 I thought I noticed some worse looking textures in Crysis 2 but again, I'm not big on tech so it's not like I have a PC to run either of them, especially at max settings. I used to love PC gaming (Rainbow Six, UT, AoE, Diablo.......Rollercoaster Tycoon) but I chose instead to game on consoles because it was the only way to play the same stuff my friends did. I don't have any regrets about it though, I still have fun.
Chotahater 5 months ago
@Chotahater I don't have that problem since all my friends play on PC.
Killicon93 5 months ago
Unbelievable graphics! .... for 1997. hehe :)
hoppimike 6 months ago
aw man, i remember that one time i made my nintendo 64 raytrace too.
alienjoe123 6 months ago
oh my god i had to turn it off! it's... it's too real...
ErniesLament 6 months ago
ID tech 4 uses raytracing itself in small parts.
lin545 6 months ago
Like bar looks like the Portuguese Flag...
evillllll1 6 months ago
This wasn't even unbelievable in 2007. A little game called Crysis would like a word with you.
QuamCelerrime 7 months ago
Now add to that the game's natural lighting, and you still get Q4 as it was before. No difference at all.
NFSKing 7 months ago
Even by 2007 standards this was bad.
BarakaObama2012 7 months ago
@Lamboragon then crisi 1 is a threesome xD
spacecoke 8 months ago
Problem is those older games don't have the proper shaders too make the raytracing stand out .. exept the reflections.
resistanceunion 9 months ago
I hope you mean unbelievable as in unrealistic.
Account13111 9 months ago
well sill looks like shit
naragadume 10 months ago
@naragadume WIN
TrueArgons 9 months ago
This video should be taken as a proof-of-concept. Not more than that.
If you put raytracing in the hands of trained artists, they know how to use off-colored dim lighting + bump-map surfaces to give a scene photographic realism. I would say this demo is limited to a single light source per scene. Enormous changes have been made since 2007 in the GPU processors.
obdeniye 11 months ago
it is unbelievable, i can't believe it
SpadeAce90 11 months ago
Dem polys...
BrokenHorn90 11 months ago
it's no ray tracing
Zephol 11 months ago
and the graphs came out just just meh couldve been pushed even further not realy for me in the top 10.. the game completely didnt even made sense let stand of how much the story whas a fail to that i stopped playing cusi couldnt play cus of falling in sleep..
Dante112 11 months ago
definitely not raytraced, but another one of john carmacks great works of art. Shadows are shadow volumes and reflections are cubemapping.
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
I think people are also losing sight of the fact that this game came out in like what 05? It's still a pretty damn good looking game. I don't think I've ever played a game that much like a tourist just taking screenshots of everything.
THEUrinalCake 1 year ago
@THEUrinalCake buy crysis.
and mod it allot.
its so frickin perdy!
EvilLamas 11 months ago
@EvilLamas crysis over rated its nothing special its boring the graphics arent to amazing there is no real fun in it the game has no real potention to em the game is one epic fail they where better of just making theatre preformance graphic vid or somthing like that atleast it would be more intresting to watch and maybe fun to but crysis no it whas realy boring the only things that whas great about it whas suppsoed to be the graphics but yes.. there whas way to much expatation to the graphs
Dante112 11 months ago
@Dante112 very perdy graphics aside- I, and many others, think Crysis has great Gameplay!
And I dont see how you can say it has no potential, its quite sandbox, with lots of cusomisation etc, whereas most FPS's at that time were all based in corridors or other linear paths, where allt you did was run around shooting people with little variation on how you went about shooting them
Would I be going out on a limb to say that you tried crysis and either sucked at it, or your computer didnt play it?
EvilLamas 11 months ago
@EvilLamas Crysis was horribly linear for a game whose engine is capable of such expansive environments.. Runs well on my machine and I'm well versed in FPS gameplay, but I found the design, concept, gameplay all very generic and dull. I tried to like it, just not my cup of tea. It's everything I'm tired of in gaming, to be honest.
thetwentyfourth 11 months ago
People are forgetting when commenting on the poor graphics, that non of what you are watching is pre-rendered, its all real-time. THATS the amazing thing about raytracing.
mrbreckles 1 year ago
In 2007, when crysis arrived, he kick ass quake4 and this shiiiiaat....
Rako692 1 year ago
Looks like bump mapping is turned off?
dying2l 1 year ago
You have to be an idiot to say that Graphics are bad on this.. Bear in mind this video was uploaded in April 2007! Idiots. The graphics could have been immense at the time!
jdcresswell 1 year ago
The only thing unbeliavable is how crap the graphics look.
Commonsafetypolitics 1 year ago
Comment removed
stbays 1 year ago
Looks ugly...
ultrarus 1 year ago
Jebus! This makes the game look like crap! There's no bump mapping, and every room is far too bright. The only difference I saw was a few reflective surfaces and the reflective spider thing, and that thing being reflective would have made it look retarded. It's just not a good idea Ray Tracing a game that looked fine without it.
TheJakeDTH 1 year ago
@TheJakeDTH The primary reason why raytracing looks like crap is because the graphics this game depends on bumpmaps. If instead of bumpmaps real additional polygons were used instead, it would be much better, and it wouldn't have much of an effect on the framerate.
nfwu 1 year ago
@nfwu I know. Is there not a way to do bumpmaps with Raytraceing? I believe the new engine used for RAGE uses additional polygons whenever possible. Can't wait to see that game fully Raytraced (if someone does it and if current hardware will handle it).
TheJakeDTH 1 year ago
@TheJakeDTH Yes, it's possible, since the bumpmap is just a specification of the surface normals of the object. But I've never actually seen a raytracing engine bother to do that before.
nfwu 1 year ago
absolutely magical. However, raytracing is far too complex for most game systems, so don't expect to see these kinds of graphics on any commercial games for years.
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
well then my shit has raytracing
Kilerfear 1 year ago
Unbeleivable for a Dreamcast game.
redfoxbennaton 1 year ago
nobody said it was easy... it's such a shame for us to part...
23house23 1 year ago
i can believe this graphics :)
AttaKru 1 year ago
Shame about the game being terrible though...
BishopGantry 1 year ago
My shit has better graphics
Kilerfear 1 year ago
@Kilerfear Nothing can produce better graphics than raytracing.......Raytracing is the pinnacle of graphics technology. Go look at a real raytracing demo.......The graphics and effects are unbelieveable compared to current software.
MujaRagHeadKillaUK 1 year ago
@MujaRagHeadKillaUK True, to an extent. Raytracing does not, however, inherently produce better graphics than a rasterizer. Both can produce the same quality graphics, but both have their strengths and weaknesses: Raytracing performs better when rendering huge vertex data sets, and it unifies effects, such as lighting, shadowing, reflections and refractions. A rasterizer can do this also, but at a reduced speed. As of now, we have not really hit the vertex volume in games to justify raytracing.
SirJonthe 1 year ago
umbeiliveable graphics my ass.
Ryukido91 1 year ago
pretty okay game... |:\
somehominid 1 year ago
this is from early 2007, it did look quite good for that time
xNIPPOx 1 year ago
look like Quake 2 now >...>
q009q009 1 year ago
is this using the gpu or cpu to raytrace?
wuhlei 1 year ago
to all those who are thumbing this down and post some silly comments. LOOK AT THE UPLOAD DATE. 3 Years in computergraphics are a lot of time. These kind of things are outdated pretty fast.
KRAFTWERK2K6 1 year ago
Quake 4 already looks quite raytraced due to its sharp stencil shadows, so this doesn't really make a difference. In this video at least, there is another one with RT reflections and portals.
BurekFr0mSPACE 1 year ago
crysis looks ALOT better.
qqddeeeeeeeeee 1 year ago
Ray tracing is soo yesterday, look up path tracing guys :)
7ty714 1 year ago
@7ty714: Ok you go and write a program that uses it. In real time. Then get back to me.
sutasman 1 year ago
next time in HD ..
yewtubeful 1 year ago
That looks like poop...D':
ChazZeromus 1 year ago
this game looks much much better on my pc
akseli10000 1 year ago
Unbeliveble Graphic eh? Just the one, presumably...
rockcabbage 1 year ago
Not impressed.
Xzontar 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Raytracing looks like shit
DEFECTX9 1 year ago
wow. this kind of looked like an rendered cutscene from some random 1997 sci-fi game.
fisk0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEGA's Model 4 ray tracing capable hardware is currently in development
Further information is to be found at the following address -
fgnonlinedotwebsdotcom
pornostar100 2 years ago
unbeliveble graphics huh?
rutgerhaase 2 years ago 66
@rutgerhaase This was made before Crysis
Gearsguy405 1 year ago
@rutgerhaase no. UNBELIEVABLE GRAPHIC
pabsensi 1 year ago
@rutgerhaase
hahaha ...??? mock !!
wait...its the future of gaming, raytraced render !!
where are you living behind the moon ?
boilerheadz 1 year ago
@rutgerhaase Look at the shadows' projection , and the lightning, not the models or the textures .
Andermetal1 6 months ago
not that it's better when all the normal maps are gone
Tstar2 2 years ago
Yeah, it actually looks quite poor with the normal maps missing, it just has accurate shadows now. Big deal. I think it's going to be computationally less taxing to just fake it really well.
CodyRicheson 2 years ago 3
Not to mention the clipping issues.
Perhaps skipped on collision detection to make the tracing faster?
itsGeorgeAgain 2 years ago
0:19 = fail - thing loaded on hovercraft doesn't move with it O_O
formatdyskuc 2 years ago
People don't realize that the cell processor is rendering graphics as well. So the GPU isn't the whole story. Uncharted 2 blows all other games out of the water. Gamespot said it was possibly the best game ever on any platform.
Entropy56 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS3 is more powerful than a desktop pc
Entropy56 2 years ago
Bull shit it is. Go build a comp with an i7 quad core and SLI GTX 250's and tell me that again.
mwhite112393 2 years ago 3
More like SLI GTX 295. Maybe Triple Crossfire HD Radeon 5890s if your the ATI fan.
rasenganrendan333 2 years ago
the 295's work, too, and until ATI gets their drivers under control, I'm sticking wint NVidia lol
mwhite112393 2 years ago
how wrong you are.
huffdiggler 2 years ago
You are aware, i assume, that the graphics hardware (gpu) used in the Playstation 3 is a nVidia Geforce 7 series? Desktop PC graphics options from nVidia have moved on by three generations since then. 8 series, 9 series and then the GTX cards (what would have been series 10).
Lets not even get started on the PS3 processor, jumped up secondary gpu that it is.
snsScotch 2 years ago
at least the processor is
smartguy9765 2 years ago
depends on what desktop pc you are talking about, if you catch my drift :D
Nouseeker 2 years ago
My my, someone is high.
itsGeorgeAgain 2 years ago 24
@itsGeorgeAgain Can't wait to join em :D ... tonight... can't go around with red eyes in front of my mother :P
gevelegian 7 months ago
wow looks sick
1984rockabilly 2 years ago
cuts the mood off:D
darkcrowslayer 2 years ago
Unbelivably BAD graphics.
hoaxer299a 2 years ago
can we do it on PS3 with Linux and the Cell processor? Quake 3 is OpenGL compatible so why don't give a shot on it and trying to unlock the RSX GPU under Linux OS.
BigBoss9865327410 2 years ago
RSX is awful, its an nvidia 7800 gt trimmed down. the only asset to the ps3 would be its cell.
l0lum4d 2 years ago
This video looks incredibly pixelated everywhere. I thought this was what raytracing was fixing among other things such as shadows and light.
Hopefully its just bad quality of this video..
silver2k9 2 years ago
There is absolutely nothing "unbelievable" about the graphics in this demo. It looks very similar to any rasterized graphics output on a high quality video card.
intesx 2 years ago
well thats not the point of this video, maybe the title is a little off, since yes, its not unbelievable.
the unbelievable part is the fact that it was raytraced in realtime, the additional detail level acquired with this method is not perceptible on a youtube HD video window. I agree that many raster solutions out there look better, but realtime raytracing is the way to go if we plan to achieve photorealism.
Plus, you are talking about a 2 year old video.
tabovilla 2 years ago 2
i agree with u
toing2d 2 years ago
not bad
DOOMDRAGON2251 2 years ago 2
I think there will be many other priorities in game developers minds before ray tracing. The average guy on the street wouldnt really know the difference. Until graphics become hyper realistic it wont be that noticable. I remember when Ray Trace demo's on the Amiga were a big thing. Of course I think it took a week to render demos in those days!! There, an opinion from someone who has a very high level idea about these things!!!
malad1 2 years ago 2
What about actually transforming your scene? In rasterizing you have to transform all the vertices in a scene first. In raytracing you can just physically shoot rays through space. If you optimize your space properly with some kind of octree or a BVH, you can increase the scene complexity without wasting too much CPU power.
vincentpol 2 years ago
demo takes a week wtf
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
... if the opaque stuff is drawn AFTER translucent stuff, it will be hide the translucent stuff, which should be in front.. so.. primitives must be sorted. Sorting means that you cannot efficiently feed the data into the graphics processor. This is a HUGE overhead, performance will drop few orders of magnitute.
This is why the solution to this "dilemma" is massive amount of ad-hoc. Raytracing solves this problems in a very elegant way.
KTHXBYE
t0rakka2007 2 years ago
Raytracing is more elegant solution than brute-force rasterization; it avoids the biggest problem of scanconversion based rasterizer: translucency sorting. The visibility of fragments is determined using depth buffer. This allows to draw the primitives in any given order. But. When you throw translucency into the mix, translucent primitives should NOT block stuff behind them, so, writes to depth buffer should be disabled.. but then, the opaque stuff behind translucent stuff, if
t0rakka2007 2 years ago
The recent prevalence of multi-core and hyperthreaded processors had made raytracing much more viable than it has been in the past. But we still aren't to the point where it can be done without a huge hit to fps. Also, it isn't really necessary; people have been finding workarounds for years that work very well.
bokanovskyprocess 2 years ago
@etak00: You're right, but upto a point. Rasterization is faster than raytracing upto a certain scene complexity threshold. Beyond that (e.g. if you have volume data, or micropolys, or very very large scenes, so the size of an average bit of geometry is subpixel), raytracing can be more efficient since object-space complexity far outweighs image-space complexity.
I agree, carefully crafted LODs etc muddy the waters a bit. But "rasterization will always be faster" is not a bulletproof assertion.
expiringfrog 2 years ago 2
Nothing in the video is impossible with rasterization, while being significantly less efficient. The hype around raytracing is the product of misinformation.
1. Only secondary ray effects (refractions, reflections, shadows..) are of interest. Primary ray stuff can be done with rasterization just fine. Due to the lower complexity, rasterization will always be faster.
2. Raytracing does not magically add global illumination. Get your facts straight, people. RT and GI are two different things.
etak00 2 years ago
nice, can't wait for mainstream games to feature this.
Hless421 2 years ago
Really notice it in the shadows. nice work.
celshader 2 years ago
Raytracing is great, but I think the quality of realtime raytracing right now isn't that impressive compared to the quality of accellerated polygon-based 3D graphics.
alexander256 2 years ago
These actually are still polygon based. Raytracing has to do with how the lighting in a scene is rendered. So the model detail is still dependent on the original designer and whatever is being used to render it.
elgavilan2000 2 years ago
sux
spajsboyz 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
1.Put both of ur hands on ur chest
2.Think of someone that u like......
3.Tommorow that person will ask you out or say i love you.
4.Heres the catch just send to 5 more vidoes
FlowMotion101 2 years ago
p3on is right no games use ray tracing atm and we might see this in about 3 years :)
0cton 2 years ago
What happened to the normal mapping?
CodyRicheson 2 years ago
Sexy?
Joroshira 2 years ago
omgzz thiose graphicks are leik unveilevablez
zman1512 2 years ago
The ps3 could get close but probably not real time yet the only thing the xbox can do really good is bloom, go bloombox 360.
Anywho cool VID, it kinda inspires me to see if I could redo some old school quake maps in Unreal 3 or something.
inkfox 2 years ago
lol u dumb if you think the ps3 can do raytracing on games this level
p3on 2 years ago
lol your dumb because it can. and is. and has. mgs4 used it in several high lit reflection scenes. and they are developing games with it.
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago
implementing it isnt the same thing as building an engine on it you fucking idiot
p3on 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but you said it couldn't run it. if you build an engine to run it and the ps3 has ran it why couldn't the ps3 run it? the ps3 has only hit about 40% of its potential power. xbox already maxed out. now it just shades everything. but i see your quick to jump on some cock. whiney bitch.
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago
why are you even bringing up xbox what the fuck, i'm saying home electronics in general arent advanced enough to implement ray tracing. also, what you said about mgs4 is bullshit. however, if you search "ps3 ray tracing" on youtube you can find a video of a dude using THREE ps3's to generate a raytraced model of a single car... yeah man, sounds like the ps3 can totally do it! fucking idiot
p3on 2 years ago
ray tracing on a car of what quality. i never said good or bad. how high quality is his tracing. and no if you ever played mgs4 you would clearly see it in the mirrors.
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago
hahahaha what the fuck, i can't even tell what you're saying
the point is MGS4 doesn't use ray tracing, there aren't any commercially available games that do. it's still experimental and common hardware, particularly consoles, are nowhere near rendering it. you don't need ray tracing to create mirrors in video games jesus christ
p3on 2 years ago
never said it was used to create mirrors. you say it cant be rendered on console? yet didnt you say it was on 3 ps3s? ray tracing as a technology is experimental the practice is in application. you obviously can use ray tracing in this 2 year old video and other demos why is it hard to think that mgs4 used it in several cutscenes. all that requires is the have something process it record it and play it back. the ps3 wouldnt need to re render it again. just like a video clip. faggot!
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago
jesus christ what the fuck, YES, it can't be rendered on A console, it took THREE ps3's to render ONE model of a car you fucking idiot
p3on 2 years ago
Sorry buddy... but you're wrong! Every cutscene on Metal Gear Solid 4 it's in real time! And BaneOfFreeSpeech? Yes! PLAYSTATION 3 can do ray-tracing because it has 8 cores! In the future you will see games using ray-tracing running on the PS3. But the ray-tracing technic needs to be perfected first.
GranKnight87 2 years ago
oh shit I only have 2 cores, I can't do raytracing?
No, seriously... It took like 3 PS3s to do that one raytracing demo. I don't think we'll be seeing much of this on current hardware.
cyborgtroy 2 years ago
I'm not sure what real-time thing is but i think i do because im MGS4, you can shake the controller at anytime in a cutscene and you go back to your sneaking suit, neato!
LiamHere2K8 2 years ago
"clearly see it in the mirrors. "
"never said it was used to create mirrors" Sure you didn't say that...
xxChinasaurxx 2 years ago
because ray tracing dosnt CREATE objects.
BaneOfFreeSpeech 2 years ago 2
BaneOfFreeSpeech you clearly have no idea of what raytracing even is, or 3D graphics technology in general.
elgavilan2000 2 years ago
Even WoW uses this now. It's nothing new.
b0rk3d 2 years ago
hahahaha no it doesnt, seriously, look it up, there isn't a single commercial game on the market that uses ray tracing. not one
p3on 2 years ago 18
@p3on this year release crysis 2 and the pc version will be have raytracing
Halfback1990 1 year ago
@p3on Crysis 2, and GT5, and a few more. not to mention the countless PC mods that have ray tracing enabled.
BigdogWitBigdog 1 year ago
@BigdogWitBigdog ray tracing some rudimentary lighting effects isn't the same thing as building a 3d engine on it
p3on 1 year ago
p3on is correct. WoW only uses Ray Casting, not Ray Tracing. Seriously, with modern systems and ray tracing, you need 1CPU core for every frame per second you get. On most WoW's players' systems, the game would be unplayable at 1fps or slower.
luccaskunk 2 years ago
because stupid people point out the obvious and not whats at hand, its very annoying most people are just as bad in life in general.
Knightimex 2 years ago
LMFAO rashin you fail ps3 and Xbox 360 dont even have ray tracing, and yes you can do ray tracing on ps3 as long as you have THREE of them!! fucking get real, you Won't see ray tracing on YOUR 1 ps3 alone. n00b
Knightimex 2 years ago 4
no, you can raytrace on both of them. You dont need 3 ps3's.
you'll need 3 ps3s if you want to render a boring static carscene using raytracing in realtime though
Capeau 2 years ago
you noobs are stupid! AND YOU'RE TOTALLY NOT EVEN GETTING IT!!
The lightning effects and reflections are IMPOSSIBLE ON XBOX 360 and PS3
like 95% of you kiddies looked at the dated visuals and not the never before seen ray tracing lighting effects, omfg you guys fail, great video! i totally got it!! sweet!
Knightimex 2 years ago
You can to Ray Tracing on the PS3 you moron.
Look it up.
rashin 2 years ago
"UNBELIEVABLE"
yep UNBELIEVABLY CRAP
JMartyres 2 years ago
Uuuh, Am I supposed to be amazed by this crappy demo? I find it very very lauglahble when the gaming community sees a minute improvement in graphics and starts WOWing how incredibly realistic and stuff this is. Until i see area lighting and at least real-time ambient occlusion in games I'm not impressed at all.
wheezart 2 years ago
you haven't seen Killzone 2 then?
feathersk 2 years ago
This isn't impressive.
But Fallout3-Killzone2- and MGS4 are.
Unfortunately FO3 looks best on PC. But PS3 games tend to have better graphics, mainly because the Cell Procs works as a video card as well.
rashin 2 years ago
wheezart: Ray-tracing - a rendering technique that's typically too complex to be used in games - is a "minute improvement in graphics"?
Frungi 2 years ago
there was time that even having colors on a screen looked too complex.
Technlogie advances...
Capeau 2 years ago
looks the same.
lets see crysis in raytraceing.
darkagent343 2 years ago
crysis is awesome looking, but Killzone 2 raytraced would be the daddy of all games graphically. the only way crysis can compare with Killzone 2 in detail and realism is for it to be raytraced by caustic.
feathersk 2 years ago
the textures of the walls and pipe are crap. the enemies dont collide?
brutalducky 2 years ago
crappy scenes, but still amazing to think that every shadow pictured is NOT A TEXTURE - a true representation of blocked light!
avsti 3 years ago
This uses the same textures and models as the original Quake 4, so don't expect it to look better from this point of view.
It's the physically correct reflections and refractions that makes raytracing so special.
Trass3r 3 years ago
wow this is sooooooooo great.... :(
roughruffian 3 years ago
what i see is unreal tournamet 2004 with dx9? lol
KirkTheGod 3 years ago
LOL this is raycasting which is like 50 times easier to do then raytracing
drakio99 3 years ago
10 years ago the claim in the title might be valid, but not by today's standards.
ghost2ber 3 years ago 2
fuck u
Sykes90 3 years ago
Where is the "UNBELIEVABLE GRAPHIC"? I can't find it.
Asgard82 3 years ago
this supposedly is like the most graphic educing thing created that requires multiple cpu's to run...youtube quality fail that's all
eyeseedat 3 years ago
Uh, are you sure this is Quake 4. The first 10 seconds have Quake 2 written all over them. Looks like utter shit imo.
tehfear 3 years ago
Of course crysis is going to look better, it was designed from the ground up to get the most out of todays technology! Quake 4 is using a old engine now.
sirdanrhodes 3 years ago