When will graphics stop evolving?

I've read something somewhere that one day graphics would stop evolving, because (and here comes the hard part) something related to atoms, or pixels I don't know...

For all of you engineers, could you give me a hand here.

When they reach photorealism... Then there would be no point in making things more powerful.mrfrosty151986

This looks really close to photorealism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxUGFE73Ow

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]When they reach photorealism... Then there would be no point in making things more powerful.tjricardo089

This looks really close to photorealism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxUGFE73Ow

[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]When they reach photorealism... Then there would be no point in making things more powerful.mrfrosty151986

This looks really close to photorealism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxUGFE73Ow

Well we'll eventually get to a point where we can't make transistors any smaller. At that point, the only way to improve graphics capability would be to make chips bigger.

Graphics should stop evolving this generation. You really can't ask for much more than the realistic graphics we have today. I don't know why you would want even MORE realistic graphics.

Even the graphics on the PS2 are very impressive. Just look at Metal Gear Solid 3 or Final Fantasy XII!

PS2 graphics are good enough for me.

When we reach those 4D Toy Story graphics that Sony promised, yet failed to deliver this gen. :P

In order to achieve the best possible graphics on a 2D platform like a monitor or screen you need to imitate light with close enough accuracy that anything inaccurate is not noticeable to the human eye given the limitation of the rendering platform (screen).

It must also model materials in a realisit way, animaitons ina realistic way, physics in a realistic way. And int he case of games, AI must act ina realistic fashiopn as well.

And all of this must be done in real-time.

EACH of these things require a ton more of advancement before we are even remotely close to reaching the "limit". And by that time, the output medium (TV's and monitors) may even have become more advanced, which means the requirments for accuracy become higher.

I don't believ we need to model atomic behaviour to get realistic graphics though... At least not until we come up with something liek a holodeck.

When you look outside. The best graphics ever! Looks so realistic too, and it's not even in HD!

When:

1. Ray-tracing in games can be processed in real time at 60 fps at native-res
2. A high enough polygon count where curves look like curves without a hint of faceted sides
3. The above can be manipulated Google Earth style, able to zoom in and out without losing clarity or detail
4. A high enough screen resolution where games can run without a trace of aliasing, making antialiasing unnecessary

When Sony isn't in the red.

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]When they reach photorealism... Then there would be no point in making things more powerful.tjricardo089

This looks really close to photorealism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxUGFE73Ow

They'll never stop evolving. The_Pacific

When you implant a chip in ur head :D

In order to achieve the best possible graphics on a 2D platform like a monitor or screen you need to imitate light with close enough accuracy that anything inaccurate is not noticeable to the human eye given the limitation of the rendering platform (screen).

It must also model materials in a realisit way, animaitons ina realistic way, physics in a realistic way. And int he case of games, AI must act ina realistic fashiopn as well.

And all of this must be done in real-time.

EACH of these things require a ton more of advancement before we are even remotely close to reaching the "limit". And by that time, the output medium (TV's and monitors) may even have become more advanced, which means the requirments for accuracy become higher.

I don't believ we need to model atomic behaviour to get realistic graphics though... At least not until we come up with something liek a holodeck.

Kinthalis

Battlefield3's greatest accomplishment imo is the fluidity of the animations.

And to think all they did was use the madden tech.

They never will because something new will be created always or work arounds. Things will get more realistic first and then after that the worlds will get bigger etc etc. The peripherals will be implemented like virtual reality stuff and that sort of direction. So things will always grow and expand

Smell-o-vision.

They'll never stop evolving. The_Pacific

When you implant a chip in ur head :D

dxmcat

When Sony isn't in the red.

PrototypeTheKid

When you look outside. The best graphics ever! Looks so realistic too, and it's not even in HD!

ShadowMoses900

wut

wut

wuuutparkurtommo

I guess at the point were we're able to create an world build upon atoms, the point where we can create everything exactly how they are in real life. Not only on ssurfaace, but also on the inside. The point a bullett can break a bone realisticly and the enemy reacts just like he would in real life due to the damage he received. That's the farthest point we could reach. Not sure if we want to reahc it ffor games though (for other sstuff like medical research it would be perfect)

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]When they reach photorealism... Then there would be no point in making things more powerful.tjricardo089

This looks really close to photorealism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcxUGFE73Ow

Whenever Disney Pixar hit the wall.

I've read something somewhere that one day graphics would stop evolving, because (and here comes the hard part) something related to atoms, or pixels I don't know...

For all of you engineers, could you give me a hand here.

tjricardo089

When I look out my Window and say, "Man those graphics are terrible."

On the technical side of things, I have no idea, but if you're talking about when we'll no longer have a need for better graphics then I'd say until we can simulate the entire planet in real-time with absolutely perfect graphics. This also goes for physics. The entire gameplay area should be fully intractable in which case I don't think we'll be seeing anything like this for a LONG while.

Crysis was made 5 years ago; if any game company SERIOUSLY tries to make a photorelatic game , it could be possible in these days,( if they have the time :D)

Crysis was made 5 years ago; if any game company SERIOUSLY tries to make a photorelatic game , it could be possible in these days,( if they have the time :D)

danygo1996

Crysis is nowhere near photorealistic, and even nowadays PCs are nowhere near capable of photorealism.

Can someone tell me what happened to that place that started making things out of atoms in games? I remember it was a big deal and people where calling it fake and stuff. chaoz-king

When you look outside. The best graphics ever! Looks so realistic too, and it's not even in HD!

ShadowMoses900

Until when the graphics looks just like real life.

But there's more than just graphics alone. Realistic physics and animations also plays a part in processing power.

When Sony says so.

Tomorrow.

When Sony says so.

freedomfreak

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"]

When Sony says so.

meetroid8

Graphics should stop evolving this generation. You really can't ask for much more than the realistic graphics we have today. I don't know why you would want even MORE realistic graphics.

Even the graphics on the PS2 are very impressive. Just look at Metal Gear Solid 3 or Final Fantasy XII!

PS2 graphics are good enough for me.

GeoffZak

When hardware stops evolving

Loosely related to the topic.