THE MOST PHOTOREALISTIC Unreal Engine 5 Demo So Far! // Game Engine Dev Reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- What an amazing demo! What did you all think? 👇
Second channel ► / morecherno
Twitter ► / thecherno
Instagram ► / thecherno
Patreon ► / thecherno
Discord ► / discord
Incredible photorealistic demo created by Lorenzo Drago and rendered in Unreal Engine 5 using Lumen, based on a real-life train station in Toyama, Japan.
Check out the demo here!
------------------------------------------
【UE5】etchū-daimon station - 越中大門駅 ► • 【UE5】etchū-daimon stat...
Artstation ► www.artstation...
------------------------------------------
#UE5
Thank you for covering me! It's good to see a critical look at the scene, I think you were spot-on on most things
Gracias a ti también, de mi parte. Great job. Saludos desde México . :
Amazing render! Do you have any advice for a new indie developer regarding textures and shadows?
Congrats on your project it is amazing! This is your opportunity to milk the sh*t out of it and get established as a pro artist. Would love to see a breakdown and perhaps a demo!
Great work btw! Do you have any static images or video without the camera shake/landscape to see if Cherno's thoughts were correct?
@@larssonk22 Yeah! On my video description I have the link to the Artstation page with screenshots
In my opinion, visual quality is not the bottleneck for modern graphics, so the value of ever-higher resolutions and image fidelity is overestimated. I think that what we need is better simulations, animations, and automated tools that produce the mundane details so that film-makers and artists can produce more and faster. This video is a great example of what I mean: we have to fake imperfections of physical cameras and physical camera movement to sell realism, because the still frames look just that good. At the same time the environment is perfectly static, no movement at all, because movement is still hard to do despite all the graphical power.
TLDR: Computer graphics look a thousand times better than they animate/interact
I disagree, camera movement is not what make it look real. If I took a camera and moved it in a perfectly straight line in real life using a machine then it would still look real because it has nothing to do with the camera movements, it has everything to do with lightning and materials. You are both right and wrong because yes, the details matter but so does higher resolution otherwise you'd see jagged edges which are not present IRL. The static scene is not what make it look less realistic either because in real life we have a lot of static scenes like in a warehouse or a train station like the one in the video, there are no moving objects in those scenes like that of a tree yet it still look real obviously.
Does the world look fake to you if you see it through the lens of a drone? I do agree that we need more automation so that everyone (not only film-makers and artists) can make their own content with equal quality, most good content today is created by average people on UA-cam, imagine if the general public could make their own hollywood quality movie or AAA videogame all by themselves with the help of a general purpose AI, now we're talking. Or if an AI could simply generate whatever you want to watch on the fly by giving it some parameters. "Yeah a movie like The Batman but with more blood and gore, also I want this soundtrack from Beethoven to be playing during an action scene" and there you go!
@@Danuxsy you should see those videos where they mimic video game FPS camera and arm movements irl and it becomes very hard to tell whether it's a game or real life. the reason sim racing games look so real is because of the lack of character animations,and it's relatively easier to simulate a car cockpit camera or a trackside camera.
" I think that what we need is better simulations, animations, and automated tools that produce the mundane details" I think we also need smaller Graphics card and other hardware prices and/or higher wages across globe to afford those XD
Disagree - what Cherno is saying is only that the movement/aspect ratio make it seem NOT rendered (because we're used to a cinematic camera for rendering). I agree the day render is 100X more impressive than the night (which actually looks like a standard game-engine render IMO). Of course - the idea of having the computer take load off the artist isn't new - this comes down to creating procedural variations to a baseline texture.... but i have to say, people talk as if this is a free-thing. Either you pay for doing the procedural variation at run-time, or you pay for additional texture storage (even if it is auto-modified). I also think there's a misconception about how game-engines work (as compared to cinematic render-engines). Gamers need certainty in movement - to know who/why/when a camera moves. Realism in this case is actually counter to a gamer's intent (to shoot what/when/how they intend). Realism is great when it comes to cinematics - but in that case your imperfections are actually reasonably easy to generate (yes more work, but not compared to the cost of switching to a new engine). As for the environment - I personally think that the idea that the render was harmed by not having people is both silly - and yet still insightful. That's really the un-canny valley... and even the recent Matrix demo just high-lighted it again and AGAIN. You can have as much detail in the environment as you want - but introduce a biological / dynamic element in the scene and you are back to square one.The challenge IMO for games is to make dynamic skeletal meshes - skeletal animations that adapt to the mesh they control. The foundation of modern game development is the animation is actually independent from the mesh (it drives only the skeleton). That's IMHO is the true challenge in these engines. That's not only a proper physics engine, but also a biological engine (which doesn't exist - possibly outside VERY SOPHISTICATED off-line cinematic environments.
I fully agree, animations will be the focus of this next generation, I mean, cyberpunk is a gorgeous game , but as soon as I see an animation, it breaks the illusion and for the same reason I think rdr 2 or tlou 2 are great, they have the best animations on the market for me.
Looks alright but it's no Hazel
What is Hazel?
@@spookytk Chernos game engine
The day time scene looks jaw dropping. The night scene looks like a really really good resident evil game
honestly everything looks real when I watch the whole video in 144p
Resolution doesn't relate at all to realism... it's just image quality.
Hmm everything looks fake to me. Real bits included.
Me too, especially if I take my glasses off.
@@Cangaca777 the lower the video resolution, the less you're able to see the imperfections.
I totally agree that this scene looks so good simply because they did so well mimicking a phone camera (both for movement, and the dynamic range). I think that's also why the nighttime scene is so much less believable- because phone camera footage at nighttime would actually be way worse in quality (you'd see much less dynamic range, possibly show more grain, etc). This footage doesn't drop in quality at all for the nighttime scene.
The Flashlight (Movement) is also to smooth i feel like. Its to clean and to exact. Like with the Cam it adds so much Realism but when he puts out the Flashlight it really falls apart. Combined with the other strange Reflections here and there, at Night, it just feels wrong. I mean it still looks awesome but as Cerno said, the Day Time Stuff is Way more believable.
@@flimermithrandir I assume he holds the flashlight with the other VR controller... why wouldn't he if he already does that for the camera, and he has two controllers. He just holds it still enough, combined with that the camera is already shaky, making shake from the flashlight less obvious.
@@DrTheRich I dont know exactly what you mean. I can only tell you that, if you do use an Flashlight yourself in Real Life, it will not look like what is shown in that Demo. I guarantee you, however perfect stable and calm you may be, that it is impossible to do THAT exact. There is Zero shake and a perfect Smooth in it that you just cant do. Its to good to be Real.
That is all i can tell you. Watch it again maybe. You will see there is something very odd. And that is what i mean. Even if you dont see it you will feel it.
Maybe… its more like this. On the one Hand you have someone whos Camera Image shakes kinda heavy which indicates that said Person is kinda scared and is not calm at all. Which is understandable for what is shown and demonstrated. But on the other Hand (literally) the Flashlight is to normal and calm to match the shaky other Hand. It just doesnt add up to match. Its uncanny for me at least.
Its like you are scared and hiding somewhere in an Corner in an Room but when i talk to you your Voice is really clear an calm. That does not make Sense to me either. Again just as an Example. If i would meet someone like that i would go away or get very cautious because it just screams „wrong“.
I cant think of a better Way to explain it.
@FlimerMithrandir Yeah, I think the flashlight did take away a bit of the realism also. What would've helped there is having the flashlight be pointing in the wrong direction when it's turned on, and an initial movement to adjust it at the very beginning. Usually when you're holding both a camera and a flashlight, keeping them in sync is a bit difficult, unless you have both hands "locked" together in one position.
That being said, this does just feel like nitpicking, the demo is still amazing.
@@flimermithrandir I'm reasoning it from a creation perspective. They said he used a VR controller to animate the camera like a handheld phone. Well every VR device has two controllers.
It would be the simplest solution to they attach the flashlight to the other controller and animate that in a similar way. Which would automatically give you natural movement.
It would actually be a lot more work to not do that and animate the flashlight the traditional way, where it might look too smooth or unnatural.
So applying Ockams razor: it's more likely your expectation/perception of what a "realistic flashlight movement" should look like is wrong, than him putting much more extra work into something with less realistic results.
What I often find in these discussions on photorealism is that people become so hyper focused on details, that they often can't see the forest to the trees anymore. And start pointing out details, that aren't the problem at all. Especially when they are not comparing it to real reference footage, but to their imagination/remembrance of reality.
One explanation I gave that might explain your perceived "unrealistic smoothness" Is that because the footage itself is shaky, because of the camera, the shakiness of the flashlight is less obvious.
Where if he would re-record this but with a static camera, you would see the flashlight shakiness more clearly.
Fantastic, really appreciate hearing your views and breakdown of what going on and methodology, great work thanks
The thing I notice straight away, is this demo is soooo reliant on the delivery of the video, rather than the actual visuals. I notice this probably more than the average person as I’m a videographer and have been for over a decade. As you mention, it’s reliant on our familiarity with phones and how they look vs the actual environment selling itself. It’s still a really good demo though. One person in a month is incredible.
I also noticed on that night time shot, and in SO many demos and games, there’s no light pollution gradient in the sky. There should be a sodium vapour orange glow, or similar. Most train stations like that aren’t exactly in the middle of the outback haha.
Same thing with the Ride 4 video that went around youtube, the shaky-cam made all the difference.
The modern day "I've done a lot of photoshop, so I'm an expert."
Listening to the audio as well is very immersive. When you're in an interior environment, the resonance of the room changes based on the dimensions of the space, and the artist did a great job of making small subtle sounds like shoes scuffing the cement with just the right amount of echo added in.
I agree - however - I would say that cutting the scene such that audio cues are never actually realised (on-coming train) is also a fail IMO from an audio engineering/artistry perspective. The audio should build into the experience - not just offer fake-outs).
I agree the camera movements contribute a lot to the realism of the scene. A few months back everyone was posting videos of this motorbike racing game (can't recall the name) that had a replay camera mode with similar realistic movements and it looked much more impressive than actual gameplay.
Ride 4 was the game in question, both the shaky-cam amd the very overcast time of day.
I think they can upload a real life camera movement and inject it into the scene for the movement to look real
camera movement is not important to realism, this can be demonstrated easily in real life.
@@Danuxsy if that was perfectly smooth and had a perfect pan shot you think its a movie but then all the tiny details might show up to break the immersion, look at 5:10 to the right and those parts of the track above the rails stuff magically appear.
You associate that vertical style and movement with a camera phone, so it looks more real to your brain. Its like those rooms that causes your vision and your ears to give mixed signals you fooled yourself with your eyes to try and maintain balance based off what you see.
Obviously the rendered world would need to look realistic but things like that camera movement tricks you slightly to believe what you seeing is real because everything about it seems real
@@Danuxsy sometimes I watch video of people walking around the city and the ones that are like in 60fps and have a perfect stabilisation, people even say it looks like a game
man's heart skipped 3 beats when he heard "was done in paint" and he goes "in paint?!"
I 100% agree that the daylight shot is much more realistic looking.
Great video and props to the guy who made it!
4:28 shows me why it is photorealistic. Every step on that staircase has a unique texture, just as you would expect no two steps in real life to look the same. One of the things that immediately pulled me out of the Matrix demo was that every one of the blue mail box things had the same bit of rust in the same place on every mail box, then you look at other objects and you notice again they are the same prop with the same textures. As soon as you noticed two identical things in close proximity the magic of realism would be gone.
One of the first things I look for in games is duplicate textures, it would be unfeasible to have every object in a game use a completely unique texture but it's not too much to ask an art team to at least have a few variations of the same texture so that the windows on an old buildings don't all have the exact same broken pane in the same place in every window. On top of that an art team could also just use a smattering of decals of bumps, scrapes and blemishes that when overlaid on a texture would add an element of uniqueness to it.
waiting for the ray tracing series eagerly ☺️☺️
@Glizzster ahh why?
@Glizzster yea just DON'T use that. use this instead 🤤
@@silvertakana3932 OH YEAAAA
@Glizzster ok ☺️
30 to 50 fps in real time in 1440p is still amazing... Even less excellent than that is excellent I mean XD Absolutely amazing.
Thanks for the analysis, very interesting as always :)
It’s not the actual rendering, his camera work is just amazing, the exposure in particular it’s not perfect but its mimic the real life cameras imperfections and that’s what sells it.
That’s why in the night the scene just fall apart completely and it’s not impressive as much
The camera movements is what really makes this feel real. And the lighting of course. But if you look at these images standing still, it's easy to see it's CGI
Not on the daylight scene imo
@@spaceowl5957 Not easy, but it's possible to see. It's too clean.
But still, all together, it's incredible convincing
I live in Japan so it is very possible to have an empty platform *after* a train departs. As this is in the country, the next train could be 30 mins away. I have been in such train stations all by myself during the day. I would say it is very possible for it to be empty like this so it does feel very realistic.
It's unreal engine
I live in Japan and when I first saw this I was certain this was real life.
It's not uncommon for these smaller stations to not have people.
It is well known that Japan is realtime rendered.
@@fantiball That's true - but the point is that there were NO dynamic elements during the day, and the night-time dynamics (the torch) were pretty well standard effects from UE4. I love the detail in many of the textures, and I think that also added a lot (like the paint missing from the hand-rails). I didn't understand Cherno's focus on the movement blur. That's an almost standard thing for UE (and in fact it can be an annoying thing as most of the anti-aliasing is temporal in nature).
Fyi, the reason why there are no people is that’s a rural japanese station and you see this quite often.
I live in Japan and I’ve seen stations exactly like this without any people and those ambient sounds.
They used vr controllers to mimic more realistic camera bobbing and this scene is not real-time. We're not quite there yet with UE5 in real-time. It's rendered.
One thing that looks unreal is the sheer amount of perfectly parallel and perpendicular edges. When looking across from one platform to the other, the edge of the platform, the rails and sleepers, the opposite platform and every bit of the architecture, everything is precisely rectilinear and equally spaced to mathematical precision, whereas in the real world things are rarely if ever that precise.
an interesting video to look at, opposite to this, is a Real video of night scene in Japan in 4K that someone tagged as "Unreal 5" and it was recorded with a stabilized camera, the movement looks so much as a videogame, and people started commenting like "look fake" when the video was actually real. so, people will shout "fake" at anything
It’s missing the rolling shutter (jelly effect) that a phone has. Not that he was trying to mimic a phone. So mind blowing
I'm in japan some train remote station are that empty, at times.
Still waiting for someone to do an intro for these demos, and then reveal that the intro was the demo all along
A station looking eerie or creepy because there's no people in it is the perfect definition of what a liminal space feels like
You guys probably never seen Japanese train-station stairs before. Cleanliness is spot on. Workers come early and are always cleaning and sweeping. It's not like it here in America. In case you didn't know, its Japan.
This could be used in games, I think (and eventually it will, of course) but right now I think it could be used inside of a virtual set for TV productions, like what they have used for The Mandalorian, etc.
Would be cool if in the future, when we die, we all transfer into a virtual world, that looks almost like the real world.
u want us to go thru this shit twice? come on now..
paradise is better
ive been waiting for this for a long time but im happy its here
whats really annoys me is all the news article that pretty much say it's realistic only cause of the Unreal Engine.
sure the lighting of the engine helps a lot but there is much more to this.
engines are a tool that help with things and make it easier but they are not magically making everything realistic.
Dudes, liminal spaces like this appeared during lockdowns everywhere.. how could you have forgotten? :)
Those rocks you complained about did not have the harsh contrast between the black shadows and the lit up rocks you would see if you actually pointed a flashlight at rocks at night. But man, those daylight sequences were incredible.
You guys should do a challenge of choosing a couple of real life videos and UE5 demos and guess which ones are real footage and which ones are not.
Wow. That went from- maybe we're going on a train ride soon. To, oh gawd it's dark! what's hiding in the shadows.
The selective imperfection, is perfection.
Looking happy and healthy! Always good to see you thriving
Yes!!! Thanks bro! I love listening to your evaluation on cutting edge gaming graphics
Okay, honestly, at first I didn't believe this was real, but when it changed to the night-time scene, it gave it away. It's something about the lighting, or the reflections (specular?) that still isn't perfect.
Apart from that, the camera shake and the motion blur played 90% of the photorealism here imo. Even the night-time scene looks believable in the blurred moments. As you said, if it were rendered using the path tracer, it would probably be faultless. That's pretty much the last thing to get done in 3D graphics. Make the path tracing (not ray tracing!) real time, and everything will be indistinguishable from real life. If we want to fake the realistic lighting, why don't we just copy it exactly, right?
It's a great tech demo anyway though!
This demo was interesting mostly because the daytime scene was so good looking compared to the night time scene. In actual video games, it's practically universally the other way around.
I want this in VR! Some say PCVR is dead, but you can't get this on a stand alone headset.
It really isnt even the most photorealistic unreal demo. But seeing how close we are to realtime realistic graphics is really heart stopping. Maybe a decade before it being normal and another before having mobile VR good enough to take advantage of it.
You mean that train station tech demo could potentially look EVEN BETTER!? 😳 I'm flawed!
From the bottom of the stairs, the far 2nd floor lights have some aliasing. The distant wires too.
And at night, the shadows from the smallest pipes doesn't behave right from the flashlight.
Tiny niggles though, you really have to search for issues. It's a damn good job.
It's remarkable how many people fail to realize that a HUGE majority of realism in rendering comes from tone-mapping, which is easy to calculate well (see John Hable's exploration of this for Uncharted 2), and comes down to an artistic decision. I 100% agree, that the hand-held camera aesthetic and the tone-mapping lead in making this seem photo-real.
It should be stated that the diffuse GI, and the specular reflections (likely Trowbridge-Reitz (GGX) BRDF) are done quite well as well and do contribute to the look.
This is likely the result of good artistic decisions rather than technology alone (similar to Ride 4).
I disagree. I've seen so many "realistic tonemap" mods for games, which promise realism to a crazy amount, while the difference is just basically some contrast. Because it's basically impossible to mod in GI in a game when the engine doesn't support it.
Photorealism comes from GI and reflections (or absence of with glossiness maps). I can make a very realistic looking scene with any path tracer, with simple textures, and no tone mapping done.
Tonemapping can make things look more attractive/filmic. But photorealism doesn't have to look attractive. Just like a casual photo from a cheap phone camera doesn't look attractive.
Without GI/lumen this scene would look gamey. no matter what tone mapping you do to it.
7:32 this is where I’m now thinking. I understand how hard lighting and textures are to emulate, but I’m stuck looking at the beams, the joints, how the are spaced, and the realistic engineering on it. The U brackets and the rivets at the top make this look real.
I feel like this was filmed from a real station and recreated in UE5 and mimicked this architecture. So amazing
Thanks for the insight. Pretty neat how quickly you picked up on the little things and how you "figured it out" so to speak. But then again, this is your area of expertise... so what was a expecting 🤔 I hope you do more reactions again, they've always been insightful and entertaining!
Japan has a few train stations that are on average very empty, so I wouldn't call there being no people unrealistic, or even unsettling.
For years, I've been wondering what it'd be like to start developing a truly incredible world for "Diamond Dragons", but I simply do not have contacts, coin, communities, clout, computer code, connections and all that jazz.
It's be a *HECK* of an incredible film series, though. Book two is about to launch, too.
Good video, but... Ray tracing - when? :)
the "soft shadows" are telling also the lack of dirt or dust on architecture and floor, also no particles on air
This looks very realistic but I wanna see a demo with subsurface scattering and animated objects.
as a lead 3d artist, i'm glad you pointed out "clean".. and to me that's my main complaint. There is no real weathering (rusting where rain has leaked thru roof), no rubbish (coffee cups, sweet wraps - no where is this clean), no props (seating, vending machines, bins, etc). Lighting/Textures is impressive, but could have been better :)
There are definitely places where surfaces should have been dirtier, and some seating would have been nice to add. That said, these stations are kept very clean. In the real-life references, there is no rubbish whatsoever (also trash cans are regrettably rare in Japan). It would also be problematic to have rust, that's why the metal beams are painted.
I agree that it can be improved! But I'd go about it in a different way to be honest
@@subject_n I took a look at some of photos of a station I used for work a lot, and there wasn't as much trash as I remember! 😂 However I did notice how more uneven surfaces are, and sun light (2nd photo) looks and feels warmer. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/2018_at_Leamington_Spa_station_-_platform_3_refreshment_rooms.JPG
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Leamington_Spa_-_WMR_153364%2C_CrossCountry_220015_and_Chiltern_168113.JPG
If the artist took a lot of reference photos, it might have been better to go the photogrammy route, and used nanite. Still the original video is pretty good, and we will see better.
mate, things in japan are for real extremely clean. even the asphalt on the streets sometimes is suspiciously clean, no joke
Hey Cherno, still impressive demo and the best part you explaining everything and make it looks like easy.
"Hey guys, you wan't to see the MOST PHOTOREALISTIC UE5 demo? Yes? I'm gonna split screen and show you my face."
The reason of the night scene looking less realistic than day scene is the... lack of grain and all that slight distortions of denoising and sharpening. I know these are complicated nowadays, as phones post-processing algorithms parameters adapt to darkness level, but the lack of them just makes it feel off.
Plot Twist: The guy on the right is unreal, and the shots on the left are real. :)
Other aspects which make it look real: the bleeding of the blown out pixels into adjacent pixels and I believe there is diffraction occurring as well. The motion blur really helps hide imperfections.
show up to most train stations at the wrong time or a little early by accident and you can see one that is almost empty with a few people out in the parking lot waiting for a bus.
Excellent Vid! Loved the conversational format!
I used to live in Matsuyama, Ehime, and this reminds me so much of the JR station! I actually lived outside of Matsuyama and would take the train in often, so I made my way across the pedestrian crossing many times.
I couldn't find any pictures online, but you can see it on Google Maps 3D view. It is very similar! Must have been a common station design in Japan.
I saw that transparent object like single layer water shader don't support reflections, how does he have reflections in the windows?
What about hazel dev log?????
honestly, i got scared for how real it looks
To be real, I catched a lot of empty stations like that here in Portugal, specially during hot hours between rushours, like 10 am or 15 pm on an Sunday, where everyone is catching a shade,where if I wanted I could film a good 5 min without anyone like the tech demo, so I get what was the feeling for the demo.
It's the lighting and color, not the camera movement. That's the next step, realistic more accurate lighting simulations. We see live action movies but we don't say "it doesn't look real because the camera is moving [this way or that]". It's all about lighting, realistic lighting and accurate colors to achieve this level of realism. The phone movements are a nice touch to confuse us, but even if it was still, it'd look like a real photo (for the daytime at least)
We need camera rigs in video games to have AI or pre-simulated camera shake that is dynamic for the motion of the player inputs. So if the player were to look left, its would simulate the eye rotation, then head rotation catching up, then body rotation. Such that if you move the camera far enough the respective body parts would move to adjust for how a body moves and that creates the tiny shakes that happens when you look at things.
No need for such complex systems. Just make a realistic head turn animation based on the head rotation (using a blend tree) and attach the camera to the head. This will only work on true fps games however.
@@AlexFord-gp7by It has been my experience that the more complicated you make a system, the better it looks. And the the KEY THING from there is to make it more and more optimized and remove anything that doesn't need to be there. And if you really want to make it good then you restart from scratch with the new knowledge you have acquired. In fact, doing this multiple times gets better result even if its going from 95% good to 96%.
But I think for this specific case you are probably right. I just like starting from a place that we know to be realistic looking if that is the goal. And what is more realistic that the real way a human sees and moves.
"In painter?!" I lost it. Can you imagine someone going pixel by pixel on microsoft painter?
What? You lost us there.
the texture in that demo is pretty sweet.
Excellent analysis all the way around. Nice to see someone that knows what they're talking about.
Honestly its not that this is a game or not. Just imagine a time where compute power gets to a point where we can make a game that looks like this and use vr devices that are comfortable enough to were all the time and can render this. Literally can make total recall like experiences. Totally ridiculous and exciting.
2:05 I thought Lumen needed like half a second to update the GI
Thing with photorealistic video footage claiming it is done in a game engine is that it is video footage … if there was any proof in the footage that it was not just a 8K camera recording would make it much better (like a alien creature walking around in the scenery) .. especially with these environmental video recordings… if people could just download the scene and move around themselves would make it 600x better.
Another thing I noticed when I saw this, is that the water and puddles look a little odd.
It’s interesting that it’s hard to tell what it is that makes our brain think it’s realistic
really nice to see your input, also agree the moment the nigh scene showed it just looked CG
1:57 camera movement looks as if that was the point where he went and grabbed his headset to take it off before stopping the video. Interesting. Phenomenal work here though I would defiantly have a hard time believing that some of those day light stills we actually not real if I hadn't known prior to seeing them. Very well done.
In the youtube video FAQ, he is saying that this is not realtime. Its like 10 fps
Bro, Cherno Knows his stuff. I like his level of attention to detail!
He sees things most people wouldn't.🚶
@A-fxs Lol you probably just started watching him, that's just how he is, he values details, not jealous.
Critic: "The tiles are too clean... ...not realistic".
Dude, it's Japan!
I think the major reason for the night scene looking less realistic is because of a lack of light bounces. In real life, the bottom of that walkway would be lit by way more light bouncing to it.
i'm totally agree with the whole verdict/review.
I think the nighttime scene if you were to tweak the settings further with gamma and exposure it would've been more realistic, but given how 'accurate' his daylight settings were I think it was a deliberate artistic choice to give it a surreal vibe. It mimics a lot of 'horror game' aesthetics by intent to make it more clear that it was, in fact, rendered and not real life footage.
When it gets dark it didn't look realistic yet, but the outdoor part in daylight is very convincing.
exactly the camera movement helps with realism
What if camera in game would be animated by neural network trained on such VR controller movements, assigned with mouse movements. So, when player moves the mouse, his camera does follow it, but not exactly point to point, it does some over- or undershooting, a bit of deviations from straight course.
I am living near to the real model of this virtual enviroment
I'm waiting for the day that somebody makes a tech demo like this and CG experts notice all the little flaws and stuff like in this video, but later it turns out it was actually just real-life footage^^ I feel like we are close now! :D
This is how good silent Hill looked to my 13yr old brain all those years ago. Can't imagine playing it and it actually looking that good. How absolutely terrifyingly awesome that would have been.
Part of the reason the night scene looks fake is because a cell phone would not have that fidelity and dynamic range in very low light.
The thing that bugged me the most about this is when it was being clickbaited around the internet and all of the fallout and misconceptions you could imagine were the result of this, the guy is running it on an RTX 2080. Let that sink in. That's less power than a Series X. The arguments around whether or not this can be done in real time were clearly not intended by the original uploader. He used the VR controller and a simulated run to make it look as good as possible, whereas even running in real time on say an RTX 3090 if he were to use keyboard+mouse or controller and cap it at 30FPS it still wouldn't look as good, because most of the realism and immersion is from the simulated head movement. True VR experience would want to be around 90 FPS which would obviously require heavy cutbacks. It's just a demo.
You can add procedural camera shake and motion blur, use the nanite meshes and boom you got a game like that. Combine that with the Metahumans and you've at least pushed the envelope of a possible.
P.T, the last work from Kojima under Konami is a great showcase of how you could simulate the movement in a game environment and that was 7 years ago. The game design of P.T is absolutely outstanding, as it use it's limitations to it's fullest potential. The camera is still stiff, but the way the camera shakes while you play adds so much to it and tbh i never seen such smoothness in any game afterwards. I wish P.T got a release, Death Stranding wasn't as good as it should be.
Interesting technique on the step textures in that to prevent repeating patterns, the texture is reversed and reused (steps 2 and 5, from the bottom). Not something I have ever thought about doing! I always use textures as they are, possibly using tiles of the texture in random orders, but this way, you can double your variation with no extra memory .. just read the texture backwards in the shader!
If you're curious, there are 3 unique steps that are repeated/flipped, also I used vertex color to have dirtier or cleaner parts
@@subject_n Great implementation. A few game engines could take a few notes out of that by adding a 'variation' into the shader for each instance usage of the texture map. Nice!
100% agree. I was thinking about VR with the night scene immediately. You'd need quite some serious SLI to pull off the framerates required, but that would be absolutely amazing. I also think if you add people, it would remove realism a lot... simply because it's so difficult to make them look believable. We as humans know exactly what other humans are supposed to look like, so we're very good at picking out the flaws.
The weird thing for me is the lack of penumbra. Some shadows are cast from structure pretty far from the shadowed surface, but the line of the shadow is still super crisp. That's the #1 most obvious thing to me
Very cool, as usual! Thanks
My main points would be:
- camera movement is good, but not good enough to make it realistic
- the background, especially on the right, does not look realistic
- there is no sand and other dirt. even though everything looks dirty, it is missing the actual particles.
I lived in Japan and rural train stations like that usually are empty a lot of the time. Sometimes train stations like that take 30 minutes between trains