You Might Just Be Seeing Photorealistic Graphics Like These In Tomorrow's Video Games

These aren't photographs. They're screenshots created via Brigade, a realtime CPU/GPU path tracer created by Jacco Bikker. Posted on the blog of Sam Lapere — who works for cloud computing company OTOY — the details and depth-of-field effects look amazing

You can see a flythrough of the scene created in this demo on YouTube, though the graphical quality suffers from that website's compression.

[Thanks, tipster Andy!]

Real-time GPU path tracing: Streets of Asia screens + video [Ray Tracey's Blog]


    I could be mistaken but life isn't that blurry.

      They're developing a short-sightedness simulator

      Did you not read the part where it said the video suffered from the sites compression?

        Did you not read the part where it said the pictures were screenshots?
        Hint: read the blog.

      If you actually pay attention to the majority of your field-of-view, it actually is that blurry, or even more so. It's just that, with the rate our focus normally adjusts, it's not normally something we're aware of.

    I think visuals have had enough focus these past few years, let's now concentrate making games with decent gameplay/mechanics, stories and replay value. Our current gen consoles have so much potential, but the media keeps focusing on tomorrow's tech.
    I'm not saying I don't appreciate photo-realistic visuals, but if a game is only going to last me anywhere from 5-10hrs of playtime, I'd rather have spent that time playing on my SNES : /

    ~ 10 fps with 2x GTX 580's? I don't think so,..even with one, that's a pretty heavy rendering load to put in a game for quite some time

      "Tomorrow" doesn't have to literally mean the day after today.

    Real time ray tracing? Interesting and impressive stuff, but I don't think it's really necessary for games.

    In film FX, things like depth of field are done in post process compositing because it's WAY quicker, enables artistic control over the effect and generally cannot be distinguished from a ray-traced equivalent. With games, you have the added advantage of real time z-buffers, lighting buffers and normal buffers, which makes a lot of today's gaming effects possible, like ambient occlusion, depth of field, shadowing and shading from hundreds of light sources - all things that would take far longer than a single 30 fps frame to draw using a standard forward rendered or ray traced method. We're even now at the point where we can implement real-time global illumination and have pretty much solved skin shading

    My point being that if our current methods give so much control over the artistic output and can achieve photorealism, why do we need scientific accuracy?

    Sorry for the long winded post, i'm a graphics geek, y'see.. Happy easter to all!

    More geometric detail and depth-of-field? Yay. If I found a genie in a bottle, one of my first wishes would be to end the goddamn love affair with desaturation and eye-searing bloom.

      Agreed. Bloom in particular is WAY overdone in games. It's supposed to be subtle, dammit!

    The Goggles! The do nothing!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now