Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → New 3DMark screenshot. Makes 3DMark05 look like Pacman.
New 3DMark screenshot. Makes 3DMark05 look like Pacman.
2005-11-09, 1:47 PM #1
[http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/8733/next3dmark3kr.jpg]

If your interested in the technology that makes this somehow possible in realtime:

* HDR rendering.
* Complex HDR post processing.
* Dynamic soft shadows for all objects.
* Water shader with HDR refraction, HDR reflection, depth fog and Gerstner wave functions.
* Heterogeneous fog.
* Atmospheric light scattering.
* Realistic sky model with cloud blending.
* Strauss lighting model for most materials.
* Subsurface scattering shader for some objects (not visible in the shot).
* Texture & normal map sizes: 1024 x 1024 to 2048 x 2048.
* Approximately 5.4 million triangles and 8.8 million vertices.

:eek:
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-09, 1:49 PM #2
Holy freakin' cow! :eek:

*wets pants*
"Harriet, sweet Harriet - hard-hearted harbinger of haggis."
2005-11-09, 1:51 PM #3
:eek:
2005-11-09, 1:51 PM #4
Pyeeesh... That's insane.... though I wouldn't really call it "real-time" unless there exists a computer that can run it at more than 20 fps. :p Actually this brings a couple of questions to my mind:

1. Is there a linux-based, multiprocessor version? And,
2. How much does supercomputer time on Blue Gene/L cost?
Stuff
2005-11-09, 1:53 PM #5
I don't like the water, but everything else is nice.
The Gas Station
2005-11-09, 1:53 PM #6
What loser made all of that
2005-11-09, 2:00 PM #7
It's too bad Futuremark makes worthless e-wang measuring devices instead of actual games.
2005-11-09, 2:02 PM #8
Call me blind, but that doesn't look terribly better than even parts of 3dmark2001.
2005-11-09, 2:02 PM #9
I read in some rant that the graphic-demos for new consoles always look way better than the actual games because only graphics are calculated and nothing else.
So in a game-environment it wouldn't run closely as fast.
Sorry for the lousy German
2005-11-09, 2:04 PM #10
The most challenging part of making a game look realistic is still the artwork. And Futuremark has some pretty brilliant game artists working for them. It's just a shame they're wasting their time.
2005-11-09, 2:35 PM #11
Originally posted by Grant:
I don't like the water, but everything else is nice.


Whats wrong with the water?

I do agree, Jon. I only download these 'benchmarks', or 'BIASmarks', becuase of the lush enviroments they 'test' your hardware with.
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-09, 2:36 PM #12
I was far more impressed with the other 3DMarks images.
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2005-11-09, 2:38 PM #13
Originally posted by Warlord:
Call me blind, but that doesn't look terribly better than even parts of 3dmark2001.



I don't know how you can say that... :confused:
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-09, 3:04 PM #14
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The most challenging part of making a game look realistic is still the artwork. And Futuremark has some pretty brilliant game artists working for them. It's just a shame they're wasting their time.


Yeah, but it makes good oogling material.

And it freakin rapes your system pretty well while it's at it, great for finding hardware issues and testing overclocks.
2005-11-09, 3:08 PM #15
Pretty, but I agree that the water doesn't look to great.

Compared to how good the rest of the shot looks that is.
2005-11-09, 3:31 PM #16
crap, I could do better than that
2005-11-09, 3:35 PM #17
Yeah, I agree. In fact I took a pic that looked better just the other day!
Stuff
2005-11-09, 3:42 PM #18
haha yeah OF YOUR MOM





NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES

BURN
2005-11-09, 3:58 PM #19
Can someone tell me why the water doesn't look good? I mean, my grandparents live 20ft away from a huge bay in Newfoundland, and I've see the water look like that a million times.
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-09, 4:05 PM #20
Maybe the Pacific Ocean looks different???
:confused:
2005-11-09, 4:13 PM #21
Originally posted by Sol:
Can someone tell me why the water doesn't look good? I mean, my grandparents live 20ft away from a huge bay in Newfoundland, and I've see the water look like that a million times.


I don't know why exactly, it just seems too perfect and I can instantly pick up that it's not real and it distracts away from the rest of the image to me.

what can be hard to get just right, I'm sure everyone here knows if things look to perfect they don't look real and just stand out, near the harbour looks fine, but once you start getting out into the middle of the water part near the bottom of the picture it just looks odd to me.
The Gas Station
2005-11-09, 4:17 PM #22
Yes, the ripples are too tight and close together.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-09, 4:18 PM #23
Towards the bottom the water has the texture of a stuccoed wall. Real water should be smoother, even on windy days.
Marsz, marsz, Dąbrowski,
Z ziemi włoskiej do Polski,
Za twoim przewodem
Złączym się z narodem.
2005-11-09, 4:25 PM #24
Is that a flying boat?

So unrealistic.
2005-11-09, 4:40 PM #25
I'm not trying to "defend" this photo, but:

Grant: I see your point, its probably just because its not in motion.

Emon: Like I said, where my grandparents live, we see a few boats come into harbour everyday and ripples can be that close, and usually are.

Ric_Olle: See below:

Heres where my grandparents live, notice the water? Definetly not smooth, nor windy. It remains like that until the evening and into the late morning.

[http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4125/imgp02196hq.jpg]

But yeah... I have too much time on my hands tonight. :p
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-09, 4:44 PM #26
My GeForce 4 doesn't even support half of the features in 3DMark03 :p
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2005-11-09, 4:46 PM #27
The water's ripples are too straight and mechanical. They need to be more rounded.

The rest of the image is absolute shibby, though.
"Well ain't that a merry jelly." - FastGamerr

"You can actually see the waves of me not caring in the air." - fishstickz
2005-11-09, 6:31 PM #28
Obvioulsly none of you have ever been to the ocean... much less fly over one...
<.<
>.>
Nothing to see here, move along.
2005-11-09, 6:33 PM #29
I think it's safe to say that that is absolutely incorrect.
2005-11-09, 6:39 PM #30
Originally posted by 'Thrawn[numbarz:
']haha yeah OF YOUR MOM





NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES

BURN


AT LEAST HIS MOM CAN DRESS HERSELF LOLOLOLOLOL
2005-11-09, 7:57 PM #31
I'm sorry, I think most of us were referring to the waves in the water, not the individual ripples.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-10, 1:17 PM #32
Yeah I know, I was refering that picture to Ric. I've seen waves CLOSER then that when a boat from about 100ft off shore comes into harbour, the waves become much like that if not exactly.
Got a permanent feather in my cap;
Got a stretch to my stride;
a stroll to my step;
2005-11-10, 2:18 PM #33
Not so evenly spaced throughout the harbor over that entire distance. No way. When people think something looks unrealistic, it usually is. You shouldn't have to analyze something to determine that it's realistic, you just know it is because it matches all the memories you have in your head. It looks nice, but it isn't exactly realistic. And 3dmark isn't necessarily supposed to be realistic.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-10, 2:43 PM #34
Originally posted by Emon:
Not so evenly spaced throughout the harbor over that entire distance. No way. When people think something looks unrealistic, it usually is. You shouldn't have to analyze something to determine that it's realistic, you just know it is because it matches all the memories you have in your head. It looks nice, but it isn't exactly realistic. And 3dmark isn't necessarily supposed to be realistic.


It looks very damn realistic to me. Hell, I had to analyze it to see any lack of realism. Not to mention, waves usually ARE evenly spaced. And it's Futuremark.
D E A T H
2005-11-10, 2:45 PM #35
They should fade over distance, they don't.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-11-10, 4:49 PM #36
Originally posted by Sol:
Ric_Olle: See below:

Heres where my grandparents live, notice the water? Definetly not smooth, nor windy. It remains like that until the evening and into the late morning.
But yeah... I have too much time on my hands tonight. :p



Yes, I see what you're saying, but look at the individual ripples up close compared to those against the far shoreline. Up close, they look pretty much the same as they do in the rendering. Against the shoreline though, they're less defined and look more like patches of darker and lighter shades of blue.

Roughly judging the distance the camera is from the water in the rendering, the ripples should not be that well defined. Against the piers it looks about right, but towards the bottom of the rendering the ripples are too sharp. They need to be more rounded and blurry.
Marsz, marsz, Dąbrowski,
Z ziemi włoskiej do Polski,
Za twoim przewodem
Złączym się z narodem.
2005-11-10, 4:53 PM #37
Sorry for being ignorant but it's not such a big deal. It's water. It's pretty. Done.
2005-11-10, 5:12 PM #38
The problem is the swells at the bottom look paralell.

Waves in the ocean are not paralell. Ever.

Circles they are.

↑ Up to the top!