Future of game visuals!!

[Arugela]

This is my personal guess. But when tech upgrades enough and we get the idea to increase refresh rates regardless of proposed human needs. One day we will realize we can do cool stuff with it.

Case1:(my only case atm)

Invisibility. Games could use invisibility by actually making them invisible. This could be done like how you wave your hand fast enough that you cannot see it. Faster resolution could be used to purposly make things fast enough to not see. And Cloaking could be implemented literally. 8)

You just might need monitors that can equalize the end result to make a uniform outcome. And there would be physical ways to reduce the refresh rate visually with physical glasses and whatnot to make it visible. But maybe with sufficient refresh this could be bypassed. And once again real cloaking implementation in game. Plus they could implement refresh rate changes on spots of the monitor to implement different effects and have a higher resolution to leave that range of options.

 

Anyone know of any other uses. I just thought of this and thought it could be cool. Either way one point in the people who think refresh rates don't need to improve or have no use are wrong. There and will always be found way to utilize new things. It will always find a use.

Not to mention we will find out new things about vision as we increase it. Things we wouldn't find out otherwise without putting it to the test. Are there any medical uses for refresh for testing? Nausea, vision, testing for brain tumors? There are always applications with sufficient knowledge.

 

I was watching this and got the idea:(BTW, I could see the dot in all situations...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM&feature=youtu.be

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Arugela

[K^2]

Why do you need things moving really fast to make them invisible, when you can just not render them in the first place? While there are some limitations, when you are writing a game engine, you basically make the rules for the world you are creating. It's like having a personal Gandalf. Need eagles? Bam! Eagles. You don't need to worry about things like, "How do I make it so that the object is there, but you can't see it?" You simply set it to participate in game logic and physics, but not in rendering. And that's it. It's there, and invisible. No need to try and hack your way around it when you have all the controls.

[Arugela]

Because it could be done in a different way and lead to new things.

[K^2]

What possible new things can you get out of not seeing something another way? Absolutely anything that's game-play relevant can be simulated by selectively rendering or not rendering. Even if you want to do a one-frame quick flash of something, and the frame rate isn't high enough, you can render it with low opacity, and it will look exactly like it flashed for a fraction of a frame.

[YNM]

It won't even be just games anymore.

 

[kerbiloid]

The pixel total number should be doubled to have stereo.

[Arugela]

21 hours ago, K^2 said:

What possible new things can you get out of not seeing something another way? Absolutely anything that's game-play relevant can be simulated by selectively rendering or not rendering. Even if you want to do a one-frame quick flash of something, and the frame rate isn't high enough, you can render it with low opacity, and it will look exactly like it flashed for a fraction of a frame.

I'm aware of how games work now. But it will eventually expand to use things more thoroughly. That has to occur to understand it completely. This sort of thing is always used thoroughly or we never learn enough about it. There is always a way to use something. More than can be thought out before using it.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Arugela

[wumpus]

I was watching far too much of that video and realizing that he was arguing *for* [foveated] VR, and not "against 4k".  A better reason to avoid 4k is that it either needs to expand to the size of your wall (shades of Farenheit 451) or you have to sit far too close to see it.  Of course, if somebody wants to subsidize my next monitor and create a mass market for a 4k monitor in the 30-40" range, I am perfectly happy with that.

Edited August 15, 2018 by wumpus
left out a word

[Arugela]

With the current market it may be that 4k hits as a small video size over larger monitors. Or I wouldn't be shocked(or has it already?). If you can deal with the processing all you need is the bandwidth etc and it may be good or easier/cheaper eventually on small handheld devices with access to streaming. I'll note I hate handheld devices in their current/software reduced/hardware locked state. I would love them if they could be utilized to their fullest extend and we have the full use/design of softeare to accomplish this. Like cop-processing next to my desktop and incorporating devices together. It's disgusting anything related to computers are ever not pushed to their fullest potential at all times. Destroys the future. Let alone the present.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Arugela

[Cunjo Carl]

On 8/13/2018 at 2:33 PM, Arugela said:

Because it could be done in a different way and lead to new things.

Interesting!

On 8/13/2018 at 3:37 PM, K^2 said:

What possible new things can you get out of not seeing something another way? Absolutely anything that's game-play relevant can be simulated by selectively rendering or not rendering. Even if you want to do a one-frame quick flash of something, and the frame rate isn't high enough, you can render it with low opacity, and it will look exactly like it flashed for a fraction of a frame.

Don't count it out too soon, there actually is a thing. A great example is that you can actually see bullets flying through the air if you're along their path (hopefully from the origin!) Though they're normally effectively invisible because they move too fast, from some angles, they're quite plain to see.

Let's imagine a game where there are some entities (call them ghosts) that are difficult to notice because they move back and forth along a line too fast and blur out, but if our player moves to the right angle the ghosts are clearly visible. The ghosts' sudden oscillation between near and far would be pretty unnerving. Then suddenly, one gets closer!! Yeah, that could be a fun. Maybe a nice mechanic for a walking simulator or a suspense title?

There actually is an occasional advantage (among the disadvantages) for game designers to work with mechanics created by bugs, technical difficulties or obliquely nuanced mechanics. It crops up surprisingly regularly, especially in small titles where the play experience can be short and tightly crafted and high risks are more par for course. They even show up in AAA titles sometimes... I'd give it a go, but I think this video describes it a lot more eloquently.

Bugs becoming features. The wonderful results of bizarre mechanics taken seriously.

I haven't watched the 4k video yet, I've kinda been avoiding it! I'm assuming he just complains about dpi? For one of my old jobs (MEMS fab) I used to observe the quality of 10um features with my bare eyes, so my opinion is that up to 2500DPI is A-ok :D. (mostly kidding, I've never seen high-res monitors in real life, so I don't know for their case)

Edited August 14, 2018 by Cunjo Carl
formatting.... ok, close enough.

[K^2]

4 hours ago, Cunjo Carl said:

Don't count it out too soon, there actually is a thing. A great example is that you can actually see bullets flying through the air if you're along their path (hopefully from the origin!) Though they're normally effectively invisible because they move too fast, from some angles, they're quite plain to see.

These kinds of effects have been simulated in games for quite a while. It's not hard to apply motion blur based on velocity differences. This is more commonly done with respect to vehicle wheels and propellers, but it's the same exact principle. And computationally, way cheaper than high frame rate.

Suppose, you had a screen that can support very high frame rate, and a beefy graphics card that can keep up. Would you rather run the game at hundreds of FPS, or cap it at 60 or 90, apply effects to get all motion blurs looking exactly as they would at high frame rate, and then use the spare computational power to crank up draw distances, detail, environment lighting, etc. to the max? I can tell you which one the development team is going to go with.

[YNM]

Not to mention that faster FPS actually results in a... somewhat dizzying effect. I've only been able to experience 60 FPS recently and to be honest it feels odd because my vision system probably isn't used to a no-blur scheme.

And to be honest, the use case will actually be very limited to recreational uses. Training simulations prefer to actually reduce the visual details because you want to be sure they can operate it in all conditions.

 

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

the use case will actually be very limited to recreational uses

Spoiler

Not only.

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, K^2 said:

These kinds of effects have been simulated in games for quite a while. It's not hard to apply motion blur based on velocity differences. This is more commonly done with respect to vehicle wheels and propellers, but it's the same exact principle. And computationally, way cheaper than high frame rate.

Suppose, you had a screen that can support very high frame rate, and a beefy graphics card that can keep up. Would you rather run the game at hundreds of FPS, or cap it at 60 or 90, apply effects to get all motion blurs looking exactly as they would at high frame rate, and then use the spare computational power to crank up draw distances, detail, environment lighting, etc. to the max? I can tell you which one the development team is going to go with.

Yes, and this is an issue, personal I find it hard to notice lots of the eye candy even on screenshots, as in difference between high and ultra. 
Draw distance on the other hand is not only important for view but also for gameplay. 

[YNM]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Draw distance on the other hand is not only important for view but also for gameplay. 

... And if increased draw distance means a square or even cubic of increase in workload, I think that's an issue more worth dealt with increased computing power.

I have to admit, at some point it might be fun to actually implement physical zooming XD like, you actually use a physical scope to see an object otherwise too tiny to notice on high resolution...

Edited August 15, 2018 by YNM