Brigade - Real-time path tracing engine - WIP. CHECK IT OUT! aka REAL TIME PHOTO-REALISM.
110 replies, posted
I got it running~ Where do i upload pics to?
Is there any way to view brigade on an ATi card?
I would love to play a cop game set in London on this engine.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40034183]Do you still need anti-aliasing with this sort of rendering?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Although this is impressive, when implemented into a real game I highly doubt the game's developers would invest as much time into the textures of the world and buildings as it is in these screenshots. I mean, just look at the textures of the walls and signs and how specific areas look old and damaged.
These are probably the most impressive pictures. They're practically indistinguishable from photographs.
[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/299337_474540829247069_1639395324_n.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/264386_474540852580400_1190129609_n.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/5037_474541005913718_691137090_n.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/185139_474550679246084_1804599178_n.jpg[/IMG]
As far as i know, this technology doesn't even require any form of SLI or the likes.
You could have two entirely different GPUs, say a GTX 670 and a Radeon HD 7850, running this and just working on it as if they were one.
SLI/crossfire scaling with this is probably nonexistent, adding another GPU of the same kind would simply double the speed.
I'm saying this based on experience with other path tracing engines. (Vray RT, Octane, Arion)
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Also, there should be no limit to the amount of GPUs used!
I mean, apart from the limits of your motherboard.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40041621]As far as i know, this technology doesn't even require any form of SLI or the likes.
You could have two entirely different GPUs, say a GTX 670 and a Radeon HD 7850, running this and just working on it as if they were one.
SLI/crossfire scaling with this is probably nonexistent, adding another GPU of the same kind would simply double the speed.
I'm saying this based on experience with other path tracing engines. (Vray RT, Octane, Arion)[/QUOTE]
Because the processing is not frame based, but computing pure data right?
[editline]25th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40034183]Do you still need anti-aliasing with this sort of rendering?[/QUOTE]
This is only for the lighting, shading, and shadow systems. This isn't like the point cloud engine.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;40041673]Because the processing is not frame based, but computing pure data right?[/QUOTE]
If I were to make sort of a guess, I'd say it's like this:
- Each ray of light, or path, is a task for the GPU to solve.
- There's literally millions of these every second.
- The program divides every path between the GPUs, and It will give the next path to the GPU that is the least busy.
- The GPUs have no need to "talk" to eachother or co-operate when solving a path, since the program divides the instructions.
So, there's no reason for the GPUs to be similiar or SLId/Crossfired to eachother.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Brt5470;40041673]This is only for the lighting, shading, and shadow systems. This isn't like the point cloud engine.[/QUOTE]
Just in case it's unclear:
Everything you see is rays of lights that have been reflected into the "camera", and not a kind of shadow overlay layered over regularily rendered geometry.
I'm not sure how antialiasing would work with a system like this, but all path tracers I've used never have aliasing.
I'm not sure aliasing is even a thing with this method, I'll have to look it up.
[editline]0[/editline]
Alright, the way I see it the amount of paths per pixel determine how aliased the picture will end up. (1 = aliased. 16 = antialiased.)
I doubt this only does one path per pixel, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, FXAA or SMAA would probably work okay with this if doing multiple paths per pixel is a problem.
[QUOTE=Baboo00;40035530]These are probably the most impressive pictures. They're practically indistinguishable from photographs.
[/QUOTE]
I find the colour tone handling and lighting to be the most impressive, albeit some parts are still a bit off, it's still good.
I reckon these results can be simulated today in games like GTA4. If anyone has followed enb series, the dev has gone so far to simulate sky lighting and chromatic aberration.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40041809]...
Just in case it's unclear:
Everything you see is rays of lights that have been reflected into the "camera", and not a kind of shadow overlay layered over regularily rendered geometry.
I'm not sure how antialiasing would work with a system like this, but all path tracers I've used never have aliasing.
I'm not sure aliasing is even a thing with this method, I'll have to look it up.
[editline]0[/editline]
Alright, the way I see it the amount of paths per pixel determine how aliased the picture will end up. (1 = aliased. 16 = antialiased.)
I doubt this only does one path per pixel, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, FXAA or SMAA would probably work okay with this if doing multiple paths per pixel is a problem.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you slightly jitter the start X & Y position of the ray each time you sample a pixel (Since you need hundreds/thousands of samples per pixel to build up a realistic result)
Edit: If you used a consistent position per sample you could then apply something like SMAA to the result, but there's no reason to since jittering will take the same time and build up better results (By increasing the chance of rays bouncing differently)
Edit 2: Here's the result of a path tracer with just 4 samples per pixel, as you can see since the majority of samples didn't hit anything that casts light, the image is extremely grainy (But at the same time, you also have caustics in the sphere on the right, etc.)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/siE3cE2.png[/IMG]
In a game perspective, I'd say there's a trade off between large environments and detail. However here's a few examples of possibilities.
[t]http://i5.minus.com/jj8NGC1NQ49fa.jpg[/t]
[url]http://minus.com/mL3gNa8kF[/url] This guys gallery is a good example
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;40032648]related
[url]http://madebyevan.com/webgl-path-tracing/[/url][/QUOTE]
I decided to download the page and muck with the code, then wondered what would happen if I started removing randomness
[img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2ghVHusjzkI/UVE1pVi4-cI/AAAAAAAAJmw/NiljnxsjVsQ/s0/2013-03-26_01-44-03.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=s0m3_guy;40042170]In a game perspective, I'd say there's a trade off between large environments and detail. However here's a few examples of possibilities.
[t]http://i5.minus.com/jj8NGC1NQ49fa.jpg[/t]
[url]http://minus.com/mL3gNa8kF[/url] This guys gallery is a good example[/QUOTE]
Yeah apparently the guy who made ICEnhancer also made this so
[QUOTE=paul simon;40041809]If I were to make sort of a guess, I'd say it's like this:
- Each ray of light, or path, is a task for the GPU to solve.
- There's literally millions of these every second.
- The program divides every path between the GPUs, and It will give the next path to the GPU that is the least busy.
- The GPUs have no need to "talk" to eachother or co-operate when solving a path, since the program divides the instructions.
So, there's no reason for the GPUs to be similiar or SLId/Crossfired to eachother.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Just in case it's unclear:
Everything you see is rays of lights that have been reflected into the "camera", and not a kind of shadow overlay layered over regularily rendered geometry.
I'm not sure how antialiasing would work with a system like this, but all path tracers I've used never have aliasing.
I'm not sure aliasing is even a thing with this method, I'll have to look it up.
[editline]0[/editline]
Alright, the way I see it the amount of paths per pixel determine how aliased the picture will end up. (1 = aliased. 16 = antialiased.)
I doubt this only does one path per pixel, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, FXAA or SMAA would probably work okay with this if doing multiple paths per pixel is a problem.[/QUOTE]
Oh my mistake, I figured geometry was rendered, materials applied, and then the path tracing is done to apply the lighting to the world. So this is path tracing from the start.
From a technical standpoint it is very impressive.
But from an artists standpoint it's rather eh.
The problem with photorealism is that once the environment looks on par with real life so has everything else too.
And there we ran to the next problem; what is to be done when something "dynamic" enters the screen, like a human character.
It will have to be made perfect to the point or else it will stick out like a sore thumb.
An example: the game project which I'm working on, my aim is to make as many of the monsters have a design that allows them to have static eyes. The first iteration of human characters will most likely and possibly even further on have static eyes. For our fortune the project is going to have rather dated fidelity and count more on well thought out design.
With the flexibility of modern modelling software we are not overstepping our bounds with a two-man team.
But for those whom are going to take up working with the likes of Brigade will have no option than to drive the production costs sky-high.
We might see something that looks awe-inspiring, but my moneys is on that it probably won't play well.
Cartoony games can use path tracing as well, silly.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Every animated movie available should prove a some kind of point in that regard.
At the same time, this does open up a lot of possibilities for realism in games.
Still better than Survival Instinct.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40047530]Cartoony games can use path tracing as well, silly.
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
Every animated movie available should prove a some kind of point in that regard.
At the same time, this does open up a lot of possibilities for realism in games.[/QUOTE]
Cartoony games could use this very well, but I doubt they would gain too much from it. Taken the specs this engine seems to require.
no atmospheric perspective
2/10
Would this run faster on Nvida's quadro cards vs geforce?
[editline]26th March 2013[/editline]
The blog says GeForce beats Quadro and tesla. Hmm
I wonder how particles and special effects such as magic will work with this.
But then again magic effects usually consist of elements that exist in the real world such as ice and fire. Then there's some special kind that usually looks like purple lava.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;40033032]You can find the SDK and other demos here:
[url]http://igad.nhtv.nl/~bikker/downloads.htm[/url]
(the first broken link is supposed to be [url]http://igad.nhtv.nl/~bikker/files/abouttime.zip[/url] )
The demos and the SDK is probably an older version from what you see in the OP.
I can't get it working though. I think CUDA is only supported (I have a GTX680, so maybe it's too new?) but the debug console says it failed to load CUDA.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck? This was made by guys at IGAD? I study at the NHTV and follow the IGAD Visual Art program... I need to go ask around about this, maybe the creators are still studying at the Programming department, and I can go meet them.
I'm wondering if it can decay like this:
[img]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2637/4093898519_18b2c40ba7_z.jpg[/img]
instead of just getting bended through glass
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;40049260]I'm wondering if it can decay like this:
[img]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2637/4093898519_18b2c40ba7_z.jpg[/img]
instead of just getting bended through glass[/QUOTE]
Easy, son. It's called sub-surface scattering and this engine proably supports it since most other path tracing engines do.
[img]http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2004/04/14/performance_leap/subsurface-scatter.jpg[/img][img]http://www.mrbluesummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Sub-Surface-Scattering-Example.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=paul simon;40049770]Easy, son. It's called sub-surface scattering and this engine proably supports it since most other path tracing engines do.
[img]http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2004/04/14/performance_leap/subsurface-scatter.jpg[/img][img]http://www.mrbluesummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Sub-Surface-Scattering-Example.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
But none of the images and videos have it. I can kinda see how it's easy to implement since you've already have light set up to go through glass, although with no decay and scattering.
this is all really neat, and it looks phenomenal, but keep in mind
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsl1jCqq8[/media]
I've seen that video before, but I don't think errant really... understand much when it comes to game engines. He comes to his conclusions only by seemingly doing this live without really thinking too much about the market.
I can't watch that video without saying to myself, "This sounds like he's claiming his opinion is fact"
[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;40049894]this is all really neat, and it looks phenomenal, but keep in mind
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsl1jCqq8[/media][/QUOTE]
I think he's trying too hard to look at the big picture. Of course certain things like water and procedural animations which look more natural aren't going to happen as soon as something as realistic lighting. Who said that it all had to be accomplished all at once though? And most people want more realistic graphics so that's what game devs give them.
I don't think his argument was half as well thought out as it looks honestly.
This runs like ass on the full res version
[img]http://puu.sh/2oBPY[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.