The Ju-87 shots: How close are we to photorealism?

[JG4_Sputnik]

First of all, I love those Ju-87 shots from the most recent Dev. Update.

I think the team from 777 did an amazing job!

 

However, and this isn't a critique by any means, I've been pondering about the shots and asked myself a few times now: what are those like about 10% that let my brain know that the Ju-87 is a rendered plane rather than a real one?

 

Il2 from back in the days sufferd very much from the "plasic look" of its planes. Even CloD's planes don't look 100% "real" even though I think the tech for making them look real could be here already.

 

So what do you think are those missing percentages that make the planes don't look 100 "photo real" ?

Is ist a certain effect? Do they look "too perfect"?

Is it only the skin? Is it even possible to make them look real with the tech of today?

 

What do you think?
Cheers,

Sputnik

 

Here I have some shots for comparison:

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited April 27, 2013 by Sputnik

[smink1701]

I think BOS is looking very good.  And since hundreds of great skins have been created for ROF I'm sure the same will be true for BOS and many will be brilliant and really improve on the believeability of the default skins.  For me, it wasn't the way the planes looked in CloD that was the problem, it was the way they behaved.  Bad AI, jumpy, over-sensitive flight models, vibrating shadows, laser beam tracers on the Hurricane and many other things killed the immersion factor.  Hopefully BOS will be closer to the real thing in these respects.

[philiped]

The planes in CloD border on photo-realism with the Team Fusion patch.  The new reflections and upgraded lighting system they (re)introduced is really something special IMHO.

 

Regarding what separates a simulation from looking like a photo, I really think the lighting system has a lot to answer for. Currently BoS looks rather flat and plastic at the moment. The reflections just look rather lifeless, which I think the Stuka shot illustrates. Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but the reflection off the wing seems too flat. The Stuka in CloD looks very realistic once AA is added and the forced weathering is toned down somewhat.

 

 

Here are some TF patch shots

 

 

 

[Rama]

The planes in CloD border on photo-realism with the Team Fusion patch.  The new reflections and upgraded lighting system they (re)introduced is really something special IMHO. 

Regarding what separates a simulation from looking like a photo, I really think the lighting system has a lot to answer for. Currently BoS looks rather flat and plastic at the moment. The reflections just look rather lifeless, which I think the Stuka shot illustrates. Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but the reflection off the wing seems too flat. The Stuka in CloD looks very realistic once AA is added and the forced weathering is toned down somewhat.

It's a question of opinion. To me the BoS Stuka, and to a lesser extend the ColD weathered Stuka seems perfectly realistic and credible to me. And the screenshots you show of the Spit with the TF patch don't give a credible image of a warplane, more of an exhibition plane, overpolished, rivet heads wax covered, all repainted and varnished... nothing like a war plane. The last screenshots is weird, the damaged parts don't fit with the overall polished model... not believable to my eyes.

War and warbird meetings are different events.

 

[philiped]

It's a question of opinion. To me the BoS Stuka, and to a lesser extend the ColD weathered Stuka seems perfectly realistic and credible to me. And the screenshots you show of the Spit with the TF patch don't give a credible image of a warplane, more of an exhibition plane, overpolished, rivet heads wax covered, all repainted and varnished... nothing like a war plane. The last screenshots is weird, the damaged parts don't fit with the overall polished model... not believable to my eyes.

War and warbird meetings are different events.

 

Firstly, I chose to fly with the weathering set to the lowest value. It offers a good comparison to current photos of real warbirds, and IMHO is more realistic that 'forced weathering'.

It is easy for one to hammer the clich???

[JG4_Sputnik]

I agree that to some extend it has to do with the "to clean" surface of the plane itself.

If you look at the 109 real life shot, you will notice tiny differences on the plane rather than a clean and flat surface.

Maybe it has to do with the way a plane is being modeled on the pc; like one side is being mirrored and looks exactely like the other side.

 

In RL, every single part is kind of unique and not "copy pasted" like in a Simulator. Maybe our eyes notice these tiny differences even though we aren't really aware of it.

I mean, what is it that you clearly can see that this is a RL Shot?

 

 

Here it isn't even much refexions going on and still it's distinguishable from a Sim plane.

 

And I wonder what a developer like 777 could do to close the gap even a little bit further.

[philiped]

I know what you mean.

 

I think a lot of it is relative. In the photo you posted, the colour of the sky is most likely reflected in the aircraft's surface which affects the colour. The eye sees a picture which is entirely uniform, whilst in a simulation the colour of the sky and the weather effects may not impact on how the aircraft looks.

 

There are also no jaggies in that photo which clearly distinguishes it from a sim. Indeed, the environment looks real. If you take the spit out of the pictures I posted and paste it over a real photo, I think it would hold up very well.

 

Here's a CloD Stuka (with a certain amount of weathering) for comparison [i decreased the in-game time to get the prop-effect)

 

[Uufflakke]

In RL, every single part is kind of unique and not "copy pasted" like in a Simulator. Maybe our eyes notice these tiny differences even though we aren't really aware of it.

I mean, what is it that you clearly can see that this is a RL Shot?

 

 

Here it isn't even much refexions going on and still it's distinguishable from a Sim plane.

 

 

 

Interesting.

Comparing ingame screenshots to photo's and real life.  If the screenshot gets close to the real life photo the sim is more realistic?

That implies a photo is close to reality. Well, take your laptop or smartphone with the RL photo on it to a warbird museum or airshow and start comparing. Differences will be huge.

Not to mention the filters and lenses the photographer used and the postprocessing to make the photo look better.

Another interesting question related to this would be: how come we can see the difference between an object in real life and a photo of that object?

 

Reminds me of the Il2 mod for the propeller to simulate a stroboscopic effect. Many enthusiastic comments because it all looked so real like in genuine WWII footages and black and white photo's.

Thing is in real life you will never see that stroboscopic effect of the propeller blades. It had to do with the frame rate of the camera.

 

Maybe it is a bit too early to jugde the quality of the screenshots and its photorealistic look after seeing a few screenshots.

(in case you want to have the game photorealistic of course.)

 

Till sofar I'm happy what has been showed to us already. And it looks much better than IL2.

the final quality of the visuals doesn't say anything about actual gameplay and the immersion factor of being involved into a mission, of being there so to say, but looks promising.

Also very curious about the sounds of the engine. Another immersion factor of major importance.

[Rama]

It offers a good comparison to current photos of real warbirds, and IMHO is more realistic that 'forced weathering'.

And IMHO it's not.... reread the first sentence of my answer.. it's a question of opinion.

There is nothing unbelievable about that at all

To me it is. There's even a difference between an ultra-polished warbird meeting specimen and a standard factory delivered aircraft, which spent some time in war depots, was tested (and probably not cleaned after tests) and fly-delivered to the squadrons.

I find it rather tiresome when people argue that all wartime aircraft would be covered in repairs and wear marks and oil stains.

Do you mean you find tiresome some people express different opinion than yours?... then you shouldn't post on forums...

My shots clearly depict how a spitfire would have looked either in the early stages of the Battle of Britain, or shortly after the attrition subsided.

Again... to your opinion, not to mine. Go to any military airbase today... nowhere will you find ultra-polished, waxed and varnished planes.... except for planes specially prepared for exhibition (like stunt patrols for example). I have taken tons of pictures if you like to check.

Note that you praise BOS's Stuka, but that itself shows no wear and tear which rather negates your argument.

the BoS's Stuka doesn't show wear and tear (which he should, and probably will in some skins when delivered), but doesn't either show ultra-polished, waxed and varnished type reflections, which was the expressed opinion.

 

You can turn it anyway, you can't convince me that the spitfire screenshots shows something believable. It is not to me, and I told you why. I can of course understand and accept that you think otherwise, but please don't argue as if you own the only truth...

Edited April 27, 2013 by Rama

[philiped]

I was not trying to upset you, Rama. I understand that people have different opinions.

I merely disagree with your impression of the spitfire in my screenshots. Yes, it looks pristine, but we only have photos to go by to assess how the same aircraft would have looked when fresh off the production line. I understand your opinion may be that it looks nothing like it would have, but the photos I posted (which you ignored) look very similar.

The truth is that we will not know for sure, but IMHO it looks very accurate. The spit was a swish-looking aircraft with its flush riveting which is an important factor to note. As aforementioned, it compared to original colour photos very well.

 

Indeed, it also depends on the skin. I could easily choose a lightly weathered skin to get what you might perceive as a more realistic effect, but this is difficult to compare to the photos in the original post of this thread, which I was addressing.

Please understand that that was what I was trying to do: draw a comparison between current photos of fresh-looking warbirds, compared to in-game photos.

 

I even posted the photo of the Stuka to appease you somewhat.

 

 

NOTE: considering this topic is talking about photorealism, we must draw a distinction between truth and beauty. I believe that photorealism depicts a pretty image, but as has been said in this thread, it is not always truthful.

[Rama]

The CloD Stuka look splendid, photo-realistic and very believable (as well as the CloD Bf109 in the initial post).

We will see in the BoS game, with final model and skins if they can stand the comparison.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Some of the difference between these extremely well made game shots and real life comes down to how we experience the world. Much of what we think we see we do not, our eyes pick up some details and the brain fills in the rest based on our expectations and experiences.

 

Aso, we don't experience colours equally well across the spectrum. We are very good at spotting shades of green, but not as good at separate shades of red. Blue and yellow look more different to our eyes than red and green does. When light fails, the receptors picking up red looses steam first, the colour that last fades to gray is turquoise. In short, the human visual system do not work in a linear fashion, unlike most data programs.

 

When we see planes up close they are mostly on the ground. Reflective surfaces will pick up the hue of the surroundings. Even dull paint can only show the colours allowed by the light spectrum that shine on it. On the ground, that light has passed through a lot of sky, and of course the light on the ground has had a lot of their spectra absorbed by the ground, vegetation etc. The screenshots are all of planes fairly high up, with very different light conditions.

 

I don't know if this is even possible to make games photo realistic, but I think to go the last 10% right, developers will have to do some research on the human visual system.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Friendly_flyer

[MACADEMIC]

Great topic OP Sputnik!

 

I think the latest BOS screenshots are damn close to looking real. It's amazing how graphics have come. What's still missing? Hmm, not much I'd say, but it's true there's still something giving it away as graphics when compared to the photos. Still, absolutely stunning for me and very suitable for 'suspension of disbelief'!

 

Just for comparision, I found this little videoclip which was created entirely by CGI. A little background on its creation under this link. Now it's clear that there's a huge difference between a real time generated game and a video clip. But one day not too far in the future we might will get there too!

 

MAC

 

http://vimeo.com/15630517

Edited April 28, 2013 by MACADEMIC

[Sim]

Now it's clear that there's a huge difference between a real time generated game and a video clip. But one day not too far in the future we might will get there too!

 

I can't wait for this to happen. Mostly because this will be the time when developers will realize they can't impress and sell their games based on looks alone. The priorities will shift and other important game features will get more attention (such as AI).

[JG4_Sputnik]

Great topic OP Sputnik!

 

I think the latest BOS screenshots are damn close to looking real. It's amazing how graphics have come. What's still missing? Hmm, not much I'd say, but it's true there's still something giving it away as graphics when compared to the photos. Still, absolutely stunning for me and very suitable for 'suspension of disbelief'!

 

Just for comparision, I found this little videoclip which was created entirely by CGI. A little background on its creation under this link. Now it's clear that there's a huge difference between a real time generated game and a video clip. But one day not too far in the future we might will get there too!

 

MAC

 

http://vimeo.com/15630517

 

Stunning Video, thanks MAC!

It's exactely what I meant: in this video they somehow figured out how to "fool" our eyes (still can't believe those lemons were renders!) by certain effects and believable physics.

In my naive world I think it would be easier to render "dead" material such a plane believable rather than some organic stuff, but what do I know?

 

Sure, a few years ahead we should have the graphical power to have stuff like that rendered in real time (that's what one's said five years ago) I just can't wait to get there. Also I'm not quite sure if even we would have the tech under our desks, it would be doable in terms of cost-income ratio (because nobody pays 500$ for a sim).

 

The strange thing is though, that stuff like War Thunder with its exaggerated filters (like brown colors and blurryness) sometimes look more "real" than CloD. This is interesting, because it shows that we are heavyly influenced by movies and imagination rather than reality.

 

The same thing with HD movies ???

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Does Uncanny Valley also exist for things other than human replicas?

[Feathered_IV]

The BoS shots look very good to me. I find with the TF images very nice too, although the shadow rendering is very dark. Almost excessively so. I'm not sure if this is down to individual user settings or not. Anyway, thats just splitting hairs. One thing's for sure, be it BoS, RoF or CloD; graphically we've never had it this good.

[gavagai]

It is very hard to compare the game images to photographs.  Many use a polarized lens, and the photo ends up being an embellishment on the real thing.