Grass/trees in video games...

[rga]

Generally I play my PC games at 1920x1080, yet the grass never looks as good as it does on the field of an NFL game that I watch at the same resution. Why?

 

[Dankk]

Probably because the NFL game you're watching is actual camera footage of the real world, and video game graphics haven't reached photorealism yet?

 

[chimaxi83]

This question confuses me.

 

[rga]

This question confuses me.

What's so confusing about it??

 

[Stringjam]

What's so confusing about it??

Are you asking why real grass looks better than fake, modeled 3D grass? I'm a bit confused as well.

 

[Crono]

Resolution doesn't equal realism. You can take a 10,000 x 10,000 pixel shot or scan of a 2 year old child's drawing and it will still be a 2 year old's child drawing and not a Rembrandt.

In NFL footage, you are seeing real textures taken by digital photography which is displayed on screen.
In most video games you are seeing "drawn" or rendered graphics with less-than-real textures. At best, you are getting a model which almost always has to be simplified versus the reality, especially for things like blades of grass when you may have thousands of blades or more rendered in real time, and therefore realism - especially as far as physics of realistic motion from wind - is computationally and labor expensive as far as design.

It's getting better, though, as we get faster video cards with more memory. Trees used to be represented by just a few polygons.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Resolution doesn't equal realism. You can take a 10,000 x 10,000 pixel shot or scan of a 2 year old child's drawing and it will still be a 2 year old's child drawing and not a Rembrandt.

In NFL footage, you are seeing real textures taken by digital photography which is displayed on screen.
In most video games you are seeing "drawn" or rendered graphics with less-than-real textures. At best, you are getting a model which almost always has to be simplified versus the reality, especially for things like blades of grass when you may have thousands of blades or more rendered in real time, and therefore realism - especially as far as physics of realistic motion from wind - is computationally and labor expensive as far as design.

It's getting better, though, as we get faster video cards with more memory. Trees used to be represented by just a few polygons.

Lol. Real life doesn't have textures.

 

[rga]

I understand things for the most point, but can't a picture of the grass on a field be taken with a digital camera and get rendered in a video game?

Maybe I don't understand.

 

[rga]

And I wasn't asking why grass in Mario 64 doesn't look realistic...

 

[Crono]

Lol. Real life doesn't have textures.

You're not one of those people who doesn't realize that computer terms are often analogues for real life/physical concepts, are you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/texture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping

 

[htwingnut]

If they want a photo realistic environment that is static, then sure, use a photo realistic image. But if you want that grass to move and be random in an environment, then it has to be computer generated. There may be a way some day if technology doesn't evolve completely to something like vector graphics, that there may be a way for programs to control a photo realistic image like it were an in-game object.

 

[BrightCandle]

Game grass has enormous blades, trees have huge leafs. We just don't have enough performance to take to realistic levels yet. It may very well be rendered at 1080p but its not modelling real life at all. Its certainly got better but we are orders of magnitude in performance away from getting this even close to real. The current tricks with lighting are much better than the old fixed function system but they are still tricks that are quite inaccurate. Everything about computer graphics right now is mostly a hack and has little do with actually modelling the real world, its based on the processes but its simplified to be computable on today's computers.

When people say today's computers are fast enough it always brings a smile to my face, because we can't even do ray tracing yet and realistically lighting works a lot more like radiosity not ray tracing. Reality is a lot harder to model than those without computer graphics knowledge realise.

 

[rga]

Your not one of those people who doesn't realize that computer terms are often analogues for real life/physical concepts, are you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/texture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping

I know this is the PC gaming forum, but...

you're

analogous

 

[rga]

Game grass has enormous blades, trees have huge leafs. We just don't have enough performance to take to realistic levels yet. It may very well be rendered at 1080p but its not modelling real life at all. Its certainly got better but we are orders of magnitude in performance away from getting this even close to real. The current tricks with lighting are much better than the old fixed function system but they are still tricks that are quite inaccurate. Everything about computer graphics right now is mostly a hack and has little do with actually modelling the real world, its based on the processes but its simplified to be computable on today's computers.

When people say today's computers are fast enough it always brings a smile to my face, because we can't even do ray tracing yet and realistically lighting works a lot more like radiosity not ray tracing. Reality is a lot harder to model than those without computer graphics knowledge realise.

I read "leafs" and thought definitely Canadian; probably from Toronto.

 

[Crono]

I understand things for the most point, but can't a picture of the grass on a field be taken with a digital camera and get rendered in a video game?

Maybe I don't understand.

Because that only works for static elements in a video game. If you want something to move or to be viewable in 3D (i.e. moving around a field of grass) you need a model for every unique element, and then each model needs to be rendered or drawn in the game.

If you have 1,000,000 distinct blades of grass with real, high resolution textures applied, that takes a lot of memory and GPU or CPU power. You can get away with a lot less, of course, but there are other things being rendered at the same time in a game. Complex player models, lighting effects, a football, members of a crowd, etc.

Think of the computer as a really, really fast artist. Even a good artist will be slowed down if he or she has to put in a lot of detail for miniscule items on a painting. For an artist, that might not matter. But you don't want to be sitting there while your computer takes 10 minutes to render each frame, do you? Not to mention the work it takes for the game designers.

EDIT: I'm oversimplifying, and not an expert or anything, but as a layperson that's how I understand it.

 

[Crono]

I know this is the PC gaming forum, but...

you're

analogous

"Your" was a mistake from a quick response, but no, I wasn't wrong about "analogues".

And if we are going to be picky... "resution"? Really?

Generally I play my PC games at 1920x1080, yet the grass never looks as good as it does on the field of an NFL game that I watch at the same resution. Why?

 

[sweenish]

I know this is the PC gaming forum, but...

you're

analogous

The way they phrased it, analogues works fine. Better than analogous would if you did a straight substitute, even.

 

[Dankk]

Maybe I don't understand.

Right, you don't. It's not as simple as taking a picture of some grass and putting it inside of a video game. That's not how game development works at all.

If you want to create a realistic, convincing-looking environment with grass and flora, it requires a lot of digital 3D modeling, texturing, animating, and physics. You need a team of artists and programmers to make it look good, and even then, we have simply not reached the point of photorealism in video games.

 

[flexy]

A "picture taken" ("texture") and then being rendered is more or less exactly what happens. But OBVIOUSLY there are limitations (still) when it comes to 3D rendering of grass etc. FOR ONCE, it requires relatively high GPU/CPU power to render grass, branches etc. realistically and naturally.

(For example, in an ideal world each single leaf, each blade of grass would would be a real 3D object moving and reacting independently, proper lighting, shade etc.. "Simulating" nature, like trees, grass, foliage etc. is and has always been one of the challenging tasks of computer graphics).

BUT...today...even with mainstream games we have already come a very, very far way as compared to, say, a decade ago.

You have likely never seen any earlier type of computer games, back in a time where rendering "realistic" grass, trees etc. was more or less out of the question at least for normal people at home on their computers.

Today's games (Farcry as an example etc.) look already way, way better as compared to games from 10 or 15 years ago.

The other problem is you cannot just "make photos" and then attach the photos (textures) to anything in game WITHOUT caring for the rest of the game. (Polygons, models, movements, lighting, physics etc.) All those things must be "right" to make an overall realistic impression...otherwise things will look "off" or fake.

 

[Snock514]

why does my eyes not sees the same things in my vidya as i do my futbawls? wat do

 

[DaveSimmons]

I understand things for the most point, but can't a picture of the grass on a field be taken with a digital camera and get rendered in a video game?

Because your point of view moves in a video game as you walk and as you change the angle you're looking at with the mouse or controller.

The information in a still picture is only valid for the exact point of view of the camera taking it. Move a foot left or right, or tilt the camera differently and nothing looks the same. The blades that are visible change as does their size, position, lighting, shadows.

 

[SPBHM]

I think it's basically because grass and trees are not the most important objects for the most part, so waisting resources with that is not the best idea...

I'm sure people could build a extremely detailed grass for a tech demo, but it wouldn't work inside of a game, when the priority is elsewhere (like the player character and much more)

as for using photos... it's like those games from the 1990s, with a lot of static good looking stuff... just to limited.

 

[Stringjam]

What you're referring to (using a big photo as texture) is actually used in modern games, but only in areas you were never interact with.

The skybox is a good example. A large picture of a sky and clouds is used in most games, because you'll never get up there to interact with it anyway. This kind of thing is also used on distance buildings, even in AAA graphics titles (like Crysis 2). A lot of those buildings off in the distance are just a big flat plane with a photo plastered on it.

Grass, on the other hand, usually starts out as a beautiful high-poly model made with individually formed strands of grass. Then that beautiful grass gets plastered to 3 or 4 planes (essentially like placing a picture of several blades of grass on a transparency and waving the transparency around for animation).

Nicer grass (usually modeled in clumps) is sometimes made as individual strands, but is more performance intensive.

 

[Dumac]

Why can't they just take a video of a football game and make the next madden with it?

 

[sweenish]

Why can't they just take a video of a football game and make the next madden with it?

It'd have to be a picture. :|