Does anyone think PC simulators will ever look this good ?

[Tbag]

From a technical point of view probably in 10 to 15 years. Nothing more than a guess of course. But who is going to model a whole flightsim to that degree of detail? Not sure if that would pay of. Hope Oleg stays in buisiness!

[IceFire]

We're not that far off really...what you see there isn't really stunningly impressive. IL-2 almost does all of that already. There are some effects that I hope to see in Storm of War which will take us closer or past that with maybe some small exceptions.

[BadAim]

Aggreed. BOB, I think will look damn close to that from the start, assuming of course a state of the art machine. I really doubt capability has anything to do with it, realtime computing power is the biggest obstacle, next is manpower (read money).

So really it's about power and money. Can't get away from it can we?

[Golden_Eagle_FM]

I am ready to bet that in ten years from know real time interactive raytrayced animation of the quality of what we have on those short films will be available at less than 1000 US$ (today value) for general purpose desktop machines.

This is if CPU design evolution goes as planned that is the massive multicore CPU's of the Larabelle type that Intel has already demonstrated with a raytraced version of a very popular FPS game. We are talking of CPU's with 80 cores and plus.
We are now at the stage were we have quadcore CPU's with a max frequency around 3GHz available on the market and in general use. I do not believe the frequency will increase much, but a breaktghrough in technology may allow some major steps. Shrinking the size of CPU components in combination of high voltages for high frequencies, and high heat dissipation problems is already starting to hit some fundamental physical barriers that generate many unwanted effects as for ex. electron migration. We see that it is a few years know that with INTEL and AMD have stalled between 2.5 and 3.2 GHz. Maybe we get to 4GHz but it is not really of much use. On the other hand the fundamental limits to core multiplication in the CPU are much further away.

If we apply Moore's law in conservative manner that is a doubling every 24 months then in 2009 we have 8 cores in 2011 16 cores, in 2013 32 cores, in 2015 64 cores and in 2017 128 cores. The advantage of this approach is that you can lower the frequency, and run say at 1.5 GHZ max and you can get full use of the shrinkage of components as you do not have any more the heat issue. So all the real estate can go to low heat dissipating and simpler architectured cores and so also with even more shrinking without major problems (but for sure there is also an atomic phisical limit here).
The final result is promising. Better 80 cores at 1 GHz then 4 at 4 Ghz. Roughly speaking and to have it simple you get 80 Ghz of power instead of 16.

So it is better to go the lower frequency+low heat dissipation+simpler architecture and higher multiple-core path then the other way round.

If these multi-multicore CPU's do get on the market then there will be enough processing power to get all the software rendering algorithms executed in realtime (60FPS).

The problem is that the whole polygon based culture and tools in game design will have to be readapted to optimally generate raytraced images.
But also the whole software generation community will have to be geared to use massively parallel hardware. This last point may be the most difficult issue.

So to finish I would say that we will have in ten years the hardware capability on the table for sure. I will not bet even a dime that we will be able to use that capability. That will be the major roadblock.

Gold

[Tbag]

Agree 100% Eagle! Well, let's say I agree as far as I can follow

@IceFire: Can you please send me a copy of the IL2 you play? My copy can't keep up with these vids!

[virre89]

Think he means in realism.
Anyway it won't look like this counting cinematic wise i hope everyone understands the amazing details going into charachter looking over his shoulder etc just won't happen really, that's part of CGI(MOVIES).

Even back when games like Medal of Honor Allied Assault and BF 1942 was released they had CGI intros which look beyond todays graphics more or less so, still remember this is actually a type of MOVIE.

[kgwanchos]

Yes accept what you are saying Virre ,that is a movie we are seeing totally scripted etc etc. I guess a few of the things which might apply to BOB would center around a more immersive environment. For eg the sky and clouds, terain and water are very impressive and thrown in the mix really start to add to the the photorealistic effect. The character animations to that level I agree are really not nessesary (i think they let the whole thing down in fact) but little touches can make all the difference... remember how cool it was when you first realised that pilots in IL2 where tracking their opponents with their head movements (still miss the rain drop rivulets on the canopy in the first demo anyone ??)
For my money i still think the IL2 series looks pretty amazing at times especially when you consider how long its been around. I think BOB will be a stunner and well worth the extra overtime to pay for a super computer (Im waiting for the game before upgrading).....

[virre89]

Originally Posted by kgwanchos

Yes accept what you are saying Virre ,that is a movie we are seeing totally scripted etc etc. I guess a few of the things which might apply to BOB would center around a more immersive environment. For eg the sky and clouds, terain and water are very impressive and thrown in the mix really start to add to the the photorealistic effect. The character animations to that level I agree are really not nessesary (i think they let the whole thing down in fact) but little touches can make all the difference... remember how cool it was when you first realised that pilots in IL2 where tracking their opponents with their head movements (still miss the rain drop rivulets on the canopy in the first demo anyone ??)
For my money i still think the IL2 series looks pretty amazing at times especially when you consider how long its been around. I think BOB will be a stunner and well worth the extra overtime to pay for a super computer (Im waiting for the game before upgrading).....

Hehe ,
As for computer i'd not wanna hesitate or anything but by upgrading to say Intel Core Duo or Quad and one of the 8800GTS you'd be close to safe for the release of BOB i dare to almost promise. But indeed i mean no reason to upgrade yet since the game ain't around unless you need it , altho i bought my new comp 3 months ago but yet again i also play a`lot of Cod4, Crysis etc.

Looking forward to BOB quite abit, it will be worth the wait for sure.

[mondo]

Originally Posted by virre89

Even back when games like Medal of Honor Allied Assault and BF 1942 was released they had CGI intros which look beyond todays graphics more or less so, still remember this is actually a type of MOVIE.

Its funny to go back to play games from the last 15 years that have used CGI intro's, like BF1942 and thinking at the time that the graphics could never be replicated in real time. BF1942 is only 6 years old as well which shows just how quickly yesterdays CGI quality graphics appear as todays real time graphics.

[Bearcat]

Touchy is the guy with the 1942 thing.. he does some great stuff...

Originally Posted by Golden_Eagle_FM

I am ready to bet that in ten years from know real time interactive raytrayced animation of the quality of what we have on those short films will be available at less than 1000 US$ (today value) for general purpose desktop machines.

This is if CPU design evolution goes as planned that is the massive multicore CPU's of the Larabelle type that Intel has already demonstrated with a raytraced version of a very popular FPS game. We are talking of CPU's with 80 cores and plus.
We are now at the stage were we have quadcore CPU's with a max frequency around 3GHz available on the market and in general use. I do not believe the frequency will increase much, but a breaktghrough in technology may allow some major steps. Shrinking the size of CPU components in combination of high voltages for high frequencies, and high heat dissipation problems is already starting to hit some fundamental physical barriers that generate many unwanted effects as for ex. electron migration. We see that it is a few years know that with INTEL and AMD have stalled between 2.5 and 3.2 GHz. Maybe we get to 4GHz but it is not really of much use. On the other hand the fundamental limits to core multiplication in the CPU are much further away.

If we apply Moore's law in conservative manner that is a doubling every 24 months then in 2009 we have 8 cores in 2011 16 cores, in 2013 32 cores, in 2015 64 cores and in 2017 128 cores. The advantage of this approach is that you can lower the frequency, and run say at 1.5 GHZ max and you can get full use of the shrinkage of components as you do not have any more the heat issue. So all the real estate can go to low heat dissipating and simpler architectured cores and so also with even more shrinking without major problems (but for sure there is also an atomic phisical limit here).
The final result is promising. Better 80 cores at 1 GHz then 4 at 4 Ghz. Roughly speaking and to have it simple you get 80 Ghz of power instead of 16.

So it is better to go the lower frequency+low heat dissipation+simpler architecture and higher multiple-core path then the other way round.

If these multi-multicore CPU's do get on the market then there will be enough processing power to get all the software rendering algorithms executed in realtime (60FPS).

The problem is that the whole polygon based culture and tools in game design will have to be readapted to optimally generate raytraced images.
But also the whole software generation community will have to be geared to use massively parallel hardware. This last point may be the most difficult issue.

So to finish I would say that we will have in ten years the hardware capability on the table for sure. I will not bet even a dime that we will be able to use that capability. That will be the major roadblock.

Gold

Yes well just consider where sims were in 1998

CFS1

... compare that with 46. Back then Pcs hadnt crossed the 233MHZ mark yet....

Originally Posted by mondo

Its funny to go back to play games from the last 15 years that have used CGI intro's, like BF1942 and thinking at the time that the graphics could never be replicated in real time. BF1942 is only 6 years old as well which shows just how quickly yesterdays CGI quality graphics appear as todays real time graphics.

Remember that

video for CFS3

? That was what 2002.. LMAO... I was so souped up .. I thought the sim would look like that... Boy was I disapointed... LOL.