| Kyros said: we will be hitting the limit of what is (really) noticeable from pixel shaders and people will be focusing more on improving the image after it is rasterized ... Motion Blur? Depth of Field? I think there is lots of room for lighting enhancements. Many of the effects we now have are bad hacks. It looks cool but only if you look at it in exactly the way it was meant to be. If the next gen of consoles is powerful enough for a true global lighting model than we would save a lot of development time. |
Rough global illumination models will start showing up on bleeding edge PCs in 2011 or later, and in many ways will be a step backwards in order to get advanced lighting ...
What I was talking about is that a mid line graphics card of 2010/2011 will be able to devote (roughly) 2 to 4 times as much processing power to pixel shaders as we have on current graphics cards, and you're hitting the point where there really is no need to push shaders further in the raster rendering model. Certainly you could push motion blur, but if you can render at 60fps that is a very minor detail (and blending 3 frames at 90fps into 1 frame at 30fps gives a very good approximation of "real" motion blur), and depth of field can be approximated very well in a multi-stage rendering process using a post processing blur-filter.
