By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel said:
pezus said:
the2real4mafol said:
pezus said:

@the2real: Everyone always says that and always turns out wrong. As long as there are tech advances, graphics will improve, not to mention physics and AI.

Surely there is an actual limit to how far graphics, AI and physics can go?

A limit that is nowhere in sight. AI can be drastically improved for example, it's just weak at the moment in almost all games. Physics are static in most games or pre-cooked. Graphics are ok but that's because devs use a lot of tricks and hide the imperfections well. In the future, they wouldn't need to do that which should mean easier and shorter dev times.


We're getting pretty close to having the processing power for physics to be a "solved" problem for anything you would really want to do in games, but the real question is what to do with those physical simulations.

Here is a tech demo from 2009:

Computational fluid dynamics is one of the most expensive things to simulate, and I could theoritically build a PC that could deal with some very large and realistic CFD effects in game; mind you, this PC wouldn't be cheap and would (most likely) be a graphics workstation with 2 processors which were both close to top of the line. When the next-next generation begins in (roughly) 2020 and we're using hybrid real-time raytracing and have advanced physics simulations we will be nearly able to create photo-realism with as close to real physics as a person can observe.

The problem (of course) is that producing content for games with that level of detail will be very expensive ... and the new problem will be creating procedural content to make game development affordable.

This.  Games will hit a financial wall long before we'll hit a technical one in regards to simulating real world physics and visuals.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.