wow all this processing power and years of research to get a render that doesn't even look better than what we had in 1995.
The point is that people usually didn't know what the fuck they were doing or how materials look, and made everything look like plastic. See: most video games.
>>599809Spoilers: technological progress is overrated, people are retarded and/or clueless
>>599809What am I looking at exactly?
>>599829Yeah, I'm not going to lie, but I don't see much of a difference in OP's picture aside from the rust's normal map being more obvious in the bottom right.
>>599809Yet, the multimillion dollar industry couldn't figure out how to pull a fuckin' specular map. So awesome, can we suck the 90's dick yet?
>>599809>traditional>dude numbers>pbr>generate a map that hooked up by any pbr app plus blend them all togetherpbr is great, fuck off
>>599835yeah funny coincidence all vfx after 2000 have looked like garbage.
>>599837Kek those textures remind me of dark souls
Does anyone know why Uncharted's foliage looks like plastic? Did they do it on purpose every time? I mean, I don't understand it, I know it's using PBR, but the vegetation doesn't look realistic at all.
>>599850>foliage looks like plastic>it's using PBRThere's your problem, even "professionals"don't give a fuck about properly utilizing the tech.
>>599809PBR is about simplifying the workflow. The principled shader Disney developed has 11 basic controls for determining various surface properties, and everything else is derived automatically based on assumptions made about how a material with such properties should behave.The shader should be usable for any type of material, so that every object in any scene would use the same shader, instead of having a dozen different shaders for everything and figuring out how to make them work together.The issue is that that to get the best result on traditional shaders you can't just get away with dialing in a value or controlling the amount with a map and calling it a day, because certain characteristics like specularity and glossiness change properties depending on the viewing angle and intensity of light, requiring you to set up falloffs, blends, and maps that are sometimes grayscale but sometimes have color in them, and none of it really makes sense unless you're into color science. With each setting a PBR shader has for you to tweak, the only thing that matters is the amount, not the how or why.
>>599860And that's a retarded way of thinking, considering not every material works that way. Especially organic and translucent materials.PBR looks fine for most inorganic materials, like plastics and metals (and even there, it's lacking certain options I feel). And yet skins and other stuff that require SSS still look rather fake-y. I feel like those who originally made the node should have put in some more effort and options when it comes to the shader itself.>>599850>uncharted>realistic>naughty dogWell there's yur problem mate.
>>599857>>599865Wow, I can't believe how I can never get a normal serious answer here, only greentexts... I want some explanation because I don't understand this, Uncharted is obviously stylized, but why are they saying they are using PBR?
>>5998702 things:- this is 4Chan, serious answers are hard to come by. So don't get your hopes up.- this ties into the first point, but I don't think they ever gave an answer as to why beyond "it looks better".
>>599865>(and even there, it's lacking certain options I feel)>I feel like those who originally made the node should have put in some more effort and options when it comes to the shader itself.What, do all PBR shaders use the same code or something? Am I the retard here or is that you?
>>599837>all vfx after 2000>godzilla 1998Really jogs my peanuts
>>599874They share the basic setup- A set amount of options that are rather broad and not always specific. Uncharted with its plastic-looking leaves being a good example.So yes retard, you are the retard. Now go talk to mommy and she'll coddle you.
>>599809>PBR>thinks, it's about the looks and not about workflowFaggot.
>>599809PB shaders are just objectively more realistic because they accurately utilize physical equations and their approximations for light bounce, reflections, energy conservation and so on. That's why they're called Physicall Based. They weren't made for the sake of little mongoloid brains like yours going crazy over supposedly "superior graphixx",but rather to optimize the texturing pipelane and to make the materials look more consistent. Of course PBR materials can still look like dogshit, and in some cases worse than their non-PBR counterparts, but that depends entirely on the artist.
>>599878my favourite post of the year so far right here
>>599887THISfucking thisPBR doesnt mean that all the work is done for you, you still have to know how to shade and create texture maps properly, it's just a way of streamlining the workflow based on real-world physical values and properties that materials have.>>599865 I won't argue that it indeed works best for metals, plastics, and whatnot vs organic materials, where you still have to cheat the SSS. Still, PBR brings some standardization regarding that, and real-time shaders are become more and more able regarding translucency. It's never gonna be 100% physically correct anyway, but the process is eons better that what it used to be.But of course the mongoloids of /3/ will fuck that up and claim it's a fraud; that's what clueless amateurs do.
>>599913There was a thread on /v/ where they proved that graphics haven't gotten better since like 2010
>>599918>graphicscould you be even less specific please?
>>599878godzilla looks great>>599841you know it's a photo right?
>>599920>you know it's a photo right?>giant lizard monster in a blockbuster moviepick one
>>599887>PB shaders are just objectively more realistic because they accurately utilize physical equationsare you serious? I could tell you at least one major physics flaw with the common implementations just off the top of my head.
>>599919Video games by AAA
>>599924Humm.. but don't the better performing consumer products (mostly PCs and next gen consoles) allow for more/better real-time rendering? Number of objects, texture sizes and material definition, particle effects, light/shadow quality, etc. I mean, today's graphics clearly have the upper hand over what we were seeing 7-8 years ago.
>>599922>I could tell you at least one>Doesn't proceed to say any argumentWell?
>>599925Not according to them. I hardly play games. Surely the in game cutscenes are better like in the StarCraft LOTV game
>>599874yes. all pbr basically are implementations of the cook-torrance model. you can plug various different models in like GGX or beckmann for the specular as long as it's energy conserving. There's even a blinn term modified to be energy conserving which would qualify as PBR. There's also different models for the shadowing function and the diffuse term.what disney did that is unique is set the whole thing up to have input values which are "plausible" making things easier on the artists.but it's really not much better than alternatives, just more expensive to calculate. which is good for the renderfarm and gaming gpu businesses.
>>599927Yeah I don't play much either, but I looked at 2010's top games (Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock 2, God of War 3) and it's fair to say that we've come a long way from that. Maybe techniques haven't changed THAT much, but visually it has. Even the Switch renders better stuff than back then. Hardware probably makes a huge difference.
>>599931>2010 console gamesrunning on middling 2005 hardware.try PC games.
>>599926the fresnel term is not evaluated per microfacet. but naively across the surface normal.and there is no integration over the microfacets for snell's law.
>>599933ah yeah good point, I'll check
>>599809left tree is less blured
>>599936honestly 2011 is probably more the year, where you see games like battlefield 3 catch up to crysis. and even crysis 2 and rage on those same consoles which is probably the most impressive optimization work you'll ever see.
PBR is a nice concept, Disney is just so far ahead they don't even put effort, like NVIDIA.
So this is not an improvement?
>>599995going to more powerful hardware and not cherrypicking screenshots helps
>>599809>creating materials that react inaccurately with lighting. PBR is not a meme. PBR gives Devs the ability to create photo accurate material/ lighting and standardizes the process so all materials behave consistently.
>>599995>"Nope i love flat lighting and lower res textures"
>>600003you can do "photo accurate" just as well or better with phong. it's 99% artists and 1% tech.
>>600008>better with phongso out of all the things you could be irrationally fanboyish about you picked a fucking math equation from 1973? is this the new blender shitposting?
>>600027Fuck off, kiddo.
>>600027I picked it because it was first and most primitive. And it still gets good results all the same.
>>600003>>600027this anon is correct>>600008>>600028>>600035this is some retarded blenderfag vomitphong is not physically accuratesure you can do realistic stuff in a non-physically-based workflow, but all your parameters and tweaks and settings and whatnot will be case-by-case trial and error bullshit, which is not suitable -acceptable even- in modern day professional workflowswhy the fuck would you not wanna work in a physically correct manner? it's not even restricting you to realism, you can still do kickass cartoon stuff and cheat past true PBR when needed.. only a dumb amateur would argue any of that.
>>600168>arguing on /3/Mate, your're literally retarded
>>600170what a newfag/3/ is 99% arguing, hopefully someone learns something out of it fucking once in a while
>>600173nobody learns anything here lad, we all just die slowly of old age but some by the self inflicted gunshot. rip little bro
>>600168>phong is not physically accurateneither is "pbr". being "physically accurate" means nothing.a well made phong material will be just as consistent as any other material. the idea that pbr is somehow different just because it enforces common sense limits is daft. only used by tech illiterates.
>>600170You know you're on 4Chan right? Arguing is all we, and every other board does.
>>600180like i had said: only a dumb amateur would arguei guess that concerns you, cause you're literally arguing with the fundamental mathematics of the different BRDFshttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/023a/5c184b8cb9e9c5f2ac61fa679fedc1a478f8.pdf>the Phong model is a computational convenient method to analytically approximate the reflectance properties of a small set of materials.>In general however, not too many materialshave reflectance properties of this limited form. > it is not actually physically plausible>the lack of physical validity is problematicthis is introduction material>being "physically accurate" means nothingit actually means that computation is done to be as faithful (ie. not biased) as possible to real-life light and material behavior and physical effectsyou can thank me later for doing all the goddamn research for you
>>600182inb4 you disregard all the information only because copy/pasting fucked up the greentext
>>600182Your arguments are invalid and you are a doo doo head.There, back to the old form. Now, everyone, neck yourself.
>>600182call me when you can write a PBR algorithm faggot. it's complete bollocks. it's basically wrong. and it provides no benefit to the informed artist over older, faster and more convenient methods.
>>600188You first anon.What? you said everyone. I don't see how you can get a free pass out of this.
>>600196tried and failed, picture related
>>599850They use a slightly stylized look intentionally.
>>599809Wow, incredible, you've managed to compare two free-floating orbs and one looks different to the other. PBR is truly owned now.
Jesus christ does this thread show no-one here actually works in the industry. PBR is not a technological advancement by itself. It's supposed to be a set of rules that quarantees that the materials created with the principle end up looking the same in all renders.
>>600269nobody knows why pbr was created but some on /g/ and /v/ say it was as another bulletpoint to sell software after cgp cannibalized all their sales
>>600270PBR was made >>599887 for the sake of little mongoloid brains like mine going crazy over supposedly "superior graphixx". and then appropriated as a marketing term by 3D vendors who started making stuff up about workflow improvements to sell it to tech illiterate artist monkeys who are paid by the frame.
>>600182Fucking thisThis is the post>>600188>doo doo headKekdPretty much sums up the state of most /3/ discussions
>>600269I do, and you're correct.>>600270>nobody knows why>I don't know whyfixed that for youShading/lighting/rendering was a huge mess before physically-based workflows and renderers came along, just listen to John Carmack:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUgHPs86XM
>>599809I always assumed it meant that one shader can be used in mostly all lighting situations.
>>599922>and their approximations
>>600347not an approximation. straight up an error.
PBR is nasty. I didn't think anyone drank it any more. Why are you all discussing beer anyway?
daily fucking reminder that PBR is a streamlining of content creation, not an improvement in rendering
>>599860THIS SO MUCH.If you think PBR is about "looking better" you need to get out. PBR is about making texturing intuitive, straightforward, and cross-platform. (across realtime/raytraced, across different rendering engines, etc.)>>599934That weak sauce shit is all you come up with? Fresnel implementations differ by rendering engine, nothing specifies which approximations engines are and aren't are allowed to use.
>>600416it's not "weak sauce". it's very important if you want to claim to follow physics. most even multiply the specular directly with the lambert term which is downright retarded.PBR is about being more accurate, but it's not really much more accurate. the "muh workflow" shit is marketing garbage.
>>600379I drink PBR because it's tasty and is an excellent source of carcinogen ingredients
>>600421>the "muh workflow" shit is marketing garbagemfw>So, why do you think you'd be the perfect candidate for this 3D position?>Well faggot you'll find that my beginner status is overly compensated by the fact that I'm a blender user, which is toptier; as you know autodesk is cancer. Also I exclusively use the phong shader, since being physically-correct is a meme and obviously a scam. 3D hasn't evolved much since 1996 anyway, so why bother educating myself or questioning a workflow that fits MY needs. Everyone on the internet forums think I'm right and talented.>...please leaveKeep being unemployed m8, it's as simple as that
>>600431>get btfo>start appealing to job opportunities rather than logic>wagies think their opinions matter
>>600431Thanks for the insight. Now back to your cubicle.