[HN Gopher] The Gates of Argonath in VR at 50 FPS on Unreal Engine
___________________________________________________________________
The Gates of Argonath in VR at 50 FPS on Unreal Engine
Author : huhtenberg
Score : 192 points
Date : 2022-12-15 08:38 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| huhtenberg wrote:
| I think it's worth taking a step back and just marveling at
| what's now possible to do with an off-the-shelf software.
|
| Yeah, it's "just" 50 fps, but ... would you just look at it!
|
| 4 years ago there was an equally fascinating "Paris apartment" VR
| demo, but the movement was limited and the amount of work that
| went into appears to have been orders of magnitude more -
| https://www.benoitdereau.com/
|
| Go back 10 years and seeing this back then would've been
| absolutely bananas.
|
| Makes you wonder what we'll have in 10 years from now.
| Daub wrote:
| Off the shelf yes, but wow.... The requirements for Unreal are
| unreal.
|
| Recent versions handle real-time global illumination (Lumen)
| and dynamically render geometry to insane levels of detail
| (nanite). Both of these are groundbreaking achievements. But
| having had to install this in a bunch of university computers I
| can tell you that it comes at a cost.
|
| Interestingly, the most significant issue is the space these
| installations require. We have optimized our installation as
| much as we can, but we nonetheless had to introduce systems
| whereby local storage was wiped clean every two weeks.
| solardev wrote:
| Wait, disk space was the limiting factor, not GPUs?
| chabad360 wrote:
| Yep, unreal is surprisingly efficient on the graphics side
| of things, but it also wants 70-something GB just to
| install and that's before it starts setting up the graphics
| cache which adds another 40 GB iirc.
| jupp0r wrote:
| 1TB SSDs are $90.
| birksherty wrote:
| HN is rich and detached from reality in other parts of
| the world. People still have to manage their savings to
| buy storage in non rich world.
| jupp0r wrote:
| How much is the rest of a VR setup?
| chabad360 wrote:
| Yes, but it's a bit hard to convince your boss to allow
| buying a lot of them (just 10 is already $900).
| jupp0r wrote:
| I found it harder to justify those VR goggles.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| And thanks to inflation, while $90 used to be like six to
| eight bags of groceries not that long ago, now it's only
| two or three. So that's not like you can buy much else
| with that $90.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| And 2TB is like $120
| Daub wrote:
| Yep. The install size of unreal is a known issue:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n7vwGnKSbmE&feature=youtu.be
|
| Our lab computors have 500gb of space. Each time a new
| profile is activated by a student, that eats up around 5 to
| 10 gig. In addition... Video editing eats up storage space
| like there is no tomorrow (the Cache requirements of
| Resolve are another issue). Nanite supports scene with very
| dance meshes (downloaded directly from Unreals online
| store). These add up quickly in terms of file size,
| especially as each comes in several versions, with multiple
| levels of detail.
|
| Ideally we would have liked to install more than one
| version of Unreal. Unreal updates regularly and files
| created with each version cannot be guaranteed to be opened
| by subsequent versions. However, this was one saving we
| made.
|
| There are sample files which are actually very instructive
| but which we did not install.
|
| All of these issues compounded and towards the end of sem
| we were having a tough time.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| A 2tb ssd is little over 100. There's no good reason this
| isn't upgraded
| smoldesu wrote:
| I couldn't find the exact video, but Digital Foundry did a
| great breakdown on the performance bottlenecks in Unreal 5.
| They showed how disk speed directly influenced asset
| streaming, and it was pretty interesting to watch. Their
| HDD-speed drive choked constantly when running the UE5
| demo, but a SATA SSD had enough bandwidth to handle the
| assets.
|
| So, it's kinda a weird spot to be. Not every scene was
| streaming 250mb/s of assets, but when it _did_ the worse
| drives took a notable hit to performance.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Are these types of assets typically compressed?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Depends on the system, AFAIK. Modern consoles have so
| much disk bandwidth that compression is completely
| unnecessary, but PS5 and Xbox both have APIs for
| streaming and decompressing compressed assets. I haven't
| seen any titles using them, and it's doubtful that we'll
| reach a point where it's required with modern systems.
|
| That being said, compression would be an interesting
| avenue to explore for SD cards and SATA drives. The
| performance add can be pretty marginal, but sometimes
| that's just what these drives need.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > The requirements for Unreal are unreal.
|
| This has been true since 1998.
| Daub wrote:
| True. But the recent releases are a little better. We
| looked into using Unreal at school a few years ago but
| rejected it. This year was the first time we felt that our
| lab machines were equal to the task.
| djmips wrote:
| 50 FPS is too low. There's a reason that 90 FPS is the low bar
| for VR.
| rngname22 wrote:
| Nah. Not once you are experienced. Agreed as far as beginners.
| contravariant wrote:
| For something this big and far away you'd think there would be
| a way to cheat.
|
| It's not as if things are going to move massively if you move
| your head a bit, you should be able to precalculate things to
| an extent.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Most VR headsets/runtimes support this but it only goes so
| far. The closer things are the more occluded sections will
| need to be in-painted. The farther the scene is the more it
| might as well be a skybox at infinite distance.
| jffry wrote:
| There is such a way to cheat, and it's pretty clever. Store a
| depth map and just approximate parallax while you're waiting
| for a real new frame.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_reprojection
| Toutouxc wrote:
| 90 FPS for redrawing the image according to the motion of your
| head, but the actual rendering of the scene can be much slower.
| Motion reprojection is basically the only way to make GPU-
| intensive games like MSFS playable in VR on < $1000 GPUs.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Retrojection is great but it can't make up for 50 fps.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| As someone who never appreciated VR, this looks great.
|
| Now please do the Ishtar Gate
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_Gate
| Loic wrote:
| Thinking about it, it could be a very good tool to help cure fear
| of heights (or vertigo, not sure about the right term in
| English).
| time_to_smile wrote:
| If you haven't played it, I highly recommend Richie's Plank
| Experience [0].
|
| The main focus of the game is you take an elevator to the top
| of a building, there is a plank an you jump off it.
|
| I've found depending on the age of the participant the
| experience ranges from light fun to harrowing encounter with
| our own fears of death. I've seen people that, if it's their
| first time in VR, can take nearly an hour to finally do it.
|
| 0. https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/1642239225880682/
| zokier wrote:
| One thing that sticks out like sore thumb are those relatively
| low-res rock textures, especially close-up. Would be neat to see
| some procedural generation there.
|
| For reference here is the scene from the movie
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN7kG7Ui7Bg
| causi wrote:
| Am I alone in thinking most of this year's Unreal Engine
| demonstrations are just...not that great? Like, this is what
| graphics looked like on the Xbox One from nine years ago:
| https://halo.wiki.gallery/images/1/12/H5G-Waypoint-Swords_of...
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Halo 9 nine years ago looked like this
|
| https://images.app.goo.gl/wbcDbmHJhcUsxB5YA
| djmips wrote:
| 1 is the loneliest number.
| jayd16 wrote:
| The technology at play is about handling scaling detail. You
| can now use very large _and_ very detailed models so your
| scenes look good from close and afar. A single shot misses the
| point.
|
| What makes that shot look good are just the post effects, eg.
| depth of field and god rays.
| bogwog wrote:
| Nanite gives you high fidelity and Lumen gives you physically
| accurate lighting, but those things can't replace good art
| direction.
| et1337 wrote:
| There's no accounting for taste, but another reason why the
| Unreal advancements are a big deal is improved productivity for
| artists. The geometry in that Xbox One screenshot was
| painstakingly optimized by some poor overworked artist, whereas
| this guy just threw together a couple billion polygons and UE5
| didn't even flinch.
|
| edit: not to mention the lighting in the Xbox One screenshot
| was also pre-baked and probably manually tweaked, compared to
| real lighting updated in realtime in UE5.
| ainiriand wrote:
| Well that screen capture is taken from a cinematic scene if I
| am correct. UE demonstrations are real-time playable
| environments.
|
| Have you tested the Valley of the Ancients demo on your
| computer? You will see what I mean.
| kuschku wrote:
| The quality of nanite heavily depends on your model. You can
| use photogrammetry scans or CAD exports directly, and nanite
| will make sure they'll look good. But if you just use existing
| videogame or fanmade assets (like here), the quality obviously
| suffers.
| sk0g wrote:
| That screenshot does not look rendered in game, and no idea
| what the resolution is - at least not by an Xbox One. If
| current games are indistinguishable from single-frame renders
| that take minutes if not hours, I'd say that's a massive win!
|
| This looks more like the actual in-game rendering:
| http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deri...
|
| What stands out to me is the low resolution textures
| everywhere, obvious seams between terrain and assets (runtime
| virtual texturing resolves that), light seams which have odd
| seams, and the entire ambience being vaguely similar to how
| light acts, but not really - primarily the lack of bounce
| lighting affecting anything. With the move to HDR, the more
| binary lighting of previous games looks weird too now.
|
| Contrast that with the rich detail in lighting you can see in
| Fortnite's new update - https://i.redd.it/g2wqe10no44a1.jpg
|
| Nanite, especially foliage, is something you have to experience
| for yourself though. Foliage pop-in not being so stark and
| alarming is huge for me, and the rich lighting capabilities
| improves immersion massively.
|
| Regarding assets, high polygon assets have been created for
| ages too, but were never actually brought in to games. You bake
| those details into your normal maps, but with Nanite you can
| just bring them into games, and get the full detail when the
| player is up close to them. When games can fully embrace Lumen
| and Nanite, the developer iteration improvement will be huge.
| Tepix wrote:
| I think it will be commonplace to virtually walk around in movie
| scenes turned into 3d scenery by AI by the end of next year. I
| can see this turning into a real industry. Who wouldn't like to
| wander, fly and swim around Pandora, the world of Avatar?
|
| It will also lead to questions about the copyright of the
| resulting models, probably somewhat dependant on how automated
| this process is.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Who wouldn't like to wander, fly and swim around Pandora, the
| world of Avatar?
|
| Sure, like once or twice? I could see it getting old fast,
| though.
| andybak wrote:
| You might get bored with a specific location but not the
| general concept.
| vlunkr wrote:
| I disagree. VR is cool, but just walking around with
| nothing to do is not that interesting now.
| andybak wrote:
| Do you feel the same way about real life locations?
| Exhibitions? Galleries?
|
| Obviously nobody is saying "VR is the same as real life"
| but surely to some degree it's the content of the
| experience that determines whether something is
| interesting. Some locations would be fascinating to walk
| around even if there's technically "nothing to do".
|
| I'm not much of a gamer so my interest in VR has always
| slanted towards towards the more passive experiences. In
| fact quite often don't want my enjoyment spoiled by
| having to complete tasks or solve puzzles just to get
| around.
| bemmu wrote:
| Make them hangout spaces for VRChat and people will spend a
| lot of time in them.
| lajamerr wrote:
| I'd like a version of Tokyo that is hyper detailed and
| functioning transit system/lines.
|
| Spend a week preparing for a trip on how to navigate the
| city before actually going.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I'd like a version of my city without trash and traffic!
| astrange wrote:
| You don't need practice for that, all the signs are in
| English and you just use Jorudan for route planning. Or
| Google Maps if you must, though it's gotten worse over
| time.
|
| nb: you may need practice to navigate Shinjuku station
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I don't know but then agree. The general concept sounds
| boring to me but I can see how this can be interesting for
| many people. For example as a Starwars fan someone must
| want to fly the same scenes in VR for a few times.
|
| But I think the better is to train AI to generate scenes
| based on description such as "dogfight in P-51 with German
| ME-109 in WW2 for 15 mins" and after some computation the
| player gets to play this game in VR for 15 mins. The
| problem is how to make it possible at low cost as player
| will probably just pay a few bucks for such experience (but
| you can always resell the popular ones many times)
| mejutoco wrote:
| Once that stops being exciting we could tell AI to create new
| worlds combining others such as mixing the Smurfs and
| Pocahontas worlds... I wonder what it could come up with /s
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The Trek community created a pretty detailed model of the
| Enterprise-D, but took it down due to copyright concerns. It's
| still floating around if you know where to look but it's a real
| shame that development on it had to stop out of legal fears,
| well founded or not.
| onion2k wrote:
| _I can see this turning into a real industry. Who wouldn 't
| like to wander, fly and swim around Pandora, the world of
| Avatar?_
|
| Me. It sounds boring. I couldn't give a damn about exploring
| someone else's fantasy world. This is a bit odd because I love
| open world video games. I guess I need a reason to spend time
| there.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| if you watch TV, movies, read books, post games, or exist,
| you're already exploring someone else's world
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Once we can generate the world quickly, how far are we from
| generating things to do in that world?
| LeanderK wrote:
| I think ChatGPT showed exactly that we are not that far
| away. ChatGPT fine-tuned on the specific world could
| generate quests and make every NPC able to get interacted
| with
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > It will also lead to questions about the copyright of the
| resulting models
|
| I very much doubt it. Within the Movie business, the ownership
| of "digital assets" such as 3d models, who keeps what, and what
| they can legally do with it, is the subject of long and
| detailed contracts between the film studio, VFX houses,
| subcontractors etc. Ownership is well-covered, if not exactly
| "clear" if you're not versed in the law regarding it.
|
| A third party using any technique (AI included) to re-create a
| look-alike of such an asset, and to monetise this, would surely
| attract the "eye of Sauron" of the big studios to turn it's
| withering gaze upon them, and to send out a well-armed
| detachment of lawyers.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| > Who wouldn't like to wander, fly and swim around Pandora, the
| world of Avatar
|
| This is a good example of the fundamental limits of headset VR.
| Jumping into a lake will never feel real. Not by touch,
| obviously as you can't get wet. Not by physical movement
| because you almost certainly can't move downwards irl. Not by
| the weight of water around you or the buoyancy you expect to
| feel. Not by the rotation you would expect to have in water.
| Probably not by the stroke propeller movement or the
| correlation of your breath. And of course probably overly
| smooth movement to avoid motion sickness.
|
| The difference between controlling a flying camera through
| water and believing you're swimming is pretty big.
| baandang wrote:
| Exactly. We don't have virtual reality at all. We have
| virtual remote viewing with sound.
|
| We are basically at the Eliza stage of VR with a bunch of
| people pretending Eliza is not that far from passing the
| Turing Test.
|
| Once we have virtual skin sensation and virtual physical
| movement there is no intellectual debate about any of this.
| Just instruction tutorials about how to have the experience
| because no marketing needed.
|
| Once we have this I can think of far more interesting things
| than swimming around in the Avatar movie.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Not by touch, obviously as you can't get wet [et al]
|
| What you need is a home version of the 4DX cinema setup. If
| VR lasts another 5 years, I'd put money on someone making one
| of those in that timeframe.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| This led me to imagine people who learn to swim in VR and,
| because breathing is counterproductive underwater, then drown
| IRL.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| Then the family suing as the city doesn't have signs
| warning of holding your breath while underwater.
| avian wrote:
| > It will also lead to questions about the copyright of the
| resulting models
|
| I'm sure there will be no questions there.
|
| The questions about the copyright of models like DALL-E, Stable
| Diffusion, etc. exist solely because it infringes on the rights
| of thousands of random artists all around the world. There is
| no one single entity with enough power to clearly oppose it so
| people making the models can get away with "questionable
| copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk.
|
| Try the same with a model trained on a single movie created by
| a multinational with infinite money and all this will be
| resolved and defined real quick and strongly worded cease &
| desist letters sent out by end of work day.
| Tepix wrote:
| What if you train your AI model with three dozen films about
| ancient egypt and then generate a new 3d world out using the
| model? Seems fuzzy.
|
| But what if you use only three films? Or two?
| astrange wrote:
| > people making the models can get away with "questionable
| copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of talk.
|
| Where are they saying that? Nobody thinks it's a gray area,
| they think it's explicitly legal and they're probably right
| too. Claiming it's a copyright violation is actually a rather
| weak case artists are just saying is obvious.
|
| Microsoft has licensed DALL-E. They're not venturing into
| legal gray areas.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Microsoft [...] not venturing into legal gray areas.
|
| Their history as litigation defendants would suggest your
| optimism may perhaps be unfounded.
| mejutoco wrote:
| Well, I think it is a grey area.
|
| The argument I heard most often goes along the lines of:
| "people also learn from a lot of examples and other
| artists, and that is not copyrighted".
|
| It is an interesting argument, but AI is not people and the
| argument could easily be the opposite (not taking sides
| here). They might think it is legal, but it is far from
| clear, IMHO.
|
| IANAL, but it will be interesting to see if this is
| enforceable and by whom.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie owners
| will monitize it, which will end the current free-for-all.
| Want to walk around The Shire in VR? You better have paid for
| the Hobbits Online subscription package.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Sam: This is it.
|
| Frodo: What?
|
| Sam: If I take one more step, I'll be the farthest away
| from home I've ever been.
|
| Popup: And you can do that for just $29.99 when you buy The
| Hobbits Shire Expansion DLC!
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > The day after movie-to-VR becomes easy to do, movie
| owners will monitize it, which will end the current free-
| for-all.
|
| The movie making studios already own those 3d "digital
| assets" from their films. IDK if there is a real "free-for-
| all" right now, but the monetisation play has already been
| planned for.
| me551ah wrote:
| I think it would be the other way around. A lot of movies(and
| tv shows) have games these days. You can already experience
| Star Wars in VR with "Star Wars Squadrons" and I'm sure we
| will start to see a lot more games with VR support in the
| future, many being based on Movies. MNCs are there to make
| money and they will just license it.
| concordDance wrote:
| > The questions about the copyright of models like DALL-E,
| Stable Diffusion, etc. exist solely because it infringes on
| the rights of thousands of random artists all around the
| world
|
| How does it infringe? Are your memories of a movie copyright
| infringement?
|
| https://youtu.be/IFe9wiDfb0E
| jerf wrote:
| I do enjoy that video, but also, despite my deep cynicism
| about copyright, I can't help but think this is not in any
| risk of happening. If you trace the economics it makes no
| sense. Why would a creator make a thing, then sell you the
| experience of that thing, then be upset that you have
| memories of the experience of that thing? If they do try to
| claw it back in an era where memory editation is possible,
| why would anybody shell out any money to have an experience
| if they won't be allowed to remember it tomorrow? Why would
| I use copyright law to _prevent_ word-of-mouth marketing,
| the most powerful form of marketing there is?
|
| The point of copyright in general is to protect the
| economic value for the producer. Being so grabby about "IP
| rights" that they literally claw back the experience of
| consuming it means that the economic value of the IP drops
| to zero. It only has value in the context of being
| consumed, remembered, etc., and where the person purchasing
| the experience has confidence that such a thing will be
| allowed.
|
| I suppose hypothetical future simulated humans could be
| shaped and molded until they give up some real value for an
| "experience" they won't be allowed to remember tomorrow,
| but by then they have passed so far beyond what is "human"
| that I have no further guesses what they may act like.
| (That's the true meaning of the "singularity" term, not any
| particular future, but the point at which our predictions
| are meaningless.)
| [deleted]
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Not normally, but if you use those memories to re-create
| the movie and sell it to someone else then yeah, that's
| totally copyright infringement.
| luma wrote:
| If I am an artist and I go to art school, I'm going to
| spend years studying the masters to learn their
| techniques and style. If I then produce an impressionist
| portrait on canvass, informed and influenced by the years
| of study of existing works.... am I violating copyright?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| If you're influenced no.
|
| If you build your own replica of the bridge of the
| Enterprise, then yes.
|
| This is pretty settled law.
| burkaman wrote:
| No, because it took years of study and producing a new
| portrait will take weeks. If you were able to study a
| master's entire portfolio in a matter of hours and then
| instantaneously generate 10,000 portraits in their
| distinct style, yes that would be unethical. I don't know
| enough about copyright to say if it would be illegal and
| I don't think that's a particularly interesting topic.
| chrischen wrote:
| You just described some pretty amazing technology that
| can quite possibly move the human race forward and I'm
| surprised your first thought is that it is unethical. New
| technology often displaces old methodologies by
| disruption. It is not unethical to disrupt, but it may be
| unethical to let those people be disrupted without
| compensation, which is where I feel a lot of the anti-
| technology sentiment comes from.
|
| As a society we ask people to branch out into various
| expertise... through no fault of their own maybe
| someone's expertise is randomly obsoleted by a new
| technology. Just as copyright laws incentivize new
| creations, we as a society should incentivize people to
| embrace new disrupting technologies by safety-netting
| those displaced by them since it's a gamble more or less
| of who is next to be displaced.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| If you're creating new works _inspired_ by copyrighted
| works, no that 's not (or should not be) copyright
| infringement. If you're creating exact reproductions of
| copyrighted works (e.g. The Gates of Argonath from Peter
| Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings), just in a
| different format (3d instead of 2d) then yeah, that
| probably is.
| bscphil wrote:
| Right. Most of the conversations about IP on this site
| seem to rely on extremely abstract reasoning or idealist
| thinking about what constitutes "property" or what a
| "copy" is. My understanding is that judges are not so
| easily misled. If you are selling a "replica statue of
| two kings" online that is clearly intended to resemble
| the Gates of Argonath, you are setting yourself up for a
| lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you built it from your
| memory of the LOTR films, used an AI to generate a bunch
| of similar looking statues and picked the ones most
| similar to the films, or what have you. In practice any
| judge will see that you are attempting to make money off
| of the LOTR IP. (Note: not legal advice.)
|
| Note that this doesn't mean that Stable Diffusion (and
| friends) are copyright infringing just because they're
| trained on copyrighted material. My brain doesn't
| infringe the LOTR copyright because of my memories of the
| films. If I turn my experience of fantasy epics into a
| new novel with a different storyline than LOTR, that's
| not copyright infringement. That's creativity. But those
| same memories can likewise be used to make works that
| _are_ infringing. The question of infringement isn 't in
| the creative act, it's in the artifact. I think it's
| plausible (though not certain of course) that IP
| questions will be settled for AIs in the same way: it's
| not infringement to train your AI on copyrighted
| material. It _is_ infringement to use your AI to generate
| works that a reasonable person would conclude are
| intended to replicate or imitate copyrighted material.
| chrischen wrote:
| I'd like to add that all creative work stands on the
| shoulders of predecessors by being trained and based on
| (even if indirectly influenced) previous works. This really
| is unavoidable on a human level because we can only do what
| we see and experience.
| sfifs wrote:
| > There is no one single entity with enough power to clearly
| oppose it so people making the models can get away with
| "questionable copyright", "legal gray area", etc. kind of
| talk.
|
| Never underestimate the power of a sufficiently motivated
| rich individual to create legal hell (see Gawker). There are
| many very rich artists. There just needs to be an obvious
| large enough irritant which will happen as these generative
| models start getting used beyond toy amusements. The class
| action lawsuit against Copilot was filed just as pricing
| models started.
|
| This is going to be an interesting area to watch. Use in
| commercial projects at your own risk of exposure to
| liability.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| The wrong and easy reaction to this is to limit these
| services to not include copyrighted content. The more right
| and really really difficult solution would be to give the
| original copyright holders partial rights to the output.
|
| It really feels like the textile factory worker problem all
| over again. We can't let the big players be the benefactors
| every time.
| astrange wrote:
| > The more right and really really difficult solution
| would be to give the original copyright holders partial
| rights to the output.
|
| That is impossible (assigning credit to training images
| from the output is arbitrary, not deterministic) and
| wouldn't help anyone (imagine Spotify except it pays you
| even less).
|
| > It really feels like the textile factory worker problem
| all over again. We can't let the big players be the
| benefactors every time.
|
| Industrialization is better for society because it
| produces more customer surplus. Even Marx thought the
| Luddites were wrong.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| >Industrialization is better for society because it
| produces more customer surplus.
|
| Also my point.
|
| >Even Marx thought the Luddites were wrong.
|
| Sure they are wrong in that they confuse what the problem
| is. If workers owned the factory they would be happy to
| automate the work. But their feeling of being left out
| has some validity because if they weren't the total value
| would improve.
|
| The real issue is that the revenue brought back through
| automation doesn't benefit the worker. If it did, the
| automation would happen sooner because incentives would
| align better and the total value for society would thus
| likely improve faster.
| moron4hire wrote:
| The copyright protected material isn't in the model. This can
| be figured out easily because, if they did, the models are so
| much smaller than the input data that it'd be literal
| unobtanium for compression algorithms.
|
| Copyright also has nothing to do with the tool.
|
| What a piece depicts and how it is used are much more
| important than how a piece was created. If I paint a picture
| by hand of a particular scene from a Disney movie, that's
| clearly a derived work and may be subject to copyright
| protection (it depends, there could be a fair use argument in
| specific situations, so even "it's copyright!" is not a cut-
| and-dried argument). If I paint a picture of Hercules in the
| style of Disney, that's trademark violation. But I can paint
| Hercules in any other style and Disney can't say shit (though
| they certainly try).
|
| This is an age-old argument. Some artists think they should
| have a monopoly on certain ideas. As a society, we've already
| said no, you only get to own your expression of your ideas.
|
| And as ideas go, "like a trending artist on ArtStation" isn't
| a particularly strong one.
| Arelius wrote:
| Why by the end of next year? That seems optimistically short.
|
| Why hadn't it happened this year, or last? Nanite is great, but
| IMO doesnt change the equation that dramatically.
|
| The cost for a studio to manually decimate game quality
| versions have been small enough that of the will had been
| there, we could have been doing it for years.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Why hadn't it happened this year, or last?
|
| Having loosely followed this space, I think I might actually
| have some input!
|
| First off, you need a VR-ready environment. Not many
| companies are making these, so the only people equipped to
| roll this out is Valve, Meta, and possibly Unreal/Epic. Valve
| already did this alongside Half Life Alyx; they released
| certain map portions so you could freely walk around them
| with friends without playing the game. Meta is _getting_
| there, but the combination of low-power hardware and headset
| attrition doesn 't leave them with much of an audience.
| There's also Epic, but they don't really do much in this
| space yet either.
|
| So, obviously a paradigm shift is needed. And frankly, I
| think Universal Scene Description will be that paradigm
| shift. TL-DR: Nvidia came up with a new standard for 3D
| environments that interoperates game technology with digital
| effects. In theory, you could take your favorite Andor or
| Rings of Power scenes, drag their file into another app, and
| just start walking around in-scene. You may end up adjusting
| a few things vis-a-vis scale, but once it reaches adoption I
| can see it being pretty easy to work with and popular.
|
| Maybe 'next year' is a little close, but the stars have
| definitely aligned already.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Thoughts on the web and the role that WASM, WebGPU, and
| WebXR have as a distribution channel for these immersive
| experiences?
| rngname22 wrote:
| The content pipelines aren't there, or visual fidelity.
| smoldesu wrote:
| WebXR feels like a solid building-block to me. Adoption
| will be (and has been) shaky, but with Apple being forced
| to adopt third-party browser engines it's revival seems
| likely.
|
| WASM is neat but extremely finnecky at the moment. I've
| seen cool stuff done with it, but I'm not convinced it's
| funny production ready yet.
|
| WebGPU is sorta in the same boat as WASM, if a little
| more realistic of a bet. People will want hardware-
| accelerated browser experiences soon, and WebGPU will
| probably do most of the lifting there.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Who wouldn't like to wander, fly and swim around Pandora, the
| world of Avatar?"
|
| Me, but I doubt it will be the same experience, if the scene is
| highly optimized by hand like the movie is vs. some AI
| generation.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Have you read "Ready Player One"?
|
| The author predicted that players will play a game where they
| will be dropped into their favorite movies, and will be given
| points for exactly mimicking the dialogue, inflection, and
| movements of the characters.
|
| Spoiler: the first one is War Games.
| intrasight wrote:
| >lead to questions about the copyright
|
| It will lead to questions - but those questions will be
| answered by the platform owners not the courts. The platform
| owners will just remove your models even in cases where a court
| would rule it fair use.
|
| VR of real places is going to be huge - bigger than for
| imaginary places. My guess is that most VR worlds will be a
| combination.
|
| Here's a question. What if you model the real world and an
| architect of a building. I know that copyright doesn't apply to
| buildings or other functional works. But again, this will be
| decided by the platform owners and not the courts.
|
| Clearly there are good reasons to not have "platform owners" in
| the metaverse.
| auveair wrote:
| > I think it will be commonplace to virtually walk around in
| movie scenes turned into 3d scenery by AI by the end of next
| year.
|
| I would take the opposite bet, I doubt most movies have
| complete enough 3D scene to be AI enhanced, let alone something
| good enough to walk around, you wouldn't model what you won't
| film after all and nobody wants to see hallucinated aliens in
| middle earth.
| Tepix wrote:
| No, AI will generate the 3d scene just by looking at the 2d
| footage.
|
| It can fill in the blanks (i.e. provide textures for areas
| that are invisible in the film).
| automatic6131 wrote:
| It will make a chuffing good effort but fail hilariously in
| >99% of cases but then people will parade the fraction that
| make sense.
| Tepix wrote:
| It's getting better all the time, check
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y1-KlTEmwk
| [deleted]
| dncornholio wrote:
| This is super cool. Performance doesn't really matter, as long as
| it can keep 45 fps, the experience would be good enough with
| motion reprojection turned on.
| kobaroko wrote:
| This looks so great. When I see this I'm somewhat sad that I
| don0t have computer powerful enough to try to do something like
| this by myself.
| yrgulation wrote:
| VR capable computers are quite cheap. Cheaper than a low spec
| apple macbook pro running m1. For 2-3k you can get a beast of a
| machine running everything on real high settings.
| alt227 wrote:
| Considring a brand new top of the line Nvidia GPU will
| currently cost you almost 2k, your prices feel a little ~4-5
| years ago.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| In my experience you can almost always do much better
| buying a full computer on a good sale than buying
| components and building it yourself.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Right. You only need a card that's more powerful than the
| GTX 1060 for VR though, so the actual price-of-admission is
| more in the $250-400 price range.
| charcircuit wrote:
| The original comment wanted to try a demo like this. A
| RTX 3080 only runs it at 50 fps. A 1060 isn't good
| enough.
| smoldesu wrote:
| The parent I'm responding to was interpreting "VR
| capable" as "top of the line" which is demonstrably
| false. You probably can't even get this scene in the
| first place, so it's kinda a moot point.
| volkk wrote:
| i don't think you need a 4090 for this. and even if you did
| get one, its 1600$. another 1000$ for good CPU and ram,
| etc. and you're well under 3k.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:01 UTC)