Comments on: Let’s get physical @FieldsOfCarp: That's a very valid point and one we've been experiencing ourselves. Diffuse/albedo maps are a good example. Artists have been authoring these to drive gamma-incorrect pipelinesforever. Maps authored in such a way don't work off the shelf when feeding into a linear pipeline, they just look too dark and kill low light details. In fact, when moving legacy assets over to a linear light pipeline, we've found ourselves having to apply an extra gamma curve to the data in these maps to "brighten" them up. Obviously a very hacky solution.A preferable solution long term would be education of what it requires make physical diffuse reflectively maps. It tricky because we want to send linear values to the renderer which represents the likelihood that a photon will get bounced back out, but what does this even look? And on top of that, what does it look when authored in a gamma corrected environment such as photoshop?I think a good way of doing that is to provide feedback on what the final result will be in a fully lit environment, so that as they tweak their maps, they see the results instantly, and can gain intuition about what makes a good diffuse map stand out from a "less good" one. As you say, it's tough, and not an overnight process, but it goes hand in hand as part of the transition to a linear lighting pipelines.@James: Agreed, I think this falls into the category of allowing parameters to go "outside of reality" though. Lower level physics and animation engines could still adhere to physical realities. @FieldsOfCarp: That’s a very valid point and one we’ve been experiencing ourselves. Diffuse/albedo maps are a good example. Artists have been authoring these to drive gamma-incorrect pipelinesforever. Maps authored in such a way don’t work off the shelf when feeding into a linear pipeline, they just look too dark and kill low light details. In fact, when moving legacy assets over to a linear light pipeline, we’ve found ourselves having to apply an extra gamma curve to the data in these maps to “brighten” them up. Obviously a very hacky solution.A preferable solution long term would be education of what it requires make physical diffuse reflectively maps. It tricky because we want to send linear values to the renderer which represents the likelihood that a photon will get bounced back out, but what does this even look? And on top of that, what does it look when authored in a gamma corrected environment such as photoshop?I think a good way of doing that is to provide feedback on what the final result will be in a fully lit environment, so that as they tweak their maps, they see the results instantly, and can gain intuition about what makes a good diffuse map stand out from a “less good” one. As you say, it’s tough, and not an overnight process, but it goes hand in hand as part of the transition to a linear lighting pipelines.@James: Agreed, I think this falls into the category of allowing parameters to go “outside of reality” though. Lower level physics and animation engines could still adhere to physical realities.

]]>
By: James Podesta/2011/01/24/lets-get-physical/#comment-555 James Podesta Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:54:33 +0000 ./altdevblogaday.org/2011/01/24/lets-get-physical/#comment-555 Yeah, same principle occurs in gameplay thanks to action movies --  people expect that if you get hit by a shotgun round,  you would fly back into a wall or blow apart...<o:p></o:p> So we end up having to try to fake that in gameplay or people will not be satisfied.<o:p></o:p> From: Posterous [mailto:comment-AJbJCbIdevgBAGc=posterous.com@sendgrid.me] On Behalf Of Posterous Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:46 PM To: podesta1971@gmail.com Subject: [altdevblogaday.com] Comment on "Let's get physical"<o:p></o:p> Yeah, same principle occurs in gameplay thanks to action movies –  people expect that if you get hit by a shotgun round,  you would fly back into a wall or blow apart…<o:p></o:p> So we end up having to try to fake that in gameplay or people will not be satisfied.<o:p></o:p> From: Posterous [mailto:comment-AJbJCbIdevgBAGc=posterous.com@sendgrid.me] On Behalf Of Posterous Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 10:46 PM To: podesta1971@gmail.com Subject: [altdevblogaday.com] Comment on "Let’s get physical"<o:p></o:p>

]]>
By: FieldsOfCarp/2011/01/24/lets-get-physical/#comment-554 FieldsOfCarp Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:45:34 +0000 An insightful read, thanks! I actually never thought to base something of off physical and sort of - work backward toward achievable framerate. It makes more sense than starting somewhere arbitrary and heading for realism. An insightful read, thanks! I actually never thought to base something of off physical and sort of – work backward toward achievable framerate. It makes more sense than starting somewhere arbitrary and heading for realism.

]]>