Hmm, watched it again and canot find any errors.. Probally me that don't got a trained eye for details

Quote from amp88 :

There's approximately 60 seconds of rendered content in the video. It took 4 months to render it on an 8 core Mac. I can appreciate the effort that's gone into making it and it looks pretty good (the departure from the hangar doesn't look very realistic though), but it's not that much better than some of the games that are being rendered at 60+ fps on current games consoles.

Have to agree. It looks great but I'm not sure I'd hire them if they're proud that it took them an absurdly long time to produce a beautiful but pretty bland bit of footage.

Interesting that just at the point where computers are capable of rendering massively complex scenes in an acceptable time, somebody invents HD and rendering times are thrown back 10 years

If you can make 1 minute of footage in 4 months=>175200 minutes.
Then that must mean that computers have to be 175200 times faster to be able to play games with photorealistic effects like this.

Quote from BlakjeKaas :

If you can make 1 minute of footage in 4 months=>175200 minutes.
Then that must mean that computers have to be 175200 times faster to be able to play games with photorealistic effects like this.

That's only true if someone doesn't create an improved algorithm for rendering or an entirely different technique (like an additional piece of hardware or a new instruction set/extension set for CPUs that can accelerate particular operations).

edit: To give an example. If someone asks you to add up all the numbers from 1 to 100. There are at least 2 ways to do it. The first (and most obvious) is to do the following:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... + 99 + 100 = 5050

A different way is to do the following:

(1+100) * 50 = 5050

The second way involves doing far fewer calculations, so for anything more than a handful of numbers the second way is much more efficient. Clearly rendering photo realistic images is a hell of a lot more complicated than adding some numbers, but I'm just using it to demonstrate a point.

Quote from LFSn00b :

amidoinitrite?

no...


Porsche car pronz or gtfo.

Ok... second time I watched it. At first I was like :|, then I was like o.0, finally, I was like -_-. I'll admit it IS good, they guy worked on it for alot of time, but the person has to realise a render is still just a render. nothing very special. I see renders I like all the time at the LFS 3D renders section too....

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

Ok... second time I watched it. At first I was like :|, then I was like o.0, finally, I was like -_-. I'll admit it IS good, they guy worked on it for alot of time, but the person has to realise a render is still just a render. nothing very special. I see renders I like all the time at the LFS 3D renders section too....

Most LFS renders looks just like RENDERS. This Porsche render looks real. That's the point here

Wow, but a bit too much reflection. Maybe its just me. But still, its awesome.

Personally I find the rendering in FF: the spirits within way more impressive.

a) too much bloom / hdr
b) no skidmarks!

otherwise very pretty

Quote from Bob Smith :

a) too much bloom / hdr
b) no skidmarks!

otherwise very pretty

Whoa, nice notice by the way. For sure, game developer must notice every detail