Right after he said they added point lighting, he said
“…so if we enable that mode we can see that it doesn’t look very realistic at all. The next mode uses maxwell’s new rendering operation to render a more accurate view that actually does take into account the specular reflections, bounced light off the ground…”
2 Likes
Maybe I should show this to my father. It pains me to say that while he is not a serious conspiracy nutjob, he keeps an “open mind” to way too much bullshit. At least he has no consistent agenda and it is possible to impress him with true things, too.
I blame the fact that he is relatively educated but spent a long time working most of his waking hours as an authority figure in his own sheltered little bubble. He is not really used to having his judgment questioned and doesn’t notice how often he is out of his depth when it comes to general knowledge about the outside world.
1 Like
The conclusion is obvious:
NVIDIA faked the Moon landing. And they have a time machine.
1 Like
Instead of spending thousands of man hours in meticulously modelling everything in a computer, why not just build a model and light it with a single source? Of course, we wouldn’t get a slick corporate ad out of it, so there’s always that.
“The computer rendering demo was faked!”
It’s much cheaper, and less illegal to model lunar regolith than it is to try to use it in a diorama.
1 Like
“On the surface, some of these claims seem reasonable.”
No, they really don’t.
Did you rush off to make your post without hearing the rest of the video? Because they say right after that, that the manual placement of light sources didn’t work, and they then use their calculated light source system.
They were going to do a tech demo of their fancy new graphics technology any way (that’s what the marketing budget is there for). And if you gotta do SOMETHING, why not this?
meh ?? not bad per se , but ?? i formerly used daz studio ( the free versions ) and now i use blender ~ the really hard stuff is like subsurface scattering and hair !! hair has lots of polygons ( or , a wire mesh simulation of hair does !! ) faking round and thin with lots of hairs , lots of triangles , lots !! i see no hair in this demo !! faster games does not equal youtubie quality rendering !! but , whatever runs on my raspberry pi render farm !!
Right. Because modelling the precise reflective qualities of lunar regolith on a computer is cheaper than using some other material with the same properties. Or are you telling me that there is no substance on earth that will model the light reflection of regolith precisely enough? Do you really think that the parameters of the modelling weren’t tweaked and ass-pulled to an absurd degree just to make a nice ad for their chip?
Actually I doubt that a model built to the same standards would have been easier or cheaper.
Anyway I don’t get what’s so horrible about picking an example where the general public understands how the quality of the lighting makes a difference.
1 Like
Making a model of this degree of quality takes a LOT of work. I sometimes make small precise parts and they are time-consuming to both design and make. If I could just sketch them up in the computer, I’d be happy - and that’s why 3d printing is so attractive technology. Of course if you just need a picture, it’s easier to render it in the computer. You’d be right a few decades ago.
Under the surface however, where the Moon-Men live, they make perfect sense.
i’m sure that if you looked in the right journals, you could find numerical data describing the reflection on light off lunar soil. It would be somewhat of a hassle to try and find an exact match for your diorama. Much easier to never leave the numerical realm.
1 Like
I think the point they’re trying to make is that they’re able to model all of this stuff in real time. But I’m not a graphics guy, so I can’t say for sure.
Sometimes, realtime modeling allows for problems to be quickly understood and solved on an intuitive level.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
