Mr. Jack hired by Blizzard

[ManjiSanji]

And these were done by Mr. Jack? =o
/envy

[FoxSpirit]

No. SSAO is a brutal, horrible hack and it should never be used for anything.

Elaborate.

sideonote: It will stay around and it's being improved a lot.

[Nicol Bolas]

Elaborate.

This is just personal taste.

I have a firm belief when dealing with computer graphics that, if you're going for realism, you should use techniques that are based in, you know, reality.

Phong or Blinn lighting is an approximation of reality based on a particular model of reflectance, so it's acceptable (assuming you don't have the resources to do better). Goroud interpolation is an approximation; if you use enough triangles, it is equivalent to per-"pixel" computations. So it is acceptable. Shadow mapping is based on reality: objects obstruct direct illumination. And so on.

SSAO is a hack, plain and simple. It is based on nothing even approaching reality. It's based on an assumption that, just because the few pixels in the neighborhood of each other have wildly divergent screen-space normals that this represents two objects in direct contact with one another. It doesn't approximate reality; it just does something that happens to look something not entirely unlike reality.

I admit that SSAO does look nice, on some things. It offers a nod towards reality. But it just rubs me the wrong way to use an effect that is based on nothing even close to reality.

[Noise]

This is just personal taste.

I have a firm belief when dealing with computer graphics that, if you're going for realism, you should use techniques that are based in, you know, reality.

Phong or Blinn lighting is an approximation of reality based on a particular model of reflectance, so it's acceptable (assuming you don't have the resources to do better). Goroud interpolation is an approximation; if you use enough triangles, it is equivalent to per-"pixel" computations. So it is acceptable. Shadow mapping is based on reality: objects obstruct direct illumination. And so on.

SSAO is a hack, plain and simple. It is based on nothing even approaching reality. It's based on an assumption that, just because the few pixels in the neighborhood of each other have wildly divergent screen-space normals that this represents two objects in direct contact with one another. It doesn't approximate reality; it just does something that happens to look something not entirely unlike reality.

I admit that SSAO does look nice, on some things. It offers a nod towards reality. But it just rubs me the wrong way to use an effect that is based on nothing even close to reality.

It's not just based on normals it's also based on a pixel's distance from the camera and how that relates to the distances in near by pixels.
Also I would say that it does in fact approximate the small ambient shadows at crevices quite well and makes a scene look more realistic with full dynamic lighting.
It's also apparent that more games are using it and will continue to be a common technique.

Back on topic, Mr Jack has told me that "they've not had an actual 'concept guy' for quite a while", and they're happy to be able to throw a lot of things at him. It's interesting - it seems like people on the art team are all very broad in their work, I believe they all do models, designs, textures, etc.
And for the record, though it isn't as primary a skill as his 2d art, Mr Jack is a modeler and Blizzard hired him with 3d modelling being part of the deal.

[Nicol Bolas]

It's not just based on normals it's also based on a pixel's distance from the camera and how that relates to the distances in near by pixels.

That doesn't make it any less of a hack; it just makes the hack more complicated.

Also I would say that it does in fact approximate the small ambient shadows at crevices quite well and makes a scene look more realistic with full dynamic lighting.

No; it alters the image in a way that looks similar to ambient occlusion.

It's also apparent that more games are using it and will continue to be a common technique.

Oh, I'm sure they will. That doesn't make it a good one.

Like I said, it's just my personal dislike for graphical effects that have no basis in reality.

[XSOLDIER]

It's not just based on normals it's also based on a pixel's distance from the camera and how that relates to the distances in near by pixels.
Also I would say that it does in fact approximate the small ambient shadows at crevices quite well and makes a scene look more realistic with full dynamic lighting.
It's also apparent that more games are using it and will continue to be a common technique.

Back on topic, Mr Jack has told me that "they've not had an actual 'concept guy' for quite a while", and they're happy to be able to throw a lot of things at him. It's interesting - it seems like people on the art team are all very broad in their work, I believe they all do models, designs, textures, etc.
And for the record, though it isn't as primary a skill as his 2d art, Mr Jack is a modeler and Blizzard hired him with 3d modelling being part of the deal.

Awesome. Thanks for the information update/clarification.


X

[Noise]

That doesn't make it any less of a hack; it just makes the hack more complicated.

No; it alters the image in a way that looks similar to ambient occlusion.

Oh, I'm sure they will. That doesn't make it a good one.

Like I said, it's just my personal dislike for graphical effects that have no basis in reality.

What graphical technique isn't a hack? All they are is ways of fooling the human mind into believe they're seeing a real scene. How is approximating the minor shadows from the ambient light sources (which shadow techniques cannot model) any more of a hack than bump mapping or specular lighting techniques? If you don't like the effect, I understand, but I think the concept has as much basis in reality as any other.

Awesome. Thanks for the information update/clarification.

X

You're welcome, though I hardly gave any info

[Nicol Bolas]

What graphical technique isn't a hack?

There is a difference between a hack and an approximation; I thought I made that clear in my first post.

A hack is something that "looks good" but has no basis in reality. An approximation is something that can be improved on to achieve the equivalent of reality. You can make the triangular approximation of meshes better by adding more triangles. You can make the approximation of textures better by increasing their resolution. You can reduce shadow mapping artifacts by increasing its resolution. Anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering gets better with more samples.

All of those things, when taken out to infinite sizes, achieve the equivalent of reality: models become infinitely smooth, textures become infinitely detailed, aliasing artifacts disappear entirely, etc.

SSAO doesn't get better. It will never be better than it currently is. When actual ambient computations become possible in real time, SSAO will be abandoned, not enhanced.

[Noise]

So you don't like it because it can't be improved. I still think it looks good.