the future of computer graphics begins today

[Shockwave]

Something nobody has answered here yet is the impact it will have on the simulation of physics.

Real materials will be able to be constructed, objects could be made out of tiny components that react just like the real thing.

Proper objects with hugely complicated sets of rules will be possible.

Tomorrow's games will have much more interactive environments making new gameplay ideas possible.

Tomorrows demos will be even more creative, because unlike software houses who are not creative because there is too much money at stake, demo teams will incorporate new features into thier demos.

The possibilities will be tremendous, much much higher screen resolutions will be possible as graphics cards have more power, completely outrageous fantasy worlds will be created by the leading groups.

But with proper physics, things will burn, freeze, melt, grow, bleed, flow ever more realistically.

[rain_storm]

There are Phyisics Processing Units currently available that will run in addition to your Graphics Card to add more realistic explosions etc. etc. all of Newtons Laws can be managed in hardware already. Why no one is raving about these PPU's is beyond me.

[Jim]

Noone knows what to do with them yet except maybe run Havok Physics on them.

Jim

[Stonemonkey]

I'd imagine it's a slightly different situation from when graphics cards were first introduced, back then you could have hardware/software options so that anyone without the new toy could still play the games just they wouldn't look as good. I can't imagine anyone releasing a game that relies on physics hardware to give the option for less advanced physics for those without the cards unless the physics it's simulating are non gameplay related perhaps like water/weather/fire/smoke visualisation.

Maybe I'm talking rubbish but I wouldn't like to think that something like a racing game could have different physics models depending on whether you had a card or not.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

It is quite interesting to think what could be done on a molecular level but isn't it at that level that traditional Newtonian physics fail? Also, if I remember correctly as far as encryption goes, there was some discussion of using a sort of quantum signal transmission system that in theory would abide by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This states that you can't measure and know the location of subatomic particles at the same time. So once the signal is received it cannot be reconstructed. I don't know much more than that about the system, just saw something on a science channel.

I do think there has to be some plateau on graphics technology. I would say that at some level a few million more polygons are not noticeable. I don't know if the same rule would apply with resolution but it seems that it might. Perhaps human perception plays a huge role in this plateau idea I'm thinking of. I could just be talking out of my ass but right now this is what I'm thinking.

[Stonemonkey]

On your thoughts on graphics technology Pixel_Outlaw, if you're talking about realism then it's not all about how many triangles you can throw into a scene (although I think an increase on that front can still currently make quite a difference and will do for a few years yet) but consider how something like lighting and shadowing can be improved and having the ability to add many more light sources into a scene with far less limitation and workarounds that are needed currently or the same with environmental effects like dynamic cubemapping on many more objects without having to make any compromises although that stuff does still involve more triangles.
Also, a lot of the effects used are approximations and there are probably more accurate (I'm not going into raytracing here) methods that are currently too expensive but may be viable in the future.

EDIT:
I am less inclined to think an increase in resolution from what we have now is as important unless it's displayed on a large screen.

[Shockwave]

I am less inclined to think an increase in resolution from what we have now is as important unless it's displayed on a large screen.

I think that this will happen, it kind of happens now with several monitors being powered off one graphics adapter.

Maybe we'll see new technology in monitors that allows super-fine resolutions.

[Jim]

I certainly can see 1920x1080p being a target for graphics card manufacturers and games.  That's where the mainstream technology maxes out.

Jim

[Stonemonkey]

I suppose what I mean is that higher resolution doesn't really mean a more realistic image, you can look at a program or movie at standard definition and it'll still look more real than computer graphics rendered at high definition. I know from time to time the film studios have pulled it off pretty well but that's with hardware far more powerful than is available for home use and isn't realtime rendered and until you can have a home computer capable of generating that sort of imagary in realtime I don't really think you can say that we've reached the limits of what graphics hardware can or should be doing and I think that's still a long way off.

[Xone]

I suppose what I mean is that higher resolution doesn't really mean a more realistic image, you can look at a program or movie at standard definition and it'll still look more real than computer graphics rendered at high definition. I know from time to time the film studios have pulled it off pretty well but that's with hardware far more powerful than is available for home use and isn't realtime rendered and until you can have a home computer capable of generating that sort of imagary in realtime I don't really think you can say that we've reached the limits of what graphics hardware can or should be doing and I think that's still a long way off.

Indeed Stonemonkey.
In fact it's the opposite. The higher the resolution, the more likely we are to see the differences between reality and CGI.
The human eye has an very good ability to detect subtelty. Even if they get the visuals looking like reality, the animation
of everything would also have to match... lip sync, AI and linking movement in particular is still stodgy in most cases at present.
I sometimes wonder why it is so important that reality is achieved in CG... why are people craving for it so much?
It has absolutely no impact on what a good game is all about.