Whats Actually The Best PHOTOREALISTIC PC GAME that exists? I have gta v with insane graphics mods

[WolfLoverPro]

Heres some games i know

 

X plane with mods

gta v with mods

 

read dead 2 which i havent tried

[TempestCatto]

When it is released, the new Microsoft Flight Simulator (and keep in mind, this particular trailer is filmed on Xbox)

 

 

[aisle9]

Skyrim has some amazing ENBs out there that push the limits of photorealism.

[ARikozuM]

13 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Skyrim has some amazing ENBs out there that push the limits of photorealism.

Until the big tiddy hits you right in the 4K 8K. 

 

My votes go to Resident Evil 2 reboot, Detroit: Become Human, and Modern Warfare 2019 if we're talking vanilla graphics. Skyrim definitely hits the point of indiscernible differences if we omit said big tiddy, elf ears, and f#cking dragons. 

 

Edit: For some reason I didn't single out magic, but I did tiddies... #Truth

[WolfLoverPro]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Until the big tiddy hits you right in the 4K 8K. 

 

My votes go to Resident Evil 2 reboot, Detroit: Become Human, and Modern Warfare 2019 if we're talking vanilla graphics. Skyrim definitely hits the point of indiscernible differences if we omit said big tiddy, elf ears, and f#cking dragons. 

 

Edit: For some reason I didn't single out magic, but I did tiddies... #Truth

 

19 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Skyrim has some amazing ENBs out there that push the limits of photorealism.

 

Not sure.... Heres a comparsion

 

skyrim with whatever graphic mods they use

 

https://youtu.be/--7z6m_EBLc

 

 

AND gta v with same mods i use

 

Im watching on mobile so i cant tell yet ill look when I get on my pc tho

 

 

 

 

[Sauron]

FMV games

 

All other answers are invalid

[Soag]

12 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Until the big tiddy hits you right in the 4K 8K. 

How does that take away from the surroundings? Oh, I get it, cause that's what you focus on at that point, right?

 

And yeah, my vote goes to Skyrim when it's modded to oblivion. Pun intended :P.

 

12 hours ago, Sauron said:

All other answers are invalid

Please, go read the definition of photorealism then come back and admit you were wrong.

 

@WolfLoverPro If you were to take away characters and HUD in GTA, then take a screenshot, I would still be able to say it's GTA...

 

On vanilla? Plenty of titles, some Tomb Raider ones, Metro Exodus, Ethan Carter, BF:V, RDR2, Dishonored 2, FC:V...Crysis

[xAcid9]

Poor PC plebs need to spend thousand of dollars on hardwares and still mod their games to make it look realistic. /s

 

6 years old game. 

 

For vanilla PC games i say Battlefront 2 got the best looking graphic. 

Honorable mention goes to Kingdom Come: Deliverance. 

[JZStudios]

Frostbite engine games, Battlefront onwards. Most of the stuff they have is photogrammetry so the textures match the geometry just like real life. Assuming you're actually asking for photorealism and not just "good graphics" because GTA and Red Dead do look really good, but they don't look photorealistic.

Take it back a few years and you have Ethan Carter, Crysis series (CryEngine I still think has the best renderer for realistic results), Everybody's gone to the Rapture. You could toss in Edith Finch if you ignore the occasional character models. 3/4 of those games are "walking sims" though, and 2 are CryEngine. Hunt Showdown is a new CryEngine title.

The motion blur, light shafts, and Depth of field in particular are really impressive considering how shit they look in Unity or UE4. Too bad literally no one uses CryEngine.

[Mira Yurizaki]

I think the moment game rendering went to physically based rendering was when things started to look more or less photorealistic. Lighting makes a huge difference with regards to how "real" something looks.

[jones177]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:51 PM, ARikozuM said:

Until the big tiddy hits you right in the 4K 8K. 

 

If you used a UNP body they were not that big. You are thinking CBBE.

[tatte]

On 2/7/2020 at 11:31 AM, Soag said:

Ethan Carter

It's such an odd game. The nature is incredibly beautiful, stunning in VR, but the proportions of some random things are so off it hurts the immersion. I just want an unending forest like that to listen to audio books in.

[JZStudios]

15 hours ago, tatte said:

It's such an odd game. The nature is incredibly beautiful, stunning in VR, but the proportions of some random things are so off it hurts the immersion. I just want an unending forest like that to listen to audio books in.

At this point it's also kind of old and DICE have surpassed the quality of the photoscans and geometry too.

[Katarn]

If we're talking vanilla, the ones that come to mind are Metro Exodus and Battlefield V. COD WW2 was also strangely impressive when the filter didn't get in the way. I can't talk about MW as I haven't played it. I would also add the Resident Evil reboots.

 

But, I'm curious - what are the system specifications required to run the ultra-realism mods discussed here?

When I first played GTA V on a 7th gen i5 and a 1060 6GB, I was baffled at how bland the graphics looked (tbh MGSVPP looks much better) and how insanely demanding it was (could play at mostly Very High, and still choppy).

What system did you use?

[Chen G]

Forza Horizon 4?

[Pepino-CH]

For me its 100% the Red Dead Redemption 2. The best games i ever seen.  

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

Death Stranding can look great at times, Metro Exodus is another. 

 

I happen to think Days Gone is a beautiful game, and some may disagree but I rate Fallout 4.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

On 2/6/2020 at 7:56 PM, WolfLoverPro said:

 

 

Not sure.... Heres a comparsion

 

skyrim with whatever graphic mods they use

 

https://youtu.be/--7z6m_EBLc

 

 

AND gta v with same mods i use

 

Im watching on mobile so i cant tell yet ill look when I get on my pc tho

 

 

 

 

That's photo realism.

[G-Lord20]

Red Dead Redemption 2 on PC with mods is amazing realistic!

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

Kyoei Toshi

 

 

I mean i never bought condoms and facemasks in a japanese convenience store, but I imagine it being just as awkward IRL!

 

 

ps: 

Spoiler

i keep forgetting this is not on PC, oof 

 

[QuantumSingularity]

Photorealism is actually already here. There are plenty of games which with still screenshots look "real" - Forza Horizon 4, Cyberpunk (if you have the hardware), ETS 2, even GTA 4 had photorealistic mods. With the adoption of Ray tracing more and more games would get the "photo realistic" feel, cause the lighting is the single most important thing that gives depth to any image - CGI or photo. The immersion however is broken once you add motion OR focus on the texture details. People think it's only resolution that matters, but in fact it's more complex than just the number of pixels and frames. We will need the perfect balance between the right DPI and refresh rate for the monitor and amount of fps from the GPU.

Us humans hover at around 338 dpi/ppi on average with maximum of 2190 dpi/ppi at full on macro mode (your eye at minimum focus distance or 6.5cm). The amount of pixels we can perceive is about 40 million which is something like 8433x4743 at 16:9. The fastest image information we can process is 13 milliseconds which equates to 130FPS. When you put all those numbers together you start to understand why we are still able to distinguish CGI and video from reality.

A friend of mine started working at the local technical university and he told me about an experiment they made with some students learning about frametimes, framerates, pixels and the usual stuff. They masked a 4k 120Hz TV as a window in a room and had people come inside doing some tests. There was a live feed from a Canon EOS R5 also in 4k 120FPS. Even though people were far from the "window", at least 3m away and it wasn't showing some high contrast images that would immediately point out the fakery, people would still notice there was something wrong with the entire experience. In theory none of them was supposed to notice the difference, but turns out our brains are really hard to trick. So... photorealism is already achievable, but real-life realism is quite further away.

 

[xAcid9]

Late last year i was watching this race 

For like 5 mins my dad thought i was watching a real race.. until one of the dude hit the barrier hard and the car didn't show any damage. 
I can see in his face that he can't brain wtf just happened.

[tikker]

13 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

The fastest image information we can process is 13 milliseconds which equates to 130FPS. When you put all those numbers together you start to understand why we are still able to distinguish CGI and video from reality.

What's also important to distinguish is what we conciously process and what we unconciously process or notice. We can notice things at a much higher "FPS" (we don't see in FPS, but let's stick with this analogy) and e.g. the test with fighter pilots indicate we can in certain circumstances even identify objects shown as little as 1/220th of a second.

 

13 hours ago, QuantumSingularity said:

A friend of mine started working at the local technical university and he told me about an experiment they made with some students learning about frametimes, framerates, pixels and the usual stuff. They masked a 4k 120Hz TV as a window in a room and had people come inside doing some tests. There was a live feed from a Canon EOS R5 also in 4k 120FPS. Even though people were far from the "window", at least 3m away and it wasn't showing some high contrast images that would immediately point out the fakery, people would still notice there was something wrong with the entire experience. In theory none of them was supposed to notice the difference, but turns out our brains are really hard to trick. So... photorealism is already achievable, but real-life realism is quite further away.

Interesting experiment. Two things that my mind goes to as to why people would pick up on that so fast:

1) 120 Hz is way too smooth compared to real life. My phone camera at 60 FPS already breaks realism.

2) we probably immediately or rapidly notice from our surroundings that it's not real outside light passing through a window.

[QuantumSingularity]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

Interesting experiment. Two things that my mind goes to as to why people would pick up on that so fast:

1) 120 Hz is way too smooth compared to real life. My phone camera at 60 FPS already breaks realism.

2) we probably immediately or rapidly notice from our surroundings that it's not real outside light passing through a window.

Actually their conclusion from the experiment was the opposite. Turns out that 120Hz is a fraction slower than our natural "refresh rate" but it's still enough for our brain to pick it up. As for the light, before started with the "test subjects" my friend said they used a photometer to make sure the TV is emitting the same light intensity and on the other side wasn't bright daylight, just an inner hallway. There were no other windows to compare to. Also the camera angle was chosen after an extensive testing to avoid artefacts or other specific effects that would give up the secret. As far as i know scientists are still arguing if this "we can register information at the rate of 4ms (1/220th of a second)" is true or not. Linus did a really awesome video about this testing 120Hz vs 240Hz vs 60Hz and pretty much confirmed that the jump from 60 to 120 is substantial while the one from 120 to 240 is more subjective. But what i'm really interested in finding out is a test between 120 and 144, because after playing at 144Hz for a while, getting back to 120 i can't see the flickering, but i can feel it this makes sense. 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, QuantumSingularity said:

As far as i know scientists are still arguing if this "we can register information at the rate of 4ms (1/220th of a second)" is true or not. Linus did a really awesome video about this testing 120Hz vs 240Hz vs 60Hz and pretty much confirmed that the jump from 60 to 120 is substantial while the one from 120 to 240 is more subjective. But what i'm really interested in finding out is a test between 120 and 144, because after playing at 144Hz for a while, getting back to 120 i can't see the flickering, but i can feel it this makes sense. 

I think the second jump being harder or more subjective to notice makes sense, as fighter pilots are of course highly trained people. The same might perhaps be true for gaming at various refresh rates where for the casual gamer that extra millisecond isn't worth much, but for the competetive gamer specifically looking for it or training themselves to respond faster it might be.

1 hour ago, QuantumSingularity said:

Actually their conclusion from the experiment was the opposite. Turns out that 120Hz is a fraction slower than our natural "refresh rate" but it's still enough for our brain to pick it up. As for the light, before started with the "test subjects" my friend said they used a photometer to make sure the TV is emitting the same light intensity and on the other side wasn't bright daylight, just an inner hallway.

I was more leaning towards how light falls through windows. We have experience with natural lighting and I think a TV just doesn't replicate its travel path well. Like you can show light from a lightsources on the side falling in that halway on the screen, but it won't travel along its natural path into the room you are in. The refreshrate one is interesting.