next »

[Danmark]

The recoil that moves the gun is I think a really good design choice for recoil. I hate scattering, because it basically means throwing your bullets randomly around and that makes it impossible to hit from a certain distance.
With the motion recoil you can still hit far away if you just hold your gun still.

Games that have motion recoil for instance are BF1942 and maybe other BF games.

Those aren't the only options though. The game I recall having this sort of thing most prominently is Day of Defeat, and it's goofy as fuck, as though there's some robotic 1:1 correspondence between rotation of the gun & the eye. Frankly, it'll still look shitty even if you fix its influence on motion blur.

One alternative is to smoothly mix aiming & looking around, as in Operation Flashpoint and Red Orchestra. You can still show exactly where the gun's aiming, but recoil doesn't jolt your view around.

Or, you could tie together aiming & looking as normal, but have recoil slur the aim around the view, allowing the player to compensate smoothly. Sort of like this in Killzone, though I know I've seen better examples.

[Udderdude]

Motion blur is the screen shake of big budget games.

[Jackson31]

It's funny how motion blur can never be mentioned anywhere without people say how much they hate the idea, same as with 3D vision in movies/games.

I think it's looking great, this DX11 engine of yours keeps getting better and better very quickly.

I'm a big fan of pixel motion blur (or whatever technique you've used) to make each moving piece blur according to it's speed (even on the character, very impressive), it means screenshots can really show the action of a scene.
keep it up!

[Trevor Dunbar]

I don't think motion blur brings anything interesting to game, and if you think about it it's a rather dumb concept.
It's the same as lens flares.

I don't think you add anything interesting to the "game"...

Your opinion is great and all, but you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.

I'm pretty sure your around to just take a big fat "opinion dump" inside any thread you see.

This is not something as throw-away as a mere lens flare.
It's actually very practical and can add a lot of character to any animation if used sparingly.

Anyways...

Blurs are used in 2d animation all the time.

Take a look at this still from one of the bug's cartoons:

This is in middle of Elmer swinging his fist through the air. This motion blurring or "smears/smearing" is used all the time. Often it's only on one or two frames of animation.

Also here:


This is some kind-of amazing combination of stretching, squashing, AND motion "left-overs":


also this:



As far as implementation or ideas go:

Take a look at this Siggraph 2010 paper entitled "programmable motion effects":
http://graphics.ethz.ch/publications/papers/paperSchm10.php
This might be what you're after.

You can also see examples of motion blur in triple-A games like Dark Souls or Street Fighter 4.

[BorisTheBrave]

To state the obvious, have you considered turning down the blur so it is a more subtle effect. That will make it less annoying, while still contributing to the overall feel,

[PompiPompi]

Yes,

I have actually toned down the motion blur and increase the sampling and now it's no longer annoying. You also don't notice "clones" and it's smooth.
I am just a bit dissappointed that ast movement with patterns like looking at a brick wall while moving doesn't smear as it used to(because patterns with high contrast are most visible in motion). Maybe I can do non linear blurring. But this is fine for now.

[moi]

I don't think motion blur brings anything interesting to game, and if you think about it it's a rather dumb concept.
It's the same as lens flares.

I don't think you add anything interesting to the "game"...

Your opinion is great and all, but you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.

I'm pretty sure your around to just take a big fat "opinion dump" inside any thread you see.

I think you're just too dumb to understand what I'm saying (and it's true I tend to be too concise), anyway someone else develloped my argument about lensflare, if you can stop posting walt disney stuff long enough to read it, it's technical.

[BorisTheBrave]

moi, I value your posts in other threads, but I have to agree you've said nothing of value here. You don't like motion blur, I get, and there are some technical issues that need to be understood, but that was not the question, and some of us were more interested in the answer.

[Evan Balster]

Something I'll chip in is that if you're doing motion blur, you shouldn't bother with framerates over 30 hz, since you already have the smoothness of motion covered.

Lower framerate looks worse no matter how much you blur it. And at higher framerates the image can remain more clear in motion while still adequately tweened with blur.

Interesting anecdote:  For a long time, feature film has been 24 hz (or 25 in European regions; I may have the numbers switched) -- at some point in the last decade, efforts were made with pressure from the television industry to transition feature film to 60 hz.  But widely the results tend to be percieved as very "amateurish", quite possibly because many consumer digital camcorders record at the higher rate.  Even with today's 120hz and beyond digital projectors and displays, hollywood films are still less than 30 "fps", and look great.  Pause a film while some actor is in motion; you'll see plenty of blur.

I was watching the previews prior to "Dark Knight Rises" with some friends in a theater about a week ago.  One of the previews was for a videogame.  There was something jarring about it -- the trailer was 60 hz.  (Also the facial mocap, for all its efforts at realism, had not completed its climb out of the uncanny valley.)

It's my general philosophy that putting extra love into each of 30 (or 25!) frames is a more worthy pursuit than making sacrifices to achieve 60 or more.  As a last analog, the Nintendo Wii is 480p.  (480p!)  There are some damn nice looking Wii games out there -- they tend use high-quality antialiasing, as compared to 1080p with jagged edges and pixel sparkle as seen in a baffling proportion of high-profile 360 games.  Crisper is not always better.

Not asking you to agree with me; I just hope I've made my perspective clear.

[Schoq]

The public association of low frame rate with high budget production is learned and can be unlearned. Hopefully soon, I'm not fond of blurry images myself, and it actually limits what kind of shots are viable. First steps are being taken, thankfully.

I think games should try to feel like real life more than a Hollywood movie (immersive). Ideally the frame rate should be so high that what looks blurry and not depends only on what you focus your eyes on while the camera turns. (30 fps + motion blur makes some genres downright unplayable, btw)

It works better in animation, obviously, because it's crafted, not captured.

[Trevor Dunbar]

I don't think motion blur brings anything interesting to game, and if you think about it it's a rather dumb concept.
It's the same as lens flares.

I don't think you add anything interesting to the "game"...

Your opinion is great and all, but you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.

I'm pretty sure your around to just take a big fat "opinion dump" inside any thread you see.

I think you're just too dumb to understand what I'm saying (and it's true I tend to be too concise), anyway someone else develloped my argument about lensflare, if you can stop posting walt disney stuff long enough to read it, it's technical.

Incredibly childish way to respond don't ya think?
I think you're dumb too... we are all dum. Good job. Dum-à-dum.
And oh noes, NOT walt disney stuff when talking about animation, heaven forbid!
Also, I still don't see what lens flares have to do AT ALL with motion blur. Kinda like comparing two completely different things, sorta like say, apples and oranges, eh?

Anyways, I think a good way of doing this motion blur thing might not be to smear everything on the screen going fast (you could do a bit of that), but to program the blurring as an extra layer of data inside whatever animation system you might have going on here. On specific keyframes of animation you could specify different blurring parameters for your shader to use. You could make animations have a big impact this way, especially on attack animations.

[Evan Balster]

The public association of low frame rate with high budget production is learned and can be unlearned. Hopefully soon, I'm not fond of blurry images myself, and it actually limits what kind of shots are viable. First steps are being taken, thankfully.

I think games should try to feel like real life more than a Hollywood movie (immersive). Ideally the frame rate should be so high that what looks blurry and not depends only on what you focus your eyes on while the camera turns. (30 fps + motion blur makes some genres downright unplayable, btw)

It works better in animation, obviously, because it's crafted, not captured.

I'll agree with you it's not better in all situations (genres), but I am of the opinion that in a majority of situations it can be beneficial to forego the higher framerate.  Human eyes capture imagery at 5-10 hz, notwithstanding the illusion of motion, which blur is specifically intended to create.  Further, "blur" of some kind is inevitable with most current display technologies.  LCD update rates induce continuity in the output signal of a given pixel; successive images are "blurred" together in the transitional time.  So with no motion blur, there's simply a strobe-style effect, akin to a very poor motion blur or a hand waved in a fluorescent light.

To further clarify my position, I think motion blur tends to be swung like a club most of the time (this was the OP's mistake) -- it goes the way of bloom and specular highlights in the hands of aesthetically untrained programmers.  A subtle effect though -- enough to smooth out the discontinuities in those frame-to-frame transitions.  I regard that as a good thing.

I think games should try to feel like real life more than a Hollywood movie (immersive).

For the foreseeable future, I regard this as an unrealistic goal.  "30 hours per frame and 30 frames per second", as they say.

[Schoq]

60 hz was expected of a console game 25 years ago. It would be awful if half that became standard now.

I'm not really arguing against motion blur, I'm arguing against low framerate (the lower it is, the more intrusive the blur is).

[Udderdude]

Anyways, I think a good way of doing this motion blur thing might not be to smear everything on the screen going fast

Nothing beats the Nintendo 64 for Vaseline Vision (tm)

[moi]

If you take a look at a 25 years old videogame magazine, you will see  A LOT of motion blur.
Back in the time, there was no way to take a screenshot from your PC and paste it in Word, journalists had to take actual screen photos with cameras.

If you move your hand very fast in front of your eyes, you'll see motion blur too, if you play a fps and move your gun very fast, you'll likely see motion blur too, even if the game doesn't have it! it's the magic of your eyes.
I bet a lot of the posters in this thread are too young to have used a CRT but animation is a lot smoother on a CRT monitor and the blur is a lot prettier than on a LCD.

Why code MB into a game?

The only advantages of software MB are : 1-game consoles (because everything works differently on a console), 2- screenshots for magazines  (because it makes the AAA shooter look like a fucking michael BAY movie), and 3-the era not so long ago when hardware manufacturers, engine creators and AAA devellopers were working hand in pantshand to create new useless hardware on a regular basis and let the player pay inflated prices for glorified tech demos.
It seems that very recently, microsoft gave hints it wanted to break the cycle and stop being engaged in the hardware race (which led some AAA devs into a deep depression, because if they can't ride the hardware wave anymore, they'll be in direct confrontationwith , not the indie buffoons (except you derek), but with the medium grade studios that will make AAA studios obsolete in the time of a blink)
Motion blur was born as a NIVIDIA gimmick, a way to waste GPU cycles.


Also: software motion blur CAN NEVER look good because, blur works just like depth of field, it only appears on the peripheral areas where your eyes don't focus(if you look at a moving car, the background is blurred,& vice versa), or if something goes REALLY too fast (if you look at a punch coming at you, most of the time it will not be blurred).
So that's why software blur will always look OFF, just like 3D in cinema looks off because you can't really focus on the areas of your choice.
For example in pompi's picture

in a real situation we would see something like that only if we were focusing right on the hips of the monster, if we were focusing on the hand it would not be blurred unless it was going very fast.
As for photography it's a whole other business, photography is a passive representation and has its own codes.

the obvious conclusion is that motion blur shouldn't be used for real time effects in "free-roaming" games, but only for narrative effects, such as cinematics or for certain art games with restrictions on the player immersion