Comments on: I Hate the Term Photo-Realistic

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:47:48 +0000

One thing that always turned me off of addons like REX is the abuse of the term PhotoRealistic… “we took photos with real film, therefore it`s photorealistic“..

Hence why I use Xgraphics…

By: paul czerny

paul czerny — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:52:00 +0000

Ben
realistic features are alway a part of art, photorealistic is now a modern technique of impression. For me Photo and real life is something equal, the impression of life or the moment.
Impression and Expression is another point and this makes art.
What we get today by x-plane is a field of reconnesance of reality, a new chapter of reality.
I do not care if something is like a comic drawing or a photo, because photos are never the reality, but photos are something like a bridge to reality, a sort of remembering.
If you are against the term of photo-realistic you are against all of our impressions, our general impressions are media designed, how can you hate it? There is no other way as interpret it and use it for your own interests.
paul

By: pauli

pauli — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:33:43 +0000

no Ben
in general the photorealistic term is perfectly ok.
If you are generating all your images by hand as the MSFS public generates it, the outcome is like a COMIC. Nothing against COMICS because I love them as a form of Art.

Perhaps a match of both could bring the perfect simulation - drawing and photo.
Thats is my experience as a teacher in art.

By: Dave Duck

Dave Duck — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:10:43 +0000

X-Plane textures can be excellent when seen at their highest resolution, but they remain merely representative never realistic. X-Plane + photoreal textures equal a sum far in excess of their parts.

Conversely, crapphotoreal is much worse to look at that XP default textures. While I'd like to mention a vendor name, I'll refrain.

As Nils says, you feel a genuine urge to explore good photoreal locations, something I rarely experience with the default textures. Tenerife is the latest example.

Anyway, Ben, since your post related more to the use of the term, do you have an alternative up your sleeve? Maybe something neutral, like "photo-derived" or "photo-based"?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:34:11 +0000

One realizes that when trying to come up with 3D objects better than Sergio's 2D made-from-scratchtextures. Sergios' always look better from the intended viewpoint.

They are, of course, not more real than reality; maybe more attractive, more interesting or visually compelling.

By: Nils

Nils — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:30:08 +0000

I think ortophoto scenery falls short in just about every aspect except one and that simply that it offers the true diversity and non-repetitiveness of the real world. I can actually find myself just flying around over ortophoto scenery just to explore the world – I sadly never do that with regular scenery. However great it looks, there are just no surprises.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:37:35 +0000

I was going to suggest that we try and take back the term 'Hyper-realism' which has been hijacked by advertisers all too often and add a link to the wikipedia entry. Then I read it. The first line reads:

'Hyperrealism is a genre of painting and sculpture resembling a high resolution photograph.'

DOH!

However, when you get down to the fourth paragraph of the history section it does get what I was thinking of across:

'Hyperrealism, on the other hand, although photographic in essence, can often entail a softer and much more complex focus on the subject depicted, presenting it as a living tangible object. These objects and scenes in Hyperrealism paintings and sculptures are meticulously detailed to create the illusion of a new reality not seen in the original photo. That is not to say that they are surreal, as the illusion is a convincing depiction of (simulated) reality. Textures, surfaces, lighting effects and shadows are painted to appear clearer and more distinct than the reference photo or even the actual subject itself.'

Hmmm, that paragraph could have been written by Sergio's PR guy!

Anyhow, my point - though laboured - is that a photograph, while an accurate depiction of reality, is not necessarily as realistic as it gets. OK, it's as realistic as most of us can ever get but an expert can produce something which the human mind perceives as 'more real' than a photograph or even, in some cases, than reality. Perception is everything - especially when the concept is applied to simulation.

in other words - I agree - Now why didn't I just say that in the first place? - More coffee!

By: Benjamin Supnik

Benjamin Supnik — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:10:32 +0000

Right – right now you can pick "baked photo shadows" or "no shadows"…both of which have problems. 🙁

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:05:34 +0000

Unless the satellite was directly overhead at high noon, photo-realistic terrain is "realistic" exactly one time per day, in good weather. Shadows are just as important, perhaps more so, than pretty pixels. The procedural shaders in X-Plane work astonishingly well, and IMHO provide a better sim experience over the entire spectrum of flying possibilities. Photo-realistic airplanes are another matter, and that just keeps on getting better too. No complaints here, Ben.