RyderMark and Faud back at it again...

Discussion in 'Hardware and Software' started by Cyborg, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. Cyborg 3A5UX5

    Contributions:
    125
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    RyderMark and Fuad back at it again...

    Most of you should remember this bit 'o fun a few months ago:

    http://www.modtheater.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29670

    Forum members both here and around the net tore those 'images' a new one. But Fuad/INQ stood their ground saying they were not faked. To take one of their sayings 'world + dog' knew they were total BS and after a few articles back and fourth on the subject between DailyTech and Fuad things sort of died down.

    Fast forward to Monday and another set of RyderMark screen shots pop up on the INQ. This time with pictures of the GUI and 'similar' images as before, only blurred a bit in the case of the open water pic ( trying to hide something with the blur tool? ).

    As in the case with the other thread, I'll repeat that I do not believe that RyderMark is vaporware. What I do believe is Fuad is either naive or simply doing his best to promote a product for friends of his. I give Fuad a lot of credit on his reporting of vid card hardware so I think he's just playing stupid till his buddies can get the benchmark together. This is clearly evident by the lack of video backup that was promised:
    That was in July.. and was edited from what was originally stated, check the link below on Dailytech for the pre-edit version....'nuff said.

    Now back to the present:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37716

    Feel free to pick those images apart, I'm attaching a section of one of the pics I'd like explained... you should clearly see it in the 2nd screen shot.

    references:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33097
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3400
    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33131


    Just for the record, I'm an ATI/AMD fanboy... just want to clear that up before we get into name calling.

    We love you too Fuad....
  2. Tanner8 Captain

    Contributions:
    114
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    Hm, for some reason I totally missed that thread. Never seen it. Interesting though..
  3. Kachu Captain

    Contributions:
    108
    Specialties:
    Mapper, Modeler, Textures, Pure Gamer, Support
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    Good memories, but I dont have time to read through all that.
  4. NaotoKhan Private

    Contributions:
    62
  5. @(...:.:...)@ Hal

    Contributions:
    325
    Specialties:
    Scripting, Textures, Programming
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    PREMIUM
    I Donated
    Ok, so Fuad asks to be shot down again, and I would hate to disappoint. :)

    I am looking at screenshot 2 with the red Freedom Boat.

    The first thing you will notice is that this does not look like a screenshot from the latest top of the line rig torturing benchmark. The boat looks allot better than the last time, seems their modeller is learning on the job (pr0).

    But ignore the boat, the boat is boring, the background is interesting. Strait away you can see that the backdrop is made of textured planes; that is to say flat walls with no 3d detail, only textures on top.

    So first, why is a high end, top of the line 3D benchmark using textured planes (like they were in the last fake screenshot) to stress high end hardware to the limit? Rendering planes is not hard. There is not much in this thing apart from a boat, some water and the buildings around, so why would you optimize the background to such a huge extent? The boat is not anything special, so perhaps they want to test how well cards can render opaque water? :rolleyes:

    However, It looks to me like the background is in fact shopped. Look at the building on the right, and how it meets with the middle building. The perspective is completely wrong. It doesn't look like there is enough room for the red building to be there without intersecting the yellow one.

    Look at the extreme right. There is what looks like a window half in the ground. Now look at the fence. An average person you could estimate could be max twice the height of the fence. When you compare that to the building behind, it is completely out of scale. Look how big the windows are compared to a person’s height. Now we already know that they are not employing skilled 3d artists because the screenshots look like crap, but no 3d artist worth their salt would model a building with features 2-3x the size they should be. It's not just limited to this building either, look at the building in the middle.

    By now you will probably have noticed that there is a strange ghosting effect with the features offset to the right and slightly up. It looks to me like someone is trying to imitate an Afterimage effect. If you quickly look at that article you will see that the shader works basically by storing the previous rendered frame, and placing it over the new rendered frame but faded out to produce a trail effect.

    So the image is typically blurred, perhaps having the resolution reduced. So that would mean that you would not have a pixel perfect reproduction of the frame in the new frame right? It would be blurry. Also the old frame was rendered from a different position than the new frame, so the perspective will be different, the camera will be a different distance from the objects in the last frame, therefore there is no way that the after image could have exactly the same pixels as the current frame right? That is strange, because in the screenshot the afterimage does have exactly the same pixels as the current frame in many places.

    Kind of like how it would be if someone in Photoshop duplicated the layer, offset it a bit and reduced the opacity? How odd... Also try creating some vectors using identical points in the frame and after image duplicate, then compare them to each other. Quite interesting. :)


    If they weren’t trying to replicate that effect I have no idea what they were smoking when hey did that, because they really shot themselves in the ass with that one. There is no way you would get exactly the same pixels duplicated if that surface was rendered in 3d with perspective.

    I am not talking about 'it looks kind of the same' here, I mean it is the same on the pixel level. You can see the same distinctive patterns in the pixels.

    So after what are we left with?

    At best an ugly looking benchmark with sub standered artists working on it (don't understand concept of scale, texture mapping errors, un inspired, dull level design).

    At worst - A 3D boat with a photochopped background. Fuad claims to have taken the screenshot, so I don't know what he is trying to achieve.

    I will post images and stuff tomorrow.
    1 people like this.
  6. Cyborg 3A5UX5

    Contributions:
    125
    Processing:
    Graphics:
  7. @(...:.:...)@ Hal

    Contributions:
    325
    Specialties:
    Scripting, Textures, Programming
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    PREMIUM
    I Donated
    This is just a joke, there is no way this is a quality benchmark to rival the likes of 3D mark.

    Here are a few bullet points for this image :)
    • The engine suposedly supports soft shadows, but all of the shadows are hard and black, rarther like what you would get if you chucked together a scene in a 3d package with a few omni lights without knowing what you were doing.
    • The boats are the only thing in the scene that looks nice, the rest looks totaly amaturish. The artist didn't even bother putting another building behind the orange one, as a result you can see the sky in the gap between them.
    • The building on the extreme right looks like someone sawed it in half and dropped the top onto the bottom. Also check out the out of scale window half embeded into the ground.

      [IMG]
      The perspective changes half way up this image, and the lighting is different on the two parts, and the scale is different.
    • The boats have the mysterious ability to create perfectly vertical reflections in the water, regardless of the surface of the water not being flat, or at the boat not being a strong light source, and of course disregarding the position of the camera. Still, someone must have had fun playing around with the smudge tool. :)

      Same for the posts. Interesting how the real reflections in the water are distorted by the wavy surface of the water, but the boat and post reflections are un affected.

      Here is a close up. I added the teal lines myself, they are completley vertical, as are the 'reflections'.
      [IMG]
      These were photoshoped in after the image was rendered to make it look better.
    Compare and contrast:Look at this page on the developers website: http://www.candellasoftware.com/career.htm
    lmao, quality development house for sure.

    I'm not going to waste my time picking apart this image, anyone can see it looks like crap, was proberbly rendered in 3d app and not in real time, and has been photoshoped and the developers outsource the development of their own game/benchmark to random countries around the world. I will post the stuff from the other image in a bit.
  8. @(...:.:...)@ Hal

    Contributions:
    325
    Specialties:
    Scripting, Textures, Programming
    Processing:
    Graphics:
    PREMIUM
    I Donated

Share This Page