News Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge - Historical Construction/Impressions

[DanielBB8]

I doubt the background images are prerendered. The graphics cards they are using can do that stuff in real time. It's extremely impressive especially if they do it in 8k resolution. Maybe you need a new glasses prescription if you think reality is a degraded image.

Nice jab. I suppose if airplanes have no windows, perfectly scratch free with no distortion, no wind and rain, mist, clouds, and overcast skies to ruin your view, the images will be perfect looking outside. That realistic video is sunny skies. So realistic. At least in Star Wars, you can hear the enemy coming right at you in space.

 

[mickEblu]

No, but, what does that have to do with the point that a projection can't look realistic?




Yes, but those two factors are examples of developments in the field that go towards a projection looking realistic -- unless you want to point out that some of those unnamed factors are an obstacle to making SR look realistic?

Can something that has to be rendered ever be the same quality as something pre rendered or shot like Star Tours 2.0 / 1.0? I’ll admit I don’t know all the terminology. The previews of Falcon look like a video game to me. A great video game but still a video game.

 

[SWGalaxysEdge]

Can something that has to be rendered ever be the same quality as something pre rendered or shot like Star Tours 2.0 / 1.0? I’ll admit I don’t know all the terminology. The previews of Falcon look like a video game to me. A great video game but still a video game.

...that's why they called previews. Merely to demonstrate what they going to do...to see it in person is totally different.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Yes, but those two factors are examples of developments in the field that go towards a projection looking realistic -- unless you want to point out that some of those unnamed factors are an obstacle to making SR look realistic?

I'd love to. There's a huge difference between a computer generated product that's pre rendered (like an animated film) or a video game- that has to be rendered in real time. It's why computer animation has always looked better than a video game.

Things like lighting, aliasing, texture quality, shadows impact the quality of a video game. Many games will rendered objects at a distance at a lower quality than those closer to you to help improve performance- often at the expense of realism.

Edit: it's also worth noting the screens for the Falcon attraction are far bigger than a computer monitor or home TV. Things that look "real" on a 20 inch monitor will often look far worse when displayed on something bigger.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Can something that has to be rendered ever be the same quality as something pre rendered or shot like Star Tours 2.0 / 1.0? I’ll admit I don’t know all the terminology. The previews of Falcon look like a video game to me. A great video game but still a video game.

I'd love to. There's a huge difference between a computer generated product that's pre rendered (like an animated film) or a video game- that has to be rendered in real time. It's why computer animation has always looked better than a video game.

Things like lighting, aliasing, texture quality, shadows impact the quality of a video game. Many games will rendered objects at a distance at a lower quality than those closer to you to help improve performance- often at the expense of realism.

Edit: it's also worth noting the screens for the Falcon attraction are far bigger than a computer monitor or home TV. Things that look "real" on a 20 inch monitor will often look far worse when displayed on something bigger.

This brings us to the techie debate over what is the dpi of human sight, with the idea that, once you have a screen with a greater dpi, then the human eye won't be able to tell the difference between a created image and real life.

And the answer is: it's complicated. Human sight is very HD in a narrow circular field of view, and everything else is low rez. However, we see more than with our eyes, we see with our brain. And our brain is great at 'computing' and 'rendering' all the stuff our eyes really don't catch at HD. When we blink or dart our eyes back and forth, our brain creates a compensating image that fills in what would be a blur or blackness. We think what's in our peripheral vision is high rez, when, in fact, it's not. And that's because our brain paints in details we're not really seeing anymore.

And we have excellent color vision and 3D vision (both assembled by our brains and not what we actually see). And 3D vision is more than binocular images superimposed, it's the change of lighting, the blurring of things out of the field of focus, the little glints of light, the multiple shadings of light bouncing all over the place, it's seeing the minute translucence of an object (which often puts computer rendered skin in the uncanny valley if there's no translucence).

So, yes, in order for what's projected on the screen in Smuggler's Run to look 'real', it has to take into account all those effects that fool the eye and what our brains use to decode what we see as real. A pre-rendered ultra high def image like in Flight of Passage can do that. A rendered-on-the-fly real-time image requires huge super-powered computing and several of the highest end graphics cards along with a ultra high-def projector and everything in sync with movement. And Smuggler's Run will have all that. The kind of gorgeous pre-rendered CGI done on the fly.

 

[SuddenStorm]

This brings us to the techie debate over what is the dpi of human sight, with the idea that, once you have a screen with a greater dpi, then the human eye won't be able to tell the difference between a created image and real life.

And the answer is: it's complicated. Human sight is very HD in a narrow circular field of view, and everything else is low rez. However, we see more than with our eyes, we see with our brain. And our brain is great at 'computing' and 'rendering' all the stuff our eyes really don't catch at HD. When we blink or dart our eyes back and forth, our brain creates a compensating image that fills in what would be a blur or blackness. We think what's in our peripheral vision is high rez, when, in fact, it's not. And that's because our brain paints in details we're not really seeing anymore.

And we have excellent color vision and 3D vision (both assembled by our brains and not what we actually see). And 3D vision is more than binocular images superimposed, it's the change of lighting, the blurring of things out of the field of focus, the little glints of light, the multiple shadings of light bouncing all over the place, it's seeing the minute translucence of an object (which often puts computer rendered skin in the uncanny valley if there's no translucence).

So, yes, in order for what's projected on the screen in Smuggler's Run to look 'real', it has to take into account all those effects that fool the eye and what our brains use to decode what we see as real. A pre-rendered ultra high def image like in Flight of Passage can do that. A rendered-on-the-fly real-time image requires huge super-powered computing and several of the highest end graphics cards along with a ultra high-def projector and everything in sync with movement. And Smuggler's Run will have all that. The kind of gorgeous pre-rendered CGI done on the fly.

The limits of the human eye aren't the most important factor for real time rendered computer images. We haven't reached a point where real time cgi is indistinguishable from the real world.

Your examples of pixel density etc. Are far more applicable to something like soarin' or Star Tours that's a film.

I've never seen a video game that I couldn't tell the difference from the real world. They're getting better- but we're not there yet.

 

[Incomudro]

The limits of the human eye aren't the most important factor for real time rendered computer images. We haven't reached a point where real time cgi is indistinguishable from the real world.

Your examples of pixel density etc. Are far more applicable to something like soarin' or Star Tours that's a film.

I've never seen a video game that I couldn't tell the difference from the real world. They're getting better- but we're not there yet.

Does anyone claim that you won't detect the difference from the ride images vs the real world?
I can tell the difference between a movie and the real world.
The point is for what we see to be really well done.
Maybe it will look as good as Star Tours but in real time.
That seems to be the promise.

 

[SuddenStorm]

Does anyone claim that you won't detect the difference from the ride images vs the real world?
I can tell the difference between a movie and the real world.
The point is for what we see to be really well done.
Maybe it will look as good as Star Tours but in real time.
That seems to be the promise.

I guess for me personally, I don't find Star Tours to be immersive since it's obvious I'm watching a computer animated film. I don't want it to be obvious I'm in a simulator playing a giant video game on the Falcon.

Cgi simulators have the tendency to cause motion sickness for many people if there's any lag or sync problems- another potential drawback. Not to mention how poorly cg ages.

Compared to the immersive caverns in pirates, or the Haunted Mansion, or Indy- where the illusion is strong enough you can really get lost in that world if you let yourself.

 

[Phroobar]

Nice jab. I suppose if airplanes have no windows, perfectly scratch free with no distortion, no wind and rain, mist, clouds, and overcast skies to ruin your view, the images will be perfect looking outside. That realistic video is sunny skies. So realistic. At least in Star Wars, you can hear the enemy coming right at you in space.

All of those things can easily be added to the simulation. It's just a checkbox to get any weather and wind conditions you want. You can even filter with windshield damage. I guess you could get a fan for real wind in your face. Some of the control rigs are amazing.

 

[BrianLo]

Really? So 1.0 didn’t look more realistic?

In a different sort of sense where it just looked and felt incredibly old.

Video media attractions do need updates anyways every 10-15 years unless it's incredibly cutting edge at the time of release and maybe it pushes 20. That's its downfall.

I don't expect the Millennium Falcon attraction to be any different. The tech they are using is probably 5 years away from high end home PC's and another generation or two of consoles out. Really it should and will probably have new flight experiences within a decade anyways, at which time they'll need to update all the hardware.

 

[BrianLo]

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

All things seemingly being equal that capacity for both attractions seems pretty close. If there is a more than 20% Difference in capacity that's probably how things will sway.

 

[MisterPenguin]

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

All things seemingly being equal that capacity for both attractions seems pretty close. If there is a more than 20% Difference in capacity that's probably how things will sway.

People know the Falcon. "Piloting the Falcon" will be crack to a SW fan.

 

[SuddenStorm]

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

All things seemingly being equal that capacity for both attractions seems pretty close. If there is a more than 20% Difference in capacity that's probably how things will sway.

My money is on Rise of the Resistance being the more popular. I think it'll appeal to a broader audience- specifically people who don't want to play a video game at Disneyland, or those who can't handle simulators cause of motion sickness.

 

[Stevek]

My money is on Rise of the Resistance being the more popular. I think it'll appeal to a broader audience- specifically people who don't want to play a video game at Disneyland, or those who can't handle simulators cause of motion sickness.

That would be me...especially with the latter.

 

[Anjin]

With all of the rendering power they will need to run the ride, I'd be tempted to switch all those computers over to crypto currency mining after hours.

Edit :

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

If I had to bet, I'd put my churros on RotR. No real reason, just a gut feeling.

 

[mickEblu]

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

All things seemingly being equal that capacity for both attractions seems pretty close. If there is a more than 20% Difference in capacity that's probably how things will sway.

Great question. I’d say Falcon would be the priority for SW fans and casual guests. For more traditional Disneyland fans it would probably be ROTR. I see it being split 50/50 among APs unless one of the 2 ends up being a heck of a lot more fun than the other. So In short, I think it’ll be close at first. Over time I see the Falcon being more popular with APs as it sounds like it will be more thrilling and more repetitive.

It’s funny though because if comparisons are to believed I won’t be making either a priority in the long run. I rarely ride Indy and Star Tours and unless I’m with first time guests or family/ friends from out of town.

 

[BrianLo]

I keep waffling in my mind, which is why I asked the question and already seeing the variety of responses...

-I *think* Falcon will be slightly more appealing to first time guests. It sells itself.
-I'm fairly certain RotR will be my favourite attraction.
-RotR is the more accessible technically... but little kids will probably like the flight simulator aspects better.
-I think Falcon will be more repeatable to tourists.
-I think Falcon will be more repeatable to AP's for the first little while (in the same sense Mission Breakout or StarTours 2.0 drives the gotta catch 'em all mentality).
-Inevitably I think RotR will be more repeatable long term in the pirates sense for AP's.

I actually think this is one of the very rare times where popularity for two attractions in a land are somewhat matched. New Orleans with Pirates and Mansion comes to mind as one of the very few limited examples worldwide.

 

[BrianLo]

It’s funny though because if comparisons are to believed I won’t be making either a priority in the long run. I rarely ride Indy and Star Tours and unless I’m with first time guests or family/ friends from out of town.

I still think Indy is a poor example. There should be a lot more to see than on Indy. I'm not a crazy re-ride type person to begin with, but I'll frequently be content with one ride on Indy, whereas I easily wanted to do Shanghai's Pirates 3-4 times.

I've probably only been on Indy 10 times total between DL and TDS, Dinosaur 3-4x (which I actually don't think is a very good attraction) and Shanghai's pirates about 7x. So it's not about accessibility and familiarity as far as I'm aware (for me).

 

[britain]

I keep waffling in my mind, which is why I asked the question and already seeing the variety of responses...

-I *think* Falcon will be slightly more appealing to first time guests. It sells itself.
-I'm fairly certain RotR will be my favourite attraction.
-RotR is the more accessible technically... but little kids will probably like the flight simulator aspects better.
-I think Falcon will be more repeatable to tourists.
-I think Falcon will be more repeatable to AP's for the first little while (in the same sense Mission Breakout or StarTours 2.0 drives the gotta catch 'em all mentality).
-Inevitably I think RotR will be more repeatable long term in the pirates sense for AP's.

I actually think this is one of the very rare times where popularity for two attractions in a land are somewhat matched. New Orleans with Pirates and Mansion comes to mind as one of the very few limited examples worldwide.

I think it was an excellently wise decision to make RotR a low- or no- height restrictions attraction. While it may not be a capacity people eater like Pirates, it will be great to have a new lengthy adventure (counting pre-shows). While it is true that kids will like the video game nature of the Falcon, it might come off as too stressful for some kids, and they'll prefer the less interactive experience of RotR.

 

[SWGalaxysEdge]

In a different line of conversation. What are people's bets on which attraction will be the more publicly desirable? Not which one we'll like better, but which one will end up being the higher FP priority?

All things seemingly being equal that capacity for both attractions seems pretty close. If there is a more than 20% Difference in capacity that's probably how things will sway.

...most people think they want to "drive the Falcon" because that's their lifelong dream or something to that effect, and honestly, I was in that thinking UNTIL I learned about everything involved in RotR. I will always suggest to anyone who will listen, let everyone run for the Falcon, you go get in the RotR line. That is the star of the show.