r/Damnthatsinteresting Dec 01 '22 Silver 2 Helpful 1 Take My Energy 1

How game developers trick you in an open world Video

[deleted]

21.2k Upvotes

5.1k

u/BartyB Dec 01 '22

So it's like real life. Everything disappears when it's not in your eye sight.

1.9k

u/procheeseburger Dec 01 '22

and....... that just fucked with my entire reality...

567

u/KavotosS Dec 01 '22 Silver

327

u/procheeseburger Dec 01 '22

okay I understood maybe 10% of that… but holy forkin shirt balls..

129

u/TransformerTanooki Dec 01 '22

Same here.

Can someone give us a ELI5 on this please?

757

u/irrimn Dec 01 '22 Silver Wholesome Awesome Answer

Not sure if this will be ELI5 and I'm not an expert but my understanding of it is:

Naturally, we expect things to have definite properties that explain their state of being. We expect these properties to apply at all times, whether we are aware of these properties or not. Like saying, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? The most logical answer is, "Yes!", because the laws of physics don't just stop being laws just because there's no one there observing them, right?

But, that's wrong. The experiment proved that the particles in this experiment do not have definite properties until measured. Things like velocity, direction, spin, etc. of a particle are all properties that have probabilities. We can only guess as to the properties of anything prior to measurement when the probability function (measured as a wave) collapses down to a single, definite property.

How did they figure this out?

Well, one of the 'laws' of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, information included. If anything could travel faster than the speed of light, it would break causality (that is, things happen in a certain order dictated by the passing of time and they cannot happen in a different order). One such example of this would be, say you could travel faster than light. This would mean that you could get in your FTL (faster than light) ship and travel some place and then once you arrived there you could look at where you left from and see yourself leaving (thereby you would arrive before you left).

What does this have to do with the experiment?

Well, basically one thing that's very peculiar about quantum mechanics is that particles can become entangled with each other. This means that, regardless of the distance between the two particles, if you measure one particle, you know the state of the other entangle particle. You can take two entangled particles, put the entire universe between them, and measuring one particle will tell you the state of the other particle. How can this be true? Either the particles are communicating with each other (which violates the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light) or that the particles themselves do not have definite properties -- basically, the moment you measure the particle, they settle on their properties and are not 'locally real' until measured.

What are the implications of this?

Honestly, this isn't really going to change anything about the way we live our lives... but it does raise some questions. Things are not real unless observed is a scary though to many. This also gives a little bit of credence to the idea that we live inside a simulation... after all, if reality were just one giant computer program, giving definite properties to every single particle in the universe and keeping track of each of them as though they were individual objects would take nearly infinite computing power. If you simply gave them properties on the fly (the moment that information is observed), it would take infinitely less computing power -- after all, sapient species cannot possibly be observing the entire universe all the time, so if it's not being observed, it doesn't have to be real, right?

427

u/CCHS_Band_Geek Dec 01 '22

I read this.

I’m going to go smoke a joint, and then understand it.

159

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22

I did that backwards. I smoked a joint and then read this. I struggling to understand.

90

u/jaretok Dec 02 '22

Things don’t be like they is… unless they’re being measure.

97

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '22 Silver

Soooooo as long as I don’t measure it, it’s as big as I tell her?

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/KratosofAsgard Dec 02 '22

I neither smoked a joint nor understood

5

u/the-special-milk Dec 02 '22

I understood it and didn't smoke a joint

→ More replies

17

u/johnbarry3434 Dec 02 '22

Basically if you travel faster than the speed of light you get to smoke the joint again.

4

u/RobotStop_ Dec 02 '22

i think the point was that you could watch yourself smoke the joint

→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/sphincterella Dec 02 '22

Imma smoke some weed and read it backward. Maybe I’ll disappear

23

u/mko710 Dec 02 '22

You exist only when you think about it

→ More replies

5

u/mustangjo52 Dec 02 '22

I think it says schrodingers cat is real

→ More replies

10

u/riotpwnege Dec 01 '22

Haha I just did the same thing only to find your comment lol

7

u/makeitgoose11 Dec 02 '22

I'm telling you this, if you're high you won't understand what to do... I'm currently higher than my cholesterol

5

u/CCHS_Band_Geek Dec 02 '22

do u eat healthy? I can’t tell if that means you are really high, or not at all

6

u/Ace-a-Nova1 Dec 02 '22

Oh god, gotta do the same. This is nutty and also terrifying

7

u/CCHS_Band_Geek Dec 02 '22

You didn’t exist until I wrote this comment, and I didn’t exist until u/irrimn wrote their comment.. so on and forth until the beginning of humanity, 16 years ago.

→ More replies

3

u/baumpop Dec 02 '22

Fuggin hogsleg it bro

→ More replies

20

u/DaleGribble312 Dec 01 '22 edited Dec 02 '22

I dont understand how a red apple is considered not red until we measure the wavelengths of light coming off it. Is there a difference that there is a probablity that the apple is not red if the probablity is zero?

Apple and color were perhaps not the best analogy to pick but what im trying to communicate is perspective that is objectively true.

43

u/irrimn Dec 01 '22

In this case, "measurement" is any direct observation of any specific property. In other words, seeing the apple is measuring the wavelengths of light with our eyes. Is the apple red before we see that it is red? Maybe, maybe not. Quantum mechanically speaking, it's not.

That being said, color isn't exactly a quantum property of the particles that make up the apple... and "locally" means on a quantum scale (very small -- like atoms) it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

→ More replies

11

u/Cmdr_Thrawn Dec 02 '22 edited Dec 02 '22

It's important to remember that in quantum mechanics, the "observations" and "measurements" don't refer to a person consciously observing things in the way that language implies.

Basically, if an entity exists without interacting with any other entity for a period of time (sort of an oversimplification but that's the general idea), then for that period of time it will exist as a quantum probability wave without definite properties until the interaction.

Edit to add: Generally speaking, macroscopic objects can't really not interact with matter around them

4

u/Cfp0001-Iceman Dec 02 '22 edited Dec 02 '22

Science operates on evidence and there is no evidence without an observation or measurement. This is a weird glitch in the scientific method in which anything that cannot be observed or measured simply doesn't exist. The best they have managed to account for this is probabilities.

I find the whole thing kind of dumb. People get confused and think it is vastly important part of physics when it's just a blind area we have no means of figuring out because of the way physics works.

It isn't new, it's always been like this, and I find it completely meaningless as particles that don't interact don't matter to anything. People are making up shit to explain something that is often badly explained to begin with.

The double slit experiment is probably the only time this kind of things matter. However, it's not because we can't measure light it behaves weirdly. It always behaves that way and we're trying to understand why, but we can't observe the key times to figure it out.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/DiddlyDooh Dec 02 '22

Or, alternatively, to the taoist idea that we are really just one process, consciousness interacting with the world

→ More replies

5

u/GaiusEmidius Dec 02 '22

But how can they tell that it’s not a thing until it’s measured. Don’t they have to measure it to prove that?

4

u/irrimn Dec 02 '22

Because if it was a thing, then measuring either particle would have no bearing on the measurement of the other particle.

The probabilities don't matter, it's the fact that measuring one thing determines the other outcome (it's deterministic). If it wasn't, it'd be random and follow the usual probability. The only way this could be the case is either if some information was travelling from one particle to the other (basically, like one particle passing a note to the other saying, "Hey, I was just measured and my spin is up so yours has to be down, ok?") which, again, violates the law that nothing can travel faster than light. So the only other conclusion we can gather (given that the probablities are still wave functions) is that there is no definite property to the particle until it's measured which collapses the wave function and determines the state of both particles. Ergo, the local universe is not "real" (IE particles do not have definite properties).

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/onomatopoetix Dec 02 '22

I definitely still don't get this concept. The only reasoning that makes sense is that my going to sleep doesn't pause/unpause you from having a lunchbreak while i'm sleeping, and simply waiting for me to acknowledge your existence before you can take your noon lunchbreak while my side of the earth is midnight.

6

u/irrimn Dec 02 '22

I mean, from your perception time just skips from one time to another while you sleep, and vice versa. In this way, the only perception was can attest to is our own and our worlds are only real while we exist in it (this is part of the theory behind quantum immortality).

4

u/DavidM47 Dec 02 '22

Back in my day, you had to take AP Chemistry to gain these insights about the world.

3

u/TransformerTanooki Dec 01 '22

Thanks! I definitely get more of it now. It's freaking nuts but really cool at the same time. Science is cool.

→ More replies

6

u/mdf34 Dec 01 '22

If dark energy expands as the universe does, then that could count for the infinite computing power. In another person's better words:

'Dark energy is caused by energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, and as the Universe expands, it's the energy density — the energy-per-unit-volume — that remains constant. As a result, a Universe filled with dark energy will see its expansion rate remain constant, rather than drop at all.'

Article

In theory, it can account for particles being able to communicate over those vast distances as well.

2

u/DjSalTNutz Dec 02 '22

So in this sense would our vision be a measurement? The apple isn't red until we've seen it and "measured" that it's red, thereby entangling it?

3

u/irrimn Dec 02 '22

More, or less. But this comparison was just an analogy. The actual concept only applies to quantum objects (particles), not apples. It applies to every single atom of the apple which cannot be meaningfully observed with our eyes -- You can't see the spin of a molecule just by looking at it, can you?

→ More replies

18

u/LostHollow Dec 01 '22

So.. you know, reality? Yea, not real. Who knew? 🤷‍♂️

3

u/Paige_Maddison Dec 01 '22

I’m still confused.

5

u/pjanic_at__the_isco Dec 02 '22

I'll give you an ELI14andthisisdeep:

Your perception of reality is no closer to what reality actually is than the icons on your desktop are to what a computer is.

Perceived reality, like your laptop's OS, is just a convenient abstraction to help you navigate actual reality.

→ More replies

3

u/XkF21WNJ Dec 02 '22

Quantum stuff behaves randomly.

The consensus used to be that random things like e.g. coins or the weather only "look" random, and that you could predict them if you had all data (down to the movement of individual atoms).

The Bell experiment proves this is not the case, there is no 'missing' data you could invent that could explain the randomness of quantum systems. Except if you allow stuff to go faster than light, which has its own set of issues (though it's still a valid trade off, so take any claims about the 'true' nature of reality with a grain of salt).

There's also an alternative explanation called 'superdeterminism', which boils down to 'the universe just does that', which for obvious reasons is a bit controversial.

6

u/Super-Worry8282 Dec 01 '22

life is too practical to be real, it is as if someone crafted it with a fixed equation and everything seems to match.

→ More replies

5

u/LuminescentBib Dec 02 '22

There’s actually a really simple explanation for the whole thing: Jeremy Bearimy

→ More replies

9

u/dianarawrz Dec 01 '22

I’m not high enough for this. And weed already gives me existential crisis.

→ More replies

13

u/redditgiveshemorroid Dec 01 '22

“I’d like to think the moon is still there when I’m not looking at it” —Albert Einstein

→ More replies

27

u/corndogblaster Dec 01 '22

One of the craziest things I’ve heard about blindness is “being blind doesn’t mean seeing blackness. It’s the absolute absence of sight. Like how you can’t see out of the back of your head”.

Still sticks with me..

11

u/Uniquewaz Dec 01 '22

I don't think I can comprehend this until being blind myself, which is scary.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/himynameisSal Dec 02 '22

So your saying I don't know I'm in a cave watching shadows?

→ More replies

67

u/dope-priest Dec 01 '22

There is a philosopher called Berkeley who used to say exactly this

29

u/Superb_Efficiency_74 Dec 01 '22

Isn't this an entire school of philosophical thought?

71

u/Drugsarefordrugs Dec 01 '22

Yes.

If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, did I have sex with my mom?

  • Sigmund Descartes

12

u/Coronathus Dec 01 '22

Did you?

40

u/Drugsarefordrugs Dec 01 '22

Schrödinger’s incest

11

u/Lord_Shaqq Dec 01 '22

Oedipus's paradox?

2

u/RogersPlaces Dec 01 '22

Bit Freudian?

2

u/J_Shinguarto Dec 01 '22

Oedipus's cat.

→ More replies

5

u/Ex-MuslimAtheist Dec 01 '22

I choose this guy's mom too.

→ More replies

7

u/Cmsmks Dec 01 '22

Solipsism

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/cris34c Dec 02 '22

We blink and sleep merely to give the graphics card a break. Darkness of deep shadows and night time are all to help processing speed.

3

u/Quiet-Strawberry4014 Dec 02 '22

Dreams are just the dlc content

7

u/vancitymajor Dec 02 '22

Finally! Someone looks at life the way I do.

Our life is God's or creator's own simulation that is providing more and more datapoints to improve it everyday

It gets insanely awesome when you start looking at things that way, and what if when we sleep, our consciousness & souls go somewhere else in a nano second and we become someone or something else?

Alright enough dope for the day for me

4

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

29

u/smithysmithers69 Dec 01 '22

Gets even crazier when you know the fact that electrons behave differently when they're being observed

37

u/magnora7 Interested Dec 01 '22

"Observed" in the physics sense means that it interacts with another particle, not that a living being is looking at it. This misconception drives me up the wall

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

3.9k

u/Clintonswart77 Dec 01 '22

that conserves resources. its not trickery. its good resource management

1.7k

u/RandomCandor Dec 01 '22

It's also how literally "every video game ever made" works, not just "open world" ones, and not even just 3D ones. It would be pointless to draw trees that you can't see.

452

u/Objective_Notice_995 Dec 01 '22

Not just video games.

Occlusion culling is a common technique for many types of software, especially those with graphics or graphical user interfaces.

282

u/McFry_ Dec 01 '22

Not just video games.

The universe does it

117

u/Vivid-Formal-3938 Dec 01 '22

If I can't see it, it must be gone!

57

u/Muffles7 Dec 01 '22

Me and my homies hate object permanence.

6

u/aquatogobpafree Dec 02 '22

this way of talking always gets me onboard.

if this guy and his homies hate it then i do too

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/jayy909 Dec 01 '22

Unless someone/something else sees

3

u/Philbro-Baggins Dec 02 '22

Not necessarily. The only person you can prove is real is you, so the only person this phenomenon happens with could be you and other people are also 'blipped' by it.

4

u/Buderus69 Dec 02 '22

How do your prove that you are real?

→ More replies

2

u/rybr3d Dec 01 '22

Does a bear shit in the woods?

→ More replies

42

u/King_Fluffaluff Dec 01 '22

And we have no proof that it doesnt

28

u/PhantomlyReaper Dec 01 '22

So what you're telling me is that if we cover every area in the world with cameras and people watching those cameras real life will crash?

31

u/yunohavefunnynames Dec 01 '22

No cause there’s only one real person in the world, everyone else is just NPCs. So the computer doesn’t have to draw the world for all the people watching the cameras

3

u/enneh_07 Dec 02 '22

Actually, that one player is playing all the characters at once.

→ More replies

13

u/Perfect-Rabbit5554 Dec 01 '22

This implies we have enough eyes to ddos the universe

11

u/McFry_ Dec 01 '22

We’ve already done that

3

u/rumforbreakfast Dec 01 '22

The cameras only need to record footage that would at some point be viewed.

17

u/FrameJump Dec 01 '22

Now wait a minute, isn't there some kinda quantum physics thing about particles reacting differently when observed vs. not?

I'm way outta my depth, but I've tried listening to podcasts before. Anyone able to explain?

9

u/crycryw0lf Dec 01 '22

Why render it if nobody's observing.

That's the poetic line.

9

u/C-SWhiskey Dec 01 '22 edited Dec 01 '22

Basically, quantum particles exist in a superposition of states, i.e. existing in all possible states at the same time, and when undergoing a measurement of some kind they collapse into a single one of those states. Doesn't have to be "looking" at it, it could be an interaction between two particles which doesn't involve humans whatsoever.

Schrodinger's cat is the famous analogy for this, which was originally devised to show the absurdity of this idea of superposition but which turned out to be more or less an accurate representation. The cat, inside a box with a vial of poison, exists in a superposition of being dead and alive. Once you open the box, the superposition collapses into one of those two states (which we would consider mutually exclusive), either alive or dead. This analogy, of course, requires an understanding that a cat in a box is a much more complex system than a single quantum particle, and that we intentionally dismiss that complexity to get the point across.

Where it gets really crazy is with certain series of measurements. Polarizing lenses are a good example of this. The jist is: light has electric and magnetic components that travel perpendicular to each other. So you can think of an electric wave moving vertically and a magnetic wave moving with it horizontally. Polarizing lenses literally just filter one of these by creating slits that only one component aligns to. So let's say we have vertical slits, only half the light is vertical so only that gets through (like fitting through prison cell bars). The result is that the light on the other side is half as strong (among other things). Naturally, if you then put a horizontal polarizer after that, nothing makes it through. You had only vertical light, which couldn't fit through the horizontal bars. The outcome is that looking through both polarizer just looks black. Now, if you put a third polarizer in that line, you'd think it would have no effect, right? After all, no light as getting past the second one. But you'd be wrong. Introducing a third polarizer practically resets the system and allows you to see through again. You'll get whatever polarization of light is aligned to the third polarizer, regardless of what happens before.

19

u/Mitchelltrt Dec 01 '22

The observer effect. Basically, science says that there are a bunch of ways a particle can do the thing, and all are equally likely. So we check, and all those ways of doing the thing "collapse" into a single one. The thing is, even otherwise-identical situations don't always collapse to the same possibility.

3

u/FrameJump Dec 01 '22

Thanks.

I understand it both more and less now, so I trust your explanation.

5

u/Mitchelltrt Dec 01 '22

That is not unusual in quantum physics.

3

u/FrameJump Dec 01 '22

Well at least I'm not doing it completely wrong then.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/tommybouy_1 Dec 01 '22

2 guys back to back

"I can see shit"

"Me too"

Science ✔️

4

u/King_Fluffaluff Dec 01 '22

Theres still space between them that could possibly not be loaded, are the backs of their heads loaded in? The world will never know.

And don't hit me with "there's a third person watching those two" because we all know no country on earth has the resources to get 3 people, together, in the same room.

→ More replies

2

u/Nii_Juu_Ichi Dec 01 '22

IIRC, it was something along the lines of:

If a tree falls when no one's around, do they make a sound?

→ More replies

17

u/snf Dec 01 '22

Teeeeeeechnically this would be frustum culling (draw only what's in the camera's field of view) rather than occlusion culling (draw only what's not hidden behind something else)

→ More replies

37

u/WilburTronix Dec 01 '22

If a tree glitches, and my avatar is pointed away from the tree, does it make a sound?

7

u/Phire453 Dec 01 '22

Well it wouldn't in arma but the tank that tapped it will make either a bang or vswosh sound as it disappeared into the sun.

→ More replies

24

u/PubertEHumphrey Dec 01 '22

You mean Princess Peach isn’t waiting for me to be rescued in a fully rendered castle that’s not on screen?

13

u/RandomCandor Dec 01 '22

Even the game tells you...

The princess is in an unrendered castle

16

u/Lataero Dec 01 '22

So if a tree falls in an unrendered forest...

15

u/FirstEvolutionist Dec 01 '22 edited Dec 02 '22

The information about the tree falling is registered in the server and when observed in the future, the rendered forest will show a fallen tree. Just like in our reality.

→ More replies

2

u/Witness_me_Karsa Dec 01 '22

Even in real life, it would be stupid to draw trees you cannot see.

2

u/ectobiologist7 Dec 02 '22

Does the ground disappear when you're not looking at it too? In the gif it stays when the player looks away, but I feel like theres no reason to render that everywhere either?

→ More replies
→ More replies

75

u/ArateshaNungastori Dec 01 '22

This has nothing to do with open world anyway, weird post.

→ More replies

43

u/invagueoutlines Dec 01 '22

The only trickery: convincing people that they are running around an open world when they are actually sitting at home staring at pixels on a screen.

→ More replies

12

u/marcymarc887 Dec 01 '22

This, Trick ja the wrong word

→ More replies

119

u/FearLessMD Dec 01 '22

Haha, they dont know i play with closed eyes

1.2k

u/SirSpankalott Dec 01 '22

Literally the same object permanence my dog has.

181

u/OMGitsTK447 Interested Dec 01 '22

Also the same object permanence some people have whilst driving trucks, cars, bikes, etc.

32

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

59

u/Financial-Amount-564 Dec 01 '22

This is why I don't like being in crowds. With everybody looking in different directions, performance can lag.

→ More replies

9

u/MDBrettio Dec 01 '22

Darn, this one fooled even me. Well placed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/z9tlr8/how_game_developers_trick_you_in_an_open_world/iyil2je?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

The account I'm replying to is a karma farming bot that steals other Redditors comments. Make sure to downvote to keep the bot from retaining karma.

Report > spam > harmful bots

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/DonutCola Dec 01 '22

Your dog uses ram optimization techniques?

→ More replies
→ More replies

275

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22 edited Jan 03 '23

[deleted]

44

u/sneaky-the-brave Dec 02 '22

It's just your phone moving as the earth rotates...duh

→ More replies

698

u/Tigerman245 Dec 01 '22

As a kid I used to follow random people on the street in GTA in order to find out their homes🤣

464

u/kiardo Dec 01 '22

Now as an adult you follow random people on the street in order to find out their homes.

49

u/letsgettrippy70a Dec 01 '22

Lol I can usually spot a tail. Let's go around the block 🤣

23

u/smeatr0n Dec 01 '22

Did you hear something???

must've been my imagination.

→ More replies
→ More replies

28

u/IASIP_Official Dec 01 '22

Haha I still do this. Hit them with my car to see where they run off to, or follow the cops to see where they're heading

28

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22

Are we still talking about GTA 🤨

8

u/Fair_Diet_4874 Dec 01 '22

Did you find them? Where do they live?

20

u/xThunderSlugx Dec 01 '22

Grove Street.

3

u/koevh Dec 01 '22

Home.

5

u/RandomBtty Dec 01 '22

At least it was before I fucked everything up.

5

u/RoboDae Dec 01 '22

People in GTA have homes?

6

u/Naouak Dec 01 '22

I think they added full schedule to npcs in the fourth one meaning you can follow people for a full day.

→ More replies

538

u/shuffel89work Dec 01 '22

Can someone send this to the pokemon team? They should see it.

307

u/SlothOfDoom Dec 01 '22 Helpful

Maybe they did it backwards

100

u/Phripheoniks Dec 01 '22

Funniest take I've seen on that shit yet

4

u/A_MAN_POTATO Dec 02 '22

They just didn't do it at all. Don't have to worry about drawing foliage if there isn't any foliage to draw.

4

u/Poyojo Dec 02 '22

The thought of the game having amazing and beautiful detail but it's only outside of your cone of vision is hilarious to me

31

u/chrismatt213 Dec 01 '22

I heard that the Pokémon dev team tried loading the whole area at once, which imo doesn’t make sense to the average player (like myself)

27

u/SupremeSassyPig Dec 01 '22

better yet, it doesnt stop rendering an area after you leave it, so after playing for maybe an hour, your switch that has the processing power of a popcorn kernal is popping like it was placed in microwave

4

u/RubeGoldbergCode Dec 02 '22

I've had Pokémon Violet open on my Switch and been playing across the entire region for a few hours a day for a whole week :') RIP my poor Switch

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

173

u/kevineleveneleven Dec 01 '22

Of course. Why would it bother rendering things the user cannot see?

45

u/-Danksouls- Dec 01 '22

Yea. But some people don’t know that so it’s cool to teach new things to people

→ More replies
→ More replies

72

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22

It isn’t a trick. Kind of optimization. No need to keep resources showing when not looking, just keep a marker. When views come into range of the marker it shows. Actually is very clever.

10

u/Sinowhino Dec 02 '22

Ya, it doesn't even really disappear either. It's just a graphical saver, only display in graphics what needs to be displayed and discard everything else.

The trees are still in RAM they exist in the world, just don't exist graphically.

I guess they could be generated on the fly, but that would be very resource intensive and not what is normally done.

→ More replies

81

u/Little_Active6025 Dec 01 '22

U see why fov is expensive on consoles

34

u/Ma1 Dec 01 '22

And splitscreen.

8

u/cr125rider Dec 01 '22

And rear view mirrors in racing games

44

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '22

Is that how it works for modern games, too?

27

u/Quickkiller28800 Dec 01 '22

Yea, that's how it works for pretty much every game that's optimized

→ More replies

13

u/cr125rider Dec 01 '22

When Minecraft's Notch first implemented this back in the day everyone got like a 5x FPS boost lol

12

u/DecryptedSkull Dec 01 '22

Yes, all the time.

6

u/SkullyShades Dec 01 '22

Yes, all it is doing is not drawing polygons outside the view frame

2

u/SeedFoundation Dec 02 '22

Not exclusive to open world games. It's called occlusion culling. If you don't cull the objects that a camera cannot see then the visual data is calculated pointlessly. There are some obvious drawbacks to this. Notice the shadows are around noon to avoid disappearing shadows from large objects.

→ More replies
→ More replies

223

u/ModernT1mes Dec 01 '22

Supposedly reality does this but we can't observe it.

11

u/magnora7 Interested Dec 01 '22 Helpful

No it doesn't. Nothing indicates reality does this.

98

u/Delicious-Gap1744 Dec 01 '22 edited Dec 01 '22 Wholesome

More so a fun thought experiment than how reality actually works. We don't know.

Sure, it's possible nothing exists until it is observed, it's also possible that is not the case.

Edit: Quantum mechanics do sort of work like that, but not really. Say an electron is travelling from point A to point B. In quantum mechanics it will only have a position once we observe it. But that's just because that's how quantum mechanics work, in quantum mechanics an electron exists without a true position. On finding the electron, the state of the electron is changed so the position is fixed, and its state is linked to the state of the measurement device.

Doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist unless we observe it, that electron would've existed without us observing it for all we know, particles just aren't intuitive to our human experience, they're more like a rough field or vague cloud than the ball-like particles we see in highschool science class.

And quantum mechanics isn't the true nature of the universe either, just a model we came up with that fits well at quantum scales. Although it doesn't work with relativity, so both are obviously still just approximations of our universes true nature.

26

u/Flankerooski719 Dec 01 '22

As someone with no knowledge of quantum mechanics, this hurt my brain and also gave me a feeling of existential dread

18

u/Delicious-Gap1744 Dec 01 '22

Short version is just that as far as we know things do exist even when we don't observe them.

I just explained that it can sound like things only exist when we observe them in quantum mechanics, but according to my admittedly still very surface level understanding that is not really the really case.

8

u/braless_and_lawless Dec 01 '22

I remember seeing this experiment they did that proved particles actually do behave differently under observation than when unobserved. Makes no fucking sense to me but I have dumbo brain

5

u/PonyBoy107 Dec 01 '22

Double slit experiment. It's a classic. The guys who won the Nobel prize this year in physics basically did a really really fancy version of it.

→ More replies

6

u/Delicious-Gap1744 Dec 01 '22

Because to observe particles you have to interact with them. Our brains didn't evolve to understand particle physics so or course it's not immediately intuitive.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/KeroNobu Dec 01 '22

If a tree falls in a game outside of your view, does it make a sound?

2

u/BeantreeKen Dec 01 '22 edited Dec 02 '22

Depending on the games engine it can. This is known as frustum culling and the basis of it is that the engine stops rendering objects outside of the cameras view. If the engine is only disabling rendering the object but not outright disabling it from the game world then yes, things such as scripts and whatnot should still function it just won't be visible. There's another form called occlusion culling that does the same thing with objects obscured to the camera (for example, if you're staring at a big rock that covers most of your screen, objects you cant see behind said rock may be culled.)

→ More replies

7

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

110

u/Euphoric-Dance-2309 Dec 01 '22

How is this tricking you? Did you think everything was fully rendered all the time?

130

u/Possible_Yogurt_8507 Dec 01 '22

People who dont have an understanding of videogames and tech probabaly would yes

56

u/Hazelsea1099 Dec 01 '22

I’m gonna be honest with you, I’m basically retarded

→ More replies

18

u/Purple_Jay Dec 01 '22

I always just thought it was a certain area around you and not just your field of view. I feel like loading and unloading everything and constantly checking if the object in question is in the player's FOV also takes a lot of computing power tho. I would have assumed that it's not worth the tradeoff

10

u/SkullyShades Dec 01 '22

It doesn’t load and unload. Loading takes a relatively long time. It’s just being culled

4

u/koevh Dec 01 '22

Even though I know what's culling, 'being culled' sounds like a dirty word for some niche sex kink.

'He was being culled in her dungeon for hours'

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/JCamson04 Dec 01 '22

Game freak does

2

u/greeneggsnyams Dec 01 '22

I didn't think this was the case in EVERY game

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/Lanky_Button7863 Dec 01 '22

man there,s countless "trick,s" being used similar to this too save hardware resources ... i must say some of them are nothing short of briliant !

console developed games are the number one example ...

4

u/davensecus Dec 01 '22

I used to think this happened in real life when I was a kid.

9

u/subject_deleted Dec 01 '22

As a kid, I genuinely wondered if this was how the world worked.. was it possible that everything behind me just disappears? If so, could I ever verify it?

→ More replies

19

u/Jaytim Dec 01 '22

This is a weird example. I first saw it with Horizon Zero Dawn. Which is WAY more impressive because the game doesn't look like some bootleg ps2 game.

5

u/LoneWolf12348Abd Dec 01 '22

A game doesn’t need good graphics for this to be impressive. If you saw this in the ps2 era you would be surprised. It’s not about graphics

→ More replies

2

u/TalkingRaccoon Dec 01 '22

Yea here's that same animation in horizon. Really cool looking from far away

https://www.reddit.com/r/DevTricks/comments/662k81/in_horizon_zero_dawn_the_world_is_culled_when/

3

u/12justin12 Dec 01 '22

this is actually how i thought the world worked as a kid. i thought things only existed when i was looking at them

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '22

Can’t tell me the real world isn’t doing this either

5

u/lessquiet Dec 02 '22

it gets even worse: those trees you see? they're not real! they're made up of tiny little squares of light embedded in the glass!

game devs are such liars.

→ More replies

13

u/ProbablyBoredHaha Dec 01 '22

Isn't this common knowledge? Don't waste frames by rendering things you can't see?

→ More replies

4

u/xFlo2212 Dec 01 '22

I don't quite see the trickery aspect of this

5

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

2

u/HugoDanielCS Dec 01 '22

Schrodinger's principle. Reality isn't there until you observe it.

2

u/Dithering_fights Dec 01 '22

If you can’t see it, is it a trick?

2

u/Lumpy_Relief_1979 Dec 01 '22

It’s just like the real simulation we live in now.

2

u/mousers21-gmx Dec 01 '22

they say reality works this way

2

u/DryButterscotch2643 Dec 01 '22

Someone hasn't seen the new unreal update 🙈

2

u/itsCS117 Dec 01 '22

I can't remember what the term is called (portaling I think) but its good way to save power & memory for not so beefy computers.

→ More replies

2

u/1337GamingLive Dec 01 '22

I think this is whats wrong with Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. I think they forgot about this technique.

2

u/hugsbosson Dec 01 '22

How do you know that's not whats happening in real life... ?

2

u/YeeeahBoyyyy Dec 01 '22

Not the Gamefreak devs for Pokemon Scarlet/Violet. It seems to be their first game ever. Constantly loading literaly everything on and off screen.

2

u/0logy_the_rat Dec 01 '22

In Gta if ur next to a fountain, look away from it and it should turn off, turn back around it should turn back on

2

u/ccaccus Dec 01 '22

No one tell him how movie sets work.

2

u/OverlordShion Dec 01 '22

Max Fov players would like to introduce themselves

2

u/Fr3stas Dec 01 '22

That’s a lot of pressure on those trees man

2

u/Shadow0fnothing Dec 01 '22

This is the basis of the simulation theory. Everything we don't actively observe does not exist until we do.

2

u/KhyronBackstabber Dec 02 '22

You have a weird definition of "trick".

→ More replies

2

u/Corkiey Dec 02 '22

This isn't a trick, it is optimization. Why render at minimum 4 times the amount of assets needed, when you can make your game run better and look the same. Not to mention games usually don't even use that method of rendering. The more common method is loading a circle around the player, so a sudden fast spin wouldn't have tearing on lower specs, which is independent of what direction the player is looking (although there are many cases where something like this is more practical and mixed with the rendered circle; and a good example of that would be high texture foliage)

2

u/mawkishdave Dec 02 '22

How is this a trick? it is a long-time common programming practice to save on memory.

→ More replies