We have lots of scales, benchmarks and yard sticks for various things, but what about an accuracy or a realism scale? It would probably have to be an approximation, or something far more complex than high school algebra, but it might work.
Here’s where this comes from: When we do 3D, we cheat a lot of things. A skin shader and painted texture is a simpler way of making realistic-looking skin than doing a dermis, epidermis, fat layers, and blood vessels and then telling our poor busted computers to calculate the light bounces. A skin shader fits our visual purposes perfectly. When we do carpet pile, very rarely does one go through the trouble of making a complex particle system for it, etc.
Additionally, in video games, most are simulations of some reality or another and tend to fake a lot of mechanics. Anyone familiar with State of Decay saw arguably the most ambitious but ultimately, by contrast, arcade-style zombie sim ever. ‘Food’ was an automatic shortcut to something that raises an arbitrary measurement called ‘stamina’ that allowed you to sprint or swing your weapon, whereas anyone who’s ever gone out and done demolitions or heavy remodeling knows, you get so many swings on that sledge hammer before you rest a bit, and eating something in the midst of swinging it doesn’t automatically give you another few swings. Same thing for sprinting: run a block, munch, run another block, munch, beat a hoard of zombies to death with a fire poker. Not how human metabolism works.
Sure it mimicked realism, but how actually realistic was it?
What about a scale?
Has anyone else ever thought similarly? :spin: