What is the difference between virtual and real? Obviously, virtual space is different from real space no matter how hard you try to create and reproduce it. The purpose of experiencing a disaster using virtual space is to make people feel dangerous. Does it really make sense to take a lot of effort and make full use of all means and costs to create a photorealistic space?
The image on the far left is an image in which a general 3D model is placed. The image in the center is the one with shadow processing in real time, and the image on the right is the one with shadow and light processing in real time. As you can see at a glance, the image on the right is more photorealistic and natural. The problem with photorealistic images is that the processing load is heavy and the drawing speed is slow. With the current technology, there is a risk of VR sickness (maintaining 90 fps or more) due to a decrease in drawing speed. In a sense, a compromise is needed, and the current situation needs to be recovered with a reproduction technique.
After many years of verification, RiMM has come to the conclusion that a photorealistic environment is not necessary. The important thing is that there is no lie in the field. It is most important that you do not feel uncomfortable when you experience it, that you do not look at objects unrelated to the disaster, that you can easily understand the situation of the disaster, and that you can easily convey the essential fear. The conclusion is that photorealistic environmental reproduction cannot achieve the purpose with the current hardware. The virtual space is a virtual space and cannot be completely reproduced as the real space.