I've started this thread by explaining this very problem, so I don't get why you're trying to lecture me on subpel motion and disocclusion.

What's your point? Your replies seem to be just broadly contrarian and patronizing.

I've continued this discussion assuming that maybe we talk past each other by using the term "motion vectors" in narrower and broader meanings, or maybe you did not believe that the motion vectors that game engines have can be incredibly useful for video encoding.

However, you haven't really communicated your point across. I only see that whenever I describe something in a simplified way, you jump to correct me, while failing to realize that I'm intentionally simplifying for brevity and to avoid unnecessary jargon.

You said they were the same and then talked about motion vectors from 3D objects and neural networks for an unknown reason.

I'm saying that moving pixels and taking differences to a reference image is different from re-rasterizing an image with distortion and no correction.