This is pretty cool, at first I thought they were doing volumetric simulation
This was late even before it was posted on FP. By a few years.
[QUOTE=Scot;40443908]This was late even before it was posted on FP. By a few years.[/QUOTE]
Based on the fact that we've had demos like this before? Sure, but none of them were this good and always looked like jelly or mercury.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;40444248]Based on the fact that we've had demos like this before? Sure, but none of them were this good and always looked like jelly or mercury.[/QUOTE]
No I mean I saw this exact video about a year ago.
[QUOTE=Scot;40444338]No I mean I saw this exact video about a year ago.[/QUOTE]
source
Yeah I'm going with old if this was on a 580 and not their latest cards.
also it still looks quite slowmo.
[QUOTE=DeEz;40445815]source[/QUOTE]
My brain.
[editline]27th April 2013[/editline]
It isn't a very reliable source.
the bunny is a classic example model called the stanford bunny. it alongside the utah teapot are two of the most common test models in the computer graphics world.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;40447634]the bunny is a classic example model called the stanford bunny. it alongside the utah teapot are two of the most common test models in the computer graphics world.[/QUOTE]
This sounds believable. If you have made this up, good show sir.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;40447668]This sounds believable. If you have made this up, good show sir.[/QUOTE]
Egh it's pretty much common knowledge within 3D art.
Go look it up if you're in doubt.
[editline]28th April 2013[/editline]
Trust me, I'm a penis architect.
[QUOTE=Ricool06;40447668]This sounds believable. If you have made this up, good show sir.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot]He literally just[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Bunny]gave you the names[/url]
[QUOTE=danharibo;40447735][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot]He literally just[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Bunny]gave you the names[/url][/QUOTE]
My teacher told me wikipedia is lies, nice try
Pretty cool, but didn't Hydrophobia pull off semi-realistic water simulation a few years back?
Anyways, considering the PhysX libraries used to be free for use in noncommercial projects and Unreal Engine comes with it built in, someone needs to get on making Pressure with these kind of water physics.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;40449508]Pretty cool, but didn't Hydrophobia pull off semi-realistic water simulation a few years back?[/QUOTE]
no not even close
[QUOTE=Kuro.;40449508]Pretty cool, but didn't Hydrophobia pull off semi-realistic water simulation a few years back?
Anyways, considering the PhysX libraries used to be free for use in noncommercial projects and Unreal Engine comes with it built in, someone needs to get on making Pressure with these kind of water physics.[/QUOTE]
Even though the unreal engine technically uses PhysX I doubt it exposes any of this stuff to the end user. See, PhysX only does physics - it doesn't do graphics. So on the PhysX end, as you probably saw in the video, it's simulating particles of water and the closer we get to molecule sized particles the more realistic it's going to look. That also means that however you choose to render has to bridge the gap between a bunch of little spheres and rendering a transparent fluid based on the location of those spheres. Epic can't just say "alright it's in PhysX, devs can use it" - they need to actually put a lot of effort into supporting those features in their game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.