PHYSX Flex Demo (60 fps) - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEX13W-IuLA[/media] Seems to work far better with more viscous liquids but still very impressive.

3D OECAKE?

[QUOTE=J!NX;47393087]I'm not impressed until we apply it to games fully, or at least a film/dedicated animation it looks INSANELY good, but it's still just a tech demo. There is still so much improvement to be had. to put it into perspective how how much its improved 2013 [video=youtube;UDqtEFDCSlc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqtEFDCSlc[/video] 2012 not real time [video=youtube;EaSQB9XEC18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSQB9XEC18[/video] 2011 not real time [video=youtube;DSLFPtHZ4as]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSLFPtHZ4as[/video] (bonus) KickedTrout Gaming "You used Gary's mod or something, but cool•" 2007 [video=youtube;wWlaD_2gsIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWlaD_2gsIM[/video][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=J!NX;47393087]I'm not impressed until we apply it to games fully, or at least a film/dedicated animation [/QUOTE] It's already ridiculously impressive IMO

I seem to vaguely remember a horror game that had water physics. It had no relation to gameplay, just a leaking pipe that would drain onto the floor as part of a set decoration. You could splash in the puddle it made...

[QUOTE=J!NX;47393087]I'm not impressed until we apply it to games fully, or at least a film/dedicated animation it looks INSANELY good, but it's still just a tech demo. There is still so much improvement to be had. to put it into perspective how how much its improved 2013 [video=youtube;UDqtEFDCSlc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqtEFDCSlc[/video] 2012 [video=youtube;EaSQB9XEC18]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSQB9XEC18[/video] 2011 [video=youtube;DSLFPtHZ4as]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSLFPtHZ4as[/video] (bonus) KickedTrout Gaming "You used Gary's mod or something, but cool•" 2007 [video=youtube;wWlaD_2gsIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWlaD_2gsIM[/video][/QUOTE] the 2012 and 2011 videos aren't realtime

Can't wait when Japan gets hold of this tech

my laptop isn't powerful enough to watch this video in 1080p-60fps i bet it looks nice though :v:

[QUOTE=bitches;47393080]3D OECAKE?[/QUOTE] Those games were awesome. I loved particle &/or physics simulators when I was younger

I wish I could fuck around with this, but I would probably need a nuclear powered PC to even start it up.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;47393685]I wish I could fuck around with this, but I would probably need a nuclear powered PC to even start it up.[/QUOTE] Benbuja (who recorded the video) is running a core i7 and two Geforce 970. It's a pretty beefy computer but not necessarily completely out of reach.

Probably the coolest thing I've seen PhysX accomplish realtime in a good while. Though the sad part is it's PhysX, so it will never be used beyond eye-candy.

This is neat but this sort of tech has been around for ages. The interesting part is real-time application and optimization. We've made some progress there but nowhere near enough to bring us closer to practical in-game use. There are several problems, one of which is scale. If you focus all you computing power on real time fluid simulation, you can have a really nice shoebox full of water, but the entire rest of the game will also want some of that hardware. And even if you manage to optimize it well enough to run inside a game engine without crippling performance, what good is a shoebox full of water? It would look nice to kick over a bucket to reveal cool fluid visuals, but that bucket is all you can get. What about two buckets in the same room? What about Bathtubs worth of liquid, several puddles, filling rooms or having large bodies of water react with that level of naturalism? These are the things we are imagining when we watch tech demos like this but we are not very close to any of those. We are still stuck at the shoebox. Sure, we could scale up the fluid resolution, but the visual level of realism quickly degrades and by the time you actually simulate quantities that have some sort of universal use in-game you are back at the weird rough globs we know today. Then there's the issue of persistence. For how long can you keep the fluid active, before the player interacts with something else that requires the allocated resources? If you kick over a new bucket, the water from the last one will have to be removed, so we're not even talking flooding rooms, not even the small scale mess you made five minutes ago will still be there once you re-enter the room. And last but not least, the issue of overall naturalism. These demos might look nice, but that's because they are played out in a very controlled, visually reduced environment. If you manage to work around all the other issues and have enough hardware left to render out a beautiful looking game, the water will stick out like a sore thumb. Thats the big problem with natural looking physics, we see one thing, in this case the water behave and look realistically and automatically assume that the world is natural and interactive. But as soon as we experiment, we will notice that all the other aspects of natural physical behavior of materials are not present. Soaking, absorption, dissolving, mixing, filling containers or even moving other scene objects would require every other object to be interactive as well. And as soon as we pick up bricks and bottles we might notice that Water is realistic but glass is not, along with sand, cloth, wood and any other material that we can NOT simulate because we are already using every bit of hardware we have to render the hypothetical ideal water.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;47393137]I seem to vaguely remember a horror game that had water physics. It had no relation to gameplay, just a leaking pipe that would drain onto the floor as part of a set decoration. You could splash in the puddle it made...[/QUOTE] Cryostasis wasn't it?

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;47393685]I wish I could fuck around with this, but I would probably need a nuclear powered PC to even start it up.[/QUOTE] My 13.3" laptop runs this pretty darn well, most demos are 60fps. (GTX 860m, i7 4710MQ, 8GB RAM)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47393959]Benbuja (who recorded the video) is running a core i7 and two Geforce 970. It's a pretty beefy computer but not necessarily completely out of reach.[/QUOTE] I have a 770 and i5 and go no lower than 30 fps with HEAVY water then again I have 16 gb ram

[QUOTE=Digimutant;47394312]Cryostasis wasn't it?[/QUOTE] Was just about to reply the same. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65AA6CZIljY[/media] It used an earlier version of PhysX afaik.

[QUOTE=paul simon;47394352]Was just about to reply the same. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65AA6CZIljY[/media] It used an earlier version of PhysX afaik.[/QUOTE] Was that even a good game? All I remember from the demo was that my GTS250 could run it maxed at 5 fps and that my heat drained incredibly fast so I'd be walking about as fast as the guy from Condemned most of the time

Cryostasis was a cool game.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;47394385]Was that even a good game? All I remember from the demo was that my GTS250 could run it maxed at 5 fps and that my heat drained incredibly fast so I'd be walking about as fast as the guy from Condemned most of the time[/QUOTE] It was pretty terribly optimized and the story went to some weird fucking places near the end but overall it's a pretty cool first person survival horror game.

oh not again with the bunny

[QUOTE=Dr.C;47394385]Was that even a good game? All I remember from the demo was that my GTS250 could run it maxed at 5 fps and that my heat drained incredibly fast so I'd be walking about as fast as the guy from Condemned most of the time[/QUOTE] It's a cool game and I really do recommend it. It gets better the further into it you play, trust me. [editline]25th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HappyHead;47394545]oh not again with the bunny[/QUOTE] The Stanford bunny is a common sight indeed.

Holy shit the 970 is a beast. They could be using a Titan or a 980, but they used a 970 just to show off.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;47395067]Holy shit the 970 is a beast. They could be using a Titan or a 980, but they used a 970 just to show off.[/QUOTE] To be fair he's running two in SLI.

makes me wish physx didn't basically require an nvidia card because it will probably never get used to its full potential

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47395075]To be fair he's running two in SLI.[/QUOTE] I don't see that anywhere.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;47395273]I don't see that anywhere.[/QUOTE] Benbuja makes a lot of 60fps/1080p footage and regularly posts his specs in the description. He uses two 970s.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47395214]makes me wish physx didn't basically require an nvidia card because it will probably never get used to its full potential[/QUOTE] Physx still runs like ass on my 660 especially Flex so you aren't missing much on amd.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47395214]makes me wish physx didn't basically require an nvidia card because it will probably never get used to its full potential[/QUOTE] Right now I have an AMD card. I like to switch between the two manufacturers so I can pick the best card for my price/needs at the time. I really miss those CUDA cores. I'm forced to use CPU rendering for Blender because my AMD card has no equivalent to CUDA. I wish it was on both platforms so we could finally use stuff like PhysX without worrying about fracturing the consumer base.

Are they implying something when they shoot vicious liquid onto the furry monster? It has been in every Nvidia video about liquids since I can remember.