• Mind-Blowingly Perfect Water Simulation Is Now A Reality
    125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;40429406]Yes but like I said. Never in a way that impacts gameplay. If they did, then AMD users won't be able to play the game. Read what I said. We can have all the shiny particles that we would like. But destruction? Liquid physics that affects players? (If the destruction is used it can only be used in its most basic form. You can't have some players be able to have much more detailed destruction while some don't) Nope. Since then only Nvidia users can play the game and no dev is stupid enough to cut off a large portion of the players.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about phsyx works fine on AMD, its just better optimized for nvidia cards.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40431098]Physx will support next gen console gpus so you are only really looking at a small percentage who can't use gpu accellerated effects. PS4: 33.33% NextBox: 33.33% PC: 33.33% -AMD: 11.2% -NVIDIA: 17.4% -Other: 4.7% supported: 84.6% unsupported: 15.4% Although the console gpu's probably wont be powerfull enough to be usefull for that level of physics acceleration anyway.[/QUOTE] What are these numbers exactly? 11.2% of all people use AMD cards? What. [QUOTE=a-k-t-w;40431118]what are you talking about phsyx works fine on AMD, its just better optimized for nvidia cards.[/QUOTE] I feel like a broken record here. Yes it works with basic stuff like ragdoll. But for example, the destructable glass in Mirror's Edge causes my fps to drop from solid 60 to 5 for a few seconds. I'm giving up on this topic for now some people keep saying the same thing over and over without reading.
This needs to be in Hentai
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;40429406]Yes but like I said. Never in a way that impacts gameplay. If they did, then AMD users won't be able to play the game. Read what I said. We can have all the shiny particles that we would like. But destruction? Liquid physics that affects players? (If the destruction is used it can only be used in its most basic form. You can't have some players be able to have much more detailed destruction while some don't) Nope. Since then only Nvidia users can play the game and no dev is stupid enough to cut off a large portion of the players.[/QUOTE] [b]PhysX is not just a library for phsyics acceleration, it is the whole physics library. You do not need an nvidia card to use PhysX, just to have the physics calculations performed by your graphics card[/b] [editline]26th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=CommanderPT;40430785]Exactly. Nvidia keeps boasting these fancy features but they never get outside of tech demos. I don't get why people are rating me dumb. Especially without saying why I am supposedly wrong.[/QUOTE] Because they're not just in tech demos, they're used in games and you don't need an nvidia card to use them. For example, Vindictus (MMO based on source engine) uses PhysX for their physics engine and as a result there's some fancy cloth physics used for the clothing that runs on both nvidia and ati cards. I'm sorry, you're just wrong and confused and the people rating you dumb are right to do so.
[QUOTE=Elspin;40436960][B]PhysX is not just a library for phsyics acceleration, it is the whole physics library. You do not need an nvidia card to use PhysX, just to have the physics calculations performed by your graphics card[/B] [editline]26th April 2013[/editline] Because they're not just in tech demos, they're used in games and you don't need an nvidia card to use them. For example, Vindictus (MMO based on source engine) uses PhysX for their physics engine and as a result there's some fancy cloth physics used for the clothing that runs on both nvidia and ati cards. I'm sorry, you're just wrong and confused and the people rating you dumb are right to do so.[/QUOTE] Is the cape of a character [B]gameplay changing[/B]? I thought not. I already said I am well aware of it being used in a lot of games but only for minor things. Why do you refuse to read what I say. Devs will never use the destruction. At least not to its full potential. That's what I've been trying to say. It works but not to its full potential. I don't get why people keep saying I'm wrong. I'm no PhysX engineer or whatever but have you seen a game use PhysX to its fullest potential? You might see it in singleplayer games (Eventually) perhaps but never in multiplayer games like Battlefield 3. But hey, if you think that the cape of a character is gameplay defining then sure. If you say so. Keep rating me dumb and don't present any proper argument against what I am saying. By all means. I'm done wasting my time here.
Does it even use PhysX?
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;40440926]Is the cape of a character [B]gameplay changing[/B]? I thought not. I already said I am well aware of it being used in a lot of games but only for minor things. Why do you refuse to read what I say. Devs will never use the destruction. At least not to its full potential. That's what I've been trying to say. It works but not to its full potential. I don't get why people keep saying I'm wrong. I'm no PhysX engineer or whatever but have you seen a game use PhysX to its fullest potential? You might see it in singleplayer games (Eventually) perhaps but never in multiplayer games like Battlefield 3. But hey, if you think that the cape of a character is gameplay defining then sure. If you say so. Keep rating me dumb and don't present any proper argument against what I am saying. By all means. I'm done wasting my time here.[/QUOTE] Just so you know, "LALALALA I'M RIGHT IGNORING YOU NOW" is not a proper argument. No - it's definitely not gameplay changing but the physics adds to the game and it's perfectly usable on both ATI and NVIDIA cards. It's pretty hard to base gameplay mechanics on cloth physics in a way that would not just be crammed in there for the sake of using technology available. It's useful for graphical improvements though easily, so that's what it's used for And if you honestly think PhysX, which is [b]the game's entire physics library[/b] is only used for "minor things", then you are literally insane. You've got to stop imagining that PhysX is something used alongside havok to add some fancy effects - it's not. It's a fully featured physics library. Just look at the documentation and fucking educate yourself instead of just telling everyone they're wrong and you're not listening
what an average facepuncher would instantly do with this tech: 5 meters horse cock ejaculating for half a minute
[QUOTE=Flip pl;40446349]what an average facepuncher would instantly do with this tech: 5 meters horse cock ejaculating for half a minute[/QUOTE] I used PhysX back in highschool to make a virtual lab thing where you could make walls, platforms, cubes to throw around, etc. then add forces to them and run the simulation. You could also ask the simulation to do things like pause a timer when the selected object hits a height of 18m and then you could check the positions of all the objects and do some basic kinematic calculations. I used OGRE and NxOGRE (which attaches the physics simulations to graphics rendered with OGRE, because PhysX itself doesn't have graphics - it just performs physics calculations). I think the NxOGRE project has mostly died though now so I don't know if the old source would even compile.
I'm not believing this until i see it run on my computer
[QUOTE=Elspin;40446111]Just so you know, "LALALALA I'M RIGHT IGNORING YOU NOW" is not a proper argument. No - it's definitely not gameplay changing but the physics adds to the game and it's perfectly usable on both ATI and NVIDIA cards. It's pretty hard to base gameplay mechanics on cloth physics in a way that would not just be crammed in there for the sake of using technology available. It's useful for graphical improvements though easily, so that's what it's used for And if you honestly think PhysX, which is [b]the game's entire physics library[/b] is only used for "minor things", then you are literally insane. You've got to stop imagining that PhysX is something used alongside havok to add some fancy effects - it's not. It's a fully featured physics library. Just look at the documentation and fucking educate yourself instead of just telling everyone they're wrong and you're not listening[/QUOTE] he probably means that you won't be able to do those fancy fluid / particle / destruction stuff without GPU acceleration
[QUOTE=Juniez;40446641]he probably means that you won't be able to do those fancy fluid / particle / destruction stuff without GPU acceleration[/QUOTE] You can though, sure it doesn't run quite as good but it's still mostly fine. Either way he's massively incorrect to say that PhysX "is only used for minor things", because PhysX is the physics library... without the physics library, nothing does anything at all basically. I can understand some people being confused because developers put stupid shit in their game like a check-box that says "turn PhysX off", when you're not really turning PhysX off, you're turning hardware acceleration off. But once it's been explained to you about 4 or 5 times that PhysX is a physics library not some kind of goofy particle effect library you slap on alongside an actual physics library if you keep saying shit like that you're either intentionally ignoring what people are explaining to you or unable to read.
[QUOTE=Elspin;40446891]You can though, sure it doesn't run quite as good but it's still mostly fine. Either way he's massively incorrect to say that PhysX "is only used for minor things", because PhysX is the physics library... without the physics library, nothing does anything at all basically. I can understand some people being confused because developers put stupid shit in their game like a check-box that says "turn PhysX off", when you're not really turning PhysX off, you're turning hardware acceleration off. But once it's been explained to you about 4 or 5 times that PhysX is a physics library not some kind of goofy particle effect library you slap on alongside an actual physics library if you keep saying shit like that you're either intentionally ignoring what people are explaining to you or unable to read.[/QUOTE] 'quite as good' is a pretty big understatement it's more like 'good luck maintaining playable framerates lol' - he certainly isn't incorrect in saying that destruction/water/anything of that complexity is pretty much nvidia exclusive because you're not going to be playing it smoothly without GPU acceleration
Sooo where's the download I mean it's a tech demo, it runs on current hardware, it'd be nice if they put up a download link
[QUOTE=Juniez;40447044]'quite as good' is a pretty big understatement it's more like 'good luck maintaining playable framerates lol' - he certainly isn't incorrect in saying that destruction/water/anything of that complexity is pretty much nvidia exclusive because you're not going to be playing it smoothly without GPU acceleration[/QUOTE] It depends on the situation, I have an ATI card (a shitty one at that) and the cloth physics in Vindictus didn't really trouble me. Yeah maybe if it's a tech demo designed to exclusively showcase intense water physics it's not going to run well at all on an ATI card, but that shit isn't going to go in a game any time soon with nvidia or not. You have to keep in mind that judging PhysX off of an optional feature that devs usually use for stupid shit anyway is ridiculous, without all that it's still one of the best physics libraries available as is proven by the massive library of games using it.
This is incredible. I'd love to see water physics like this in sandbox games. I'd like to see what happens when you place a hollow object inside water in that simulator.
[QUOTE=Elspin;40447249]It depends on the situation, I have an ATI card (a shitty one at that) and the cloth physics in Vindictus didn't really trouble me. Yeah maybe if it's a tech demo designed to exclusively showcase intense water physics it's not going to run well at all on an ATI card, but that shit isn't going to go in a game any time soon with nvidia or not. You have to keep in mind that judging PhysX off of an optional feature that devs usually use for stupid shit anyway is ridiculous, without all that it's still one of the best physics libraries available as is proven by the massive library of games using it.[/QUOTE] i'm not judging anything, i'm just saying he's not wrong in anything other than semantics; you knew full well what he meant when he mentioned nvidia-exclusive physx
[QUOTE=Elspin;40446891]You can though, sure it doesn't run quite as good but it's still mostly fine. Either way he's massively incorrect to say that PhysX "is only used for minor things", because PhysX is the physics library... without the physics library, nothing does anything at all basically. I can understand some people being confused because developers put stupid shit in their game like a check-box that says "turn PhysX off", when you're not really turning PhysX off, you're turning hardware acceleration off. But once it's been explained to you about 4 or 5 times that PhysX is a physics library not some kind of goofy particle effect library you slap on alongside an actual physics library if you keep saying shit like that you're either intentionally ignoring what people are explaining to you or unable to read.[/QUOTE] But is hardware-accelerated PhysX available on non-nvidia GPUs?
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40447931]But is hardware-accelerated PhysX available on non-nvidia GPUs?[/QUOTE] AFAIK no features in PhysX [b]require[/b] an nvidia GPU, but naturally some things are way more intensive than others and considering a GPU is basically perfect for doing massive loads of math some features I imagine are very hard to run without it. I'll grad the latest SDK and see if I can find out I guess, I haven't used PhysX in a massive amount of versions so I guess a lot of stuff probably changed.
[QUOTE=Elspin;40448116]AFAIK no features in PhysX [b]require[/b] an nvidia GPU, but naturally some things are way more intensive than others and considering a GPU is basically perfect for doing massive loads of math some features I imagine are very hard to run without it. I'll grad the latest SDK and see if I can find out I guess, I haven't used PhysX in a massive amount of versions so I guess a lot of stuff probably changed.[/QUOTE] That'd be informative. I know PhysX can run on the CPU but it tends to be very sluggish.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40448169]That'd be informative. I know PhysX can run on any CPU but it tends to be very sluggish.[/QUOTE] PhysX is actually quite efficient. Unreal engine 3 and onwards is all PhysX, so if you take a look at that list you'll see that hundreds of games are using it you probably didn't even know about. I'm not sure which engines still use Havok (I think source engine does?), but plenty of games use it. In any case I've downloaded the latest 3.X PhysX SDK and I'm running all the demos above 200 FPS on a 5 year old laptop with an ATI card in it. I don't know where all the old demos went though, the SDK doesn't seem like it comes with any of the softbody, cloth or fluid samples that was in the last sdk I used. I still have the version from 2010 or something so I'll give those a look... and yup, they're all running fine and I have an ATI card. I don't know where you guys could get these to try them out yourself, seeing as it's a mega old version of the SDK but there's some neat demos. Still plenty of stuff that would be hard to integrate as a gameplay element but are cool nonetheless. [editline]More stuff[/editline] Well I looked through the 3.X documentation and I could find no instance of something saying it [b]requires[/b] hardware acceleration, just that it can improve performance if your card isn't already at max capacity and it supports acceleration. It's not even that prominent in the documentation, mostly just a subheading saying "Hey by the way this is how do you acceleration if you want to", example: [code] #ifdef PX_WINDOWS // create cuda context manager pxtask::CudaContextManagerDesc cudaContextManagerDesc; pxtask::CudaContextManager* cudaContextManager = pxtask::createCudaContextManager(cudaContextManagerDesc); #endif PxSceneDesc sceneDesc(mPhysics->getTolerancesScale()); //... #ifdef PX_WINDOWS if (cudaContextManager) sceneDesc.gpuDispatcher = cudaContextManager->getGpuDispatcher(); #endif //... physicsSdk->createScene(sceneDesc); [/code]
[QUOTE=BenJammin';40411776]Awesome, but probably too taxing to put into any sort of game. That is just a tech demo confined in a tiny space.[/QUOTE] [quote=video]According to PhysXInfo, it is running in real-time on a single GTX 580, which makes the whole thing even more impressive.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Maximo13;40448524][/QUOTE] an entire 580 to simulate a tiny tub? i dunno man - as impressive as it is as far as water simulations go, the entire concept of fluid simulation demands a loooooot of power that often isn't available in video games
also worth noting: one of the 3.X demos is of a (fairly small) spherical planet you can walk around and the gravity is actually towards the centre of the planet. It'd be super neat to see something like that in more games.
Imagine jumping into water in a game and seeing the water splash up around you, and anything else that fall in. Holy shit, immersion!
The problem is next-gen console gpus still are not really up to the task of good gpu accelerated physics.
6 years ago [video=youtube;wWlaD_2gsIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWlaD_2gsIM[/video]
[QUOTE=J!NX;40454356]6 years ago [video=youtube;wWlaD_2gsIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWlaD_2gsIM[/video][/QUOTE] That should show how far realtime GPU assisted fluid physics has come.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;40455610]That should show how far realtime GPU assisted fluid physics has come.[/QUOTE] It kinda does. The water splashed out of the tank randomly disappears and I swear I saw some [i]edges[/i] on the water. It also mostly moves in large globs and appears to be simulating at a very low speed.
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;40430164]There isn't really much practical use for this in games, unless it's a liquid based puzzle.[/QUOTE] you've gotta be kidding me [editline]28th April 2013[/editline] So you guys are seriously saying that shooting up some glass in some video game and watching dynamic fluid spill out all over the floor in a huge growing pool wouldn't be a fucking amazing step for video games
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.