Can't wait to sit through another generation of video games where only one or two titles poorly implement these great, groundbreaking technological marvels of computer graphics technology because of a necessity to cater to a larger demographic playing on consoles!
[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]
Nope. you can even check out the [URL="http://www.rchoetzlein.com/fluids3/"]Fluids 3[/URL] thing to see how many fluid particles your gpu can do at once, and its alot more than is present in these demos.
(Note: Fluids 3 was programmed with CUDA and will run like shit on AMD cards)
[QUOTE=Leintharien;47395502] my AMD card has no equivalent to CUDA. [/QUOTE]
On windows: DirectCompute.
On all platforms(and hardware): OpenCL.
FYI: "CUDA cores" are just processors, the exact same kind used to color pixels and transform vertices, and the exact same kind used by ATI. Nvidia just refers to them as cuda cores, probably as a marketing gimmick.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47394342]I have a 770 and i5 and go no lower than 30 fps with HEAVY water
then again I have 16 gb ram[/QUOTE]
Your RAM has next to no impact on the performance of these demos. Nor does your CPU; The reason all this can be done is that it's all performed on the GPU.
Is it me or does the person who does these videos have some sort of bunny fetish. Every one of these has the white goop of rabbit scene
[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]
tbh I never notice physx even exists some times. I don't see that many games use it outside of REALLY minor things. is that all it's made for?
it isn't used to its full potential anyways, from what I've seen (Maybe in batman but I can't note any games that even used it right)
[editline]25th March 2015[/editline]
I think the issue is that games just can't handle even 2006's worst water physics, outside of maybe using a flat plane to emulate it. We just can't do it, we don't have the power
Got a 660 and have 60 FPS on all demo's, unless you get really close to the fluids it slows down for some reason (it warns of that in the readme anyways,) otherwise runs fine.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;47396418]
On windows: DirectCompute.
On all platforms(and hardware): OpenCL.
FYI: "CUDA cores" are just processors, the exact same kind used to color pixels and transform vertices, and the exact same kind used by ATI. Nvidia just refers to them as cuda cores, probably as a marketing gimmick.[/QUOTE]
I heard AMD was dropping support for OpenCL. I think it was partly why its not supported by Blender while CUDA is.
[QUOTE=simkas;47394400]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.[/QUOTE]
Whomever wrote Cryostasis should have been smacked, like, going off the deep end is one thing, but the last bit of it comes out of nowhere and throws in all these elements that have nothing to do with anything at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
