[QUOTE=parsimony;39902229]Looked fine to me but okay thanks for that opinion?[/QUOTE]
You didn't say that it was your opinion, you just said it handled water physics 'fine', which it doesn't, at all. That's not an opinion either, it's extremely resource inefficient and there are plenty of other engines which do it better in every way possible.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39902308]You didn't say that it was your opinion, you just said it handled water physics 'fine', which it doesn't, at all. That's not an opinion either, it's extremely resource inefficient and there are plenty of other engines which do it better in every way possible.[/QUOTE]
Like? I've never lagged with dynamic water going on, so um..I'm not seeing that resource inefficiency
I never said you would lag, if it made you lag then nobody would ever use their engine. I'm talking about comparatively to other engines it's quite pathetic.
Havok, CryEngine, virtually all of id Tech, RAGE, and obviously Hydro all do water physics infinitely better.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
But I do have to say RAGE still does it poorly itself.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39901462]You're joking with me right? It uses lots of small balls to generate it's physics for water.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
Which is extremely resource-inefficient and doesn't produce realistic water physics.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to what? I haven't seen any significantly different technique for simulating realistic water, of course it'll be done as a large number of particles. The problem is that the number of particles is too low, and for a linear increase in detail you need a cubic increase in their number (i.e. you need 8× the number of particles to double the detail, since you're dealing with 3 dimensions) That's why detailed water physics is prohibitively expensive to do in realtime.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39902660]I never said you would lag, if it made you lag then nobody would ever use their engine. I'm talking about comparatively to other engines it's quite pathetic.
Havok, CryEngine, virtually all of id Tech, RAGE, and obviously Hydro all do water physics infinitely better.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
But I do have to say RAGE still does it poorly itself.[/QUOTE]
I was expecting you to say it wouldn't lag, in which case, who cares? It can be as relatively inefficient as fuck (which Idk how you came to that conclusion anyway because none of those engines do water), but as long as it runs well, who cares?
Seeing as how next-gen consoles are going to support GPU computing, I can only imagine the next Havok release will take advantage of that. So basically competing with PhysX without needing a Nvidia GPU.
[QUOTE=Clavus;39902869]Seeing as how next-gen consoles are going to support GPU computing, I can only imagine the next Havok release will take advantage of that. So basically competing with PhysX without needing a Nvidia GPU.[/QUOTE]
Physx supports console gpu's for the gpu accelerated APEX stuff.
[QUOTE=parsimony;39902765]I was expecting you to say it wouldn't lag, in which case, who cares? It can be as relatively inefficient as fuck (which Idk how you came to that conclusion anyway because none of those engines do water), but as long as it runs well, who cares?[/QUOTE]
Because if it's inefficient, then devs have to cut other stuff out to compensate???
It's good that they are updating Havok. Had to deal with some stupid bugs when we were using it in our game project.
I want havok and euphoria to have a realistically-represented-dead-human baby
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39901462]You're joking with me right? It uses lots of small balls to generate it's physics for water.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
Which is extremely resource-inefficient and doesn't produce realistic water physics.[/QUOTE]
But water is made up of lots of small ball-like things called molecules :(
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;39904456]But water is made up of lots of small ball-like things called molecules :([/QUOTE]
but they're not balls
[t]http://beyondpenguins.ehe.osu.edu/files/2011/08/water.jpg[/t]
Euphoria is not really a viable thing, they have an extremely limited amount of studios that they deal with, and they support studios by putting the technology into their games. It's not just something you can buy and then plug into a game like Havok, it's done through collaboration between say someone like Rockstar and Natural Motion Studios.
Now this isn't to say this can't be replicated or done better through other techniques by other studios if they really wanted to put effort, money, and time into it.
[B]3[/B]/1[B]3[/B]/1[B]3[/B]
Three Three's
Havok Physics
Episode 3 confirmed.
Some things that are often absent from physics engines
1. Soft body physics
2. "airtight" physics (meaning that shit doesn't go through other shit or do things that would be impossible in reality; if two chain links are linked they won't separate unless destroyed)
3. Air fluid dynamics (or at least some weak simulation of it)
4. dynamically growing, shrinking, and morphing objects
5. Ragdoll physics that don't fuck up
6. Dynamic rope (that can be tied in knots and around objects and shit like that)
All of those (except maybe 5) would allow for new gameplay elements not currently possible with most modern physics engines.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;39900517]Something better than Red Faction would be nice.
I don't want the debris magically disappearing through the ground/floor.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
And the occasional strut or wall randomly floating in the air.[/QUOTE]
please if this does happen
i do not want to hit something and my vehicle will EXPLODE
*cough*redfactionguerillabestphysics*cough*
[QUOTE=SFC003;39917252]please if this does happen
i do not want to hit something and my vehicle will EXPLODE
*cough*redfactionguerillabestphysics*cough*[/QUOTE]
Your avatar couldn't be more fitting.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LyCm9Xu.png?1[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Elspin;39901534]I always liked PhysX more because it's free for anyone to use, but this sounds pretty neat. Excited to see what they can do with 5 years of R&D.[/QUOTE]
Except you have to have a Nvidia card to utilize it.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39901462]You're joking with me right? It uses lots of small balls to generate it's physics for water.
[editline]13th March 2013[/editline]
Which is extremely resource-inefficient and doesn't produce realistic water physics.[/QUOTE]
It's a shame that the HydroEngine isn't around anymore. Dark Energy Digital created it for Hydrophobia and it was really awesome at simulating flooding.
But of course they went bankrupt, closed down, and had to sell off all their shit.
[QUOTE=MechaKat;39900769]So this is why Episode 3 is delayed, Valve is waiting for the Havok 2 to make the last episode look purty.[/QUOTE]
Do remember that VALVe is not homogenous in its nature, and it may be that the collective staff lost interest in developing HL games anymore.
at least according to the employees manual
I hate that every water physics simulator (except UE3's crappy water ripple thing) doesn't actually make water polar, they just make it a bunch of tiny objects or a fancy effect that either a) can never leave its container or b) is just a ballpit of sorts, so it sloshes like mad and it doesn't flow right.
Water tension and cohesion and all these cool properties are macroscopic, you know. If you had a glass of acetone and a glass of water, you'd be able to tell by more than the smell, because acetone is non-polar. It doesn't look or act [I]anything[/I] like water, except in that it flows and fills its container.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;39905169]Some things that are often absent from physics engines
1. Soft body physics
2. "airtight" physics (meaning that shit doesn't go through other shit or do things that would be impossible in reality; if two chain links are linked they won't separate unless destroyed)
3. Air fluid dynamics (or at least some weak simulation of it)
4. dynamically growing, shrinking, and morphing objects
5. Ragdoll physics that don't fuck up
6. Dynamic rope (that can be tied in knots and around objects and shit like that)
All of those (except maybe 5) would allow for new gameplay elements not currently possible with most modern physics engines.[/QUOTE]
Um pretty sure all of that has already been done is previous tech demos and games. Big name studios just don't need those things in their games though, if they really wanted to focus in on one aspect then they could probably pull it off (not sure about airtight physics, I don't think that is possible right now but I am not sure).
This why I am excited for the new Havok though, if they really do mean the next gen of havok physics then maybe they might have all of those things right outside of the box for developers to include easily.
[QUOTE=Starsmine;39900491]If Sources already uses it, I hope Valve will have Source 2 or the next Game engine utilize it![/QUOTE]
I think it's safe to assume that Source 2 will use the new version of Havok unless they have switched to something else, Valve is probably one of the "leading developers" that has been helping test it considering they are already a licensee of the engine, albeit modified.
episode 3?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;39901620]That's because Euphoria isn't physics, at all.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it like a dynamic physics based animation engine?
Hopefully weight and stacking has got a nice buff.
I hated it how heavy things never seem to fall fast enough (really low terminal velocity?), and stacking more than a few objects causes them to get stuck in each other.
[QUOTE=DarkendSky;39917813]I hate that every water physics simulator (except UE3's crappy water ripple thing) doesn't actually make water polar, they just make it a bunch of tiny objects or a fancy effect that either a) can never leave its container or b) is just a ballpit of sorts, so it sloshes like mad and it doesn't flow right.
Water tension and cohesion and all these cool properties are macroscopic, you know. If you had a glass of acetone and a glass of water, you'd be able to tell by more than the smell, because acetone is non-polar. It doesn't look or act [I]anything[/I] like water, except in that it flows and fills its container.[/QUOTE]
Uhh acetone is quite polar, and much more polar than water. Differences in viscosity and density (and hydrogen bonding of water) account for any differences in the behavior of the two sloshing around.
-snip- -damnit-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
