PhysX Real-Time Fluid Physics Are Crazy Realistic

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I was going to say that they should make an Aquaman game with this technology but then I remembered that nobody would ever play it.

The things this tech could add too if paired with people with inventive uses for it in games,assuming they can do it.

makes me think of what you could use water for in Bioshock.

still chances of seeing this in games in the near future are pretty slim due to hardware limitations like everyone said before me, and then i get thoughts of people making games where they overdo this tech to compensate for things they are lacking in the game itself or try to use it as a selling point, maybe I'm just being to pessimistic about where publishers will take this.

It still looks deeply nestled in the uncanny valley of water. Once they get it to look like it's not made of tens of thousands of balls a Jell-O, That's when I'll be impressed.

Little details like realistic water are nice and all, but I'd happily give that up for streamed code and additional bug testing (yes, I know these guys don't make the games).

Steven Bogos:
which when you are trying to have a fully immersive experience in a game, is definitely the way to go.

I don't know. I'd say when you're actually immersed in the fluid, the motion probably doesn't need that much attention to physics. >.>

The only problem with these physics is the water does not have weight, so it does not push anything. That's why it kept getting stuck in the glass when it kept forming closed containers by accident. In real life, the shards would be pushed aside because they're not actually connected and can't keep the water in place, but in the demonstration, the water simply conformed.

That's easily fixed, though.

The only problem is now that PhysX is ahead of OpenCL. if I want to experience realistic water, I have to get an Nvidia card.

It's cool, but these tech demos for water always feel off to me. I think the viscosity is too low, or something.

I feel the water looks ehm... slimy? don't know doesn't look right.

Nooooow........ if we could just apply this to boobs..... imagine !

blink:

DVS BSTrD:
I can't wait to see this implemented in actual game tidals.

You ever hear the arguments that the videogame industry are going broke because developers are spending too much money on graphics and indie games can't keep up? (I think that's how the arguement goes)

Well things like this are the cause for it.

(sorry for raining on your parade but it seems I'm the first one on this thread who has a different point of view so I'm expressing it strongly)

Note, this here is not correct. Publishers/Devs are using too much money on stuff like marketing and hype, that is why some new games cant be as succesful as they want. It is not the graphics that are that much of a problem.

Example being, compare STALKER Clear Sky from 2008 to Tomb Raider. Guess which one has a smaller budget. Also guess which one has much better tech in almost every single department and is even longer as a game.

blink:

DVS BSTrD:
I can't wait to see this implemented in actual game tidals.

What are you going to stare at the water for anything more than a minute? Maybe it could help in a cutscene or something but really? I thought the water in farcry 3 was pretty impressive when I first saw it but then after approximately half a minute of swimming in it I never noticed the graphics again.

You ever hear the arguments that the videogame industry are going broke because developers are spending too much money on graphics and indie games can't keep up? (I think that's how the arguement goes)

Well things like this are the cause for it.

(sorry for raining on your parade but it seems I'm the first one on this thread who has a different point of view so I'm expressing it strongly)

One of the main benefits of this kind of tech isn't so much the quality or realism so much as the ability for designers to iterate faster.

Instead of having to precompute waterfalls and splashes and spend a whole bunch of time simulating/rendering/baking/etc, the developers can just do it all in real-time and spend more time making it look good and behave correctly, spend more time on the stuff that matters.
Instead of having to spend a bunch of time coming up with smoke and mirrors to make a corridor flood in Bioshock, they could just do it with real-time simulations and just be done with it, with the added bonus of letting the player be able to interact with it.
Or what about in a game like Half-Life 2, the fluid simulations could drive the physics, water washing away debris and corpses and stuff like that, have the boat be affected by waves, water physics puzzles, etc. Right now all those things have to be faked, and faking them correctly takes a lot of time.
Not to mention the fact that this same tech can be used for other things too, like lava simulations, smoke simulations, etc.

Now obviously these examples are larger in scale but it's only a matter of time. To say that all we're going to get is prettier water is a very narrow view when this is the kind of tech that entire games can be based on. Games which are impossible today, but quite possible in a near future. What's the hardware going to be like when the GTX Titan or GTX 690 eventually become low-end $100 GPUs?

Water interaction would be pretty cool beyond just watching it.

I can already imagine realistic flooding rooms in games like Half Life and The Legend of Zelda to be pretty awesome. I thought they handled swimming pretty well. Skyrim was kinda mechanical.

blink:

DVS BSTrD:
I can't wait to see this implemented in actual game tidals.

What are you going to stare at the water for anything more than a minute? Maybe it could help in a cutscene or something but really? I thought the water in farcry 3 was pretty impressive when I first saw it but then after approximately half a minute of swimming in it I never noticed the graphics again.

You ever hear the arguments that the videogame industry are going broke because developers are spending too much money on graphics and indie games can't keep up? (I think that's how the arguement goes)

Well things like this are the cause for it.

(sorry for raining on your parade but it seems I'm the first one on this thread who has a different point of view so I'm expressing it strongly)

Never apologize for dissenting! You're not obligated to agree. You are only obligated to be convincing.

I think the game industry is going broke because developers think *every game* needs to push the graphical standard. I don't think R&D pushing the graphical envelope is causing anyone to go bankrupt. In fact, I think this push forward is not only desirable but necessary. Moore's law says that computing power will increase exponentially. What good will that do anyone if we do not seek to produce content better than PS3 era graphics? Some people, like me, are "techies." We LOVE seeing visuals presented in higher and higher fidelity. Some games are simply better than they would have been because their visuals were so impressive.

For example, when the first Aliens versus Predator came out on PC I could not play it for more than thirty minutes at a time because it frightened me so bad. Now I can play it for as long as I want. By today's standard, the fidelity and animation is so poor that it breaks me out of the experience and makes it almost comical. I had the same problem with Slender. However, if I try to play Amnesia I break down like a little girl. So, realize there exists consumers for who graphics do matter.

Lastly, tools will improve. It used to be we had to draw every polygon in place when making 3d models. Now we have tools that make that necessary, saving time. I expect out tools will continue to improve so that high fidelity content can be make in less time. Also, the subject of this thread, liquid physics, takes no time at all to implement. Same would go for advances in lighting, color, tessellation and shaders. Those are built into an engine and offer a great bang for your buck for developers, unlike high resolution textures and high polygon models which must be hand made.

Water physics can really make good gameplay mechanics, Hydrophobia while not being a very good game when you have to interact with water its fuckin amazing.

And this sort of stuff as long as its like a prefab that can be applied in multiple games I honestly dont see the problem with efforts going to graphics here. For example, the Unreal Engine 4 is supposed to look better and give more options to the developer while making work easier, faster and cheaper. And dont forget that a lot of features will be shared through multiple games, a weapon model is very likely to be a unique model for the a single game but a smoke particle effect or light engine is not and will be used multiple times. Just take a look at Frostbite 2, most of the work on the core of future games using that engine is already done.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here