• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nvidia HairWorks in COD: Ghosts

Rakehellion

Rakehellion

Lifer
With all this hair tech coming out, maybe this will be the generation we actually see a few games that use it. DirectCompute based, meaning not tied to any specific vendor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MskSXO3Mx4c


maxresdefault.jpg


http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvidia_hairworks_cod_ghosts_fur_and_hair_simulation_solution.html
 
If I would never seen a dog/wolf I would believe it, sadly I have 3 dogs, non of which have a fur like this. What shampoo I need to use to make them so fluffy?
 
Erenhardt said:
If I would never seen a dog/wolf I would believe it, sadly I have 3 dogs, non of which have a fur like this. What shampoo I need to use to make them so fluffy?
Click to expand...

Try using your usual Suspension of disbelief™ that works in any PC game.
If that doesn't work, go for the brand that you used while playing Tomb Raider.

Or perhaps you dont have a long haired gf, and TressFX worked out of box for ya 😛
 
They need to fluff up the german shepards more. I could notice the effect on the fluffy wolves, but not the dogs. But then i wondered, are the wolves noticeable because they just have a slightly different shaped model where the non-fancy fur ones have a narrower doggy model, but the fluffy wolves have a real wolf model and are more buffed out? Will there be a my little pony mod so we can really see this effect on tails and manes?
 
Better hair is cool and I'd like to see more of it. Most games hair is just a blob, but CoD is about the worst vehicle to demonstrate it to PC gamers. The game is a failure on PC, has archaic graphics technology, and dwarfed by games like Battlefield 4 or Planetside 2 in terms of PC user base.

Will be interesting to see this in The Witcher 3 though.
 
Erenhardt said:
If I would never seen a dog/wolf I would believe it, sadly I have 3 dogs, non of which have a fur like this. What shampoo I need to use to make them so fluffy?
Click to expand...
The expensive stuff from the fancy local joint. Not that crap from Pets Mart.

Anyway, that a huge improvement over the molded plastic with paper mache bits look that we've had up until now.
 
Grooveriding said:
Better hair is cool and I'd like to see more of it. Most games hair is just a blob, but CoD is about the worst vehicle to demonstrate it to PC gamers. The game is a failure on PC, has archaic graphics technology, and dwarfed by games like Battlefield 4 or Planetside 2 in terms of PC user base.

Will be interesting to see this in The Witcher 3 though.
Click to expand...

Really? Wow. I would have expected people to run right to it like they always do. I wouldn't actually know anything about the game, including if it succeeded or not since I stopped paying attention soon after COD 4 really. Maybe people are finally catching on that they've been playing COD 4 this whole time.
 
moonbogg said:
Really? Wow. I would have expected people to run right to it like they always do. I wouldn't actually know anything about the game, including if it succeeded or not since I stopped paying attention soon after COD 4 really. Maybe people are finally catching on that they've been playing COD 4 this whole time.
Click to expand...

Well, it sold less than half a million units world wide on PC. I guess that is a "failure" by standards. That only accounts for boxed sales though. So, unless Steam gives their numbers, who knows. Also, just as a related fact: BF4 only sold .74 million units boxed for PC. Ghosts' total sales eclipse 18 million, without PC being truly accounted for. The game isn't exactly the failure people wish it to be.
 
moonbogg said:
Really? Wow. I would have expected people to run right to it like they always do. I wouldn't actually know anything about the game, including if it succeeded or not since I stopped paying attention soon after COD 4 really. Maybe people are finally catching on that they've been playing COD 4 this whole time.
Click to expand...

CoD is a very successful console game and still is. For a good gauge of how poorly it does on PC, check out the player counts for it on Steam. It averages about 2000-3000 active at the same time; http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ Need to expand the lists, ghosts is about 40 spots down the list. Battlefield 4 = 50,000+ players active at the same time; http://bf4stats.com/

It's not really a surprise to me with how stagnant the game is, it hasn't changed since CoD 4. Even the engine is still a modified Quake engine. They finally tacked on some DX11 stuff for ghosts, but it still looks atrocious, like a game released eight years ago. Activision is not exactly known for being liberal with expansive game development. They spend more on marketing than making their games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAgc43e-zp4
 
Last edited:
AMD has lifelike hair too, on wolves (I think this is some form of tressfx demo?):

I actually think this wolf looks more impressive than those doggies in Call of Duty Ghost do.
That said it looks a million times better with PhysX hair on, that it does without it on.

Hair physx was/is something the gameing world needed.


2577853-4796329752-ibsjE.gif
 
Last edited:
f1sherman said:
Try using your usual Suspension of disbelief™ that works in any PC game.
If that doesn't work, go for the brand that you used while playing Tomb Raider.

Or perhaps you dont have a long haired gf, and TressFX worked out of box for ya 😛
Click to expand...

Yes, because there were no complaints about TressFX. 😉

We can never have "realistic" in games because that's not impressive enough, We need Super-Duper-Hyper-Dynamic-Gravity defying-Make it so a blind person can see it-Wow-Wow-Wow physics in games because that looks better.

Nice to see more hair in games though. It's one more step towards realism. Maybe someone will make good use of it. It definitely looks tacked on in the clip. Possibly the original artists doing it would make it better.


Arkadrel said:
AMD has lifelike hair too, on wolves (I think this is some form of tressfx demo?):

I actually think this wolf looks more impressive than those doggies in Call of Duty Ghost do.
That said it looks a million times better with PhysX hair on, that it does without it on.

Hair physx was/is something the gameing world needed.


2577853-4796329752-ibsjE.gif
Click to expand...

Yes, it looks better (that last gen wolf though looks pitiful), but it's still over the top. Wolves and German Shepherd's fur doesn't move and glisten in the sun like that though.

What I want to know is which one has a lower performance hit and is most stable across Archs.

Let's hope none of this has anything to do with PhysX. I hope you are using PhysX generically where you mean physics.
 
Last edited:
All the negative for a feature that you dont even have to use? WOW

Do you guys get that this effect is not limited to Nvidia or AMD cards?

Do you just hate anything Nvidia does, no matter what?

If you really prefer the plastic look of the original, no one is forcing this enhanced fur on you.

The most important thing that everyone seems to ignore:
Unlike physx, and unlike Cuda water in just cause
*this feature is available for anyone, no matter what card you use!!!!
this is a step in the right direction, no matter how you look at it.

We are not at a point of photo realistic gaming. Not even close. But if you watch the whole video and tell me that this hair isnt a step in the right direction, i seriously would have to wonder what is up with you. Any step away from the plastic hair we have seen for so many years is welcomed. I am really tired of great graphics and terrible plastic hair. I see a real need for improvement.

If your satisfied with the original, dont enable the feature. I am sure none of the people criticizing it will ever play the game anyway. But i really think hair is a place that needs to be addressed. It is not as easy task to replicate, especially if you want playable frame rates. This is at least someone trying to address the issue. In a title that the developer otherwise would do nothing. I think it looks better than plastic. especially the wolves, they are much much better
 
Last edited:
3DVagabond said:
Yes, it looks better (that last gen wolf though looks pitiful), but it's still over the top. Wolves and German Shepherd's fur doesn't move and glisten in the sun like that though.
Click to expand...
Give them spikey buckles, jeans, jackets made from deer leather (I mean, just make sure it's not wolf skin, you know?), and call them 80s hair wolves. It will be perfect.
 
smackababy said:
Well, it sold less than half a million units world wide on PC. I guess that is a "failure" by standards. That only accounts for boxed sales though. So, unless Steam gives their numbers, who knows. Also, just as a related fact: BF4 only sold .74 million units boxed for PC. Ghosts' total sales eclipse 18 million, without PC being truly accounted for. The game isn't exactly the failure people wish it to be.
Click to expand...

Yes its a economic success. But it doesnt change that even bf2 kills it in both gfx and dynamics. It simply looks like lipstick on a 6 year old game because thats what it is. Fine for the old consoles. I hope people will move at some time so there is incentives for the devs to make better engines. Fish in water, dogs with a fuhr, and exploding gaz stations. Argggg.
 
That hair does look very dynamic and is welcomed. Anything the breathes life into the game world is great, and it doesn't have to look perfectly real. After all, its a game. But I do agree that real wolf hair doesn't look like super model chick hair like this wolf. That wolf is running straight from the salon on his way to get laid.
Also, if game worlds looked realistic I think people might find them bland looking. People like the bright colors and vivid nature of game worlds. Exaggerated hair is fine I think.
 
I think some artists and developers need to visit a zoo. I like the tech, but the implementation can be better. I figure this is taken to extremes to demonstrate the tech itself though.
 
All the hate in here is directed squarely at cod. I think it looks great but as others said cod on PC is a wasted effort for this effect.
 
This would be all the rage for a new Deer Hunter 😛

I know it's corny but I can see this working VERY well for a kid's game wherein the main character is an animal. Oooooor perhaps a new Conkers Bad Fur Day?
 
They made a bit of a noob mistake. The base model's volume already accounts for the animal having a coat of fur, and they just painted fibers on top of that surface. Hence the glam rocker look. They should have created a leaner "skin and bones" model and painted that with fur. Still looks cool though.
 
moonbogg said:
That hair does look very dynamic and is welcomed. Anything the breathes life into the game world is great, and it doesn't have to look perfectly real. After all, its a game. But I do agree that real wolf hair doesn't look like super model chick hair like this wolf. That wolf is running straight from the salon on his way to get laid.
Click to expand...
His hair was perfect. They'll never get it right the 1st time, or 3nd, or 3rd, but they'll get there, and seriously this is a cool effect, and could add far more to the game looks than Physx cloth and things bowing in when poked ever could.
 
I don't really care who has better hair right now, tressfx or hairworks, I just care that they are competing with each other to make better hair/fur effects so that maybe, just MAYBE, we will finally get games where people aren't bald, helmeted, or have plastic hair.

Competition is GOOD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top