1)Haha, if you expect me to believe a consumer level CPU could simulate a body of water as large as a river, you have another thing coming.
That's clearly a canned animation of some sort. It probably has some physics algorithms built in I do not doubt, but there is no way the entire river is being simulated.
Kinda like Battlefield and large explosions.
The greater your computational power, the greater the amount and complexity of the calculations your computer can process. This is no different from 3D rendering.
No consumer level GPU is going to render realistic Avatar like graphics by itself. That's why you have rendering farms which use
thousands of CPUs and GPUs to do that work in
real time.
2)Similarly, you're not going to see a nuclear explosion being simulated by a 3930K processor no matter how well written the physics program is. For that, you need a super computer.
It doesn't prove your point. The only point it proves is that programmers have to make concessions in quality and realism due to lack of available computational power.
The quality and level of optimization of the code is important I agree, but the main bottleneck is always going to be processing power.
1) What you believe and your assumptions are not the point the only point that matters is the results of whats going on under the hood and hence the results of the POLL thus far and not whats going under the hood as being more important when playing games.
2) A CPU is no less accurate at physics than a GPU doing it , one is simply faster at doing it, the accuracy is down to the algorithm and if that algorithm is not accurate then the results will not be, no matter the computational power of the hardware, we see plenty of physics mistakes and glitches all the time.
And lastly you went and found a different video and brought up the tree clipping and not the flaws of the water and that is also an important point because nothing like that water has been seen before in games and the flaws are not noticed on first impressions, (so it looks so real at first) and only the wow factor is noticed and the same goes for physx as well, but it very common to see clipping of things like trees hence you noticed that.
The amount of times that we see things in games and think wow that looks so goods and realistic and years later seeing the games dont seem no ware near as looking so goods and realistic as we remembered, but some games do hold up well overtime.
You may believe that GPU Physx is accurate at this present day in games but i and most of the POLL do not, that does not mean that they dont look cool, but to me most of them dont, just more of a distraction because they are overdone for the sake of being different and that again is down to implementation, the overdone results were down to implementation, not computational power, good physics is down to more than just computational power. [sarcasm] Developer: its not our fault everything is down to computational power, we have absolutely no control over the results, how they look, how they behave and how much is on screen, so when you put that game on a new more powerful rig, hell knows whats going to happen[/sarcasm]
There are plenty of other things that get overdone as well like DOF,BLOOM,HDR, motion blur, HBAO being over the top in some games and a whole host of other things because we have the computational power for them, that does not automatically make them realistic or accurate, they are simply cool at times to people.
More computational power only means the potential to be more realistic and accurate in real time at higher fps, its does not guarantee in any way that the results will be, that is down to the developers.
I may fix any more typos later, but i am lazy that way..sorry
Facebook
Twitter