Tressfx: A new frontier of realism in pc gaming

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
If this is proprietary, then every person who hates physx for being "worthless" and "proprietary" better be saying the same thing about this. At the same time, every person who thinks physx is good better be saying this is good too.

I for one think it would be a good move by AMD to make this a proprietary feature. They seemingly have a large amount of momentum with bundles, good prices, and the next-gen consoles - it'd be a good business move to continue building off that momentum.

Oh, I will be. If it's AMD exclusive, I won't be as annoyed by it as PhysX -- since, you know, I own an AMD GPU -- but I will be disappointed.

If this feature is hardware-accelerated, I hope that all that is needed to run the feature is DirectX 11 or OpenCL compliance. PhysX was a worthwhile idea but it's been held back by being proprietary. If the sort of physics effect can be played on any hardware, it will be more widely used. It'll be an even bigger shot in the arm if next gen consoles support it.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
Oh, I will be. If it's AMD exclusive, I won't be as annoyed by it as PhysX -- since, you know, I own an AMD GPU -- but I will be disappointed.

If this feature is hardware-accelerated, I hope that all that is needed to run the feature is DirectX 11 or OpenCL compliance. PhysX was a worthwhile idea but it's been held back by being proprietary. If the sort of physics effect can be played on any hardware, it will be more widely used. It'll be an even bigger shot in the arm if next gen consoles support it.

If it's AMD exclusive i will be just as annoyed but its very unlikely.

Question: With your partnership with AMD, will there be any features in Tomb Raider that will be exclusive to gamers with AMD hardware, and unavailable to Nvidia users?

Answer:No there should not be. AMD has always been quite clear about that as well. We are working on features that are specific to the PC platform, but if they are DX11 features they will also work on Nvidia DX11 hardware.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=133239
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
If this is proprietary, then every person who hates physx for being "worthless" and "proprietary" better be saying the same thing about this. At the same time, every person who thinks physx is good better be saying this is good too.

I for one think it would be a good move by AMD to make this a proprietary feature. They seemingly have a large amount of momentum with bundles, good prices, and the next-gen consoles - it'd be a good business move to continue building off that momentum.

Proprietary GPU brand mechanics implementation in games is only good for selling cards for that brand and not good for PC gamers overall as the implementation has to be limited in scope.
As far as im aware AMD has not done anything that can not be run on NV cards.
 
Last edited:

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
Proprietary GPU brand mechanics implementation in games is only good for selling cards for that brand and not good for PC gamers overall as the implementation has to be limited in scope.
As far as im aware AMD has not done anything that can not be run on NV cards.

They do it the way things should be. They optimize their effects and software to run well on their cards and don't lock out the competitor.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
The only way it wouldn't run on nVidia cards is if it's using a Dx11_1 feature that nVidia doesn't support (not saying that it does). That wouldn't be AMD's fault though.

Some sneaky marketing would be for AMD to use OpenCL that runs much better on AMD hardware. :cool:
 

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
I really just pray that the Havok gpu physics aren't exclusive to the PS4 and come to the Xbox Next as well. That way all games will have the ability to have a unified physics engine.

I imagine once the gimmicky nature of current physics developments wears off we might see some interesting and game changing ideas crop up.
 
Last edited:

VulgarDisplay

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2009
6,188
2
76
The only way it wouldn't run on nVidia cards is if it's using a Dx11_1 feature that nVidia doesn't support (not saying that it does). That wouldn't be AMD's fault though.

Some sneaky marketing would be for AMD to use OpenCL that runs much better on AMD hardware. :cool:

I saw on the box for a Titan that nvidia now supports dx11.1
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
I really just pray that the Havok gpu physics are exclusive to the PS4 and come to the Xbox Next as well. That way all games will have the ability to have a unified physics engine.

I imagine once the gimmicky nature of current physics developments wears off we might see some interesting and game changing ideas crop up.

If everyone could use it they could make it interactive with the game rather than just swirling particles like in Hawken. Or, green goo in Borderlands.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,605
6
81
A thought just crossed my mind:

If you program an effect to run good on your hardware and like crap on your competitors hardware, is the result not very similar to something being proprietary? Turning off PhysX/Tess because it runs/ran like crap on a Radeon system or turning off hair or global illumination because it runs like crap on an Nvidia system...where is the difference for the gamer? The result is still that only a part of the gamership profits from these kinds of things.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
So EVE -online can now up the fidelity on their character creation...after years on the market...
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
A thought just crossed my mind:

If you program an effect to run good on your hardware and like crap on your competitors hardware, is the result not very similar to something being proprietary? Turning off PhysX/Tess because it runs/ran like crap on a Radeon system or turning off hair or global illumination because it runs like crap on an Nvidia system...where is the difference for the gamer? The result is still that only a part of the gamership profits from these kinds of things.

The difference is it forces the other company to improve their hardware to compete. Like AMD had to do with tessellation. PhysX removes the competition.
 

DarkKnightDude

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
981
44
91
BkeNQ4y.jpg


P0rXRRJ.jpg


Bad Hair Days

Since the dawn of the 3D era, characters in your favorite games have largely featured totally unrealistic hair: blocky and jagged, often without animation that matches your character’s movements. Many games have attempted to disguise the problem with short haircuts, updos, or even unremovable helmets. But why? Simply: realistic hair is one of the most complex and challenging materials to accurately reproduce in real-time. Convincingly recreating a head of lively hair involves drawing tens of thousands of tiny and individual semi-transparent strands, each of which casts complex shadows and requires anti-aliasing. Even more challengingly, these calculations must be updated dozens of times per second to synchronize with the motion of a character.


A New Frontier of Realism

Lara Croft is an iconic character with an equally iconic ponytail. Re-imagining Lara and her haircut for the 2013 release of Tomb Raider wasn’t just an opportunity to modernize the character, it was an opportunity to substantially advance in-game realism by tackling the long-standing challenge of unrealistic hair. Through painstaking collaboration between software developers at AMD and Crystal Dynamics, Tomb Raider proudly features the world’s first real-time hair rendering technology in a playable game: TressFX Hair.


The Science of TressFX Hair

TressFX Hair revolutionizes Lara Croft’s locks by using the DirectCompute programming language to unlock the massively-parallel processing capabilities of the Graphics Core Next architecture, enabling image quality previously restricted to pre-rendered images. Building on AMD’s previous work on Order Independent Transparency, this method makes use of Per-Pixel Linked-List data structures to manage rendering complexity and memory usage.

DirectCompute is additionally utilized to perform the real-time physics simulations for TressFX Hair. This physics system treats each strand of hair as a chain with dozens of links, permitting for forces like gravity, wind and movement of the head to move and curl Lara’s hair in a realistic fashion. Further, collision detection is performed to ensure that strands do not pass through one another, or other solid surfaces such as Lara’s head, clothing and body. Finally, hair styles are simulated by gradually pulling the strands back towards their original shape after they have moved in response to an external force.

Graphics cards featuring the Graphics Core Next architecture, like select AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series, are particularly well-equipped to handle these types of tasks, with their combination of fast on-chip shared memory and massive processing throughput on the order of trillions of operations per second.

http://blogs.amd.com/play/tressfx/

40dClKv.jpg


PdO1LyR.jpg


Looks impressive
 
Last edited:

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,605
6
81
The difference is it forces the other company to improve their hardware to compete. Like AMD had to do with tessellation. PhysX removes the competition.

The competition could also have created its own open solution like they promised years ago. The end result is the same:
We have isolated effects that benefit only a part of all gamers and are mainly created for marketing reasons. These things never enter widespread use during the lifetime of contemporary graphics cards. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, I'm just pointing out the possible hypocrisy here.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
A thought just crossed my mind:

If you program an effect to run good on your hardware and like crap on your competitors hardware, is the result not very similar to something being proprietary? Turning off PhysX/Tess because it runs/ran like crap on a Radeon system or turning off hair or global illumination because it runs like crap on an Nvidia system...where is the difference for the gamer? The result is still that only a part of the gamership profits from these kinds of things.

No it's not the same as Physx does not run on competitive GPUS at all and secondary running badly would not stop real interactive physics being implemented just like tesselation, if it was proprietary it would be used even less than it is now, and Intel having the biggest market share of under performance GPUS does not stop features being used that run bad on them, but at least it runs on them.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
I like those screenshots of her where every part of her is muddy EXCEPT for her hair. I wonder if they have made any provisions for showing mud-caked hair at all. :)
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,991
626
126

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
Looks decent. The best part is that its vendor agnostic, which if its effective, will actually make game developers want to use it because it will benefit every one of their customers.

Is this going to be in the new Tomb Raider ? I'm assuming the feature will have a toggle. Will be interesting to see if it incurs a performance penalty of any note.
 

DarkKnightDude

Senior member
Mar 10, 2011
981
44
91
Is this going to be in the new Tomb Raider ?

Lara Croft is an iconic character with an equally iconic ponytail. Re-imagining Lara and her haircut for the 2013 release of Tomb Raider wasn’t just an opportunity to modernize the character, it was an opportunity to substantially advance in-game realism by tackling the long-standing challenge of unrealistic hair. Through painstaking collaboration between software developers at AMD and Crystal Dynamics, Tomb Raider proudly features the world’s first real-time hair rendering technology in a playable game: TressFX Hair.

Probably is and a toggle option I'd imagine. I wonder how intensive it would be.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,605
6
81
No it's not the same as Physx does not run on competitive GPUS at all and secondary running badly would not stop real interactive physics being implemented just like tesselation, if it was proprietary it would be used even less than it is now, and Intel having the biggest market share of under performance GPUS does not stop features being used that run bad on them, but at least it runs on them.

I said the result is the same, not the thing itself. A fine but important difference.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
I said the result is the same, not the thing itself. A fine but important difference.

That narrow aspect is but the overall picfuture is far greater and has far wider ramifications plus the competition can always improve there weaknesses in future hardware.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
AMD HD3d Stereo 3D in-game options - for example: Deus Ex -- only works with Radeon.

And there is an open standard that they could of used that would work on both?
It's Nv who choose to go proprietary.
 
Last edited:

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
The difference is it forces the other company to improve their hardware to compete. Like AMD had to do with tessellation. PhysX removes the competition.

Proprietary also innovates and starts the ball rolling and not held back by the chains of only standards.

If there is enough awareness and momentum; it forces competitors to compete.

For example: Cuda.

Where was GPU processing before Cuda?

The awareness and momentum has helped forged open standards like Direct Compute and OpenCL to actually mature now.