AFAIK What is being done by TressFX hasn't ever been done real time in games. We'll have to wait to at least see some live action before we know for sure. I do find it a bit strange they are only showing screen grabs and no live action.
Actually, you are the one making the biggest deal about this out of everyone combined. I think most folks were like, "Cool, realistic hair, and it'll run on both nVidia and AMD GPUs." That was pretty much it until you came along trying to make it out as not, cool realistic hair that will run on both brands.
FFS, we haven't even seen it yet.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 627
- 126
If it turns out to be as nice as it looks in the trailers, it will be fantastic. But I'll reserve judgement until I see PC gameplay in action. Either way the reviews for Tom Raider have been very positive I'll be picking up the game either way it looks like a lot of fun.FFS, we haven't even seen it yet.
BTW, realistic rendering of hair was long sought after in the movie industry, it's old hat now but the fact that we are seeing it come down to the video game level is pretty exciting.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 627
- 126
I could swear I saw it on Youtube but I can't seem to find it. I may be mistaken?
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 627
- 126
I believe you are correct, my bad I somehow confused something else I saw. Should see it tomorrow I believe. Could be a big letdown, that would be embarrassing for AMD and the Nvidia fanboys will shriek in delight lol.
Well if the static shots are anything to go by it looks like it will be pretty good. Wispy like real hair as opposed to Alice: Madness returns that looks more like dreadlocks.
If screens are any indication, it looks like the head will have better textures but the hair will be static, while the ponytail will have movement but nothing close to what I had hoped for.
As far as hair styles go I'm not really going to comment on that, art styles are completely different and Lara has always been a centerfold in an action situation.
As far as hair styles go I'm not really going to comment on that, art styles are completely different and Lara has always been a centerfold in an action situation.
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
Stuff like the bangs seem dynamic to me.
It actually looks like it's done on a per strand basis. The description makes it seem that way too. I'm really interested in seeing what kind of a performance hit is incurred. Seeing as it's done as particle based and transparency (IIRC from what I read), it might use a lot of resources.
Like I said, since they haven't chosen to show us any live game shots, I'm concerned it might need a lot of GPU power to implement.
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
But Lara Croft is worth it.
Edit: You know, we've been wondering what sort of performance hit the hair physics will cause; maybe looking at the official system requirements will give a clue?
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77943/tomb-raider-pc-features-system-requirements-revealed
Wait...Radeon HD 4870? The game might run just fine on it, but only because you can't even turn on the DirectX 11 features. Did the guy who originally posted the requirements type a 4 when he meant a 5, 6, or 7? I've checked, multiple sources say 4870. That makes no sense. What makes more sense is the GTX 480; if accurate, that's a pretty hefty requirement. A few other details about the game: the PC port was done by Nixxes, the same developer which handled the (nicely done) port for Deus Ex: Human Revolution. According to Shack News, the other PC-exclusive features are as follows:
Edit: You know, we've been wondering what sort of performance hit the hair physics will cause; maybe looking at the official system requirements will give a clue?
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77943/tomb-raider-pc-features-system-requirements-revealed
Wait...Radeon HD 4870? The game might run just fine on it, but only because you can't even turn on the DirectX 11 features. Did the guy who originally posted the requirements type a 4 when he meant a 5, 6, or 7? I've checked, multiple sources say 4870. That makes no sense. What makes more sense is the GTX 480; if accurate, that's a pretty hefty requirement. A few other details about the game: the PC port was done by Nixxes, the same developer which handled the (nicely done) port for Deus Ex: Human Revolution. According to Shack News, the other PC-exclusive features are as follows:
Last edited:
Frack the middleware! Directcompute/OpenCL is exploding as you type these words! The beauty of it is no "middleware".. like you being the middleman that has to go!
PhsyX was the cancer preventing games from from having built-in physics gameplay based upon GPU-accelerated phsyics, because no developer was willing to make their game 100% UNPLAYABLE on Radeon cards.
The PC market isn't big enough for devs to make NV-exclusive games, like PS3-exclusives or Xbox-exclusives.
DC/OpenCL is the cure of cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Apparently, the Witcher 3 will be supporting PhysX, so PhysX won't be going anywhere for quite some time
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
The start of a dying breed, most likely.
Metro Last Light will likely also be using PhysX as well..
What incentive is there for developers to drop PhysX? It's free, it has great support and the tools are easy to use, and it runs very well on CPUs when using the latest SDK..
OpenCL on the other hand is under developed and under supported..
I could see PhysX living as a CPU only based physics engine as that would also mean that it could also be used on consoles. As a GPU based physic engine though at best it would stay as it is now; a game featuring it every now and then with implementations that are not really crucial to the game to avoid alienating a large part of the market.
With PS4 likely using opengl I'm guessing havok for it would be using opencl?
With PS4 likely using opengl I'm guessing havok for it would be using opencl?
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
It's extra cost, assuming AMD stuff like TressFX is supported on the PS4 and next Xbox. Hardware accelerated PhysX will not be an option on consoles. So on the one hand they'll have a feature that's already fully integrated into their game that just needs to be ported like the rest, or they have a feature which they need to spend some more time and money making sure it's integrated into the game on top of the porting process. Which sounds more appealing?
This has ramifications for gameplay elements as well. Using hardware accelerated PhysX for physics related gameplay elements? Out of the question on multiplatform titles. Using OpenCL or DirectCompute? That's quite possible.
Dankk
Diamond Member
- Jul 7, 2008
- 5,558
- 25
- 91
More notably, they also handled the PC version of Hitman: Absolution, which was stunning. I have no doubt they've done a fine job on Tomb Raider.
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
Yeah. I think it's been mentioned before, but Square Enix' western studios seem to be putting a lot of effort into their PC ports. Deus Ex, Sleeping Dogs, and Hitman all had extensive DX11 features, and now Tomb Raider. All Gaming Evolved titles too; AMD and Square Enix must be getting along pretty well.
Speaking of quite some time. Those games were started long before CD Projekt Red and Whoever is making Metro now even new what hardware was going to be in the next gen consoles. What you are witnessing is Phsyx's death rattle before it becomes pointless for developers to use.
Nvidia can easily shock it back into life by porting it to OpenCL or Direct Compute.
I'll just do a general address for the main point brought up by VulgarDisplay, Red Hawk and zebrax2.
Having AMD hardware in both the PS4 and the next Xbox should not affect the popularity of PhysX, if precedence is to be an example. PhysX has been multiplatform for a long time, and with the 3.0 SDK release, it's optimized and scales well across multiple CPU cores. So from a software physics standpoint, PhysX will still be a valid choice; particularly considering the powerful developer tools available for PhysX.
As for Hardware Physics, I think it's a moot point. PhysX has always been designed to be scalable. The more processing power you have, the more particle effects can be calculated.
For example, the normal setting for PhysX on Batman Arkham City can run on a single mid range GPU, a long with most of the eye candy features turned on @ 1080p.
On high though, you will likely need a dedicated, or more powerful GPU. So what does this have to do with anything?
The next generation consoles will be able to run PhysX (with advanced particle effects), but on lowered settings. Since they can code a lot closer to the metal on consoles, PhysX on low with some particle effects should run fairly well on the CPU cores.
Devs will tailor the amount of particle effects based on the available resources (which depends on several factors), so as not to overburden the CPU..
Having AMD hardware in both the PS4 and the next Xbox should not affect the popularity of PhysX, if precedence is to be an example. PhysX has been multiplatform for a long time, and with the 3.0 SDK release, it's optimized and scales well across multiple CPU cores. So from a software physics standpoint, PhysX will still be a valid choice; particularly considering the powerful developer tools available for PhysX.
As for Hardware Physics, I think it's a moot point. PhysX has always been designed to be scalable. The more processing power you have, the more particle effects can be calculated.
For example, the normal setting for PhysX on Batman Arkham City can run on a single mid range GPU, a long with most of the eye candy features turned on @ 1080p.
On high though, you will likely need a dedicated, or more powerful GPU. So what does this have to do with anything?
The next generation consoles will be able to run PhysX (with advanced particle effects), but on lowered settings. Since they can code a lot closer to the metal on consoles, PhysX on low with some particle effects should run fairly well on the CPU cores.
Devs will tailor the amount of particle effects based on the available resources (which depends on several factors), so as not to overburden the CPU..
Well one is using the DirectCompute standard.
The other is using proprietary PhysX.
I don't know why neither of them uses OpenCL so all games could be supported on all hardware.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 146
- 106
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter