Tressfx: A new frontier of realism in pc gaming

[BallaTheFeared]

Stuff like the bangs seem dynamic to me.

Yeah but not in this pic:

If we assume it has physics, and reacts to her - why is it out of place in the first screen?

Looks static to me, and a special doctored up image you posted.

Could be wrong though, but I haven't seen it in action yet just guessing

 

[DarkKnightDude]

We'll see it in action in about 7 hours for me.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

>.<

Upload your fraps!

 

[Olikan]

Looks static to me, and a special doctored up image you posted.

....why women uses ponytail again?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

 

[Skurge]

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..

As far as I know, you need CUDA for GPU accelerated PhysX and neither next gen console is gonna have an nVidia GPU in it.

 

[blackened23]

As far as I know, you need CUDA for GPU accelerated PhysX and neither next gen console is gonna have an nVidia GPU in it.

Correct. I've said this several times but there is a difference between GPU particle acceleration (this REQUIRES nvidia hardware) and just a mere physics API (which, for example, is used by Dragon Age Origins - with no GPU physx)

The latter can be used on any hardware be it AMD, intel, or via. It does not require dedicated hardware, it is only used for physics collision detection and similar things - it also doesn't give you any fancy special effects. That said, nvidia is still making an effort to get physx out there; they're getting it in Witcher 3 and it is already in planetside 2. The major stumbling block is that the major publishers are AMD GE now so they're locked out from future EA, 2k games, square enix, and ubisoft games indefinitely, so I believe nvidia is targetting Activision-Blizzard, independent devs and mostly PC exclusives now. ARMA3 also will be using physx if i'm not mistaken - and I believe rocksteady also is still using TWIMTBP, so if there are any future Batman games they may use physx still. So 2013 will have some physx goodness for us, I just question the long term viability of the closed model since as mentioned major publishers can't use physx for particle acceleration. We'll see I guess.

I could be wrong on the last part. Who knows! Physx particle acceleration does some really cool stuff, would like to see it in even more games. In any case, 2013 will definitely have some big physx titles so it is not an immediate concern I guess.

 

[Acanthus]

DirectCompute works.

Well of course, MS is dumping shitloads of money into it.

Just like Nvidia/Ageia dumped shitloads of money into PhysX.

It just seems to me that you could get some synergy going if all 3 companies were pushing one physics API rather than 3.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well of course, MS is dumping shitloads of money into it.

Just like Nvidia/Ageia dumped shitloads of money into PhysX.

It just seems to me that you could get some synergy going if all 3 companies were pushing one physics API rather than 3.

Its not really about that.

DirectX is universal as such. And DirectX is handled by one vendor that removes bureaucratic obstacles. OpenCL suffers the same problematics as OpenGL.

 

[Final8ty]

Correct. I've said this several times but there is a difference between GPU particle acceleration (this REQUIRES nvidia hardware) and just a mere physics API (which, for example, is used by Dragon Age Origins - with no GPU physx)

The latter can be used on any hardware be it AMD, intel, or via. It does not require dedicated hardware, it is only used for physics collision detection and similar things - it also doesn't give you any fancy special effects. That said, nvidia is still making an effort to get physx out there; they're getting it in Witcher 3 and it is already in planetside 2. The major stumbling block is that the major publishers are AMD GE now so they're locked out from future EA, 2k games, square enix, and ubisoft games indefinitely, so I believe nvidia is targetting Activision-Blizzard, independent devs and mostly PC exclusives now. ARMA3 also will be using physx if i'm not mistaken - and I believe rocksteady also is still using TWIMTBP, so if there are any future Batman games they may use physx still. So 2013 will have some physx goodness for us, I just question the long term viability of the closed model since as mentioned major publishers can't use physx for particle acceleration. We'll see I guess.

I could be wrong on the last part. Who knows! Physx particle acceleration does some really cool stuff, would like to see it in even more games. In any case, 2013 will definitely have some big physx titles so it is not an immediate concern I guess.

NV is not targeting anything that they had not before, GPU Physx was always PC exclusive, it's just that some doors have been closed for them so they are carrying on with what's left.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Well of course, MS is dumping shitloads of money into it.

Just like Nvidia/Ageia dumped shitloads of money into PhysX.

It just seems to me that you could get some synergy going if all 3 companies were pushing one physics API rather than 3.

rhmm...neither CUDA, DirectCompute or OpenCL is a physics API...

CUDA <-> DirectCompute <-> OpenCL


PhysX <-> Havok <-> BulletPhysics.

Basics...they matter.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Well, the hair seems to be moving dynamically. My fraps doesn't seem to work atm, I''ll try recording with MSI Afterburner when I start it up later.

Performance hit seems completely unnoticeable, I'll try toggling it off and on in different scenes.

 

[Dravonic]

"Seems to be moving dynamically"? That's probably bad news. It should be easily noticeable.

 

[SirPauly]

Next argument:
TressFX cures cancer!!!!
PhysX causes cancer!!!

However, the power of GPU Processing may help with finding cures!

 

[SirPauly]

a minute TressFX video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZljXmUEdHo

 

[Lonbjerg]

a minute TressFX video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZljXmUEdHo

The hair disagrees with the flag/sails on what way the wind is comming from....physics well done...LOL

 

[Ibra]

The hair disagrees with the flag/sails on what way the wind is comming from....physics well done...LOL

Good one. :thumbsup:

 

[Grooveriding]

Well, the hair seems to be moving dynamically. My fraps doesn't seem to work atm, I''ll try recording with MSI Afterburner when I start it up later.

Performance hit seems completely unnoticeable, I'll try toggling it off and on in different scenes.

Looks good. :thumbsup: Got a deal on one of the AMD reloaded keys on ebay for this one. Will download later and post some results.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That video is a show on how you kill immersion with sloppy quality. The hair also behaves rather unrealistic.

But I assume its more a proof of concept.

 

[Dravonic]

That's actually quite good. It's on par with what I was expecting while she's standing there. Want to see if it won't crap out when she moves. My only gripe with it is the way too conservative collision map. The hair floats too much around her, it's very noticeable.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Why is she taking deep breathes while just standing there, annoying


Doesn't look good to me, but imagine quality is low - will retain my opinion until we see some better capture quality.

 

[blackened23]

That video is a show on how you kill immersion with sloppy quality. The hair also behaves rather unrealistic.

But I assume its more a proof of concept.

LOL, you guys are nuts! Not you, but - Lets not kid ourselves, some people would bash it no matter how impressive; these people probably wake up and curse the name of AMD every day, and throw darts at pictures of the AMD logo. Anyway, I thought it was pretty awesome. But, different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hair seems to disappear when to goes from one side of her head to the other.

When it's split between the two a lot of the "thickness" is lost, looks like she loses at least half her hair mass. I dunno like I said I'll wait to see a better upload.

 

[SirPauly]

It looks nice to me and much better than static hair of the past. It's tough to expect ideal hair simulation and may need more time to evolve and mature -- but a nice step forward.

 

[bgt]

a minute TressFX video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZljXmUEdHo

Wow, that looks really nice