 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Gaming. |
| User | Post |
| GeckoYamori Posts: 6/114 |
They've already simulated cloth physic in the Meqon physics engine, which was recently intergrated into Duke Nukem Forever (Yeah yeah, I know). You can download a demo to play with at http://www.meqon.com |
| Yoronosuku Posts: 105/1239 |
You got a lobster and you got a magnet.
Lobster got antenna so don't you grab it. The magnet's made of iron. The lobster's made of meat. You got a lobster and you got a magnet. Lilttle lobster's hungry he could eat a rabit. The rabit's made of steel. The lobster has a beak. Don't put a lobster on your plate, he'll use his magnet to escape. He'll jump right up and claw your ear, then he'll bite your eye. Lobster stick to magnet! x4 (or so) Right claw north. LEFT CLAW SOUTH. ..yeah ._.;; |
| Zem Posts: 274/1097 |
Originally posted by Alastor the Stylish I saw that cartoon once a long time ago, but I don't remember how the little song went, so now whenever I try to think of it I get Judas Priest's "Living after midnight" instead. "Lobster sticks to magnet" fits perfectly in that pacing. |
| Alastor Posts: 1484/8204 |
Originally posted by Squash MonsterYeah, too bad he can be defeated with clever use of a magnet =/ |
| Cymoro Posts: 145/-244 |
I've actually seen those Cave Voxel demos before (FIND THE RED BLASTER), and I must say, they're the best examples of voxels. However, I have to try out the other example today. It looks very interesting. |
| Zem Posts: 271/1097 |
I <3 Squash Monster |
| Squash Monster Posts: 108/296 |
Modelling the interactions of every last molecule is a great idea.
...if you're a theoretical physicist. Back in the real world, it turns out that molecular physics doesn't work so well if you try to use it to model common objects. You'll get the most realistic physics by using classical mechanics*. A lot of games already have very good physics engines for this. Whether they bother to use them very well could be debated. Though I think everyone sane is going to be on the side of "no, they're not using these engines very well". So, modeling things on the molecular level? No**. Now, on our other topic, of voxels? Hell yes. I mean, even primative voxels are shiny. There's a lot of interesting stuff we can do with voxels. Like deformable stuffs. And voxels bring back the sprite. You all know that sprites are awesome, right? On the topic of deformable stuff: You know, you don't need to limit this to terrain. Imagine a FPS made entirely in voxels. Yes, you can shell a path strait through a mountainside if you're bored enough. But more interestingly, voxel tanks. Imagine, you shoot an enemy tank, and blow a chunk out of it. Now you can see bits of the inside of the tank. Specific voxels can be set to disable or completely destroy the tank. So you can blow off the turret. Or shoot the gas tank. Or sandblast the paint off. Whatever trips your trigger. *You'll get more realistic results with other types of physics if you're game's really off the wall. Some examples: --Playing billiards with stars: relativistic physics --Super-microscopic Doom where you're the size of a virus: molecular physics --The Adventures of Clawsalot The Lobster: fluid dynamics **Unless your game is The Adventures of Atom Adam. In which case you can feel free to use molecular physics if that trips your triger. |
| Yoronosuku Posts: 97/1239 |
I don't get it..disregarding the low quality, I did not see very much realism in that screenshot..is there something I'm missing here? ._.;; |
| Kyoufu Kawa Posts: 366/1353 |
I've seen spherical voxels. In one of Mr. Silverman's editors. |
| Ailure Posts: 318/2602 |
Just imagine that in high-res (or rather, with smaller voxels) and all, since sadly... modern Graphics cards are built around the concept of Polygons. Not voxels. And even then, the few voxels games that looks neat runs smoothly...
And yes, technically you could do a similar system to voxels, but with spheares instead... it would look strange though unless you really did go high-res.  And if the spheares are polygon (you could cheat with small 2D ones) that's a huge memory waste...
Or maybe it won't use that much memory, I don't know. I hadn't seen any sphearicaly voxels, just square ones. |
| Kyoufu Kawa Posts: 354/1353 |
Screenshots anyone? I got 'em. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 509/5072 |
Originally posted by Yoronosuku It's possible, sure, but it'd probably be expensive. Even if just for the fact that they can charge more for something that does both. 
Grey's point about physics is probably the biggest problem. It might be possible, though, to optimize things by not performing the actual physics calculations on every single molecule. For example if an entire solid object is moving through air (say a bullet), there's no need to calculate all the physics of every single molecule; once you've calculated the new coordinates for one molecule given its speed/angle/etc, you can just update the rest to the same spot relative to their position within the object. Although there's still another problem - each molecule will need a certain amount of memory. At very least, their X/Y/Z coords relative to the object they belong to, some sort of ID to tell which object that is, and a colour. Assuming the coords are 4-byte floats and the object ID a 2-byte short, and no alpha channel, that's 17 bytes each (4 for each coord = 12 total, 2 for object ID, 3 for each colour). Not a whole lot, but when you're talking hundreds of millions of these things, along with everything else that takes up memory... yeah. I think if such a system ever is implemented, it'll still use polygons where possible. Things like a static background image or the ground in a game that you can't damage it can still just be textured polygons. Or even dynamically convert them, like make walls out of polygons, but when they're damaged, replace the polygons that were hit with molecules. Also I don't think games will ever look as good as computer-animated movies until both look precisely like reality. Consider that a game has to run at a decent framerate on one computer, while a movie's rendering is usually split across dozens or even hundreds of computers and can run at 1 frame per hour for all anyone cares (the rendering only has to happen once, after all). |
| Zem Posts: 245/1097 |
Dur? There's a lot more levels we can go down before we get anywhere close to molecules. First off, no, polygons are not almost perfected. The most recent developments have been getting objects to look like they have more polygons than they do, because we still aren't at the point where we can fill the screen with polygons and have it run like water. When a dynamically rendered polygonal environment looks like one of Blizzard's videos (or Pixar's, or whatever) then we'll have perfected polygons. And you know what? That will take a lot less computational power than this molecules thing. |
| Schweiz oder etwas Posts: 319/2046 |
But you'd have to reconfigure the physics engine to account for every individual molecule. That's a lot of physics, even if you make a single blanket statement that applies to all molecules on the object. Rendering every individual equation (through the use of a single function that is just mapped to every molecule or otherwise) still requires that you have a processor powerful enough to take all of those calculations at once. Xbox 3shitty may have six processors, but that doesn't mean anything in the face of rendering entire worlds in the name of realism. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all. It means Microsoft threw six PCs into one box and called it a console. AGAIN. This in no way changes the way games are coded, it in no way changes how HDR or SLI or any of those other gaming buzzwords work, it just means Microsoft is once again ramming people in the arse and taking advantage of the trendwhore market. I swear the next time I hear someone say that the AI in Call of Duty 2 Xbox is more intricate than the PC version because it's handled by one of the 3crappy's six processors by itself, I'm going to stab them with an optical mouse (read; IT'S NOT.).
Back on topic: Now that I think back to your claim, molecules sounds like a very, very interesting idea. It'd be like having a sheet made of bubbles wrapping around characters. We ARE quickly approaching the point where multiple calculations can be rendered fast enough to fit them in a gaming perspective, so why the hell not? Let's give it a shot! >.> In the very least it'd look cool while we experience godly framerate loss. |
| Yoronosuku Posts: 86/1239 |
Why not design it to do both...surely polygons are as perfected as they can be at this point (do you see graphics getting much better anyway?), and if a molecule system w as designed they can combine it with familiar perfected polygon technology. The molocule idea in general is so out there that this would be just as possible you know. I really do like the concept tho..and I sort of hope a practical way of getting a similar effect comes out very, very soon. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 485/5072 |
Originally posted by [GGS I think pixel-sized would probably do fine for this purpose. It would be difficult, though, especially since all modern systems are designed to work with polygons. It might be more feasible if the device in question was designed specifically to do molecules, but then it probably couldn't do polygons. |
| Kyoufu Kawa Posts: 332/1353 |
Originally posted by AilureFrom the maker of that same engine... VOXLAP! |
| Cruel Justice Posts: 464/1637 |
I thought voxels could be spherical, so I think they can.
The molecules system... they would have to find a way of marketing affordable 100tb memory cards or something first. Molecules cannot be seen and there are several billion in a crumb of bread. Although it's interesting, it's far-fetched. |
| Kutske Posts: 74/171 |
Refresh my memory; can voxels be of any shape, or are they exclusively cubic? |
| Ailure Posts: 279/2602 |
Voxels anyone? They're been used in a few older games, but I wouldn't mind seing them around again. They would look amazing with high resolution, and will have better physics than polygons ever will.
With small enough voxels, and you have what you're looking for.  But remember that computer based on silicon have it's limits. At some point we have to find a new way to make computers if we want them to be steadily faster.
Hell, effects like in scorched earth is possible with voxels. Thought I wanted to mention that.
It's just a damn shame that voxels just hadn't got popular... (Tiberian sun uses voxels, so does RA2 and the engine build supports it, althought sadly the support was added after DN3D was finished  ) |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
