• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is this level of physic possible for next-gen games?

Schmick

Member
do you think cloud is gonna be a reality during next-gen?
I've been playing PS games on PSN for PC. And it's been a very good experience. If I can play whole games that are being streamed to my PC why couldn't the same be said about the partial aspects of a game i.e. Local hardware deals with certain parts and the cloud deals with the other parts like physics.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Big plus point is the more powerful cpu's in those boxes that probably sit idle most of the time, so we will see more focus back on it.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Member
i see contrastant opinions in here about the reality of this stuff during nextgen, some people say yes and some say no.

is the truth in between?
 

Bartski

Gold Member
I would love to see the day when a game comes out where ALL interactions between in-game objects (including objects such as a magnum bullet and a bran skull of a zombie) will be all based on unified advanced collision physics simulation, and material properties based deformation. Will this day come while we're on PS5 & SXS? As long as everyone will be chasing photorealism, I don't think so.
 

Sophist

Member
I would love to see the day when a game comes out where ALL interactions between in-game objects (including objects such as a magnum bullet and a bran skull of a zombie) will be all based on unified advanced collision physics simulation, and material properties based deformation. Will this day come while we're on PS5 & SXS? As long as everyone will be chasing photorealism, I don't think so.

 

Guilty_AI

Member
You guys realize this stuff isn't running in real time, right? It takes hours to calculate, even on a professional workstation. You'd have to be insane to think you could implement this on a $500 console.
Yup, was just typing an answer about that

Original video of the physics simulation here
Run on a Intel i7 8700k, here's the time it took to render each simulation
Cookie: 634.5 sec/frame
Candy Crab: 96.8 sec/frame
Watermelon: 313.4 sec/frame
Pumpkins: 176.7 sec/frame

You all get the idea. This is meant for animations, not gaming.
 

RedVIper

Banned
i see contrastant opinions in here about the reality of this stuff during nextgen, some people say yes and some say no.

is the truth in between?

The answer is no. It's not even worth having this level of physics for most things.

But, even if it was, it's literally impossible for next gen consoles to run this in real time. It can take my computer several minutes to render a small scene in blender.
 

-Arcadia-

Banned
I do hope that a few games with big, clever ideas around physics are explored next-gen. I really, truly don’t mind a 1080p title or something, if worst comes to worst, and your gameplay is so novel it can compensate.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned
this is on 1,8 tf console

tenor.gif


imagine hzd2 in a 10 tf console
 

iorek21

Member
It will be possible in close-ups like that one at the beginning of RE2 remake with that man's mouth torn open. Maybe it'll also be present at some Uncharted/Tomb Raider esque set piece, but I highly doubt that it will happen constantly in common games.

It may be a feature on games that rely on this kind of stuff, like Battlefield, House Flipper, Cooking Simulator etc.
 

Vawn

Banned
i see contrastant opinions in here about the reality of this stuff during nextgen, some people say yes and some say no.

is the truth in between?

We were promised this via the cloud last gen. Who knows what is truth, what is marketing speech and what is fan speculation.
 

VFXVeteran

Banned
I think pretty easily, but whether or not devs will dedicate the time in to such detail is the question.

How are you going to iterate through every point within a polygon to compute it's physical properties dynamically when the GPU is strictly rasterized based (i.e. operates on 2D interpolated pixels)? We can't even cast a reasonable amount of rays into a scene let alone compute the shading/physics of every point on a surface.
 
That is impressive. The tech behind it is crazy. Would that be something in games... would you even need something that intricate, that accurate for a game? might be easier for them to just fake it versus something real time like that. The average gamer may not even appreciate it, may not even notice, which is a shame but that's kind of the way it goes. Hollywood would probably use it, they've got server farms for that.
 
Last edited:

martino

Member
i'd like it to be the case but unlike what he says we've seen theses kind of demo for 15 years (improving with time) and it seems to never come.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Member
Yup, was just typing an answer about that

Original video of the physics simulation here
Run on a Intel i7 8700k, here's the time it took to render each simulation
Cookie: 634.5 sec/frame
Candy Crab: 96.8 sec/frame
Watermelon: 313.4 sec/frame
Pumpkins: 176.7 sec/frame

You all get the idea. This is meant for animations, not gaming.
Boo, buzz killington. Moving on.
 

pr0cs

Member
So the dinobots being crazy detailed and with a shitload of polygons now is called artwork...
What makes that video impressive is tying all those elements together. If you are expecting next gen to somehow make a scene like that even more fantastic you will likely be disappointed.
Next gen graphically, at least at the start, will be similar. They'll just have a much larger budget for the details.
The enemy AI will be improved, more realistic animations and physics and so on.
You are kidding yourself if that short clip is somehow indicative of some serious process power.
 

GymWolf

Member
What makes that video impressive is tying all those elements together. If you are expecting next gen to somehow make a scene like that even more fantastic you will likely be disappointed.
Next gen graphically, at least at the start, will be similar. They'll just have a much larger budget for the details.
The enemy AI will be improved, more realistic animations and physics and so on.
You are kidding yourself if that short clip is somehow indicative of some serious process power.
Wait, so expecting a better graphical impact on horizon 2 on a 10tf machine compared to horizon 1 ona 1.8 tf machine is dreaming big or impossible?
I don't understand your point...
Of course horizon also looks great thanks to the art direction but in the current gen you are not gonna find a more detailed creature than dinobots from horizon, and details and number of polygons are graphical stuff, not only artwork.
The same creature with the same artwork and half the polygons or less detailed texture it's not gonna look the same.

Maybe i don't get your point or maybe you like to downplay console graphical achievements like some members in this forum.
 

deriks

4-Time GIF/Meme God
I guess that those physics are possible since the PS360, the problem is in what to apply, because you can't just put on everything - remember how long ass are the animations in Red Dead Redemption 2?

In games the developers need to put the right physics in the right thing and using the right frames. Battlefield V is a good example that uses destruction and shit with a nice physics, but basically everything else is "videogame-ush".

And of course that physics pushes power from hardware, but don't confuse physics with graphical marvelous. The demo is pretty as hell, but it doesn't need to be this pretty to show how good physics can be in a game
 

Romulus

Member
I immediately imagined a brutal star wars fps were you can force push enemies with so much power that it disintegrates them, not to mention the saber hacking physics.
 
Top Bottom