AMD APU13: AMD Talks DirectCompute in Gaming

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"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"

Sure, but it will go straight through the seams, so Lara's TressFX hair is constantly decapitating her, going right through the seam where the head connects to the body. I turned it off.
 


The same can be said about any other eye candy.

Also, considering the fact that human characters are probably the most unrealistic thing in a game currently, this is a good step forward visually-wise.
 
i agree with mike.........all im seeing is stupid hair......and AA etc.......we dont need all this.....when im gaming honestly.....i dont even remember if her ponytail is tied or flying all over my monitor......they add stupid extras just so u buy new cards...im still very happy with my 4870......it plays everything on medium except crysis......bioshock on 4870 looked amazing................and they have made ppl believe u need 100fps....and everything must be played on ultra to get maximum pleasure.......ull enjoy the game as much as on medium.......and a little over 30fps is more than adequate......even if u have extra money to throw.......i dont see the point when ppl buy 780ti n game on a 1280 monitor........go 2560........that would be a better investment.
 
"We don't need ragdoll physics in games" You guys that say we don't need this are afraid to be happy. Why not innovate games? Some of us like to be as immersed as possible and I guess you others can stick with black and white monitors with 2D games.
 
I'm honestly surprised the reaction to this stuff isn't better. In the last 5 years or so graphics have improved a huge amount, but we've been stuck with hair that's barely changed in the last 15 years. Even if it seems like a minor thing, this is a big step, and could be applied to other things as well
 
@bharatwd like it or not everything evolves, hair might be a small thing, but add it to realistic shadows, specular light etc etc that evolved with every iteration of DirectX or graphics cards and we will eventually enjoy great visuals and maybe great content... otherwise why the hell did you got a 4870 when VGA graphics was enough for decent visuals and game content. Don`t be a hypocrite about it.
 
Tech moves forward small steps at a time, until there is some critical mass for bunch of related features.

You don't go from the Earth to the Moon in a single jump, you get there a little bit at a time, but you don't realize how far you have come until you look back and see the small orb you call Earth.
 
@coolitic clothing and grass =/= hair. Till Tomb Raider i never saw good looking hair on characters in game. And there isn`t any word about revolutionary in this article but everything adds up to great graphics so chill and enjoy eye candy in future games.
 


Do you have a tool to quantify specific elements' efficiency in Crytek's graphics engine? Because their games (especially the first one) don't seem very efficient.
 
For crying out lout just ignore the marketing term. No one complains about stuff like dynamic global illumination and lighting, high-res textures, tesselation etc.

The hair looks better, it works on all new gpus, it's an improvements, and it's optional.

Is it over-hyped? Yes. Is it a good thing? Absolutely.
 


There's more to innovation than eye candy (this includes ragdoll physics). I remember playing COD 2 (the last call of duty I actually enjoyed) and you were able to actually climb over objects, it was the best thing to happen since Iron Sights. Now that its the norm people look for the next best.

Considering the "next best" for a game that cries "destructibility" and in a city of sky scrapers everyone cheers when only 1 building falls. Reset your expectations and hold developers to a higher standard than considering anything eye candy being an overall innovation.

I didn't intend to rant but I find peoples definition of Innovation has drifted towards prettier graphics than gameplay mechanics far too long ago.
 
@childofthekorn when you say about only 1 building collapsing you clearly talk about Battlefield 4, well they could easy make every building collapse but that would make the map a big field of ruble ... after all a game is a game and the limitations are in place to make the game have maps that after 30 mins of gameplay they don`t all look the same like a giant ruble. If you talk about realism then why do you need a crosshair on your screen , why do you have a health bar , why do you know exactly how many bullets are in your magazine, and why the hell are your opponents have blue or red markers ...(BF4 removes all of these in hardcore mode) but if you talk about realism how do you calculate 1% HP relative to real life... let`s be reasonable..some things are bound not to be real life like.
 
It shoud've been written in OpenCL. It would give a better push for other developers to adopt and standart would grow fast surpassing cuda like a bad dream. AMD made a wrong move and still walks this path.
 

I'm inclined to agree with this. Crytek seems to pride themselves on simply using computing resources, but not necessarily using them well. I like nuanced detail, but not at the cost of plummeting performance. Add some detail without flooring the framerates and I'll call that (r)evolutionary.

To everyone else complaining about the stupid hair, try to look past that and see what this can lead to. No, TressFX isn't an open standard. But it was also something that's obviously been in development for at least as long as the game itself ( probably at least two years. ) And AMD has also been pushing HSA and shared computing for the past year. TressFX was the first example of what that could mean ( along with PhysX a few years ago. ) Except nVidia has never been keen to push PhysX into the open market whereas AMD is.
 


As a fan of the destruction in bad company 2 (as infantile as the destruction was) that was the beautiful thing. It went from a town to smoldering rubble by the end of the map. It forced players to continue to change their strategy up, not only to counter the enemy, but also to adapt to an ever changing environment. Regarding the crosshairs argument, which is off point and totally disregards the fact i do play Hardcore modes primarily, I didn't mention anything regarding realism, I'd join the military if I wanted reality instead of virtual warfare. It's holding a company to their marketing BS. Claiming to have the highest levels of destructibility (their main marketing point against the COD series) and offering a map of metro landscape with only 1 skyscraper that can be brought down should be seen as a slap to the face to Battlefield fans. Seeing the entire city crumble, would not only make the dynamics of the map more interesting but also be a huge innovation to how physics and CPU utilization are handled due to the optimization required.

So as you can see, its not that its "unrealistic" otherwise I'd be calling to have every floor occupy-able and only being able to reflect scopes when the maps sun, is in the perfect position, no health regen and only med evacs back to base where you'll respawn as a different soldier as long as you don't bleed out prior to being evac'd, bullets actually rotate in the air instead of going in a straight line (would love to see bullet drop return), helicopters blades being torn apart when too close to objects and being able to kill players with said blades. It's more of a strategy element that sets the later battlefields apart from the rest.

The only battlefield I do not own is 2142 (due to money constraints at the time) and I have watched this series evolve with each title, with bf3 going to bf4, i see the exact opposite. With this latest installment, I saw the same things I witnessed the COD series do over the course of several titles and for me personally, I will hold onto my money and wait to see if they'll bring the modern Battlefield series to their roots and allow us to wage a virtual war using war machines which hasn't been seen since 2142 (Titan mode ftw).
 
I don`t know about Bad Company 2 , i own BF3 and BF4 only, but for example on Caspian Border, on 1000 ticket servers by the end of the map about everything was turned to rubble. In BF4 is kinda stupid from my perspective to be able to destroy every building, there are even players who say when the central building goes down the map sux. in rest i see a lot of small destructions, walls getting blown to rubble, floors collapsing ... in Operation Locker about every small wall inside gets blow away... compared to what i`ve seen in COD on youtube BF stands in front with destruction and i`m ok with some limitations to what you can destroy around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom