sell it to me

Quote :

Becky, I guess you know Ilan Papini's work?

If you'd said Virtual Sailor you could have saved me a lot of googling ... I think it looks pretty, it's actually the reason 'why' my program got written. I know this guy, kind of, via forum, who is trying to write a submarine simulation and he wanted to recreate the water effect from Virtual Sailor and asked if it was possible in a particular tool, namely a BASIC.

The answer I gave was that it would be hard to mimic it, but that there was no reason why a reasonable water effect could not be pulled off. "Prove it." came the chorus. So I did, at least I think it is reasonable. Although clearly Virtual Sailor is better.

It was originally just a little water demo written in a few hours, then somebody said "you should put a boat on that so we can sail around", then somebody said "you should put multiplayer in that so we can race each other"... And from there it just grew.

Quote from Becky Rose :

If you'd said Virtual Sailor you could have saved me a lot of googling ... I think it looks pretty, it's actually the reason 'why' my program got written. I know this guy, kind of, via forum, who is trying to write a submarine simulation and he wanted to recreate the water effect from Virtual Sailor and asked if it was possible in a particular tool, namely a BASIC.

The answer I gave was that it would be hard to mimic it, but that there was no reason why a reasonable water effect could not be pulled off. "Prove it." came the chorus. So I did, at least I think it is reasonable. Although clearly Virtual Sailor is better.

It was originally just a little water demo written in a few hours, then somebody said "you should put a boat on that so we can sail around", then somebody said "you should put multiplayer in that so we can race each other"... And from there it just grew.

Sorry about that, googling caused

In latest version water effect is much improved, my computer had slower gfx card when I grabbed this shot:
http://www.janiervast.com/kuvat/vs/near_dk.jpg

I find water effect very nice at it's best, but it still is far from real like water at worst, one can customize how water looks quite a lot too so that can affect to appearance a bit.

Incredible particle system here...(i guess)
I've seen RealFlow simulating water with particles.But this one makes a difference.I'm sure it needs millions of ram and cpu time to calculate.Not possible for real time for now. But i agree next 10 or 15 years something like this will be done in realtime.

PS3 is quite powerful machine compared to our pc systems, what I have heard, I wonder how good water effects it could make?

Quote from JTbo :

PS3 is quite powerful machine compared to our pc systems, what I have heard, I wonder how good water effects it could make?

The best of ps3 was done on e3 or somewhere...Filling the water with ducks.And 2 water glass, here's the adress; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxRR2oUA7xo


ps4 or 5 should do far better.

Quote from JTbo :

PS3 is quite powerful machine compared to our pc systems, what I have heard, I wonder how good water effects it could make?

um... yeah, 'cause a core2duo with SLI 7900 is peanuts... yes.

;p

dude, it's a console. it outputs great graphics because the coders know exactly what to code for. no APIs no OS no nothing. One machine with known specs.

it's not the performance.

@JTbo
I googled too Lovely little game ! Iam getting 13-14 fps -.- Anybody willing to post his/her graphics settings so i can tweak 'em , please !
hmm ... turning everything to the lowest value doesn't seem to help ... not much difference in performance between low / high settings

Wow! illepall

But getting that to work realtime would require an insane amount of flops, maybe in the future...

And am I the only one that thinks this is more related to physics than graphics? The key to that video is the behaviour of the fluids are very natural, the rest is "only" light & textures, but the important thing is the physic properties of the water mesh.

"Be water my fried" LOL (Does your country play the Bruce Lee-BMW (or was it Audi?) TV ad?)

Quote from Eldanor :

And am I the only one that thinks this is more related to physics than graphics?

Absolutely not. You're right - this isn't just an animation. It's physics calculations+eye candy.

whatever it is meant to be, it looks damn real

Quote from Eldanor :

Wow! illepall

And am I the only one that thinks this is more related to physics than graphics?

Particles. Done with complex physics calculations to simulate water.And as far i know it is done with floating point calculations.And PS3 is completely designed to do floating point things. It is not because ps3 has the fastest gpu ever but it is because ps3 has the best cell-cpu for floating point calculations.
So a next generation playstation should be capable of simulating water realtime.(of course it depends on the density of particles used in the scene but a med-density would do good enough)

Quote from george_tsiros :

core2duo with SLI 7900 is peanuts... yes.

;p

Sorry m8 but even that pc will be nothing compared to a cell-based console.

Quote from george_tsiros :

um... yeah, 'cause a core2duo with SLI 7900 is peanuts... yes.

;p

dude, it's a console. it outputs great graphics because the coders know exactly what to code for. no APIs no OS no nothing. One machine with known specs.

it's not the performance.

Well, I don't know much of consoles, I'm not too keen about such things, but sure there have to be quite good hardware too, I did read somewhere that cpu of ps3 can do 100 times more calculations than 2.5GHz P4, that sounds at least awful lot.

xbox1 had pc hardware, it did not had windows or such, it was more like playstation, afaik. I think it still had not huge gfx potential.

It is quite low price for what one gets this performance with those, but it is so limited, you are only to do what manufacturer allows, eg. what games it publishes, stupid machines because of that, imo

@MataGyula make sure that land distance is set enough low, also lower sea mesh and put sea detail to textured. But it is really demanding for pc, I'm not getting much over 30fps either even with new gfx card (radeon x850xt)

The sole reason I never got into consoles was because of the insane license fees that the manufacturers charge to release software, £20k to release a PS game? No thanks. And what if I spot a bug and want to update the disk... Oh that means I pay the whole lot again... £20k is nothing to Sony, it's purely to keep the indipendants out. So as far as i'm concerned they can have their console market, and they can shove it up their controller port.

Quote from Becky Rose :

The sole reason I never got into consoles was because of the insane license fees that the manufacturers charge to release software, £20k to release a PS game? No thanks. And what if I spot a bug and want to update the disk... Oh that means I pay the whole lot again... £20k is nothing to Sony, it's purely to keep the indipendants out. So as far as i'm concerned they can have their console market, and they can shove it up their controller port.

Sounds bit same what Sony tries to do for music too, insane fees and copy protection systems that cost lot and do only harm to lawful users, but that is their style and hopefully they are left alone with those.
Sony is only for masses corporation, there is no room for products for minority, like realistic racing sims for example.

Quote from ZORER :

Sorry m8 but even that pc will be nothing compared to a cell-based console.

and what makes you think that the cell won't be in desktop PCs? It already is in some IBM server configs. It's a cpu, dammit, not the processor to end all processors.
Also, the cell being a very very powerful processor, it is not what you might think it is... otherwise, the ps3 wouldn't need a dedicated gfx chip besides the cell

Quote from JTbo :

Well, I don't know much of consoles, I'm not too keen about such things, but sure there have to be quite good hardware too, I did read somewhere that cpu of ps3 can do 100 times more calculations than 2.5GHz P4, that sounds at least awful lot.

yeah, well, a 2.5G p4 isn't anything to write home about. modern gfx cards can do 100x the floating

Quote :

xbox1 had pc hardware, it did not had windows or such, it was more like playstation, afaik. I think it still had not huge gfx potential.

it had a p3 (celeron...) and a geforce3 series card with some features from geforce4.
like playstation? "lol". Not very huge gfx potential, but the fact that the only res it would run at was VGA (tv is like what? 500scanlines maximum? 50/60Hz refresh with 25/30fps capabilities?) was salvation. that's why the 360 has a very powerful system (3 cpu cores etc)

let's not turn this thread in a consoles-vs-computers argument.

a very expensive pc can get the performance of a console, but it will be expensive. that's it.

Quote from ZORER :

Sorry m8 but even that pc will be nothing compared to a cell-based console.

so your saying that a nice x6800 with an 8800GTX will get pwned by a Console? Doubt it, or else the technology would be in a PC, too!

jakg... the Cell is a 8core 3.2GHz cpu... it is very, very fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_microprocessor

Quote from george_tsiros :

and what makes you think that the cell won't be in desktop PCs? It already is in some IBM server configs. It's a cpu, dammit, not the processor to end all processors.

Because i can't understand why ibm is keeping that processor for themselves.Until the day which they release first desktop pc based on cell processor, there will already be 8 or 16 or maybe 32 core cpu's out on the market. Why did apple decide to use intel instead of keeping up with ibm and be the first workstation with cell on it? i think there will be no need for a cell cpu at the time when it will be available to pc's...

And like it or not, ps3 is far beyond ahead of the hottest pc in the market.
i don't like it but it's real.

Quote from Jakg :

so your saying that a nice x6800 with an 8800GTX will get pwned by a Console? Doubt it, or else the technology would be in a PC, too!

i'm saying that even 4 nice x6800 with an 8800GTX will get pwned by a Console.Not only its cell cpu but it's amazing gpu is unreachable.

Bernd Diemer, one of the chief designers from Crytek said that Crysis won't be released for the next-gen consoles. The reason is simple - they don't have the power needed to run crysis smoothly, so it will be a PC only game !
The other reason is that nex-gen consoles don't have DirectX10 .

Maybe because ps3 has only 256MB XDR Main RAM and 256MB GDDR3 VRAM...

I dont understand all the fuss over the latest technology, it isn't new, it isn't faster than all that has gone before it - it's just a cheaper packaged version of something slightly faster than the last packaged version.

If you want to argue that the ps3 is the be all and end all, i'll just start quoting the brute force of the Cray XM1 with it's 8,192 dual core processors, yep over 16,000 processor cores - slap that up your cell processor. Of course what the Cray isn't is remotely affordable, but that is the extreme end of the scale.

It is always possible to go faster than home computers, the important thing is the price point. As home computers are offered at a range of price points with a range of different purposes in mind (I dont see me video editing on a cell processor powered PS3 any time soon) I dont really see why anyone would be hanging onto every word of hype to come out of Sony's marketting department.

It's just a heap of silicon.

Personally I buy my computers based around the software I want to run on it, I never buy the computer before looking at the software. Computers are just a tool.

Quote from ZORER :

i'm saying that even 4 nice x6800 with an 8800GTX will get pwned by a Console.Not only its cell cpu but it's amazing gpu is unreachable.

i dont care

The X6800 and a 8800GTX will murder it, and if you don't understand why something the price of just a 8800GTX is somehow than the quickest thing i've ever heard about then forget it!

Oh look, something for you to read...


Think about it - if the Cell were that good it would be in PC's? Is it? Nope!