NVIDIA shows off Hairworks 1.1

[Isocadia]

Seeing these demo's I always wonder, when are they going to be able to render dirty, greasy hair and having it look realistic. All these demo's always feature hair from shampoo commercials and I'll be damned if my hair looks like that even 10 seconds after having washed it....

[Guest]

Seeing these demo's I always wonder, when are they going to be able to render dirty, greasy hair and having it look realistic. All these demo's always feature hair from shampoo commercials and I'll be damned if my hair looks like that even 10 seconds after having washed it....

Probably just magic. Witcher uses spells.

[Agent181]

hmm I would rather have no hairworks and have a game work first *cough cough* anything by ea or ubisoft/ last batman game *cough cough* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Damir]

A single overclocked 980 Ti can already run The Witcher 3 with Hairworks on and all settings completely maxed out @ 2560x1600 with 55-58 fps

 

By Pascal, you will see xx70 GPU's being able to run this tech as a single card. 

 

Well, not sure if you are just talking about just Geralts hair being ON in Hairworks, but that it is not possible when you run into a pack of wolves if you have Hairworks ON on "everything".

[Delusional Phil]

They do seem to be advancing technology and software a lot faster than countries such as the US and Aus.

Yeah ... They have 4G and soon it will be 5G ... Like holy hell ... 

 

It is really life like but there's something missing with the hair ... it feels too clumped up together ... 

[blu4]

All you just is to buy a titan to render this fabulous hair.

[Kamina]

Why does it always seem to defy gravity?

 

I do see the improvement. Those are some nice strands of hair.

[brownninja97]

Why does it always seem to defy gravity?

 

I do see the improvement. Those are some nice strands of hair.

according to nvidia we all live in low gravity environments lol.

[mr moose]

according to nvidia we all live in low gravity environments lol.

we all know nvidia's prices do. :lol:

[AlwaysFSX]

according to nvidia we all live in low gravity environments lol.

I want to. With my hair? Fuck yeah.

[Nexxus]

...Liquid Snake.

[Valentyn]

You would have to ask the developer that. The previous steam link you sent, shows that a simple binary change in an ini file, will activate it on any NVidia card just fine.

AMD has always been about standards and openness, so it would be odd to see them actively lock down TressFX for anyone.

 

 

Except that ini file change does absolutely nothing. It never has on NVIDIA hardware. It still doesn't. Which is also stated in that Steam community link.

I find it rather Hypocritical of AMD in that regard, as the developer has stated on multiple occasion due to their agreement with AMD TressFX is only for their hardware in that game.

In response to questions about it AMD Roy simply said they'd look into it, a year after it was discovered.

 

I just hope the next Tomb Raider, and Deus Ex games featuring TressFX 3.0 won't also have it disabled on NVIDIA hardware. 

[brownninja97]

I want to. With my hair? Fuck yeah.

ive got a buzz cut so screw it low gravity hair.

[AlwaysFSX]

ive got a buzz cut so screw it low gravity hair.

I don't.

[NateGSR117]

Neat! Let hope the performance doesn't nose dive in actual use in game.

[TroubleKlef]

He needs some Nvidia Conditioner 

[Notional]

Except that ini file change does absolutely nothing. It never has on NVIDIA hardware. It still doesn't. Which is also stated in that Steam community link.

I find it rather Hypocritical of AMD in that regard, as the developer has stated on multiple occasion due to their agreement with AMD TressFX is only for their hardware in that game.

In response to questions about it AMD Roy simply said they'd look into it, a year after it was discovered.

 

I just hope the next Tomb Raider, and Deus Ex games featuring TressFX 3.0 won't also have it disabled on NVIDIA hardware. 

 

Sounds very odd. I don't know if there is a work around or not, but what I can say is that I don't care for vendor exclusive middleware, and I believe NVidia users should have full access to TressFX too.

 

It might have something to do with it being a small indie company, and they did the bare minimum to fulfil their obligations to AMD. That is not exactly AMD's fault, but alas I'm only speculating on this. Would be nice to hear Roy's conclusion on this.

 

Either way, my point is that this is unacceptable:

 

 

[TroubleKlef]

Sounds very odd. I don't know if there is a work around or not, but what I can say is that I don't care for vendor exclusive middleware, and I believe NVidia users should have full access to TressFX too.

 

It might have something to do with it being a small indie company, and they did the bare minimum to fulfil their obligations to AMD. That is not exactly AMD's fault, but alas I'm only speculating on this. Would be nice to hear Roy's conclusion on this.

 

Either way, my point is that this is unacceptable:

 

 

 

What that graph is telling me is that a studio with various constraints (time, budget, team size) is focusing their time and optimizing their game for the card with the most market share. Nothing wrong or unacceptable about that.

[bogus]

No it does not but Hairworks in the Witcher 3 renders more than a single person's hair at one time. Point being, by Pascal a "GTX 1070" will be able to handle Hairworks 1.1 with ease.

 

I still think you don't understand what I'm saying: if the tech demo from 2010 isn't not even close to a reality in 2015, the current tech demo surely won't be one in the next generation of graphics cards. I'm also pretty sure you can run such tech demo even with a 680... so the 980 being there is just for the obvious reasons.

I'm not saying it's a bad tech, or a bad tech demo - I'm just saying: it's a tech demo and it won't be a reality in games for quite some time.

 

That's hairworks 1.0 in the game as pointed out already earlier. Currently the head and beard combined is around a low thousand of strands. This doesn't include packs of wolves, bears and other monsters.

 

Compared to 1.1 that can handle real time 500K on GTX 980.

 

We all know that's JUST hair in the demo, but if you can even increase the hair in game to 5K from 1K it'll look roughly 5 times better, and 1.1 is also better performance wise.

Hell if at most we can double the hair strands and get exact same performance we do now, that's obviously better. Who wouldn't want that?

 

I understand, but currently no game has the same amount of detail as the tech demo from 2010. I'm not saying it's bad, it is what it is.

Like I said previously, I'm sure other cards will handle 500k strings of hair in a tech demo, not just the 980. They are showing a 980 because it's their latest card.

I just don't get why you guys are feeling attacked and salty by my post, like I said it's not impressive, it's not a good thing, it's not improved, what ever... I mean what the fuck: I just said to a user that this is a tech demo and we won't see it like that in games for a long time.

[Notional]

What that graph is telling me is that a studio with various constraints (time, budget, team size) is focusing their time and optimizing their game for the card with the most market share. Nothing wrong or unacceptable about that.

 

So you don't think Crystal Dynamics had any time constraints on Tomb Raider? Also when COD: Ghost was released, the licensing of GameWorks still hadn't been changed to allow any developer access to source code, so how exactly could they optimize? Those licensing terms did not change until after Richard Huddy publicly shamed NVidia on this. And no not all developers have access to the source code today. For instance CDPR did not for the Witcher 3. No the performance shown on that graph is entirely on NVidia. Releasing a game, that runs so poorly on one vendor of graphics cards is unacceptable.

 

I still think you don't understand what I'm saying: if the tech demo from 2010 isn't not even close to a reality in 2015, the current tech demo surely won't be one in the next generation of graphics cards. I'm also pretty sure you can run such tech demo even with a 680... so the 980 being there is just for the obvious reasons.

I'm not saying it's a bad tech, or a bad tech demo - I'm just saying: it's a tech demo and it won't be a reality in games for quite some time.

 

Exactly my point earlier in the thread. These tech demoes we see from GameWorks, looks extremely nice. I think everyone can agree on that. The problem is that they have a level of detail and thus a level of compute needed, that no normal game will ever implement. Five years are a long time in the graphics business, and still not seeing anything close to that 2010 demo is just disingenuous

[Khvarrioiren]

What happened to OptiX? Who the hell cares about Hairworks when pretty much everyone would want advancements in lighting technology.

[ivan134]

What that graph is telling me is that a studio with various constraints (time, budget, team size) is focusing their time and optimizing their game for the card with the most market share. Nothing wrong or unacceptable about that.

Yea, and it's doing wonders for their sales on PC.

[Valentyn]

I'm not saying it's a bad tech, or a bad tech demo - I'm just saying: it's a tech demo and it won't be a reality in games for quite some time.

 

I understand, but currently no game has the same amount of detail as the tech demo from 2010. I'm not saying it's bad, it is what it is.

Like I said previously, I'm sure other cards will handle 500k strings of hair in a tech demo, not just the 980. They are showing a 980 because it's their latest card.

I just don't get why you guys are feeling attacked and salty by my post, like I said it's not impressive, it's not a good thing, it's not improved, what ever... I mean what the fuck: I just said to a user that this is a tech demo and we won't see it like that in games for a long time.

 

No one is feeling attacked or salty, although you saying the above and this.

 

But it doesn't match the tech demo does it? That's my point.

 

That's what makes your comments so odd, it's actually you that seem salty and cynical about the progression of technology.

 

The Hairworks demo is extremely impressive, in game it doesn't HAVE to be exactly the same as the tech demo to give gamers and users the benefits. We can get those right now with 1.1 giving better performance over 1.0. Meaning more hair strands can be added if you want to have the same current performance loss, but you get better hair as a result.

 

Also everyone knows, absolutely nothing in a Tech demo has ever made in fully into a game within a year or two( sometimes more). 

 

We might not being able to get 500K strands of physics based hair now, but with the improvements we sure can get more than a low thousand at the moment without the same performance cost simply by updating to hairworks 1.1 from 1.0 in current games.

 

One thing I find odd is I never see similar comments on AMD or Intel tech demos. Certainly no one calling them disingenuous for showing what their products can render.

 

[othertomperson]

I still think you don't understand what I'm saying: if the tech demo from 2010 isn't not even close to a reality in 2015, the current tech demo surely won't be one in the next generation of graphics cards. I'm also pretty sure you can run such tech demo even with a 680... so the 980 being there is just for the obvious reasons.

I'm not saying it's a bad tech, or a bad tech demo - I'm just saying: it's a tech demo and it won't be a reality in games for quite some time.

 

I understand, but currently no game has the same amount of detail as the tech demo from 2010. I'm not saying it's bad, it is what it is.

 

It's a low priority. Since 2010 textures, Ambient Occlusion, tessellation, models... everything has gotten so much better. We're even playing at 4K now. That hair demo was being rendered by a GTX 480, we could have it now in games with a Titan X but we've collectively prioritised other things instead.

[Khvarrioiren]

It's a low priority. Since 2010 textures, Ambient Occlusion, tessellation, models... everything has gotten so much better. We're even playing at 4K now. That hair demo was being rendered by a GTX 480, we could have it now in games with a Titan X but we've collectively prioritised other things instead.

 

Sadly none of those seem to be lighting or physics.