Why can't games be like this?

[zindan]

Okay so on this video 

The part at 2:36 This part is just amazing, that kind of mechanic is just great. My questions are as follows: 

1.Why can't we have these kind of animations in games like battlefield?  
2.Would it be possible to have every single object in a game destructible like this one?
3.How well would 2 1080 TIs perform on such a game?  
4.What kind of math is used to create these animations? 
5.What is the problem really? Why would we not be able to have these games now, what if you built like a mega big GPU  or something? Would that work then ?

How well 

[Enderman]

You know that it takes hours or days to render a few seconds of that kind of physics animations, right?

Would you enjoy playing a game at 1 frame per minute?

[Crunchy Dragon]

Probably because game developers haven't gotten to that point where they can make everything in their game act like that, can you imagine how long it would take to code all that, in addition to the kind of hardware you would need to run it?

 

It's just not worth developer time to do something like that

[BryceJonathan]

We dont have stuff like this because 99.9% of peoples games wouldn't be able to run for instance with the scene you pointed out at 2:36 with a high resolution like 1440p or 4k with 2 1080tis im guess you would go down into single digit frame rates in an interactive game with that kind of destructibility. Simulations can do stuff like this because there is nothing more going on in the background where in a game you have hundred of other processes happening simultaneously we are just not there yet with games.

[zindan]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You know that it takes hours or days to render a few seconds of that kind of physics animations, right?

Would you enjoy playing a game at 1 frame per minute?

Render? Like upload or you mean like "save" finished work? 

[zindan]

2 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Probably because game developers haven't gotten to that point where they can make everything in their game act like that, can you imagine how long it would take to code all that, in addition to the kind of hardware you would need to run it?

 

It's just not worth developer time to do something like that

Isn't it like required to only be coded once? I mean 1 kind of function for each thing and then its all done ?   Creating lava for instance, there now it's done. Now lava behaves this way. etc etc ?

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, zindan said:

Render? Like upload or you mean like "save" finished work? 

Render as in calculate the image. It takes an immense amount of power to calculate animations like those and simply can't be done in real time (yet).

[BloodyWaters]

1. They take days upon days to render

2. No not at all

3. 2 1080 Ti’s probably couldn’t run it at any sort of playable framerate

4. Insanely complicated CPU bound math is used

5. The problem is that PCs are nowhere near powerful enough to run this at a playable frame rate. 

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, zindan said:

Isn't it like required to only be coded once? I mean 1 kind of function for each thing and then its all done ?   Creating lava for instance, there now it's done. Now lava behaves this way. etc etc ?

Except they have to do that for literally everything in the game, and if it's a big game with lots of terrain and whatnot like Shadow of Mordor or something from the Assassin's Creed series it would take a really long time.

[zindan]

Just now, BloodyWaters said:

1. They take days upon days to render

2. No not at all

3. 2 1080 Ti’s probably couldn’t run it at any sort of playable framerate

4. Insanely complicated CPU bound math is used

5. The problem is that PCs are nowhere near powerful enough to run this at a playable frame rate. 

Nothing is insanely complicated.. As long as it's human it's fully understandable and possible to learn lol. Any specific names of the math ?

[zindan]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Except they have to do that for literally everything in the game, and if it's a big game with lots of terrain and whatnot like Shadow of Mordor or something from the Assassin's Creed series it would take a really long time.

Ahh that sucks. I wanna play games like that during my lifetime, I'm going to take us to the next generation of gaming. Give me a few years.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, zindan said:

Ahh that sucks. I wanna play games like that during my lifetime, I'm going to take us to the next generation of gaming. Give me a few years.

It'll be a little more than a few years before games and more importantly computers are able to do things like this.

[zindan]

Just now, Crunchy Dragon said:

It'll be a little more than a few years before games and more importantly computers are able to do things like this.

That's not a true and fact based statement, It's just a theory.

Time will tell.

[Crunchy Dragon]

Just now, zindan said:

That's not a true and fact based statement, It's just a theory.

Time will tell.

Based on where technology is now, and what kind of technology would be needed to run while rendering something like this at 60fps(resolution not included), that was an educated guess. As mentioned above, it would take days upon days for a computer these days to fully render something like that. Theoretically you could speed up the process with some form of cluster computing with insanely high end components, but who would want to spend the money on that?

[Jeki155550]

Can't tell if a troll or serious 

[zindan]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Based on where technology is now, and what kind of technology would be needed to run while rendering something like this at 60fps(resolution not included), that was an educated guess. As mentioned above, it would take days upon days for a computer these days to fully render something like that. Theoretically you could speed up the process with some form of cluster computing with insanely high end components, but who would want to spend the money on that?

Like I said, not a fact and may not be true. We don't know what someone might come up with. 

[79wjd]

18 minutes ago, zindan said:

That's not a true and fact based statement, It's just a theory.

Time will tell.

No no, it's basically a fact unless there is some significant break through. These animations takes significant amounts of time to render and can't be rendered at 60fps in real time. We're nowhere even remotely close to that level of computing power.

 

The first animation took 11 hours to render and lasts 7 seconds at what I'm going to guess is around 24fps. So you would need to render twice as many frames to get to around 60fps, and it would take about 20 hours and it was done with a 6950x and a 980Ti. You would need to get that render time down from 20 hours to about 7 seconds, that's .01% of the time -- that would require 10,000 980Tis to render in real time at 60fps, which should mean that in 40~ generations (assuming the 30%~ performance gain trend continues) there should be a single flagship GPU capable of rendering these kinds of animations. @Enderman that seem reasonable?

[zindan]

1 minute ago, Jeki155550 said:

Can't tell if a troll or serious 

No sir, I am serious. Wouldn't waste time here for nothing. 

[zindan]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

No no, it's basically a fact unless there is some significant break through. These animations takes significant amounts of time to render and can't be rendered at 60fps in real time. We're nowhere even remotely close to that level of computing power, and it will probably take at least 10 generations of GPUs until we are, given the current rate of performance gains. 

 

680 -> 770

780Ti -> 970

980Ti -> 1070

980Ti SLI -> 1080Ti ~ 

 

If the trend continues:

1080Ti -> 1170

1080Ti SLI -> 1180Ti ~ 

There might just be a break through any time, we don't know. Just give me a few years. 

[3 Lions]

To be honest the only game developer to implement advanced physics in to their game is BeamNG GmbH (the developers of BeamNG.Drive).

[Jeki155550]

Considering you are not trolling, then yes these will be possible one day. Not sure what game you would make with these examples you posted but graphics are getting better and better. Nes games to today is like 37 years? Something like that. So do your math.

[Coaxialgamer]

Not doable on current hardware , in games at least . The animation you showed had a wall being destroyed into many small pieces , here are the things that you need to remember :

-traditionally , a flat wall only needs a couple polygons , and a bit  ( relatively ) more if you're trying to make it bumpy with tessellation

- In that animation  , you have thousands , if not ten's of thousands ( or more ) of particles making up the wall . Each of those particles is an object , and the computer needs to perform calculations on the rendering of those objects ( they each have their own polygons )  , how they interact with each other and the surrounding environment and gravity. The stuff battlefield does with destructible environments isn't nearly as advanced.

 

- a wall isn't nearly important enough to warrant that kind of attention and compute power .

 

[CrippledROBOT]

43 minutes ago, zindan said:

Okay so on this video 

The part at 2:36 This part is just amazing, that kind of mechanic is just great. My questions are as follows: 

1.Why can't we have these kind of animations in games like battlefield?  
2.Would it be possible to have every single object in a game destructible like this one?
3.How well would 2 1080 TIs perform on such a game?  
4.What kind of math is used to create these animations? 
5.What is the problem really? Why would we not be able to have these games now, what if you built like a mega big GPU  or something? Would that work then ?

How well 

As @Enderman said, this has been pre-rendered (aka, not rendered in real time). This type of fluid motion COULD be used in a cut-scene perhaps (as a video clip, much like the YouTube video), however, dynamic rendering of such an environment and effects requires computing power beyond what we have now. 

[Devin92]

I am not a expert in game design or rendering so this is opinion from my limited knowledge.

 

The explosion scene you mentioned have the object break into several small pieces (thousands maybe) and they explode and fly everywhere. To simulate this action, you will have to first define every single one of them on the fly, which is a headache already since the shape, initial velocity (speed and flying direction) is random but at same time have physics defining it. Yes you can code the physics at once, but to simulation physics for every object is extremely complicated. The current game i believe ,if have this kind of small objects, treat them as the same which saves so much calculation. its basically the same difference between watching a video and shoot-edit-render one. So watching 60fps 1080p can be done with a iGPU but playing at this setting will need gtx1080.

 

To give you another example, we all know city skyline is a very CPU intensive game, because every car,building,people in your city is simulated by the CPU with a build in script of their behavior. now image there's no script, you have to define every objects behavior only based on physics. This will give a tremendous work load to the CPU. And the scene you mentioned in the video probly have even more objects to simulate than in the city you build in city skyline. So yeah, the current computation power does not allow this level of simulation to go on the fly.

 

[Nup]

A bit off topic, but there is a project to fully simulate an organism, its called OpenWorm, they want to simulate a whole 1mm worm at a cellular level.

Super cool stuff.