Has anyone been able to see if cloth physics are in?

[GamaH]

Has anyone been able to see if cloth physics are in?

Geralt's hair looks lovely, but one thing I've noticed is that the cloth on dresses/skirts seem to be very rigid.

Is it because there's no wind in that area or are fabric physics being kept to a minimum?

For most of Geralt's outfits (virtually all, in Witcher 2), the lack of cloth physics won't be much of a problem, but I saw the concept art for the bear armor, and it has a long skirted gambeson which is going to look really weird if it sticks to Geralt's legs as he walks/runs.

 

[Adamastor]

good question

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

It seems to me that cloth physics are enabled for the crones, but not for Gran. Can't say I mind too much though, it's probably to do with optimization anyway, and this was an old build.

 

[Avidya.454]

Indeed good point, I'd like to see cloth physics too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNrWCxaTeA

Anything less than this level would be a shame.

 

[Adamastor]

@Avidya

that level only in witcher 4 i´m afraid

 

[greySynapse]

I noticed it in effect for the Crones, I'm going to rewatch the gameplay video for the ninth time and see if I spot it anywhere else.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Cloth physics are definitely in. The question is, to what extent will it be featured for software PhysX?

The Witcher 3 uses at least PhysX 3.3 version for the faster cloth solver. So this means that cloth physics on the CPU will run very fast, fast enough to have it enabled for the main characters to be sure. But for secondary characters (like Gran), ordinary NPCs, or the environment? Most likely no.. You don't want to bog down the CPU too much with physics computation, although a very fast CPU like a Core i7 will give you much greater mileage.

And then of course there is hardware accelerated PhysX.. If you want higher levels of and more cloth physics, then GPU acceleration is your best bet. Hardware acceleration can run multiple instances of dynamic cloth without slowing down the game, and the computation would be more complex and accurate as well due to the GPU having a lot more processing power at it's disposal.

 

[freakie1one]

Cloth physics are definitely in. The question is, to what extent will it be featured for software PhysX?

The Witcher 3 uses at least PhysX 3.3 version for the faster cloth solver. So this means that cloth physics on the CPU will run very fast, fast enough to have it enabled for the main characters to be sure. But for secondary characters (like Gran), ordinary NPCs, or the environment? Most likely no.. You don't want to bog down the CPU too much with physics computation, although a very fast CPU like a Core i7 will give you much greater mileage.

And then of course there is hardware accelerated PhysX.. If you want higher levels of and more cloth physics, then GPU acceleration is your best bet. Hardware acceleration can run multiple instances of dynamic cloth without slowing down the game, and the computation would be more complex and accurate as well due to the GPU having a lot more processing power at it's disposal.

Today's CPU's and GPU's are powerful enough to have damn near everything in the game be affected by physics; water, clothing, procedural animation (based upon physics instead of the very basic static animations that are used in 99.9% of games), hair, weapons, bodies, all objects in the world, etc. It is just very difficult to program such things so most developers do not do it. They instead use third party physics engines which are very limited in capabilities and may or may not work well or be optimized to run on whatever game engine they are using since it isn't a native function of the game engine.

If you think this is not true simply look up the game Sui Generis; all of this is currently in that game. In order to make it function properly and be well optimized Madoc (the programmer) created the game engine from scratch to support everything being physics-driven; it's a native function of the engine itself instead of using a third party physics engine. Hence all of this is possible and will run smoothly even on relatively low-end systems.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Hey guys, I need to make some plans. I know it's slightly off topic, but I need to buy some new hardware and I am probably going to get a Nvidia Gefore GTX 860 or 870 as video card. However, I am still not sure if I should buy a new CPU already (because that involves buying a new mainboard). I have an Intel Core 2 Quad 2,33 Ghz. So the question is: Should I overclock my current processor and keep playing that way, or should I get myself a new one before The Witcher 3 is released.

I know I am 100% getting a new video/graphics card. The question is, new CPU (+mainboard) => worth it, or should I wait? Will I be able to run TW3 with my CPU?

 

[WFMS2]

Cloth physics have been shown off all the way back at the E3 demo.
Pay attention to how it sways and ripples slightly as she's moving and stops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BivVXw-NLTw#t=176
Should link to 2:56. Be sure to watch in 720p+ to see it properly.

 

[WFMS2]

Hey guys, I need to make some plans. I know it's slightly off topic, but I need to buy some new hardware and I am probably going to get a Nvidia Gefore GTX 860 or 870 as video card. However, I am still not sure if I should buy a new CPU already (because that involves buying a new mainboard). I have an Intel Core 2 Quad 2,33 Ghz. So the question is: Should I overclock my current processor and keep playing that way, or should I get myself a new one before The Witcher 3 is released.

I know I am 100% getting a new video/graphics card. The question is, new CPU (+mainboard) => worth it, or should I wait? Will I be able to run TW3 with my CPU?

These sort of questions have their own stickied thread, better off asking there. The system requirements one.
But to answer your question you'd want to upgrade your CPU (and obviously the motherboard because of it) since your current CPU would probably just bottleneck your new GTX 860/ 870.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Today's CPU's and GPU's are powerful enough to have damn near everything in the game be affected by physics; water, clothing, procedural animation (based upon physics instead of the very basic static animations that are used in 99.9% of games), hair, weapons, bodies, all objects in the world, etc. It is just very difficult to program such things so most developers do not do it.

I agree that CPUs and GPUs are powerful enough to have physics applied to most of the gaming world. But the question is, what quality of physics are we talking about?

Watch Dogs for instance uses physics simulations for a variety of things, like cloth, water, wind, weather, rain etcetera and the main character can interact with a lot of objects.. But the quality of those simulations isn't very high..

The more realistic the physics, the greater the cost in processing power. And that's where hardware acceleration can provide more realistic physics than you can get with software physics, because the computational power is much greater..

They instead use third party physics engines which are very limited in capabilities and may or may not work well or be optimized to run on whatever game engine they are using since it isn't a native function of the game engine.

These third party physics engines tend to be integrated directly into the game engines themselves. For example, Unreal Engine 4 comes with PhysX 3.3 integrated into the engine and is thus native to the engine. Red Engine 3 is similar, because CDPR integrated PhysX 3.3 directly into the engine itself as well. Unity 5 is another example of an engine with PhysX integration..

And the best physics engines like PhysX and Havok are designed to be easily integrated into game engines..

If you think this is not true simply look up the game Sui Generis; all of this is currently in that game. In order to make it function properly and be well optimized Madoc (the programmer) created the game engine from scratch to support everything being physics-driven; it's a native function of the engine itself instead of using a third party physics engine. Hence all of this is possible and will run smoothly even on relatively low-end systems.

I've heard of that game, and I've seen some gameplay. I like the concept, but the execution still looks amateurish if you ask me, especially the animations..

 

[Yurtex]

Cloth physics have been shown off all the way back at the E3 demo.
Pay attention to how it sways and ripples slightly as she's moving and stops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BivVXw-NLTw#t=176
Should link to 2:56. Be sure to watch in 720p+ to see it properly.

It is probably part of animation, not a simulation in real time. Need more information to judge.
Also cloth physics reminds me of a Hitman's tie.

 

[freakie1one]

I agree that CPUs and GPUs are powerful enough to have physics applied to most of the gaming world. But the question is, what quality of physics are we talking about?

Watch Dogs for instance uses physics simulations for a variety of things, like cloth, water, wind, weather, rain etcetera and the main character can interact with a lot of objects.. But the quality of those simulations isn't very high..

The more realistic the physics, the greater the cost in processing power. And that's where hardware acceleration can provide more realistic physics than you can get with software physics, because the computational power is much greater..

Agreed, the more realistic the approach then obviously the more processing power required. However, just having objects moving and reacting to force and momentum instead of being completely stationary and non-reactive is a huge improvement. Doing so can not only improve visual quality but also add interesting gameplay mechanics and possibilities.

These third party physics engines tend to be integrated directly into the game engines themselves. For example, Unreal Engine 4 comes with PhysX 3.3 integrated into the engine and is thus native to the engine. Red Engine 3 is similar, because CDPR integrated PhysX 3.3 directly into the engine itself as well. Unity 5 is another example of an engine with PhysX integration..

And the best physics engines like PhysX and Havok are designed to be easily integrated into game engines..

Correct, many developers integrate third party physics engines into their game engine. But my point was the base engine wasn't designed or optimized to efficiently run physics. In order to get the best performance this is required. PhysX and Havok are both decent at what they do but they will not be as efficient as a game engine which was designed from the ground up with physics as a foundation. This is because creating your own physics engine means you know every line of code, exactly how it performs and functions, and every other part of the engine is designed to work properly with physics. Creating your own physics means you have the tools, capabilities and functionality specifically tailored for the game you're making and not some generic physics engine that has a set of limitations which may or may not be ideal for the game you're making.

PhysX and Havok both are like trying to fit a square object into a round hole. Yes, you can modify the hole so the square will fit but it won't be as efficient as simply starting with a proper circle to begin with.

I've heard of that game, and I've seen some gameplay. I like the concept, but the execution still looks amateurish if you ask me, especially the animations..

I'm assuming you've not played it yet? If you've seen the early videos released during their Kickstarter campaign then all you've seen is something that was pre-prealpha. In those videos the "game" was basically just a bunch of placeholder objects in a game engine with just enough to show a general idea of what their goals were. Since the Kickstarter campaign ended almost two years ago they've made huge improvements in all areas, including animation. I know this because I've played several alpha and beta versions released and there's been massive improvement.

 

[WFMS2]

It is probably part of animation, not a simulation in real time. Need more information to judge.
Also cloth physics reminds me of a Hitman's tie.

It costs pretty much nothing in terms of performance to have a few NPC's have cloth simulation in your close proximity where the effect is close enough to be visible to the eye. Especially given how efficient this new PhysX/APEX SKD is.
And it's not like it's doing an extremely accurate approximation of cloth with millions of sample points to simulate. Something like that is reserved for CGI in movies.
The devs have already said they're using PhysX and APEX for cloth simulation and destruction, and that video I linked shows off some of it.
Not to mention cloth simulation will practically be a requirement due to the different weather types in the game.
What if that demo was played during a windy day? I doubt pre-baked simulation on top of the animations would cut it.

 

[Yurtex]

It costs pretty much nothing in terms of performance to have a few NPC's have cloth simulation in your close proximity where the effect is close enough to be visible to the eye. Especially given how efficient this new PhysX/APEX SKD is.
And it's not like it's doing an extremely accurate approximation of cloth with millions of sample points to simulate. Something like that is reserved for CGI in movies.
The devs have already said they're using PhysX and APEX for cloth simulation and destruction, and that video I linked shows off some of it.
Not to mention cloth simulation will practically be a requirement due to the different weather types in the game.
What if that demo was played during a windy day? I doubt pre-baked simulation on top of the animations would cut it.

I really hope you right. It would add a lot to the game.