Interviews and Articles on TW3

[Yellowcardus]

No, i mean from an inplementation/development point of view.

When you decide if yow want to use the tech or not, you do a preliminary evaluation first. And judging from the presentation their evaluation came out promising, at best. It looks like they made a whole lot of changes togetgher with Nvidia, to make it more in line with what the artists expected. Added the ability for hair to clamp togehter, and a waviness parameter, but how did they know if performance was going to remain viable?

I'm assuming, they were experimenting with different approaches to rendering, while artists were already creating models that wouldn't really work without the tech (since they are "shaved"). So if they suddenly decided, this just isn't going to work, because it's to demanding at the quality they wan't. The models would have to be redone right?

And yeah i'm assuming you will be able to decrease or turn of the simulation on PC but the hair will probably remain the same. just won't move.

 

[Kinley]

@Mohasz If they are able to implement the tech even on console versions I don't see why there would be a need for an option to turn it off.

 

[Mohasz]

So if they suddenly decided, this just isn't going to work, because it's to demanding at the quality they wan't. The models would have to be redone right?

I see, but I don't think it would be such a big issue. They know what they're doing, it can only get better and they still have a lot of time to work on it.

@Mohasz If they are able to implement the tech even on console versions I don't see why there would be a need for an option to turn it off.

If... And I thought of the PC version if this tech turned out to be too demanding.

 

[Kinley]

If...

But they did, at least that's what we can gather from the GDC presentation.

 

[ReptilePZ]

There should be an on/off toggle for it. I certainly don't want to be forced to lower other settings because hair physics must be enabled.

 

[Mohasz]

But they did, at least that's what we can gather from the GDC presentation.

I'm not sure if those points are their plans or what they've already implemented. Hopefully it's the latter.

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

There should be an on/off toggle for it. I certainly don't want to be forced to lower other settings because hair physics must be enabled.

If in runs smooth and looks good then no need to turn it off.

 

[ReptilePZ]

If in runs smooth and looks good then no need to turn it off.

As a PC user, I greatly appreciate having the ability to determine what I want on or off. Since there is a varitety of PC set-ups, the game won't run as smooth on some machines as it does on others. Given the choice, hair physics would be one of the first things to go, if I'm not getting a satisfactory number of FPS.

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

Well sure pc on off.. I am just saying, wouldn't it be nice if it was streaming in such a way that the fps won't even take a hit and you can play it in it's true form. I highly doubt consoles will have an on off option for hair and the good news is.. it's coming to consoles too. So cdpr must have found an awesome way to pull it off with a solid 30 fps.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Well sure pc on off.. I am just saying, wouldn't it be nice if it was streaming in such a way that the fps won't even take a hit and you can play it in it's true form. I highly doubt consoles will have an on off option for hair and the good news is.. it's coming to consoles too. So cdpr must have found an awesome way to pull it off with a solid 30 fps.

Consoles are getting a 'special' LOD level. Much easier to optimise a product for a specific machine - it's the only reason why previous gen lasted for so long, and there's definitely some trade-off they're forced to make. Adding in extra graphical options without FPS taking a hit is impossible, especially when talking about new tech such as nVidia's hair simulation. Another thing for me personally, if I have to choose between 30 FPS and hair physics, and 60 FPS with no hair physics, I'd go with option number 2. But it's different for other people, which is why having the option and not being forced into something is better.

 

[Pedrolago]

Keep in mind this is Hairworks presentation, so the slide effectively confirmes they got it working on consoles.

THEY GOT NVIDIA FUR, TO WORK ON CONSOLES.

:yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUi-CFrdvA

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

So anybody else saw this?

View attachment 2504

 

[Zhyphix]

So anybody else saw this?

I seriously don't understand any of these anymore.

 

[darcler]

Map sizes are but an estimate, so even the devs might have erred when comparing TW3 to Skyrim. The best (i.e. most believable) estimate for Skyrim's world I found here: http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/39338/how-large-is-skyrim, where it's said to be around 32km2. But if each of three TW3 areas is ~8km2, then the whole world would be ~192km2. Which, needless to say, is a bit more than the "20% bigger than Skyrim" - and that's not counting any rumored additional top-secret locations.

The question is, how the devs know Skellige is 8kmx8km. Geodesy can be tricky even when working with the real world; in virtual it's even more so.

EDIT: Also in other news, CDP is preparing to launch film-streaming global service sometime this year

 

[Mohasz]

But if each of three TW3 areas is ~8km2, then the whole world would be ~192km2.

I'm not very good at math but wouldn't that be simply 24 kmˇ2? :hmm:

By the way, I assume No Man's Land will be bigger than the other two areas.

 

[ONLY_ONCE]

It's Big, Sexy, Dirty & Mean.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I'm not very good at math but wouldn't that be simply 24 kmˇ2? :hmm:

You're right, you're not very good at math

It's 3*( 8*8 ), so 3*64=192 km[SUP]2[/SUP]

 

[Mohasz]

You're right, you're not very good at math

It's 3*( 8*8 ), so 3*64=192 km[SUP]2[/SUP]

:hmm:

Darcler wrote "8km2" but I now see the picture above says 8km x 8km which is 64 kmˇ2. Now that multiplied by 3 is indeed 192 kmˇ2.

 

[sidspyker]

Maybe the devs meant... 200% >_>

 

[ReptilePZ]

:hmm:

Darcler wrote "8km2" but I now see the picture above says 8km x 8km which is 64 kmˇ2. Now that multiplied by 3 is indeed 192 kmˇ2.

Oh, I see. Yea, each 8x8 area is 64 km[SUP]2[/SUP], not 8 km[SUP]2[/SUP].