2 ms·
I should have been clearer, I was referring only to the last part of the last sentence >Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make t
by halomru 11y ago
I should have been clearer, I was referring only to the last part of the last sentence
>Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make that 3D version.
Which I interpreted as "once GPU simulation makes things fast, why not make a 3d simulation"
Apart from that part I agree with the ancestor comment, the code seems to do CPU simulation and GPU simulation is likely to be faster. On the other hand GPU simulation would likely mean rewriting the entire simulation engine from scratch, so I'm not holding my breath.
- moron4hire 11y agoThere was commentary in the FAQ that he was not going to try to make a 3D version because of the perf issues. I assumed that meant figuring out GPU sim would mean he'd try to make a 3D version.
- irascible 11y agoThe sheer number of particle types would make a gpu implementation pretty tricky.. but for a vanilla version it can work.