3 ms·
Video games could use something like that. Especially for collisions. Games often struggle to do them correctly and completely absurd results are not rare.
by grondilu 10y ago
Video games could use something like that. Especially for collisions. Games often struggle to do them correctly and completely absurd results are not rare.
- ne0phyte 10y agoGame physics engines update their objects (acceleration, collision, constraints/joints etc) only so often at a certain tick rate to leave enough cpu time for other things. You can have very precise and realistic physics simulations already - they just don't run at realtime. I don't think this is a solution for bad physics in games.
- Razengan 10y agoWhatever happened to dedicated physics processors? Can't we have a separate physical unit doing all those calculations in realtime?
- ss248 10y ago>Whatever happened to dedicated physics processors? Nvidia bought PhysX and stopped production of dedicated PPU. PhysX is just software now. And because it's proprietary (no AMD cards support/CPU implementation is slow) we don't really see games build around it.
- goldenkey 10y agoGPUs or CPUs can be designated as PhysX devices within the NVIDIA drivers. Im not sure if that rules out using AMD devices but probably.
- CoryG89 10y agoThe idea here isn't making better collision simulations. We do that well enough already. I think the big deal here is teaching an AI how to predict the outcomes of collisions by training it with a physics engine.