4 ms·

That's what it looks like. Still impressive. Even though personally I think we've had realtime fluid sims in games before and they always fail to make a splash

That's what it looks like. Still impressive. Even though personally I think we've had realtime fluid sims in games before and they always fail to make a splash by not being tied to gameplay properly. I think CSGO2's way of handling fluids (or at least smoke) is the way forward. Make it more than damn flipbooks, integrate it into gameplay, the rest will take care of itself in time. It just needs a spark. CSGO2 may be that spark.

bhouston 4y ago
I thought the CSGO2 smoke grenades are really compelling, like you did. That said, I think CSGO2 isn't fluid simulation at all. It sort of seems like animated sprits but with the ability to have dynamic holes punched in it or to dissipate. So it is a game entity that reacts to the world, which is nice, but I think there isn't much in the way of real "fluid simulation" in it at game time.
- jameshart 4y ago
  It's more of a cellular automaton than anything else. Which is not a bad way of getting a deterministic fluid simulation, even if it is somewhat nonphysical.
ehnto 4y ago
I think you are right in that it needs to be really tightly coupled to a gameplay mechanic, so much that it won't need to be a real simulation. The gameplay availabile through more realistic physics simulation has been relegated to novel indie games that can afford the gameplay challenges. I think the main issue is structure and containment. AAA games don't avoid destruction, newtonian physics and fluid dynamics because it's computationally hard but because it probably doesn't benefit the more standard gameplay mechanics enough for all the issues it causes. Just as an example, Red Faction came out in 2001 with full terrain destruction, but they had to preempt all the shortcuts people would take else you can just tunnel to the end of the level. Every time a GTA comes out the internet rumours say it'll have fully destructable buildings, but that will never happen as you would end up blowing up all the mission locations or breaking NPC pathfinding etc.

bhouston 4y ago

I thought the CSGO2 smoke grenades are really compelling, like you did. That said, I think CSGO2 isn't fluid simulation at all. It sort of seems like animated sprits but with the ability to have dynamic holes punched in it or to dissipate. So it is a game entity that reacts to the world, which is nice, but I think there isn't much in the way of real "fluid simulation" in it at game time.

jameshart 4y ago
It's more of a cellular automaton than anything else. Which is not a bad way of getting a deterministic fluid simulation, even if it is somewhat nonphysical.

ehnto 4y ago

I think you are right in that it needs to be really tightly coupled to a gameplay mechanic, so much that it won't need to be a real simulation. The gameplay availabile through more realistic physics simulation has been relegated to novel indie games that can afford the gameplay challenges. I think the main issue is structure and containment. AAA games don't avoid destruction, newtonian physics and fluid dynamics because it's computationally hard but because it probably doesn't benefit the more standard gameplay mechanics enough for all the issues it causes. Just as an example, Red Faction came out in 2001 with full terrain destruction, but they had to preempt all the shortcuts people would take else you can just tunnel to the end of the level. Every time a GTA comes out the internet rumours say it'll have fully destructable buildings, but that will never happen as you would end up blowing up all the mission locations or breaking NPC pathfinding etc.