3 ms·

<= NOT a graphics programmer, in this era anyway. Back in my graphics days getting Phong shading working on a 286 was amazing to me. So, does that Flex system

<= NOT a graphics programmer, in this era anyway. Back in my graphics days getting Phong shading working on a 286 was amazing to me. So, does that Flex system BASICALLY imply that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? It seems to me that it's only a lateral step then to mimic the fluid like effects of explosive forces being applied to solids.

Osmium 12y ago
> ... that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? Also not a graphics programmer, but I am a scientist who has model liquids and solids at the molecular level–a lot of this is doable today, but I doubt it'll ever be applied directly to a macroscopic graphics engine. There are quite simply too many atoms: there's 1 mole (6e23 atoms) in 18g of water. At best, todays chips have several billion transistors (5e9). Even at one transistor per molecule, the numbers just don't add up. There are lots of multi-scale modelling techniques though, where you directly model the system on the atomic scale in just a few small volumes, e.g. at the tip of a crack just before it propagates. It's not impossible that sort of thing will make an appearance, though I'd still be surprised. Graphics programming is all smoke and mirrors; if it's easier to approximate something using an unphysical process that looks right, people will favour that over an exact simulation that takes far more computing power.
- FrankenPC 12y ago
  Yeah. You bring up an excellent point. Smoke and mirrors. It won't be molecular...not with semiconductors anyway. Maybe when quantum holographic systems are operating our transporters it will be possible :D. UNTIL THEN, All it has to do is get granular enough to fill the resolution of the current generation of monitor technology. Just like how ray tracing really only requires enough granularity to appear seamless at the current resolution.
- kruczek 12y ago
  Number of transistors is not really relevant here, since it still doesn't tell us anything about how many atoms we could simulate per second. If anything, we should be rather looking at FLOPS that can be generated by a given chip.
SixSigma 12y ago
My team made this back in 1996, on a Pentium Pro 180. I had to dump the frames off every 4 hours for three days straight. How things have changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU8pfwlPF4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU8pfwlPF4I

Osmium 12y ago

> ... that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? Also not a graphics programmer, but I am a scientist who has model liquids and solids at the molecular level–a lot of this is doable today, but I doubt it'll ever be applied directly to a macroscopic graphics engine. There are quite simply too many atoms: there's 1 mole (6e23 atoms) in 18g of water. At best, todays chips have several billion transistors (5e9). Even at one transistor per molecule, the numbers just don't add up. There are lots of multi-scale modelling techniques though, where you directly model the system on the atomic scale in just a few small volumes, e.g. at the tip of a crack just before it propagates. It's not impossible that sort of thing will make an appearance, though I'd still be surprised. Graphics programming is all smoke and mirrors; if it's easier to approximate something using an unphysical process that looks right, people will favour that over an exact simulation that takes far more computing power.

FrankenPC 12y ago
Yeah. You bring up an excellent point. Smoke and mirrors. It won't be molecular...not with semiconductors anyway. Maybe when quantum holographic systems are operating our transporters it will be possible :D. UNTIL THEN, All it has to do is get granular enough to fill the resolution of the current generation of monitor technology. Just like how ray tracing really only requires enough granularity to appear seamless at the current resolution.
kruczek 12y ago
Number of transistors is not really relevant here, since it still doesn't tell us anything about how many atoms we could simulate per second. If anything, we should be rather looking at FLOPS that can be generated by a given chip.

SixSigma 12y ago

My team made this back in 1996, on a Pentium Pro 180. I had to dump the frames off every 4 hours for three days straight. How things have changed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU8pfwlPF4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU8pfwlPF4I