NVIDIA Gameworks FLOW DX12 Demo

DejaWiz said:
Consider this: where would the state of non-Gameworks engine effects be if nVidia didn't ever invent Gameworks effects to motivate competition?

Much in the same manner as AMD inventing Mantle to spark DX12 and Vulkan?

Thank you, nVidia and AMD.
Click to expand...


This is valid to an extent, though I'm not entirely sure if Gameworks has sparked any imitation software. Gameworks purely existing and being one option is not a bad thing, dispite the butthurt AMD saying otherwise. But the lack of similar effects solutions is telling of the demand for said solutions..
 
Very cool. Always nice to see graphical advances like this move more into the mainstream.

Getting whiny fanboys in a tizzy is just a bonus.
 
Jim Kim said:
I think after the third time you said that devs make the games, not nvidia, that your point would have been made.
You can lead a fool to water but you can't force them to drink it.
Click to expand...
And funny how you only read his part but not mine.

Keep kissing ass, it works wonders
 
Dear Diary,

Well I guess this is it then; it is finally upon us. The very real, very scary possibility that some games get a few extra video settings we don't have to turn on.

No hope now. All is lost. Please see that mother gets my ashes.
 
odditory said:
Dear Diary,

Well I guess this is it then; it is finally upon us. The very real, very scary possibility that some games get a few extra video settings we don't have to turn on.

No hope now. All is lost. Please see that mother gets my ashes.
Click to expand...

lol!
 
KazeoHin said:
I presented no opinions on gameworks... sooo....
Click to expand...
Glad to know that I was talking to the one person that represented every game dev in the world and only presented pure facts. Gotcha.

grtitan said:
Again, the one that said anything and puffed and huffed was you. Still dont get why so defensive of any nvidia criticism.
Click to expand...
GameWorks sucks. Fine don't use it. This entire discussion was predicated on the post say he was "forced" to buy NVIDIA cards. Which is simply asinine. That is where this started. I am not defending GameWorks content at all. If you actually read what I said instead of getting AMD fanboy butt all red and inflamed you would understand that. Reading in fundamental. Really. It is.
 
grtitan said:
Funny that you are always defending them and ignoring the fact, as already mentioned, that nvidia only does this type of thing to lock games and by consequence, customers to their hardware.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they do it to create a need / usage for higher end GPU grunt which helps sell hardware. I am ok with this btw as it means we get better content. Instead of relying on lazy developers who just want to sell DLC.

Meanwhile AMD would rather streamline porting shitty console games to PC with 0 effort so there is no need for high end GPU hardware and they can keep rehasing the same shit hardware year on year.

NVIDIA cop far too much flak... they are the only company pushing the graphics market forward with cutting edge hardware and they can charge what they want as far as im concerned since they dont really need to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zamardii12 said:
How is this any different from what we've already seen Nvidia Gameworks do with smoke in games like Batman: Arkham Knight seen here? (Btw, not sure why this video has so many dislikes) (Actually, I just checked the comments on YouTube and apparently people are saying it was false advertising this by limiting the game to 30fps when the video is clearly more than that...)

Click to expand...


that is smoke only. this one add fire visual to the mix. the aim is to make fire and smoke combination look more "real" in games.
 
grtitan said:
Your nvidia fanboism is in full blown, because i never said anything about amd and as stated, i have a nvidia card, but you want to be [H]ardass and just ignore facts.
Click to expand...
Cool. I guess I will just have to fall back to your reading comprehension being the issue.
 
grtitan said:
And i think it was well deserved, like for example, when they disabled their cards if an amd card is detected in the system, when the customers, that already paid for it, wanted to use it as a physx processor?
Click to expand...
Guess you should vote with your wallet.
 
KazeoHin said:
Gameworks has not revolutionized the industry in any way because the effects are not "holy crap" quick, nor do they make these effects or details revolutionarilly easy to render. They are all brute-force software opperations done on CUDA so they can run at 60FPS on the highest-end cards when nothing else is on-screen. That is not industry-changing: Nvidia has been showing off their cards doing crap like that since the GTX 480.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest, i do not think anyone seriously doubts Gameworks are much more than a round attempt to advertise nV cards. But i do have to note that all things considered, some of these effects hardly look like a straight brute force, look at HBAO for one. That said, there is certainly plenty of raw brute force effects there.
 
Game works doesn't lock anyone into anything. The platform isn't agnostic but it doesn't turn the game into an Nvidia only title either.

Mantle was more of a "locking in" mechanism than gameworks is.
 
Trimlock said:
Game works doesn't lock anyone into anything. The platform isn't agnostic but it doesn't turn the game into an Nvidia only title either.

Mantle was more of a "locking in" mechanism than gameworks is.
Click to expand...

Yep. They both do it. NVidia is arguably more successful at it. EOS.
 
RAutrey said:
Yep. They both do it. NVidia is arguably more successful at it. EOS.
Click to expand...

Granted Nvidia has a lot of stuff that is exclusive to their hardware but they don't have any "locking" in mechanisms. What I think people have an issue with is that AMD has nothing to compete with. GSync has competition with FreeSync but that's more to do with selection of monitors and not games themselves.

Nvidia just has more resources to get their stuff incorporated in games, its not like AMD hasn't attempted the same in the past. They just had really poor execution.
 
M76 said:
The point is that the technology to do it was available for years. Just nobody bothered to actually implement it in games.
Click to expand...

In a much more simplestic form back then..
The physics and particles/chains involved these days are incredibly complex for cloth/gas/liquids, and indirectly flame.
Then there is also the lighting/illumination that also has made great leaps in advancement.

This video is a good talk on the subject regarding cloth and physics in Unity engine, worth noting the talk is around an older version of Nvidia Flex that was upgraded this year and now supports directly Direct3d 11 and 12 along with how Flex ties in with the other new libraries.


Anyway the video shows just how complex this is due to the particles-chains involved and resource time required, and that is not touching lighting that also interracts (notice the video I linked does have physics interraction, which is something the new Flow DX12 demo shows very well in OP).
Cheers
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Well I'm impressed. Too bad gameworks makes most games slower than molasses.
Click to expand...

One thing worth considering is that these libraries are now DX12 optimised, so it will be interesting to see if that influences performance.
Another aspect is that much of Gameworks was treated as a middleware 'bolt-on' post processing special effects product, and so not as efficient as done within the game/render engine.
AMD also has its own middleware library suite these days, and would have the same challenge unless the developer/studio has the time and money to integrate these tools more deeply into the engine and so applicable to both.

Cheers
 
From what I have read so far....

Company implements new features in its own library for its own HW that is not available in others.

Person complains that they have to buy a given brand of card to make use of those features and blames them for being a monopoly.

Solution: Don't bring out new features at all so you never have a more feature rich option to chose from in the first place?

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
CSI_PC said:
In a much more simplestic form back then..
The physics and particles/chains involved these days are incredibly complex for cloth/gas/liquids, and indirectly flame.
Then there is also the lighting/illumination that also has made great leaps in advancement.

This video is a good talk on the subject regarding cloth and physics in Unity engine, worth noting the talk is around an older version of Nvidia Flex that was upgraded this year and now supports directly Direct3d 11 and 12 along with how Flex ties in with the other new libraries.


Anyway the video shows just how complex this is due to the particles-chains involved and resource time required, and that is not touching lighting that also interracts (notice the video I linked does have physics interraction, which is something the new Flow DX12 demo shows very well in OP).
Cheers
Click to expand...


In this case at least the extra complexity doesn't result in a better experience. I still think fire is easier simulated as fluid than with particles.

I was playing around with cloth simulation I think in 2003, but it was so long ago I can't be sure when was it.Yet in games cloth simulation only started to appear very recently, and it's still not very common.
The way I see it the issue is still collision. Edge to Edge and more importantly face to edge and face to vertex collisions just don't work well at least I haven't seen any implementation where it worked well.
 
M76 said:
In this case at least the extra complexity doesn't result in a better experience. I still think fire is easier simulated as fluid than with particles.

I was playing around with cloth simulation I think in 2003, but it was so long ago I can't be sure when was it.Yet in games cloth simulation only started to appear very recently, and it's still not very common.
The way I see it the issue is still collision. Edge to Edge and more importantly face to edge and face to vertex collisions just don't work well at least I haven't seen any implementation where it worked well.
Click to expand...

I guess people will differ on opinion.
Even experts such as the Unity engineer involved with their Physics says how nice the Nvidia Flex solution is, albeit that version used in the Unity presentation was not as efficient nor without bugs and performance issues to the latest one that released this year (after the Unity presentation).

The issue as explained in the engineer dev vid I linked is particles/chains, and is a similar issue for lighting/volumetric lighting/scattering/etc.
To me Flow and Flex is a big improvement on previous similar simulations used in engines and games older than say 5 years and only a few recent games are up to par, same with how lighting-shadows-global illumination has improved and also photogrammetry has improved in game engines but historically demos that could never be implemented in game rendering engines were also good.
So one could say again no improvements there, when in fact there has been.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top