[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;207191]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heliocon
Tessalation is the only way they will be able to pull off large scale air battles, and realistic sight distances without making the game a slide show, or having textures from 2005. In addition I never said GPU based physics, but if the damage and flying models are accurate/realistic they will need advanced physics (which is a necessity not an option). How they will handle delegation I do not know but DX11 cards are the only ones that will be able to handle the data stream from the CPU cals (assuming its cpu based) which could detract from AI etc.
QUOTE]
From my understanding tessalation is only useful for close up items, Anything further away will be scaled back in detail anyway.
It would be useful for texturing craters up close or texturing the leather crash pads in the cockpit but I don't think it would be a make or break addition to the sim.
Hardware Physics would be nice but once again Oleg has repeatedly stated that they developed an have a in house physics engine. Also I don't think the 'Physics API's' Supported by ATI or Nvidia are useful for flight sims. There more useful for modeling fluids, fluttering cloth and particles of exploding bombs. Great for FPS's where your up close and personal but not so good for light sims!
Cheers!
|
Yep you are right. Sorry if I was unclear - PhysX is nvidias physics program, which the GPU does but you can still calculate physics on the gpu or cpu not using the specific program (for example Havok), its an issue because the physics will have to be calculated constantly while flying (I believe they said there would be rising and falling air/turbulance but I may be wrong) and it takes cycles away from the cpu or gpu.
As for tessalation, it depends. If you run the Unigine heaven demo 2 (beutiful engine btw) they use it for the housing and the roads (cobblestones are actual geometry not bump map). But it can be equally useful for distance, for example while flying in the far distance you could render thousands of bombers with no fps hit because the bombers are only a few hundred polygons each. As you get closer (and you can see fewer planes since your vision is limited to an arch (of course) they can jack up the model quality massivly due to tessalation. You could be up strafing a flawless b52 bomber with all its glorious details and a 200m away there is another 100 b52's but they are scaled down models due to tessalation but since they are at a distance you cant see the lack of detail (when you get closer they tesselate).
Same with towns and houses, far distance they can be little boxes and as you get closer the little squares turn into fully detailed towns and streets.
So you would get a huge performance boost, without it they would all have to be lower quality or have the fully detailed model present and kill fps because its rendering much much more detail then you can actually see!
(for those who are interested here is a little youtube video displaying the benchmark. Also note the dynamic lighting and refraction which is DX11.
Edit 2: Sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to show this water scene, this is compute-shader which is more Nvidia specific but is DX11. Since the BOB was often near the sea/channel I hope they have water life this!
