#4944088

-Tj-

2014-10-24 11:07

If all it takes is a GTX 670 @ 1ms then its ok.

#4944125

Spets

2014-10-24 12:12

Amazing stuff, performance with HairWorks/Turf is pretty great considering how much is being simulated.

#4944128

Robbo9999

2014-10-24 12:14

Simulated grass FTW - just what I always wanted! No, but thinking about it, this does increase realism, and I found it interesting what he said about being able to track where a player has been by the flattened grass - does increase realism and could influence gameplay.

#4944133

Undying

2014-10-24 12:18

It only takes GTX680. Not bad...

#4944140

RavenMaster

2014-10-24 12:28

Nice. We're getting closer and closer to photo realism

#4944145

WhiteLightning

Moderator

2014-10-24 12:37

I want this in FIFA

#4944173

fellix

2014-10-24 13:08

It's time for Crop Circles Simulator™

#4944192

Rich_Guy

2014-10-24 13:28

GrassFX

#4944226

Calmmo

2014-10-24 14:00

Frankly i think its about time we start seeing grass that isnt just some random texture/sprite.

#4944232

CPC_RedDawn

2014-10-24 14:11

Frankly i think its about time we start seeing grass that isnt just some random texture/sprite.

I agree this is the first Nvidia technology that has made sense to me. I remember the first time I looked at the grass in Halo 1 on the first planet level which was just a flat texture but for the time it actually looked like grass rather than just a plain green flat texture it actually looked like a picture. Then I saw the grass in Starfox Adventures on the Gamecube and my draw dropped! here look at this, remember this was from 2003 and you can still make our blades of grass in this even when Fox walked over it, it moved and covered his feet sometimes. http://gamedrunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/sfa_2.jpg

#4944271

Keesberenburg

2014-10-24 15:35

^DST Powered by AMD Dynamic super troll

#4944424

Noisiv

2014-10-24 19:48

That looks really good, take it I'd need an Nvidia gpu for this then, like physx etc?

No. This like most of Gameworks, works with AMD as well

#4944431

Robbo9999

2014-10-24 19:57

I want this in FIFA

Haha, that would be funny - they'd have to not cut the grass in order to appreciate it, would make for some very weird games of football!

#4944441

Robbo9999

2014-10-24 20:05

Great this will add to the realism nicely, but 680 is enough only for grass now when they add all the rest of objects from the game it will require much more power than that...

I think when they say a 680 can do it in 1ms, they mean that each frame will take an extra 1ms to render - it's possible to calculate what this means in terms of frames per second cost. 60 frames per second is 1/60 = each frame 17ms, so by increasing this by 1ms to 18ms per frame (grassFX), then this is: 1/x = 0.018s x = 56fps So, GrassFX on a 680 would drop frames per second from 60 frames per second to 56fps, that's the cost of this tech on a game that was previously rendering at 60fps. Another way of looking at it is that it reduces performance by 7% - that's an impressive figure, not very costly at all!

#4944509

dampflokfreund

2014-10-24 21:35

It only takes GTX680. Not bad...

Only? It's one of the fastes GPUs.

#4944523

isidore

2014-10-24 22:02

again with this crap tech videos..i hate them, they show so many but implement so little.

#4944538

-Tj-

2014-10-24 22:24

nvm I dont hear good :P

#4944584

Denial

2014-10-24 23:39

He said six seventy as in GTX670, not six eighty.

No, he definitely said 680. And as Robbo said 1ms on a 680 is pretty lean for an effect with that much of an impact on graphics. I'd take a 7% loss on my 980 for that.

#4944592

Spets

2014-10-24 23:52

I think that I saw this one for the first time when CD Projekt RED did reveal the Witcher 3, along with the wolf furs.

Witcher 3 would be nice with this 🙂

#4944773

applejack

2014-10-25 05:04

I think when they say a 680 can do it in 1ms, they mean that each frame will take an extra 1ms to render - it's possible to calculate what this means in terms of frames per second cost. 60 frames per second is 1/60 = each frame 17ms, so by increasing this by 1ms to 18ms per frame (grassFX), then this is: 1/x = 0.018s x = 56fps So, GrassFX on a 680 would drop frames per second from 60 frames per second to 56fps, that's the cost of this tech on a game that was previously rendering at 60fps. Another way of looking at it is that it reduces performance by 7% - that's an impressive figure, not very costly at all!

yea but does 1ms include rendering of these million blades of grass, or just the dynamic simulation side of it? I'm not sure how many millions are presented in that video, but if there were only 1 million it should have run at 1000fps on GTX680 according to your calculation, as they render nothing but grass (and a bunch of cubes). they say "Grass blades can be represented with a resolution as low as 3 triangles to several 100 triangles per blade by using continuous level of detail", so adding a million grass blades to a scene would require additional render time for 3 million polygons at the very least. is this supposed to be included in 56fps (w/ grass) out of 60fps (w/o grass) comparison, or you mean 60fps already rendered at least 3 million polygons of static grass...