Lafiel said:
Now that's funny considering most supercomputers around the world are working on physics calculations. Ofcourse a video game doesn't need to be anywhere as preceise as a scientific calculation to make something seem "real" although it's just a rough approximation of real world physics. Still, it can be infinitely complex.. for example in the past when you shot a bottle the dev might have included a precanned animation how the bottle breaks and it will break the same way every time (depending on the amount of animations ofc). That's not physics, but nowadays devs can give that bottle the property glass and then the physics engine will determine while the game is running (procedurally) how the bottle can break. If the hardware was strong enough it could calculate the angle of impact, how many shards/fragments are produced, their shapes/sizes , how these collide with each other and with objects in the world, how the wind/gravity/each particles aerodynamics influence their pathes, how sun rays pass through these shards and how the rays are refracted and reflected between them and so on and so on. Although games really just need a basic version of that we aren't even on a level to produce enough particles in a explosion yet to make it seem "real" as the collisions with each other and objects in the world (even with a really basic calculation) use up soo much power. |
Real time raytracing could be possible next-gen
