Torillian said:
lucidium said:
Torillian said:
Out of curiosity does anyone have any clue on the standard refresh rate for physics engines in most games? I've no idea if 240 is exceptional though I have to imagine it's on the high end since the developers thought to mention it and this is a pretty simple game that's hugely dependent on physics. |
Most modern physx enabled cards can handle 20 billion instructions per second, which for a game like this would be solely applied to water physics and object physics rather than extensive game wide physics, as such 20 billion instructions on a modern pc gpu would equate on a game such as this to around 700fps precision, dropping to 300-400 on other types of games, dropping further still down to fixed frame (one calculation per video refresh) on open world sandbox games employing a physics model.
To put it bluntly, 240fps resolution on physics modeling for a game like this isn't really a huge deal, i suspect its only being calculated and trumpeted for marketing purposes due to the kerfuffle of framerates and resolutions currently rife in the industry media at current, underlined by their focus on advertising the texture resolution and native video resolution too.
Frankly, if they dropped the physics precision down to 60fps and locked video to 60fps you would see very little difference because you're still getting a calculation per each of the frames that calculation have an effect anyway.
|
So in your experience there is little benefit to calculating the physics more times than you have frames being shown? That's surprising to me since I know with the basic modeling my lab does even on simple problems the step size matters pretty massively up to a point. Simulating the kinetics of a chemical reaction with 1000 steps versus 100 can have a large effect in certain conditions. I had assumed that most games had more physics refresh frames than the displayed frames per second to make the physics at the point of display as accurate as possible, but I guess since the differences in most games would be totally imperceptible that's not worth the effort.
Interesting to know, thank you for te reply.
|
There are obviously minor differences when you increase the rate at which you process the physics calculations, more subtle changes in kinetic motion can play out to have a more reaching effect overall, such as vibration/resonance, so in a lab environment or doing fluid dynamics and thermodynamics in precision software, more processing power is helpful, but in games such as this, you're working with very basic structures with low overall object numbers, so while such intense calculation would effect the motion of pieces, the motion itself would be minor enough to be unnoticable, we have to keep in mind also that the method of input and precision of controlling the pieces in the game isnt that great so higher precision kinectic movement with low precision input is essentially just wasted.
to me its the same as a basic 2d indie game touting "full 1080p resolution", its a bulletpoint for pr reaches with resources that were not being used.
think of it this way, if they bound physics to a per frame, they could, using only 120fps physics, do error control on every single frame to prevent glitching, and the result would be 60fps video with glitch free physics, and you would still only be using half the precision theyre touting, even if theyre calculating sub frame physics unless the game does anything with vibration or resonance (which from everything ive read and seen about it, it does not) the only concievable reason to pump resources into hitting that note is purely to maximise publicity, combine "240fps" rather than an actual coherant calculation of instructions per second, with 108op and 4/8k textures, and what you get is people believing the game runs at 240fps at 1080p with "4k and 8k textures, wow i dont even have a 4k tv yet, thats awesome", essentially cashing in on peoples lack of knowledge and the current fanfare surrounding the ps4 and xbox one dramas.
Currently Online 
