PDA

View Full Version : Did you see DMM (Digital Molecular Matter)?



Sensei
07-17-2007, 11:11 PM
Hello!

If you didn't yet, click http://www.lucasarts.com/games/theforceunleashed/ Skip Trailer and then Game Info > Tech Info and play video What is DMM..

Best Regards!

jameswillmott
07-18-2007, 01:01 AM
DMM is very cool. It's in it's infancy, but I can see a technology like this being used exclusively in the future.

medicalart
07-18-2007, 07:50 AM
Great effect. Be sure to put it in as a LW feature request. Preferably for LW 9.3

BeeVee
07-18-2007, 08:12 AM
It won't be in 9.3 - people will be too busy playing the game! ;)

B

sammael
07-18-2007, 10:44 AM
Gosh that is impressive :)

CMT
07-18-2007, 10:53 AM
I was just as impressed with their new Euphoria behavioral system!

Sensei
07-18-2007, 11:01 AM
Stormtroopers are catching wood bar, but whether they climb and survive at least sometimes, pitty, that's unknown and not showed in the video. We will see after game release..

mattclary
07-18-2007, 11:33 AM
OMFG

The trailer literally had every hair on my body standing straight up. They describe the story as "re imagining the force". The story line will "rock the continuity of Star Wars". Funny as h*ll if you could kill Vader before Ep IV. You are supposed to be his apprentice, but I wonder if you can play the character good?

mattclary
07-18-2007, 11:34 AM
It won't be in 9.3 - people will be too busy playing the game! ;)

B

What's LightWave? :gotpics:

Stooch
07-18-2007, 11:37 AM
it makes me sad that even games these days have better physics than lw.

mattclary
07-18-2007, 12:17 PM
Between this and Mass Effect, reckon I need to start saving up for that 360...

Stupid non-PC games... :twak:

Sensei
07-18-2007, 12:41 PM
it makes me sad that even games these days have better physics than lw.

That's quite naive.. Games like old-style demos can cheat, do things that ray-tracers simply can't do.. Using poor precision, not acceptable for quality of render, but acceptable for real-time game, when you actually see effect just for a second or less..

Phisic is one of such things that in real-time games can use previous frame calculated data for speeding up calculation of current frame. In ray-tracers that can render on renderfarms on many computers one (bucket rendering) or couple frames at the same time, or simply chosen by you random frame, phisics must be pre-calculated (otherwise f.e. rendering frame #1000 that relies on #999 that relies on #998, and so on, so on, might cause need to recalculate (geometry and particles, not image) absolute all previous frames)..

Matt
07-18-2007, 05:16 PM
Stupid non-PC games... :twak:

I know, why don't they release games like this for PC too? My PC is faster than any console out there! They could have a blast with the specs for my system!

mattclary
07-18-2007, 07:07 PM
I know, why don't they release games like this for PC too? My PC is faster than any console out there! They could have a blast with the specs for my system!

My theory is that, mainly, the games are harder to pirate. Seems kind of F-ed up, considering you pay more for a console game than a PC game, seems like it would be cheaper.

Stooch
07-18-2007, 07:54 PM
That's quite naive.. Games like old-style demos can cheat, do things that ray-tracers simply can't do.. Using poor precision, not acceptable for quality of render, but acceptable for real-time game, when you actually see effect just for a second or less..

Phisic is one of such things that in real-time games can use previous frame calculated data for speeding up calculation of current frame. In ray-tracers that can render on renderfarms on many computers one (bucket rendering) or couple frames at the same time, or simply chosen by you random frame, phisics must be pre-calculated (otherwise f.e. rendering frame #1000 that relies on #999 that relies on #998, and so on, so on, might cause need to recalculate (geometry and particles, not image) absolute all previous frames)..

i stand by my statement.

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 12:42 AM
The lines between game engine, 3D and 2D are a blurrin'.


That's quite naive.. Games like old-style demos can cheat, do things that ray-tracers simply can't do.. Using poor precision, not acceptable for quality of render, but acceptable for real-time game, when you actually see effect just for a second or less..

LW dynamics offer better precision than the DMM?! This is where a left-brain starts arguing the limitations of computation and... oh here it is...


Phisic is one of such things that in real-time games can use previous frame calculated data for speeding up calculation of current frame. In ray-tracers that can render on renderfarms on many computers one (bucket rendering) or couple frames at the same time, or simply chosen by you random frame, phisics must be pre-calculated (otherwise f.e. rendering frame #1000 that relies on #999 that relies on #998, and so on, so on, might cause need to recalculate (geometry and particles, not image) absolute all previous frames)..

And you will never be able to break the sound barrier because... boop-dee-doo, dee-doo.

Not an attack but an observation- the limitation is in the imagination, not the math.

I understand perfectly well how games cheat for realtime sake, but the lessons for non-game 3D are there nonetheless. I mean proxy rendering and new ways of calculating are what its all about. Look at FPrime. Why didnt someone think of that sooner? Or how about subD, Level of Detail, HardLink, Shadow Maps, sprites and all the myriad of ways to 'cheat' what you dont always need full tilt calculations of. Fusion has a proxy mode where with one click you can cut all calculation speeds in half, a third, a fourth, etc, to speed up your renders while compromising quality when it isnt necessary. There is no reason not to have more imaginitive ways to cheat in LW similar to advances in games.

Stooch
07-19-2007, 04:13 PM
its simple. you take any descent current game with good physics that run real time. you slow them down to about half or even a third. hell even a quarter speed by increasing precision sampling and i will be VERY happy with that. just the ability to have prcedural shattering in real time makes me adjust my suddenly tight pants. i would go absolutely nuts with that kind of power. i think that NT should focus more efforts on effects. i think they have alot going for them in effects and if they really polished HVs, improved previewing (and blending for liquid rendering), added render layers - they would find themselves more in demand by the bigger studios and on higher profile jobs.

just take a look at another tour de force. CRYSIS. all those collisions in their rich, lush jungles. talk about automation...

theo
07-19-2007, 04:46 PM
just take a look at another tour de force. CRYSIS. all those collisions in their rich, lush jungles. talk about automation...

OK- shattup already... I reject any and all desires to even ponder CRYSIS power being available in my 3D app.

Stooch
07-19-2007, 04:58 PM
OK- shattup already... I am a reject.

fixed! ;)

Matt
07-19-2007, 05:15 PM
I agree, I think the Havok system displayed in that trailer is more accurate than LW dynamics! Basically because LW dynamics is so oooooooooooold! Whereas Havok has been constantly updated.

theo
07-19-2007, 05:48 PM
fixed! ;)

Curses! Nefariously manipulating sterile technology only sheds light on the resounding reality that you deserve to be trapped in the tentacled clutches of one thousand starving octopuses.

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 08:08 PM
...you deserve to be trapped in the tentacled clutches of one thousand starving octopuses.

Octopi. ;D

theo
07-19-2007, 08:36 PM
Octopi. ;D

If I desired my octopUSES to be transcendental I would have TYPED octoPI instead. I am intensely disturbed by the blatant ratiocinating of my eight-footed thread-pest pulverizers.

Riding the ridge was a ridgeling with ridiculously riddled ridges roaring rambunctiously, "Good riddance to Rid".

jameswillmott
07-19-2007, 09:41 PM
Octopi. ;D

Octopedes. :)

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 03:24 AM
Methinks the thread of Theo and his thesaurus throw thick with a masturbatory miasma of mockery.

Huh... he said 'pusses'

mattclary
07-20-2007, 07:12 AM
masturbatory miasma



hehehehe... hehehehe.... he said "my a55" hehehe...

Whats that other word? Maaaassss.... Maaaaaaassssssssttrrrrrrrrr... uuuuuhhhhh.... uuuuhhhhh....

theo
07-20-2007, 07:35 AM
Octopedes. :)

Hmmm... eight freshly-emptied guys just exiting the local restroom?

Or, eight objects precipitously rushing headlong and pell-mell?

theo
07-20-2007, 07:53 AM
Methinks the thread of Theo and his thesaurus throw thick with a masturbatory miasma of mockery.

Huh... he said 'pusses'

My god... please refrain from any further connections of miasma with masturbaaaahmmm. My inner prurience owes its rather serendipitous existence to plausible justifications and a miasma would only serve to further complicate this fragile environment.:D Never mess with inner workings, Rid or YOU may find yourself hopelessly entangled in the tentacled horror of one thousand ravenous octopuses.

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 02:14 PM
Now your just being obstreperous.

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 05:05 PM
hehehehe... hehehehe.... he said "my a55" hehehe...

Whats that other word? Maaaassss.... Maaaaaaassssssssttrrrrrrrrr... uuuuuhhhhh.... uuuuhhhhh....

Heh, yeah, um, somethin' about the master labratory, heh, yeah, that was it.

Dave Jerrard
08-22-2007, 07:25 PM
And you will never be able to break the sound barrier because... boop-dee-doo, dee-doo.

Not an attack but an observation- the limitation is in the imagination, not the math. [QUOTE]Not entirely true. When that statement was first made, there was no hardware capable of it - no supersonic capable planes yet existed, and even when those did, various design aspects had to be changed in order to prevent them from disintegrating at those speeds. Prop driven planes couldn't hope to travel supersonic - it's impossible for them (unless you consider supersonic fragments of them a success), so imagination has no weight here. You can imagine all you want, but you still can't fly a bi-plane at supersonic speeds without some major changes to the design, structure and drive systems, at which point, you're no longer dealing with the bi-plane anymore. There's a difference between off-handed opinions and scientific facts.




[QUOTE]I understand perfectly well how games cheat for realtime sake, but the lessons for non-game 3D are there nonetheless. I mean proxy rendering and new ways of calculating are what its all about. Look at FPrime. Why didnt someone think of that sooner? Or how about subD, Level of Detail, HardLink, Shadow Maps, sprites and all the myriad of ways to 'cheat' what you dont always need full tilt calculations of. Some people HAVE thought of these things before, and they hold the patents to them. There's a lot of other things out there, like Deep Shadow Maps, various cloth solutions, fluid dynamics, etc., that are either patented and highly expensive to license (if you can license them at all), or are only just now becoming feasible, or even possible, due to the current hardware that's available to run them on. I'd hate to try doing a ray traced image on something like a TRS-80. With those time frames, no matter how imaginitave I could be, I would still not even consider using those to crank out an FX shot for a film, unless it was a simple computer display.

So to turn the quest back to you, why didn't YOU think of these things sooner? (heck, you could be rich off the patents) When you answer that one, you'll have the answer for your question above.



Fusion has a proxy mode where with one click you can cut all calculation speeds in half, a third, a fourth, etc, to speed up your renders while compromising quality when it isnt necessary. There is no reason not to have more imaginitive ways to cheat in LW similar to advances in games.Except that cheats often lead to more workarounds and other problems. LightWave's been using enough cheats as it is, which is currently one of the main things that's taking it so long to get up to date. HyperVoxels 1&2 were a cheat. Steamer was a cheat. Sasquatch is a cheat. That's why they don't appear in reflections. Or cast shadows, without another cheat - a surface shader. Or refract through transparency, without another cheat - a surface shader. And to use your Fusion reference, you ca do the exact same in LightWave, rendering at 1/2 or 1/4 size, also sacrificing image quality when it isn't necessary. You can do that in pretty much all other 3D apps as far as I know.

The difference between 3D rendering and games is that the game is designed for a rather limited set of possibilities, and everything can be tuned to those situations. With 3D rendering, it's wide open. One day you're doing a simple logo, another day, you're recreating natural disasters, another day you're creating a photorealistic building, or a car commercial, or a charcacter, creature. I've yet to see any completely photorealistic IN-GAME rendering or effects in any game. I'm not talking about some of the wonderful pre-rendered sequences they include, but the actual graphics used IN the game itself that you have control over. It's getting better, but it's still not cinematic quality, either in the rendering, or the motion.

He Who Fears He May Have To Get A PS3 Now.

mattclary
08-23-2007, 09:26 AM
[QUOTE=Mr Rid]
He Who Fears He May Have To Get A PS3 Now.

XBox 360 also gets you "Mass Effect"! :thumbsup:

Red_Oddity
08-23-2007, 02:36 PM
Still, leaving all game vs 3d app discussions behind us, it would be nice to have a somewhat usable soft and rigid body solver (heck, it is possible, just look at Ageia Physx, Havok, Nucleus, even ODE does a much better job than what we have now).

I'm sure there's a lot of people who do wonderfull stuff using the build in solvers in LW, but i for one always run into wall after wall of not proper functioning, way too slow for production or inflexible solvers.

A lot of us do visual fx, and when we use hard body and soft body dynamics, we don't give a rats arse about whether or not a solver is super correct.
We need our solvers to be fast, flexible and relialable, we're doing fx work, what we make has to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, as long as it's believable.

Sande
08-23-2007, 03:26 PM
I wouldn't necessarily mind if we saw some realtime physics-plugin implemented. Even Blender has some realtime-physics implemented - but then again as Blender's development seems to lack any focus or priorities, it should really not surprise us. Which leads us to priorities in LW's development - I for one would hate to see some lightweight toy-physics implemented, IF it meant leaving the current physics where they are...

I have used and tested several different realtime physics systems at work and I have to say that they generally speaking do not do a better job than LW's current physics. Most of them are very limited at what they can do, like said here before.

Then again, IF implementing such a plugin wouldn't hurt other development, why not - there are after all many cases where it is much easier, and especially faster, to setup such a simpler physics system and often the accuracy is enough to get the job done...

Dave Jerrard
08-23-2007, 05:00 PM
[QUOTE=Dave Jerrard]

XBox 360 also gets you "Mass Effect"! :thumbsup:And scratched discs and little to no support from MS...

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201002267


He Who Won't Even Touch A Mouse If It Has Microsoft's Name On It.

cresshead
08-23-2007, 07:13 PM
I agree, I think the Havok system displayed in that trailer is more accurate than LW dynamics! Basically because LW dynamics is so oooooooooooold! Whereas Havok has been constantly updated.

i know i'm getting to sound like an old record but havok is built into 3dsmax...has been for some years now...and has multiple engines to choose from.

so as for no 3d app will ever get it....too late!...been there done that!

mattclary
08-24-2007, 11:31 AM
He Who Won't Even Touch A Mouse If It Has Microsoft's Name On It.

So, YOU have that secret build of LightWave made for Linux! ;)