Everyone's jumping aboard (Pun intended), Should BI too? - NVidia Waveworks

[[evo] dan 79]

it'd be nice just to have tracked vehicles that can float back, let alone waveworks (and walkable moving objects too!!)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

it'd be nice just to have tracked vehicles that can float back, let alone waveworks (and walkable moving objects too!!)

Last i heard, that is being worked on for Apex. (Working Tracked Amphibians of course)

I do indeed miss them. It will be interesting to see how BI do handle the transitions of such vehicles now in RV4, given wheeled Amphibians have issues of their own, AFAIK regarding speed, and sometimes getting stuck.

[I give up 152]

Honeslty, the game is already very demanding about graphics subject, why do you want more? Do you have a Nasa Setup?

[mamasan8 11]

That's irrelevant to the topic really, and it would also murder you're FPS, as one Dev put it awhile ago.

 

Back on topic though, we've finally got some decent footage of above water Waveworks in action, featuring an Amphivious Tank.

 

WAveworks Performance looks great, and the visual fidelity is just brilliant. Looks pretty good, water moves in real time. What do you guys think?

Looks like the tank is in oil.

Waveworks look pretty poor in Just Cause 3 too.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Looks like the tank is in oil.

Waveworks look pretty poor in Just Cause 3 too.

Depending on you're graphics i suppose. You can theoretically alter settings for better performance, but from what i've seen regarding footage of Waveworks on Just Cause 3 after you mentioned it, it does look quite stunning, and by far better than the current RV4 Engine water effects by the longest of shots.Not just surface wise either. Underwater, and particle effects, as Waveworks also deals with wakes, which on the current RV4 Engine look... well... 

 

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2013/06/full-17189-60786-2013_06_22_00032.jpg

Vs.

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/just_cause_3_waveworks.png

 

I mean.. it's self explanatory. Now, i would do an underwater comparison, but i'm not quite sure that's a Waveworks thing or something that the Just Cause developers themselves worked hard to create. Of course Waveworks is a module that provides many options and Engine capabilities, but it's up to the developers of said game to decide how they want to implement it in regards to their game. Though if you're going to mention looks? Waveworks wins... Hands down.

 

Edit: Decided to put underwater example in anyway.

 

http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/just-cause-3-underwater.png

Vs.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ylU3uTyBETc/maxresdefault.jpg

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Honeslty, the game is already very demanding about graphics subject, why do you want more? Do you have a Nasa Setup?

War Thunder is more Graphics demanding. Arma 3 is CPU intensive, not so much GPU. However, i'm not sure what Waveworks lies on, but i get around 100 FPS on high graphics. I have an Nvidia GT 650M. So in terms of performance hogging, i wouldn't say it takes up much. Hoever, i believe that varies depending on the Engine. No telling what it'd be like on RV4. But i'm also certain it wouldn't be much.

[I give up 152]

I'm still trying figure why you people say that A3 is not GPU demanding.
With A3 mine 2 GPUs are reaching temperatures that no other game can give, and they are not at 100% usage, probably at 100% I would need a fire extinguisher. Not even Metro Last Night which is one of the most graphically demanding games gives me such trouble.
You people still use a Celeron or you play with ultra low settings with AA and Aniso disabled?
Anyway take a look. The top 10 most graphically demanding PC games. A3 is in fourth.

http://www.maximumpc.com/10-most-graphically-demanding-pc-games/#page-2
 

[calin_banc 19]

It's not that demanding because if I wanna keep my GPU 100% loaded or close, I'll need to go overboard with the settings and that's on 2500k@4,5GHz. It's quite a walk in the park for the GPU.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'm still trying figure why you people say that A3 is not GPU demanding.

With A3 mine 2 GPUs are reaching temperatures that no other game can give, and they are not at 100% usage, probably at 100% I would need a fire extinguisher. Not even Metro Last Night which is one of the most graphically demanding games gives me such trouble.

You people still use a Celeron or you play with ultra low settings with AA and Aniso disabled?

Anyway take a look. The top 10 most graphically demanding PC games. A3 is in fourth.

http://www.maximumpc.com/10-most-graphically-demanding-pc-games/#page-2

*giggles a little, knowing one of my squadmates actually had his computer catch fire*

Oh, and Mamasan8, that's a good point how you mentioned looks. The reason why Warthunder's use of Waveworks looks lackluster, can be blamed on poor implementation. This is a good time to point out that Gaijin have proved to be an example of customizing Waveworks, but not using a very important feature that's integrated into Waveworks, which is surface foam.

However, Just Cause 3 uses the surface foam actually very well, but their waves aren't as detailed as the ones you see in Warthunder. Then comes the striking balance between the waves and the foam, something that I could envision Arma having in the future that has very good looking waves and foam, given the foam we have now... Well... Let's not talk about how bad that actually looks. But hey, the potential is still there.

I'll try seeing if I can find some performance specs on Waveworks later.

[Flax 397]

Not to get anyone excited but Marek post this very recently...

 

 

 

I am so excited about so many new improvements coming to #arma3 in 2016. Eden first, Apex next. Can't wait for both.

 

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

They look great.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

So i've found a neat little page explaining Hydrodynamics for Video games. Along with it, a neat video showing an example of a simple boat, and WaveWorks water. The combination of Waveworks and well tweaked Hydrodynamics appears to be very solid. The article is also a good read.

 

Article - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/263237/Water_interaction_model_for_boats_in_video_games_Part_2.php

 

Video

 

Technical

 

Visual

 

Note: I believe there's a part 1 of the article, but i couldn't find it. Also the first video isn't the one i was talking about, it was an extra i ended up finding but, cool none the less.

[heavygunner 179]

Grassworks would be much more important for a game like Arma and isn't very demanding, either.

[Neviothr 102]

So basically shittier performance for AMD users? I'd love VBS-like waves, but for that price? No thanks.

[heavygunner 179]

So basically shittier performance for AMD users? I'd love VBS-like waves, but for that price? No thanks.

Not at all.

Waveworks doesn't need a lot of performance and there is no difference when running it at AMD or Nvidia cars.

See War Thunder/Just Cause 3 for reference.

[DancZer 65]

It looks amazing but I'm not sure if BI wil do it.

 

If they do, well, then i don't want to be in water when storm coming. Those waves scare a sh*t out of me. :D

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

AMD users can use Waveworks just fine. Grassworks on the other hand, i have no idea. Though, after seeing the performance from grassworks, i don't know how that would even turn out on any engine. I guess we'll wait and see if Grassworks pops up in any games soon and judge it based on performance.

 

As for Waveworks, yes, the storms would be amazing, the waves actually move in real time, unlike the one's in Arma which are kinda slowed down, and have barely any dimension, though, you can only make water look so good, and believable. However with Waveworks, it can be configured a ton of ways accoording to a number of factors that can benefit gameplay. For example, Arma 3 would benefit from the Surface Foam technology, due to the fact the current wake and particle effects for Ships, Submarines, Amphibious vehicles and Helicopters hovering over the water, aren't all that great, at all. Waveworks could help clean up a large portion of those effects into the surfaced based foam technology.

Second, Arma 3's coasts, and overall waves, and sync on Multiplayer issues. The coasts would benefit from wet  surface reflection, and foam, much better than the flat polygonal textures we currently have. The improvements coming with Tanoa look promising though, so as far a coast effects go, i don't think it's needed now. However, general waves, and the level of detail, along with interaction with vehicles in a realistic, or rather, authentic manner, would be the biggest benefits. The ability to have strong waves out at sea, and calmer waves in between and around islands would be nice. A storm could very well play a big role on Amphibious vehicles and ships, as well as cause problems for infantry to get across to other islands without aircraft support.

 

The cons, are probably performance, depending on how Waveworks would be configured for use by BI, and i'm sure there's probably a few more limitations on it. But having seen how well it looks and performs in title's like War Thunder, and JC3, i don't think that performance is an issue. so if ever BI decided to use Waveworks, they could easily talk to NVidia about it, as a large portion of their tech, including PhysX, comes from them. Not to mention NVidia are very good at what they do, their technologies are some of the leading, and best out there for gaming yet, some of it like Grassworks not being used yet. Waveworks works well in all the games i've seen, and we've actually just got HBAO+ according to the latest Sitrep. Would be nice to see more groundbreaking tech in the future.

[calin_banc 19]

Such waveworks, much foam, great transition animations. / sarcasm off.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Such waveworks, much foam, great transition animations. / sarcasm off.

It all depends on the developers needs and how they choose to configure it. In other words if BI chose to use Waveworks at any point, they could configure it to look exactly like their current water, but of course the features that Waveworks provides would be available for them to choose to add to it, it make it perform and look a lot better. War Thunder's configured theirs a little early, it's WIP, and by no means final. The particle effects do look a bit silly and the transition of course looks sloppy. JC3's water foam also could use work, but it's still much better than a lot of games water, and by far better than the flat spinning circle textures Arma 3 use for water effects.

[calin_banc 19]

Sorry, I was a bit opaque in what I was trying to say. War Thunder performance hit I think it's not that big, but making water pretty (which is already on the way), should be accompanied by improved animations when the character goes into the water and comes out, swims around, etc.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Sorry, I was a bit opaque in what I was trying to say. War Thunder performance hit I think it's not that big, but making water pretty (which is already on the way), should be accompanied by improved animations when the character goes into the water and comes out, swims around, etc.

Have they mentioned an update in transition of a player's animations in and out of the water? I only remember them saying they updated coastal effects of water, under water fog effects, and screen space reflections, which is used for water reflections. (could also be used for mirrors...) But yeah. No word of characters animations though. But in terms of Waveworks, the discussion is mainly about what Waveworks would be able to achieve for Arma, as compared to what we have now. what benefits Arma 3 basically from it's current water capabilities.

[linuxmaster9 101]

pardon my french er german but F%$K Nvidia Gamewerks. That Anything not Nvidia nerfing piece of crapware is a detriment to PC gaming and needs to die in a lake of fire. Use AMD's stuff since AMD's stuff is Open Sourced meaning the devs have full access to the code free of charge. That and the code is platform agnostic meaning that Nvidia can use it and it wont nerf their performance. Where Nvidia is Monopolistic and Closed and Anti-competitive, and anti-consumer; AMD is Competitive, Open, pro-consumer, and full of ideas and technology. After all, Nvidia did not think up HBM........AMD has been a serious member of the HBM development team since the beginning. All Nvidia has done is make Gamewerks and do everything possible to hinder competition all the way to rigging the contest.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

pardon my french er german but F%$K Nvidia Gamewerks. That Anything not Nvidia nerfing piece of crapware is a detriment to PC gaming and needs to die in a lake of fire. Use AMD's stuff since AMD's stuff is Open Sourced meaning the devs have full access to the code free of charge. That and the code is platform agnostic meaning that Nvidia can use it and it wont nerf their performance. Where Nvidia is Monopolistic and Closed and Anti-competitive, and anti-consumer; AMD is Competitive, Open, pro-consumer, and full of ideas and technology. After all, Nvidia did not think up HBM........AMD has been a serious member of the HBM development team since the beginning. All Nvidia has done is make Gamewerks and do everything possible to hinder competition all the way to rigging the contest.

Bonjour. I can understand your frustration, but there is nothing wrong with Gameworks. Nvidia tech is developed in a way that high end Hardware can support it ensuring that performance can be top notch. AMD loses out in this matter not only because their a different company, but also because their tech and Hardware are not as optimized and advanced as Nvidia's hardware. So it's natural that AMD would have for example, lower prices for their products, but the result being since their hardware and products haven't quite advanced as far as products from Intel and Nvidia, their are a handful of limitations involved with AMD. It's sort of like a trade off. You can buy the latest, top of the line Fighter Jet for a more expensive pop, or you can go with a decent Fighter Jet that can complete the tasks, but not as outstandingly, however the price of said Fighter is exceptionally less. It's more a budget thing. Never the less, one is better than the other. So when Nvidia for example goes to create these top of the line, next gen, and ground breaking technologies like realtime smoke, Waveworks, Grassworks and such, they're going to cater to the better Hardware that can support those kind of Next Gen Capabilities. It's simply natural selection.

[calin_banc 19]

AMD loses out in this matter not only because their a different company, but also because their tech and Hardware are not as optimized and advanced as Nvidia's hardware.

Optimized and advanced, funny you'd say that :D :

 

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3066/6520/original.jpg

 

Batman (nvidia game), R280x (which is basically an 7970 with some OC), is equal to 780/TI and ahead of the Titan (which was ~= R290 when the later launched) and around $1k (titan price).

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3066/6522/original.jpg

 

Also have a look how further ahead is the 7970 compared to GTX680 although at launch were more or less equal (even a 7870 can get pretty close to it). ;)

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_Waterforce/23.html

 

R290 (nov. 2013 card) = gtx970 (Sep 2014 card) @1440p. Basically 1 year old card from AMD = nvidia.

 

 

And if the rumors regarding asynchronous compute come true, you'll have another jump from AMD.

 

If memory serves, GCN has higher FLOPS/mm² than any other architecture

 

 

AMD problems are in regards with how much the devs are actually bothering optimizing their games for them, more so on nvidia games. What nvidia does is strip the hardware to the bare minimum you need for now, that's why you get some extra performance at some point or lower temperatures. It doesn't gets old in a spectacular fashion however.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Optimized and advanced, funny you'd say that :D :

 

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3066/6520/original.jpg

 

Batman (nvidia game), R280x (which is basically an 7970 with some OC), is equal to 780/TI and ahead of the Titan (which was ~= R290 when the later launched) and around $1k.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3066/6522/original.jpg

 

Also have a look how further ahead is the 7970 compared to GTX680 although at launch were more or less equal (even a 7870 can get pretty close to it). ;)

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_Waterforce/23.html

 

R290 (nov. 2013 card) = gtx970 (Sep 2014 carad) @1440p. Basically 1 year old card from AMD = nvidia.

 

 

And if the rumors regarding asynchronous compute come true, you'll have another jump from AMD.

 

 

AMD problems are in regards with how much the devs are actually bothering optimizing their games for them, more so on nvidia games. What nvidia does is strip the hardware to the bare minimum you need for now, that's why you get some extra performance at some point or lower temperatures. It doesn't gets old in a spectacular fashion however.

Great info there. Thanks. Yeah, i guess it also depends on the optimization of the game as well, seeing  as some old AMD cards do manage better than Nvidia in a number of cases. So really, you have to know a decent bit of info on the hardware in order to make a proper judgement in comparisons. I should probably look into this more, seeing as i'll be building a PC my self soon. Thanks for that.