inCrysis - Crysis Forums

I wonder how Crytek got such smooth frames in their video of the nuke.

And BTW when it went off the force of it DID NOT move the player in Cryteks videos(allowing you to watch stuff flung around alll around you), in your second link, you were pushed away by the force of the Nuke, as if you were a piece of the building, strange ... any clue on how to fix that?

Looks pretty good by the way, nice work.

unfunf wrote:

Neat stuff! The second video kind of made me recall "The Hills have Eyes."

Is there a way to actually make the shockwave have some sort of delay? If you got that working and the dust kick-up as well, you'd have a very realistic nuke.

oh yes thank you for reminding me, i do know how i will do that tomorrow, im tired. lol. oh and the question about me flying, i only fly if i jump or if i die. I was in god mode so i dint die, but i did jump so i flew like all the other objects. But you dont move if you stay on the gorund and dont die, u may move a liitle but thats because of the force of explosion. Also, i played those videos at like 0.6 fps lol. My CPU sucks, need a new one, i just edited the videos.

That is amazing! Please release it soon! I love explosives.

Trapazoid wrote:

Lmao! I'll tell you how! Using some next gen **** that the public hasn't even seen yet, supplied to them by Nvidia. Or rendering it frame by frame so they can compile it all to one smooth video in the end!

I am pretty sure it's the 2nd. There's no reason for companies to keep next-gen things underwraps completely, as it would actually negatively effect sales (if more people hear about something, more people will buy the product at the begining because of rumors they have heard about its performance).

Cuban_Legend wrote:

I wonder how Crytek got such smooth frames in their video of the nuke.

And BTW when it went off the force of it DID NOT move the player in Cryteks videos(allowing you to watch stuff flung around alll around you), in your second link, you were pushed away by the force of the Nuke, as if you were a piece of the building, strange ... any clue on how to fix that?

Looks pretty good by the way, nice work.

Heheh i think i know why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw&NR=1

unfunf wrote:

Trapazoid wrote:

Lmao! I'll tell you how! Using some next gen **** that the public hasn't even seen yet, supplied to them by Nvidia. Or rendering it frame by frame so they can compile it all to one smooth video in the end!

I am pretty sure it's the 2nd. There's no reason for companies to keep next-gen things underwraps completely, as it would actually negatively effect sales (if more people hear about something, more people will buy the product at the begining because of rumors they have heard about its performance).

Well, the clip of the nuke from Crytek had 3 or 4 buildings in it, that was it. The landscape was mostly barren too, so there wasn't that much going on when you really think about it. There was quite a lot of debris though.

Good points PE2, but I still think it was probably not a real-time render. Even though there are not too many buildings, the amount of particle interactions in that video were far more than what Crysis was built for in real-time. The CryEngine2 physics engine is meant to handle houses exploding, trees being blown over, etc; however, only 1-2 houses without a significant slowdown in fps. 3-4 houses being blown to pieces as well as a large amount of particle interactions for the dust (even optimized, it's still going to be a lot of interaction), would bring a QX9770 overclocked to 4 ghz to 15-20 fps. Indeed, something that is playable, I suppose; however, that video looked completely smooth, a completely steady 30 fps. I really doubt that is doable in real-time with our current hardware. Maybe a few folks over at Xtremesystems can clock a QX9770 to 5.7+ ghz (I've seen it done) and render that video in real time smoothly. Of course, only while they keep feeding the system liquid nitrogen to keep the processor from melting.

Now maybe there's a way to somewhat solve this.

I recall the 'Mass physics' creator stating that it took him 8 seconds to render one frame. That was for a couple of thousand crates interacting. So, let's say 3000 crates, and let's say the interactions scale linearly (I'm pretty sure they don't). So, to get down to 30 FPS  we would need: 3000/8 = 375/1 (375 crates for 1 fps), 375/30 = 12.5 (13) crates for 30 fps. That's not a lot of crates. Of course, someone could actually try this with the editor and see how close that estimate is to see how accurate I am (probably not very). The point is, magnitude. the interactions of 13 crates are not as cpu hogging as the interactions of dust particles 3-4 houses together, unless the dust particles are really just a couple of large areas on the ground and are effected in groups, in which case, if optimized enough, I suppose that could help fps a lot.

I'm just speculating; however, just seeing the video and comparing the amount of interactions to the amount of interactions for a crate, and then seeing how many crates (very roughly) you can mess with and stay above or at 30 fps, leads me to believe that a fully optimized crysis trying to render that scene would chug along at 15-20 fps on the best of quadcores.

Last edited by unfunf (20-12-2007 01:30:16)

Damn, read it like 'Nude physics made real!!!'

Good stuff Rad64.