61–70 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great stuff, but man, what a reality check. The most cutting-edge physics and graphics effects and it's used to sell beer and candy bars.
Actually, I was once talking to a friend that does photography for print ads: I was surprised to find out that most of the highly detailed stills of, say, lipstick or champagne coming out of a bottle are actual photographs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great stuff, but man, what a reality check. The most cutting-edge physics and graphics effects and it's used to sell beer and candy bars.
Actually, I was once talking to a friend that does photography for print ads: I was surprised to find out that most of the highly detailed stills of, say, lipstick or champagne coming out of a bottle are actual photographs.
Fun trick: Pause the simulation with the space bar. Then, take your mouse and drag it on the surface of the water, you will notice it creates ripples but in the paused state. Drag the mouse rapidly back and forth in a very tiny area so that it creates a layered 'ripple' that grows and grows. If you spend about 2 minutes doing this you can make the ripple go like 10 feet high completely off the screen. Then unpause th…
Rather than dragging, just click in the same spot hundreds of times to make a huge tower of water, then unpause to see a single ring of concentric waves and perfect wave reflection/interaction effects.
edit: The white sphere don't use the real level of water to decide where it should float (when gravity is activated)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great stuff, but man, what a reality check. The most cutting-edge physics and graphics effects and it's used to sell beer and candy bars.
Some of those examples were clearly not real but some - the snickers bar being split - seemed pretty real. I wonder if those very realistic shots are usable in UK adverts without disclaimers? As an example, see ads for mascara which get regulated if they use computer enhanced lashes and no disclaimer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-dDfarZuY
I'd say without a doubt that shots like 0:25 or 3:00 were CGI...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I was once talking to a friend that does photography for print ads: I was surprised to find out that most of the highly detailed stills of, say, lipstick or champagne coming out of a bottle are actual photographs.
Why were you surprised by that/How did you assume they were made otherwise?
I thought that champagne overflowing from a bottle was not made with real champagne over and over again until you got the perfect shot.
I was also surprised to find out that when the background had a nice motion blur it was sometimes actual motion blur made with a rotating rig that had the camera and the object to be shot on it.
Doing this in a browser is a neat trick, but the actual state-of-the-art in realtime GPU fluids is slightly more impressive. nVidias FleX middleware is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0Nuq71gI4
So, does that Flex system BASICALLY imply that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? It seems to me that it's only a lateral step then to mimic the fluid like effects of explosive forces being applied to solids.
Also not a graphics programmer, but I am a scientist who has model liquids and solids at the molecular level–a lot of this is doable today, but I doubt it'll ever be applied directly to a macroscopic graphics engine. There are quite simply too many atoms: there's 1 mole (6e23 atoms) in 18g of water. At best, todays chips have several billion transistors (5e9). Even at one transistor per molecule, the numbers just don't add up.
There are lots of multi-scale modelling techniques though, where you directly model the system on the atomic scale in just a few small volumes, e.g. at the tip of a crack just before it propagates. It's not impossible that sort of thing will make an appearance, though I'd still be surprised. Graphics programming is all smoke and mirrors; if it's easier to approximate something using an unphysical process that looks right, people will favour that over an exact simulation that takes far more computing power.
That's awesome, and holy cow I think this is the first time I've ever seen Chrome on Linux actually render WebGL. Did they finally enable it by default in recent updates?
Doing this in a browser is a neat trick, but the actual state-of-the-art in realtime GPU fluids is slightly more impressive. nVidias FleX middleware is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0Nuq71gI4
So, does that Flex system BASICALLY imply that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? It seems to me that it's only a lateral step then to mimic the fluid like effects of explosive forces being applied to solids.