Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Powder Toy

powdertoy.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: The Powder Toy

#11

Post by halomru »

chc4 wrote: post #10
halomru wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have serious doubts a 3d version would be better. It would be hard (if possible at all) to make an equally simple interface that conveys the same information and is equally easy and fast to use while allowing free 3d interaction. Maybe that becomes a lot easier once virtual reality and 3d input devices become common, but until then I think there are better ways to use extra computation power

The grandparent said GPU simulation, for the extreme parallel benefits, not making it 3D. Encoding the simulation in a GPU shader, for example.

I should have been clearer, I was referring only to the last part of the last sentence

>Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make that 3D version.

Which I interpreted as "once GPU simulation makes things fast, why not make a 3d simulation"

Apart from that part I agree with the ancestor comment, the code seems to do CPU simulation and GPU simulation is likely to be faster. On the other hand GPU simulation would likely mean rewriting the entire simulation engine from scratch, so I'm not holding my breath.

Re: The Powder Toy

#12

Post by vortico »

moron4hire wrote: post #6

Are you simulating the powder on the GPU or the CPU? I couldn't find any shader code that looked relevant to the sim, so I'm guessing it's the CPU. Any plans on making a GPU version? Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make that 3D version.

Everything's on the CPU right now. Since the interactions between particles is incredibly complex and is designed for serial execution, the best place to start is rendering visuals like fire and blob effects. However, on my machine there is little difference in performance when toggling this feature on/off.

Re: The Powder Toy

#13

Post by agumonkey »

oxplot wrote: post #5

Some interesting electronics examples I found on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbSmrjmP85Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0zHiVw-c7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4eHgnLFk9k

the 3rd one, microcomputer, is pretty amazing.

Re: The Powder Toy

#14

Post by goomanhimer »

oxplot wrote: post #5

Some interesting electronics examples I found on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbSmrjmP85Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0zHiVw-c7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4eHgnLFk9k

I actually made a bi-propellant rocket engine in this sim, though I had to use a lua script to get the hydrogen to be in liquid form it works surprisingly well. https://twitter.com/Goomanhimer/status/694048595041976320

Re: The Powder Toy

#15

Post by moron4hire »

halomru wrote: post #11
chc4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent said GPU simulation, for the extreme parallel benefits, not making it 3D. Encoding the simulation in a GPU shader, for example.

I should have been clearer, I was referring only to the last part of the last sentence >Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make that 3D version. Which I interpreted as "once GPU simulation makes things fast, why not make a 3d simulation" Apart from that part I agree with the ancestor comment, the code seems to do CPU simulation and GPU simulation is likely to be faster. On the other hand…

There was commentary in the FAQ that he was not going to try to make a 3D version because of the perf issues. I assumed that meant figuring out GPU sim would mean he'd try to make a 3D version.

Re: The Powder Toy

#17

Post by irascible »

halomru wrote: post #11
chc4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grandparent said GPU simulation, for the extreme parallel benefits, not making it 3D. Encoding the simulation in a GPU shader, for example.

I should have been clearer, I was referring only to the last part of the last sentence >Seems loke you'd be able to overcome the perf issues and finally make that 3D version. Which I interpreted as "once GPU simulation makes things fast, why not make a 3d simulation" Apart from that part I agree with the ancestor comment, the code seems to do CPU simulation and GPU simulation is likely to be faster. On the other hand…

The sheer number of particle types would make a gpu implementation pretty tricky.. but for a vanilla version it can work.
Post reply on HN