Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › Completely Destructible Level Made With The UDK and APEX Destruction
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Completely Destructible Level Made With The UDK and APEX Destruction - Page 2

post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinnuke View Post
Ill tell you why.

Physics takes up processing power.
If you want a true to life engine where if you take out something below that object you have to continually check EVERY object on screen multiple times per second. (Frame Rate)

Now do you want to see your CPU bottle neck and run a 1FPS? Didn't think so. that's why.
I just don't see why they can't stop checking objects once they come to a rest. It'd be the same difference as not checking the objects before any interactions come their way.

I must be wrong in that thinking, or they would do it. I just don't understand why it wouldn't work that way.
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinnuke View Post
Ill tell you why.

Physics takes up processing power.
If you want a true to life engine where if you take out something below that object you have to continually check EVERY object on screen multiple times per second. (Frame Rate)

Now do you want to see your CPU bottle neck and run a 1FPS? Didn't think so. that's why.
With HT and 6/8 cores CPUs hitting the market, there will be enough CPU power to handle it. It depends on the devs to develop it which could cost more than they actually want to spend. DICE said that it wouldn't be cost effective for most studios to build their own engine with destruction like Frostbite. Unless the game can properly scale to higher end hardware, I can see how they would want to keep the object count low for lower end systems.
Render Bender
(10 items)
 
On The Move
(11 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel X5690 Xeon (12 Cores @ 3.46) Nvidia Titan Xp 64GB 1333MHz ECC DDR3 Samsung 850 EVO 1TB x2 - RAID 0 
MonitorCaseAudio
Samsung UN40JU6700 40" 4K Curved Apple Mac Pro 2010 Klipsch 2.1 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 8GB 1067 MHz DDR3 Toshiba 500GB 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Mavericks 10.9 Dell U3011 Rosewill Mech Reds 2010 Unibody 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G700 Multi-Touch Kilpsch 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Render Bender
(10 items)
 
On The Move
(11 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel X5690 Xeon (12 Cores @ 3.46) Nvidia Titan Xp 64GB 1333MHz ECC DDR3 Samsung 850 EVO 1TB x2 - RAID 0 
MonitorCaseAudio
Samsung UN40JU6700 40" 4K Curved Apple Mac Pro 2010 Klipsch 2.1 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 8GB 1067 MHz DDR3 Toshiba 500GB 
OSMonitorKeyboardCase
Mavericks 10.9 Dell U3011 Rosewill Mech Reds 2010 Unibody 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G700 Multi-Touch Kilpsch 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinnuke View Post
Ill tell you why.

Physics takes up processing power.
If you want a true to life engine where if you take out something below that object you have to continually check EVERY object on screen multiple times per second. (Frame Rate)

Now do you want to see your CPU bottle neck and run a 1FPS? Didn't think so. that's why.
Havok and other engines handle this just fine (for CPU). As objects come to a rest they require almost no CPU whatsoever. When something not at rest enters their proximity is when they begin to use CPU again.

What all of these individual shapes and objects at rest do require however are memory. And if you destroy something they're all resting on and activate all of them again, then your CPU usage could spike.

And finally, whether or not they're on screen has no bearing on physics simulations, they have to simulate the same regardless, unless the programmer specifically lowers simulation rate for objects off-screen, but that can affect collision accuracy.
Edited by lordikon - 4/15/11 at 6:38pm
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjpctech View Post
knock a support out yet the roof stays up???

Sucks
All he did was just put a bunch of phys props and snapped them next to each other. The thing is Unreal won't activate the physics calcs. on an object until it's hit or interacted with by the player. You can force it to be on by default but I bet you anything all of those pieces would have fallen apart if he had done it that way.

In short this is a pretty simple Physx test.
World Builder 2.0
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 ASUS GTX560ti (384c) G.Skill Ares 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ 60GB Vertex 2 + OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 + Samsun... CM Hyper 212 Plus Win7 Pro Asus 23" + Samsung 19" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM QuickFire Rapid (Black Switch) Corsair TX750w Corsair 500r (Black) Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
World Builder 2.0
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 ASUS GTX560ti (384c) G.Skill Ares 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ 60GB Vertex 2 + OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 + Samsun... CM Hyper 212 Plus Win7 Pro Asus 23" + Samsung 19" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM QuickFire Rapid (Black Switch) Corsair TX750w Corsair 500r (Black) Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Completely Destructible Level
Didnt see him destroying the sand/rock...

And honestly I could care less about physics unless it has huge impact on the game play. Like more then just destroying cover. I want to tunnel through buildings, make fox holes, collapse buildings/rooms on top of people and crush them, ram a vehicle into a building and have the (assumingly small) building topple over. ETC. Those are just examples for fps games, the possibilities are endless and I hope developers wont waste the tech on purely graphical physics.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtSpike View Post
I just don't see why they can't stop checking objects once they come to a rest. It'd be the same difference as not checking the objects before any interactions come their way.

I must be wrong in that thinking, or they would do it. I just don't understand why it wouldn't work that way.
While I can't speak from alot experience, typically if anything sounds simple to do in Unreal, it usually isn't.

I would suspect setting up a system to check every single piece of geo. would probably require more CPU overhead than is practical. Also, after a certain amount of pieces had fallen you'd start to seriously lag out the video card. At some point, whatever the case, you would have to start removing pieces of geo, or face a completely unplayable level, given enough destruction.
World Builder 2.0
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 ASUS GTX560ti (384c) G.Skill Ares 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ 60GB Vertex 2 + OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 + Samsun... CM Hyper 212 Plus Win7 Pro Asus 23" + Samsung 19" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM QuickFire Rapid (Black Switch) Corsair TX750w Corsair 500r (Black) Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
World Builder 2.0
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3770K ASRock Z77 Extreme 4 ASUS GTX560ti (384c) G.Skill Ares 16GB  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ 60GB Vertex 2 + OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 + Samsun... CM Hyper 212 Plus Win7 Pro Asus 23" + Samsung 19" 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CM QuickFire Rapid (Black Switch) Corsair TX750w Corsair 500r (Black) Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by superhead91 View Post
This. The demo is cool, but imagine all the stuff that would have to be rendered if everything stayed. You would need to sell your soul to buy a rig that could play a game that fully implemented this level of destruction.
Not really. From a certain point of view it's true, but you only need to calculate dynamic relationships. Once the object has come to rest, change it back to passive, until it gets interacted with again.
post #18 of 53
I wonder how BF3's destructible environment will be...
Mostly For Gaming
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K EK cooled ASUS x79 680, EK cooled G.skill 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
512GB 840 Pro  ASUS DVD Burner 3 Loops which consist of 7 Waterblocks, 4 Radia... 8.1pro 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ZR30w S-IPS 2560x1600 Ɠ19 SILVERSTONE ST 1500W Custom 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Ɠ500 Ɍocketfish SENNHEISER 
  hide details  
Reply
Mostly For Gaming
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K EK cooled ASUS x79 680, EK cooled G.skill 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
512GB 840 Pro  ASUS DVD Burner 3 Loops which consist of 7 Waterblocks, 4 Radia... 8.1pro 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ZR30w S-IPS 2560x1600 Ɠ19 SILVERSTONE ST 1500W Custom 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Ɠ500 Ɍocketfish SENNHEISER 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by [\\/]Paris View Post
While I can't speak from alot experience, typically if anything sounds simple to do in Unreal, it usually isn't.

I would suspect setting up a system to check every single piece of geo. would probably require more CPU overhead than is practical. Also, after a certain amount of pieces had fallen you'd start to seriously lag out the video card. At some point, whatever the case, you would have to start removing pieces of geo, or face a completely unplayable level, given enough destruction.
A decent physics engine will implement some efficient spacial partitioning so that each piece doesn't have to check collision against each other piece. This demo would be pretty simple using Havok or PhysX, I've never used unreal 3 however, maybe it's not as easy for something like this. Regardless, having a lot of separate pieces means more vertices, polygons, draw calls, VRAM and system RAM usage, and some CPU.
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinnuke View Post
Ill tell you why.

Physics takes up processing power.
If you want a true to life engine where if you take out something below that object you have to continually check EVERY object on screen multiple times per second. (Frame Rate)

Now do you want to see your CPU bottle neck and run a 1FPS? Didn't think so. that's why.
No, there are tricks around it just like the tricks used today for graphics. Developers know how to optimize.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post
Havok and other engines handle this just fine (for CPU). As objects come to a rest they require almost no CPU whatsoever. When something not at rest enters their proximity is when they begin to use CPU again.

What all of these individual shapes and objects at rest do require however are memory. And if you destroy something they're all resting on and activate all of them again, then your CPU usage could spike.

And finally, whether or not they're on screen has no bearing on physics simulations, they have to simulate the same regardless, unless the programmer specifically lowers simulation rate for objects off-screen, but that can affect collision accuracy.
Yup, the same exact concept as draw distance. Make object that are close detailed/interaction, make object medium distance less detailed/interaction, make distance objects nearly static, and then add some fog/blur.


If ray-tracing every gets do-able, object collision can come free for the asking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [\\/]Paris View Post
While I can't speak from alot experience, typically if anything sounds simple to do in Unreal, it usually isn't.

I would suspect setting up a system to check every single piece of geo. would probably require more CPU overhead than is practical. Also, after a certain amount of pieces had fallen you'd start to seriously lag out the video card. At some point, whatever the case, you would have to start removing pieces of geo, or face a completely unplayable level, given enough destruction.
You can cheat. If an object is not broken yet, consider it as a single object. Only when there is a player-induced interaction, do you apply the necessary additional calculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USFORCES View Post
I wonder how BF3's destructible environment will be...
Destructible environments are relatively easy.... if you consider what BF3 will have to do. They have to do multiplayer, large scale destructible environments.
Edited by DuckieHo - 4/15/11 at 7:38pm
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › Completely Destructible Level Made With The UDK and APEX Destruction