G.Skill KM360 Keyboard Review
Alphacool EISBAER Ex BLACK LCS review
Netgear Nighthawk AX12 Wi-Fi 6 router review
Corsair HS60 PRO Surround Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 Gaming X review
Team Group Cardea II NVMe 1 TB SSD Review
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Patriot P200 1TB SATA3 SSD Review
ASRock Radeon RX 5700 XT Taichi OC+ review
AMD Shows TressFX 2.0 hair technology
Lichdom: Battlemage will be the first game that uses TressFX 2.0, the latest iterartion AMDs hair rendering technology. TressFX 2.0 promises even better hair rendering with continuous levels of details (LODs), improved efficiency with many light sources, a new self-shadowing option and more.
WHAT’S NEXT FOR TRESSFX HAIR?
As Crystal Dynamics worked to bring TressFX to other platforms, we have been busy developing an even newer version of our award-winning hair tech.
In November we announced “TressFX 2.0,” an update to the effect that brings several notable changes:
- New functionality to support for grass and fur
- Continuous levels of details (LODs) are designed to improve performance by dynamically adjusting visual detail as TressFX-enabled objects move towards and away from the player’s POV
- Improved efficiency with many light sources and shaders via deferred rendering
- Superior self-shadowing for better depth and texture in the hair
- Even more robust scalability across GPUs of varying performance envelopes (vs. TressFX 1.0)
- Modular code and porting documentation
- Stretchiness now respects the laws of physics
- and numerous bug fixes!
Starting with grass and fur, implementing realistic physics for these objects is rather similar to hair: treat each strand as a chain, group chains together, and then apply an external force. There is obviously some voodoo at work to make grass and fur behave more like grass and fur, and rather less like long hair, but the principles are so similar that they’re a logical extension to TressFX’s capabilities.
In designing TressFX 2.0, we addressed a notable issue in our hair physics simulation: stretchiness. Extreme linear and angular acceleration of a fast-moving or fast-turning character could cause the hair sim to appear unnaturally stretchy. In very rare instances, the physics model could even prevent the hair from ever recovering its original length.
Full details over here.
BTW the open mud-fights with Nvidia thes edays, just wow: "In contrast, NVIDIA’s Hairworks technology is seven times slower on AMD hardware with no obvious route to achieve cross-vendor optimizations as enabled by open access to TressFX source. As the code for Hairworks cannot be downloaded, analyzed or modified, developers and enthusiasts alike must suffer through unacceptably poor performance on a significant chunk of the industry’s graphics hardware. With TressFX Hair, the value of openly-shared game code is clear."
AMD Shows details new Athlon X2 and X4 processors - 08/29/2014 02:22 PM
AMD has shared the specifications of three new Athlon X2 and X4 processors. Two quad and one dual-core are being presented, these are based on Kaveri architecture, but interestingly enough do not hav...
AMD Shows First Displays with FreeSync Support - 06/05/2014 03:30 PM
AMD announced a competitive and affordable solution to tackle Nvidia's Gsync, it goes under the name FreeSync also known as Adaptive Sync. AMD right now is demonstrating desktop monitors and no longe...
AMD Shows Seattle ARM-based server chip for first time - 05/07/2014 09:02 AM
AMD gave its first public demonstration of Seattle, the company's upcoming ARM-based server processor. The chip is based on the ARM Cortex-A57 core and AMD demonstrated it by giving a web hosting de...
AMD Shows Embedded Product Roadmap - 09/10/2013 09:08 AM
AMD disclosed its roadmap for the fast-growing embedded computing market, as it becomes the first company to offer both ARM and x86 processor solutions for low-power and high-performance embedded comp...
AMD Shows New A-Series Notebook APUs - 12/08/2011 01:42 PM
Yesterday AMD
Mato87
Senior Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 2012-11-22
Senior Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 2012-11-22
#4925121 Posted on: 09/29/2014 11:52 AM
I do hope so
The definite editions were using the tressfx 2.0 afaik look here
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off
Also there were a couple of other different additions for tomb raider definitive edition compared to the pc version.
So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?
I do hope so
The definite editions were using the tressfx 2.0 afaik look here
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off
Also there were a couple of other different additions for tomb raider definitive edition compared to the pc version.
Tree Dude
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
#4925253 Posted on: 09/29/2014 02:44 PM
Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.
Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9350
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9350
Joined: 2011-09-21
#4925314 Posted on: 09/29/2014 03:59 PM
The bias is strong in this one.
AFAIK TressFX2.0 was in TR: DE.
Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.
The bias is strong in this one.
AFAIK TressFX2.0 was in TR: DE.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
#4925323 Posted on: 09/29/2014 04:12 PM
And at the same time bashing nvidia's tech.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike the fact that nvidia keeps much of their similar tech proprietary, but by this
paragraph alone, I'm beginning to change my opinion on amd.
Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.
And at the same time bashing nvidia's tech.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike the fact that nvidia keeps much of their similar tech proprietary, but by this
In contrast, NVIDIA’s Hairworks technology is seven times slower on AMD hardware with no obvious route to achieve cross-vendor optimizations as enabled by open access to TressFX source. As the code for Hairworks cannot be downloaded, analyzed or modified, developers and enthusiasts alike must suffer through unacceptably poor performance on a significant chunk of the industry’s graphics hardware. With TressFX Hair, the value of openly-shared game code is clear.
paragraph alone, I'm beginning to change my opinion on amd.
scatman839
Senior Member
Posts: 13966
Joined: 2004-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 13966
Joined: 2004-11-19
#4925341 Posted on: 09/29/2014 04:24 PM
I'd assume they would be too busy making the next tomb raider to bother going back and adding features.
So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?
I'd assume they would be too busy making the next tomb raider to bother going back and adding features.
anub1s18
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 2009-03-21
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 2009-03-21
#4925342 Posted on: 09/29/2014 04:27 PM
i'll have to check out a game with tressFX 2.0 then, since in 1.0 amd's beautifull charts were reversed... especially the right one.
remember having 50fps+ in tomb raider (granted on a dated GTX 470) turning on tress FX and getting slapped down to .5fps
i'll have to check out a game with tressFX 2.0 then, since in 1.0 amd's beautifull charts were reversed... especially the right one.
remember having 50fps+ in tomb raider (granted on a dated GTX 470) turning on tress FX and getting slapped down to .5fps
Tree Dude
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
#4925344 Posted on: 09/29/2014 04:30 PM
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
The bias is strong in this one.
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9350
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9350
Joined: 2011-09-21
#4925366 Posted on: 09/29/2014 04:56 PM
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.
nhlkoho
Senior Member
Posts: 7708
Joined: 2005-12-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7708
Joined: 2005-12-06
#4925375 Posted on: 09/29/2014 05:07 PM
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
TressFX Hair vs Hairworks
FreeSync vs Gsync
OpenCL vs CUDA
Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
#4925381 Posted on: 09/29/2014 05:12 PM
Cool. I though the boob motion on tomb raider was spot on. wink
Cool. I though the boob motion on tomb raider was spot on. wink
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4424
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4424
Joined: 2012-11-10
#4925384 Posted on: 09/29/2014 05:18 PM
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
Because Physx today, to my knowledge, isn't just an API. It requires specific architectural changes too. That's how nvidia does everything - their designs are specific to their hardware and are their property. Nvidia is not under any obligation to give away these designs, but because of this, the software that goes with them has to be closed-source too or else too much info is revealed on how they get things done and their research doesn't turn a profit. Nvidia makes their own products like hairworks, physx, cuda, and gsync because they can heavily optimize it. Each of those products are probably more efficient than their competitors, but each of the competitors isn't restricted to one platform. Nvidia has always taken their own path and every time they did they've been able to prove their worth. However, they alienate developers and customers.
Sometimes it isn't always about being right, but being part of the community. Nvidia has a hard time understanding that. I like AMD and nvidia equally (for different reasons) but AMD is slowly growing on me as a better company. Nvidia wants the best experience, but AMD wants everyone to have access to the latest technologies, even if that means sacrificing performance or efficiency.
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
Because Physx today, to my knowledge, isn't just an API. It requires specific architectural changes too. That's how nvidia does everything - their designs are specific to their hardware and are their property. Nvidia is not under any obligation to give away these designs, but because of this, the software that goes with them has to be closed-source too or else too much info is revealed on how they get things done and their research doesn't turn a profit. Nvidia makes their own products like hairworks, physx, cuda, and gsync because they can heavily optimize it. Each of those products are probably more efficient than their competitors, but each of the competitors isn't restricted to one platform. Nvidia has always taken their own path and every time they did they've been able to prove their worth. However, they alienate developers and customers.
Sometimes it isn't always about being right, but being part of the community. Nvidia has a hard time understanding that. I like AMD and nvidia equally (for different reasons) but AMD is slowly growing on me as a better company. Nvidia wants the best experience, but AMD wants everyone to have access to the latest technologies, even if that means sacrificing performance or efficiency.
Tree Dude
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
Senior Member
Posts: 532
Joined: 2005-10-09
#4925407 Posted on: 09/29/2014 05:53 PM
They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.
You may be right, but we will never really know. FreeSync hasn't been around long enough to be considered "vaporware". Lots of support from scailer manufactures was announced.
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
You are mistaken on both of these. Nvidia offered AMD compatibility for having an Nvidia card run the Physics and an AMD card do graphics as a supported config. Not have an AMD card run the Physics. You could do some hacks on older drivers to get it working, but now it no longer works.
The SDK for CUDA is for software developers (hence it being call a Software Development Kit). It has nothing to do with allowing other hardware to do the computation.
They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.
You may be right, but we will never really know. FreeSync hasn't been around long enough to be considered "vaporware". Lots of support from scailer manufactures was announced.
Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech?
Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.
You are mistaken on both of these. Nvidia offered AMD compatibility for having an Nvidia card run the Physics and an AMD card do graphics as a supported config. Not have an AMD card run the Physics. You could do some hacks on older drivers to get it working, but now it no longer works.
The SDK for CUDA is for software developers (hence it being call a Software Development Kit). It has nothing to do with allowing other hardware to do the computation.
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16383
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 16383
Joined: 2012-05-18
#4925423 Posted on: 09/29/2014 06:12 PM
But physx has connection with TressFX or NV Hairworks, dunno why always this same old bs going on..
Eidos should import TressFX2.0 to original TombRaider but they're too greedy to do that now, they rather make it console exclusive and call it a day.
But physx has connection with TressFX or NV Hairworks, dunno why always this same old bs going on..
Eidos should import TressFX2.0 to original TombRaider but they're too greedy to do that now, they rather make it console exclusive and call it a day.
GhostXL
Senior Member
Posts: 6009
Joined: 2004-10-30
Senior Member
Posts: 6009
Joined: 2004-10-30
#4925490 Posted on: 09/29/2014 07:20 PM
People complaining about Nvidia being closed do not understand the whole issue.
AMD refused Nvidia's help with their drivers to support Physx. So that is that.
They did that yeaaaarrrs ago.
People complaining about Nvidia being closed do not understand the whole issue.
AMD refused Nvidia's help with their drivers to support Physx. So that is that.
They did that yeaaaarrrs ago.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 15764
Joined: 2004-08-18
So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?