Monday, December 16th 2019
AMD Publishes FEMFX Deformable Physics Library on GPUOpen
FEMFX is a multithreaded CPU library for deformable material physics, using the Finite Element Method (FEM). Solid objects are represented as a mesh of tetrahedral elements, and each element has material parameters that control stiffness, how volume changes with deformation, and stress limits where fracture or plastic (permanent) deformation occur. The model supports a wide range of materials and interactions between materials. We intend for these features to complement rather than replace traditional rigid body physics. The system is designed with the following considerations:
Features
- Fidelity: realistic-looking wood, metal, plastic, even glass, because they bend and break according to stress as real materials do.
- Deformation effects: non-rigid use cases such as soft-body objects, bending or warping objects. It is not just a visual effect, but materials will resist or push back on other objects.
- Changing material on the fly: you can change the settings to make the same object behave very differently, e.g., turn gelatinous or melt.
- Interesting physics interactions for gameplay or puzzles.
Features
- Elastic and plastic deformation
- Implicit integration for stability with stiff materials
- Kinematic control of mesh vertices
- Fracture between tetrahedral faces
- Non-fracturing faces to control shape of cracks and pieces
- Continuous collision detection (CCD) for fast-moving objects
- Constraints for contact resolution and to link objects together
- Constraints to limit deformation
- Dynamic control of tetrahedron material parameters
- Support for deforming a render mesh using the tetrahedral mesh
40 Comments on AMD Publishes FEMFX Deformable Physics Library on GPUOpen
get back to us when you have something better than we've had for years.
and a friggin screenshot in the OP. :laugh:
still,physics should be done on gpu.
physx is pretty good,played control this year,environmental destruction is absolutely ridiculous in boss fights.naturally it's not widely adopted tho.
Now, 8c / 16t are "normal" and you can already get 16c / 32t. There's little to no benefit in that many cores regarding performance increase in games but, if you can take advantage of those extra cores for Physics, that means the GPU can be less negatively affected by the performance penalty associated with those computations via GPU.
So long as it doesn't negatively affect frame times more than what's currently available via GPUs, it's a viable alternative, IMO.
3700x is nice as far as cost per core,but 8c/16t is not even close to being fully utilized.I never spent as much on any of my i7s as the 3700x costs and I think most pc gamers don't intend to either.I never even wanted an i7 but 2015 came,I got a 144hz dispaly,games got multithreaded and there was no other option than get a 4790k.seriously,whatever utility software most of us home/gaming rig owners run does well on a 9400f/3500x or even ryzen 3/core i3.it's for gaming we buy the CPU.
but seriously,btranrur,can we get at least a video ? people lauhged at rtx demos.I guess screenshots are preferred now.for physics.
I guess thats what happens when you buy hype.
take a game that uses some sort of cpu physics,bf5 as a good example,and see what happens to cpu loads during explosion.
what we have is gpu architectures that pack more and more compute power into smaller and smaller power envelopes.Exactly,like recommending buying 8c/16t workstation cpus for gaming cause of physics.
you got $700 to spend ? get a $200 cpu and a $500 gpu instead of packing a $350 cpu in there.
Also a lot of the Physx libraries aren't real time, most of the "GPU" work was precooked and prerendered. Meaning any GPU could render it, or any CPU could.
Out of order at 4Ghz is better than out of order on a GPU at 2Ghz, just how silicon design and cost work. And yes, I guess if I have the choice of a CPU with 20 cores and its faster and costs the same as a competitive CPU with 4 I will buy it.
let's wait and see how this thing turns out.
Discuss nicely.
If you are trolling... stop it.
Take your arguing to PMs.
Thank you.
Its more wishful thinking than anything mind; I am still baffled we're exploring RT while proper physics is still in its infancy after so many years.
But the more likely route is that CPUs will simply keep gaining cores and once mainstream has come up to 8c (we're closing fast) a CPU library is becoming very useful. AMD's timing here is quite right, and it will further enforce their core/thread advantage vs Intel too. Its probably better too, we don't need another Physx with ditto adoption.
as for the rt,since what I wrote above very much relates to shadows,I'm glad rt came along.we're wasting resources for incredibly accurate and sharp shadows,while the goal should be totally somewhere else.smooth,life-like and dynamic.
look at reflections too.SSR looks like crap in many cases.want high quality ssr reflections ? in rdr2 they perfected it at the cost of 40% performance hit.ridiculous,might as well get rtx option,would run the same and look better.
I think a combined approach of "precooked" tables and vector data which can be handled easily on a CPU core handed to the GPU for Z depth pass, lookup tables of reflectivity values while running the ray tracing, then use the rendered angle values for objects and store that as long as its in frame and only have to update the angle relative to the "user" to update the shadow and reflection map. Its going to take new hardware, and its still computationally expensive, but so was AF for a long time, then we found the right way to do it in hardware with almost no performance penalty.
Physics can do the same, its all just math, and a lot of it, but hardware acceleration for other things are just data tables or actual physical transistors in the right pattern to match an algorithm.
apparently people who were screaming amd cards we superior in terms of compute pefromance conveniently forgot about it for the sake of arguing (not you)