Does the game industry need phycisists?
Author
Well, I''m about to graduate in physics (computational physics) and I''m wondering if I m likely to be interesting for the industry in the near future..
What do you think?
lcf
You bet!!
Now graphics quality is stabilizing sort of and the only thing we need is more processing power, physics are becoming more and more important.
Surely graphics quality will improve but no (or very few) groundbreaking algorithms will popup. The physics side of games (or interactive simulations) can get a lot better however. Take a look at Halo. THese people have sick physics!!!
Good physics will become more and more important in the strive for realism.
Well, that''s the way I think it will be
Japio
Now graphics quality is stabilizing sort of and the only thing we need is more processing power, physics are becoming more and more important.
Surely graphics quality will improve but no (or very few) groundbreaking algorithms will popup. The physics side of games (or interactive simulations) can get a lot better however. Take a look at Halo. THese people have sick physics!!!
Good physics will become more and more important in the strive for realism.
Well, that''s the way I think it will be
Japio
Hmm, I doubt that there will only be "small" advances in computer graphics in the near future, because I know a whole bunch of people working on very diverse, and very revolutionary techniques.
On the other hand, it definately is time that some of the other areas such as Physics and AI finally get some of the limelight, so they can be developed to the same degree...
On the other hand, it definately is time that some of the other areas such as Physics and AI finally get some of the limelight, so they can be developed to the same degree...
Revolutionar techniques?
Basically I think that SGI already did everything and all the game industrie has to do is wait for the power to do it too. But ofcourse I could be mistaken. sorry.
Basically I think that SGI already did everything and all the game industrie has to do is wait for the power to do it too. But ofcourse I could be mistaken. sorry
.
No decent game is complete without physics. And if you learn to code as well you''ll be a valuable team member. Another major part of game design is maths and if you have a physics degree you''ll probably be able to do you 2+2s :0
//--- Created by Tom Oram ---
// tom.oram@vodafone.net
//--- Created by Tom Oram ---
// tom.oram@vodafone.net
quote:Original post by s9801758
Revolutionar techniques?
Basically I think that SGI already did everything and all the game industrie has to do is wait for the power to do it too. But ofcourse I could be mistaken. sorry
Well let me give you a few names to look out for:
-"Voxel Texturing" as a technique that''s reaching correctness, speed and useability
-"Oxygen3D" as a game engine that will knock the socks off Quake3''s engine.
SGI''s main thrust was towards polygons, and yes, they did most of it already and we''re waiting for power to do the same. But polygons aren''t the end of the universe as far as graphics are concerned, there are other techniques, more procedural or volume based, in which there has been little or no research into real-time applications.
( I for one am doing a PhD dissertation on Image-Based Rendering.... )
> Well let me give you a few names to look out for:
> -"Voxel Texturing" as a technique that''s reaching
> correctness, speed and useability
Okay, you''re right about the fact that sgi hasn''t been doing voxel textures. But other people already did lot''s of voxel research and the only problem with voxels is speed and mem requirements.
-"Oxygen3D" as a game engine that will knock the socks off Quake3''s engine.
Yeah I''ve seen oxygen3D and it does indeed look promising. But nothing revolutionary. It does curves, polies, advanced phsysics etc etc but nothing somebody else hasn''t thought of before.
I''m not saying that an engine has to be revolutionary. Not at all, (oxygen3d rocks!!) but what I''m trying to say is that in the Computer Graphics field allmost everything already has been thought of.
> SGI''s main thrust was towards polygons, and yes, they did
> most of it already and we''re waiting for power to
> do the same. But polygons aren''t the end of the
> universe as far as graphics are concerned, there are
> other techniques,
You''re right.
> more procedural
This is one I think could indeed be investigated further. When graphics power will grow, then modelers won''t keep up detail wise (no modeler can build a city with over 4 biljon polys). Therefore we will need procedural generated geometry.
> or volume based, in which there has been little or no
> research into real-time applications.
What about hospitals and scans?
> ( I for one am doing a PhD dissertation on Image-Based
> Rendering.... )
Sounds interesting.
What I''m trying to say is that all research at this moment is focused on bringing old techniques into realtime applications. But most of the time people find out that in the end we just need more power. That research time could''ve been spend on other things.
Well, that''s the way i think my two cents.
Jaap Suter
Mmmm, I''ll have to think of one.
> -"Voxel Texturing" as a technique that''s reaching
> correctness, speed and useability
Okay, you''re right about the fact that sgi hasn''t been doing voxel textures. But other people already did lot''s of voxel research and the only problem with voxels is speed and mem requirements.
-"Oxygen3D" as a game engine that will knock the socks off Quake3''s engine.
Yeah I''ve seen oxygen3D and it does indeed look promising. But nothing revolutionary. It does curves, polies, advanced phsysics etc etc but nothing somebody else hasn''t thought of before.
I''m not saying that an engine has to be revolutionary. Not at all, (oxygen3d rocks!!) but what I''m trying to say is that in the Computer Graphics field allmost everything already has been thought of.
> SGI''s main thrust was towards polygons, and yes, they did
> most of it already and we''re waiting for power to
> do the same. But polygons aren''t the end of the
> universe as far as graphics are concerned, there are
> other techniques,
You''re right.
> more procedural
This is one I think could indeed be investigated further. When graphics power will grow, then modelers won''t keep up detail wise (no modeler can build a city with over 4 biljon polys). Therefore we will need procedural generated geometry.
> or volume based, in which there has been little or no
> research into real-time applications.
What about hospitals and scans?
> ( I for one am doing a PhD dissertation on Image-Based
> Rendering.... )
Sounds interesting.
What I''m trying to say is that all research at this moment is focused on bringing old techniques into realtime applications. But most of the time people find out that in the end we just need more power. That research time could''ve been spend on other things.
Well, that''s the way i think
my two cents.Jaap Suter
Mmmm, I''ll have to think of one.
Ahhh bloody hell Jaap - It''s YOU!
( I''m a flipcode fanatic )
Image Based rendering is actually quite new ( only about 5 or ten years old that is ).
Real-time voxel MRI scans and such cannot be done on consumer hardware yet, and I think the research does point out that all that will help IS more power. ( mostly to decode highly compressed data, such as the wavelet forms )
So yes, procedural would be the way to go - with hardware TnL you can let the processor generate geometry on the fly, and in a way that would not produce a lot of overdraw perhaps...
Now there would be a double step forward.
( but its not revolutionary at all of course
fractals have been around forever ).
Anyway - see you around the place!
( I''m a flipcode fanatic )
Image Based rendering is actually quite new ( only about 5 or ten years old that is ).
Real-time voxel MRI scans and such cannot be done on consumer hardware yet, and I think the research does point out that all that will help IS more power. ( mostly to decode highly compressed data, such as the wavelet forms )
So yes, procedural would be the way to go - with hardware TnL you can let the processor generate geometry on the fly, and in a way that would not produce a lot of overdraw perhaps...
Now there would be a double step forward.
( but its not revolutionary at all of course
fractals have been around forever ).Anyway - see you around the place!
I know physics (ok not liquid mechanic and the like) but enough to create a good physics engine, including gravity wind...
And YES, I want physicians...
They are required to build some games (I think of RPG, mostly)
They are required for simulation games as well.
-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-
And YES, I want physicians...
They are required to build some games (I think of RPG, mostly)
They are required for simulation games as well.
-* Sounds, music and story makes the difference between good and great games *-
Also military physics are also going to be required soon, when burgerplayers turn to "real" players and start playing "ideacally" better games than Resident Evil, which was basically kill em'' all and let the blood fly game,
Quake[int x], which is... alright nevermind, and well other stupid games where is no really other idea than kill everything or ultrasuperhyperviolentic games. I mean like calculating Missiles speed compared to it''s launchers movement speed and how it affects to it''s turning radius, that example was from hat and I doubt that there is any connection with them, but you got the point. Also I don''t mean that *everyone* will turn to hardcoreplayer, which will never happen, but anyhow this realistic games slice is going to increase sooner or later...
Time comes, time goes and I only am.
Quake[int x], which is... alright nevermind, and well other stupid games where is no really other idea than kill everything or ultrasuperhyperviolentic games. I mean like calculating Missiles speed compared to it''s launchers movement speed and how it affects to it''s turning radius, that example was from hat and I doubt that there is any connection with them, but you got the point. Also I don''t mean that *everyone* will turn to hardcoreplayer, which will never happen, but anyhow this realistic games slice is going to increase sooner or later...
Time comes, time goes and I only am.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
