Doing this in a browser is a neat trick, but the actual state-of-the-art in realtime GPU fluids is slightly more impressive. nVidias FleX middleware is a good example:
<= NOT a graphics programmer, in this era anyway. Back in my graphics days getting Phong shading working on a 286 was amazing to me.
So, does that Flex system BASICALLY imply that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level? It seems to me that it's only a lateral step then to mimic the fluid like effects of explosive forces being applied to solids.
> ... that in another few decades the individual granularity of those particles will become so small and so numerous that we'll basically be modeling liquids and solids at the molecular level?
Also not a graphics programmer, but I am a scientist who has model liquids and solids at the molecular level–a lot of this is doable today, but I doubt it'll ever be applied directly to a macroscopic graphics engine. There are quite simply too many atoms: there's 1 mole (6e23 atoms) in 18g of water. At best, todays chips have several billion transistors (5e9). Even at one transistor per molecule, the numbers just don't add up.
There are lots of multi-scale modelling techniques though, where you directly model the system on the atomic scale in just a few small volumes, e.g. at the tip of a crack just before it propagates. It's not impossible that sort of thing will make an appearance, though I'd still be surprised. Graphics programming is all smoke and mirrors; if it's easier to approximate something using an unphysical process that looks right, people will favour that over an exact simulation that takes far more computing power.
Yeah. You bring up an excellent point. Smoke and mirrors. It won't be molecular...not with semiconductors anyway. Maybe when quantum holographic systems are operating our transporters it will be possible :D.
UNTIL THEN, All it has to do is get granular enough to fill the resolution of the current generation of monitor technology. Just like how ray tracing really only requires enough granularity to appear seamless at the current resolution.
Number of transistors is not really relevant here, since it still doesn't tell us anything about how many atoms we could simulate per second. If anything, we should be rather looking at FLOPS that can be generated by a given chip.
That video is breathtaking. I goofed off with N-body systems like probably most people and the size and performance of the systems shown there are light years ahead in comparison.
Some of those examples were clearly not real but some - the snickers bar being split - seemed pretty real.
I wonder if those very realistic shots are usable in UK adverts without disclaimers? As an example, see ads for mascara which get regulated if they use computer enhanced lashes and no disclaimer.
Actually, I was once talking to a friend that does photography for print ads: I was surprised to find out that most of the highly detailed stills of, say, lipstick or champagne coming out of a bottle are actual photographs.
I assumed many things were renders or that stuff was combined later in photoshop.
I thought that champagne overflowing from a bottle was not made with real champagne over and over again until you got the perfect shot.
I was also surprised to find out that when the background had a nice motion blur it was sometimes actual motion blur made with a rotating rig that had the camera and the object to be shot on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0Nuq71gI4