PDA

View Full Version : Facial animation



gettrix
14th Aug 2008, 11:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wtv4bsLWvw

Do you think we will see this kind of quality in Deus Ex 3?

Fen
14th Aug 2008, 11:19
Doubtful. The engine thats being used is the new tomb raider engine. Which doesnt have that quality. In the end, while those faces look cool, they require a lot of computing power, which could be better spent on larger levels and a longer game :)

ikenstein
14th Aug 2008, 11:44
i think ogl 3 can do that kind of stuff. dx11 might be able to as well, but compatability (dx11 wont work on xp) means that ogl is probly the future. looks cool tho.

gettrix
14th Aug 2008, 12:01
Actually this is a lot better than Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie, which to this day is the pinnacle of animation.

Btw no game surpassed facial animations in 4 years old Half Life 2, there are many things in gameplay development where we can't expect a linear progress, for example water quality in Half Life 2 was not only not surpassed but worsened in almost all games.
Or animation, Half Life 2 is also the only game where feet are aligned with skewed surfaces, not fall through, etc. etc.

gettrix
14th Aug 2008, 12:16
The engine thats being used is the new tomb raider engine.

Btw, I find it weird that such a serious hardcore game as Deus Ex 3 would use some engine that was used for arcade games, I thought it would use Crysis or Unreal 3 engine..

Lady_Of_The_Vine
14th Aug 2008, 12:33
Doubtful. The engine thats being used is the new tomb raider engine. Which doesnt have that quality. In the end, while those faces look cool, they require a lot of computing power, which could be better spent on larger levels and a longer game :)

Agreed. :thumbsup:

René
14th Aug 2008, 12:41
Btw, I find it weird that such a serious hardcore game as Deus Ex 3 would use some engine that was used for arcade games, I thought it would use Crysis or Unreal 3 engine..

Please see this post! http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=791590&postcount=14

Noceur
14th Aug 2008, 13:17
i think ogl 3 can do that kind of stuff. dx11 might be able to as well, but compatability (dx11 wont work on xp) means that ogl is probly the future. looks cool tho.

What you're seeing is actually a kind of motion-capture, you can see here how it's being done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn8aLUB7koQ&feature=related

It's just a method of recording animation, and the technology for playing that back on a mesh in real-time (as in in-game) has existed for a very long time. So for static animations (i.e dialogue and cut-scenes), having this quality is without a doubt possible. You could also blend different pre-recorded animations for dynamic animations (i.e NPC's talking while you walk around in-game, etc). For example, I believe Prince of Persia: Sands of Time used a lot of motion-capture as a base for the character animations.

Check out http://www.studiopendulum.com/alterego/clients_and_projects.html for more info. As you can see, both Dark Sector and Silent Hill 5 are clients of Studio Pendulum, and will use their recording technology in one way or another.

Anyway, my point was that the reason you might not have seen facial animation this good before isn't because of the playback technology, but because of the progress of motion-capture technology (especially on how to record facial animation).
Wether we will see facial animation like this in Deus Ex 3 is more a question of art direction and Money. ;)

Edit: Also, those faces have a really high polygon-count, which is unlikely for Deus Ex 3 (considering we'll be seeing more than just a face on-screen). There's a video of real-time playback in the Unreal3 engine, though, and with a well made in-game model you'd still retain a lot of the details in animation.

gettrix
14th Aug 2008, 13:45
But isn't motion capture animation a lot lot cheaper and FASTER than doing it manually?
And it certainly wouldn't use any resources that an average PC today(let alone when DX3 comes out) couldn't handle.
So there are no valid arguments against this level of quality?

Also check this out-
http://peripherals.about.com/b/2008/08/12/nvidia-releases-geforce-8-series-physx-drivers.htm

El_Bel
14th Aug 2008, 15:07
I dunno, facial animation in a game like Deus Ex is a must. Any game that has plenty of dialogs and interesting characters could benefit from facial animation.

Imagine the intro of DX if Bob Page had animated face or the conversation with Leo Gold(Liberty island boss) so you can see the hate in his eyes. They should at least try to do some basic animation.

Noceur
14th Aug 2008, 15:44
gettrix: It depends on if Eidos has their own motion-capture studio or not... but this facial motion-capture is a rather new technology, so just because you have a motion-capture studio, you don't nessecarily have one that can capture facial expressions. Then you have to adapt it to work with dynamic characters and stuff, so you'd still need a crew of animators. With all the motion-blending techniques and stuff that exist today, I'm not really sure which would be cheaper.
Depending on how detailed the faces are of the models, it might not be worth using motion-capture for facial animation, either. If the same level of detail could be gained through manual animation, would it be worth going through the hassle/cost of motion-capturing it?
Btw, the link is great news! I didn't think they'd enable physX through a patch.

El_Bel: You can be almost certain that there will be facial animation in Deus Ex 3 :p

gettrix
14th Aug 2008, 15:58
Imagine the intro of DX if Bob Page had animated face or the conversation with Leo Gold(Liberty island boss) so you can see the hate in his eyes. They should at least try to do some basic animation.

Yes, the basic quality being Half Life 2, but this kind of quality(of the first link) would really be great for Deus Ex 3, you don't have to go further than Mass Effect to realize that.

Btw, I hope Deus Ex 3 will be more like the original than Deus Ex 2, which was weak in many areas.

P.S.
It would be really nice if we would get some official response for certain topics, this is, after all, an official forum.

K^2
14th Aug 2008, 17:29
Doubtful. The engine thats being used is the new tomb raider engine. Which doesnt have that quality. In the end, while those faces look cool, they require a lot of computing power, which could be better spent on larger levels and a longer game :)
This is the kind of thing where you can use up as little or as much power as you want, with gradual improvements.

The animations we see here started out as simple motion capture. That takes no extra power from CPU or GPU. Your next step is attaching mo-cap data from a fixed source to characters with varying facial structure. This means essentially adding extra bones. You have bones that directly controll points on the face, and bones that are controlled by mo-cap. The later are the same for all characters. The two sets are separate, but connected, so making one move, makes the other move as well. This already lets you transfer an emotion set to any character in the game.

Now, your next step is to make the faces a little more alive. You cannot capture enough mo-cap points, so you'll have to interpolate. Add additional bones in the face angles for which are interpolated by using positions of certain neighbors. For example, that can help you have the cheeks move properly as the character smiles or grinns.

This is the part where you have the freedom to make it as complex as you wish. To make it completely life-like, you'd have to essentially have a morpher attached to each vertex, and be computing dynamics of each point acounting for elasticity of skin. That's an overkill. But you don't have to go all that way to have great improvement.

In order to make DX3 character have great expressions at little CPU expanse, but at the cost of developer resources (I really hope Eidos has good budget on this one) what the essentially need to is:

1) Build up a good collection of motion capture data.
2) Set up the models so the same motion capture database is used for facial expressions on each.
3) Have sufficient number of emotional state flags on each character.
4) Throw in some interpolated bones into facial structure.
5) Make sure that several animations can be selected and combined.

This will make characters very belivable, and let them run through the same dialog with you being able to have different expressions depending on situation.


Or animation, Half Life 2 is also the only game where feet are aligned with skewed surfaces, not fall through, etc. etc.
Actually, in terms of body animation, GTA IV has by far surpassed HL2. So we really see progress, but only with heavy budget games.

Noceur
14th Aug 2008, 18:26
K^2: Euphoria (used in GTA) is awesome. Interesting that you should mention that, since Euphoria is an engine that uses dynamic motion synthesis, not keyed animation. In my opinion that's the way to go for in-game body animation, due to the dynamic demand in a game world. It'd be interesting to see if someone comes up with a way to synthesize facial animation, hehe.

EDIT: http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm - I'd be awesome if Deus Ex 3 used euphoria actually.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 01:20
Personally, I'm not a big fan of Euphoria. In fact, I think it's such a weak engine I'm honestly debating getting the next Midnight Club. Unreal is undoubtedly one of the more powerful engines (Hello Mass Effect and Gears of War), but I don't think the Underworld engine should have too many problems, especially if they're altering it specifically for Deus Ex.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 03:46
K^2: Euphoria (used in GTA) is awesome. Interesting that you should mention that, since Euphoria is an engine that uses dynamic motion synthesis, not keyed animation.
It is keyed, actually. But the keys serve a different purpose. They work as guides, rather than actual frames of animation. Euphoria then figures out how to apply forces to what is essentially a ragdoll to attempt following the key frames.

The key frames can be generated in different ways, and I'm not sure which GTA IV used. But one of the ways is traditional motion capture.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Euphoria. In fact, I think it's such a weak engine I'm honestly debating getting the next Midnight Club. Unreal is undoubtedly one of the more powerful engines (Hello Mass Effect and Gears of War), but I don't think the Underworld engine should have too many problems, especially if they're altering it specifically for Deus Ex.
I believe, you are confused, Romeo. A lot of people have gotten bad info on what Euphoria is.

Euphoria is not the game engine. It is an animation engine. It doesn't involve graphics, physics, or AI of the game, and concerns only the movements of the characters.

The physics and the world around the Euphoria-controlled characters still needs an engine. GTA IV used their own, in house engine for nearly everything. Same thing goes for Midnight Club.

If Eidos was to decide to use Euphoria, they would integrate it to work with the Underworld engine. Underworld engine would still do the rendering, controll the physics of various dynamic objects, and run the AI for characters. Euphoria would receive commands from AI engine to make the characters perform tasks. It then controls said characters' motions. The interesting bit is that interactions with other physical objects are accounted for, so a character who's trying to walk forward and gets suddenly hit form a side, will stumble, trying to catch balance. If it will fail, the character will fall on the ground, and trigger a different animation for getting back up.

Basically, think of Euphoria as an invisible puppeteer that you use to drive characters instead of regular animations.

DXeXodus
15th Aug 2008, 04:07
I also believe that Euphoria is a great animation engine and if applied correctly it could have many positivie repurcussions in a game like DX3. I am not too fussed as to how they go about the facial animation. I am more concerned about the quality of the spoken dialoge in terms of content and voice acting. Another Oblivion would just be a disaster. You need more than a handful of voice actors.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 05:40
It is keyed, actually. But the keys serve a different purpose. They work as guides, rather than actual frames of animation. Euphoria then figures out how to apply forces to what is essentially a ragdoll to attempt following the key frames.

The key frames can be generated in different ways, and I'm not sure which GTA IV used. But one of the ways is traditional motion capture.

I believe, you are confused, Romeo. A lot of people have gotten bad info on what Euphoria is.

Euphoria is not the game engine. It is an animation engine. It doesn't involve graphics, physics, or AI of the game, and concerns only the movements of the characters.

The physics and the world around the Euphoria-controlled characters still needs an engine. GTA IV used their own, in house engine for nearly everything. Same thing goes for Midnight Club.

If Eidos was to decide to use Euphoria, they would integrate it to work with the Underworld engine. Underworld engine would still do the rendering, controll the physics of various dynamic objects, and run the AI for characters. Euphoria would receive commands from AI engine to make the characters perform tasks. It then controls said characters' motions. The interesting bit is that interactions with other physical objects are accounted for, so a character who's trying to walk forward and gets suddenly hit form a side, will stumble, trying to catch balance. If it will fail, the character will fall on the ground, and trigger a different animation for getting back up.

Basically, think of Euphoria as an invisible puppeteer that you use to drive characters instead of regular animations.
Then I fail to see it's usefulness in a racing game (the only characters you can see are motorbikers, and they wear helmets). And even still, comparing GTA to Mass Effect, or even Gears of War, I'll take Unreal 3 every time.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 06:43
Then I fail to see it's usefulness in a racing game (the only characters you can see are motorbikers, and they wear helmets). And even still, comparing GTA to Mass Effect, or even Gears of War, I'll take Unreal 3 every time.
Same here. No clue why they want Euphoria for a racer. Are you positive they are using it? Or maybe they simply don't want to bother ripping it out of GTA engine?

The thing is, you can take any engine you like, and it will be better with Euphoria. Though, for a game like DX, the benefit would be marginal.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 06:52
To quote IGN: "The newest installment of the racing series will use the Euphoria engine, tweaked from the highly successful GTA."

And this was information given to IGN right before their interview with Rockstar...

El_Bel
15th Aug 2008, 12:16
Then I fail to see it's usefulness in a racing game (the only characters you can see are motorbikers, and they wear helmets). And even still, comparing GTA to Mass Effect, or even Gears of War, I'll take Unreal 3 every time.

Its not Euphoria VS Unreal 3.
Its Euphoria VS Ragdoll...

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 13:58
Its not Euphoria VS Unreal 3.
Its Euphoria VS Ragdoll...
As long as people keep in mind that Euphoria isn't just for when character dies. But yeah, it is essentially just an advanced extension of the ragdoll idea.

To quote IGN: "The newest installment of the racing series will use the Euphoria engine, tweaked from the highly successful GTA."

And this was information given to IGN right before their interview with Rockstar...
Odd. I'll check it out. Might know a few people who might know for sure.

minus0ne
15th Aug 2008, 18:28
i think ogl 3 can do that kind of stuff. dx11 might be able to as well, but compatability (dx11 wont work on xp) means that ogl is probly the future. looks cool tho.
Neither OpenGL nor DX have anything to do with it, they're just the rendering APIs that games run on. The game's own engine has to be capable of facial animation, or at least it must have some dedicated middleware to take care of facial animation (think SpeedTree but for facial animation).

OpenGL3 is, unfortunately, not that great (you might say it's the DX10 of OpenGLs :p ), so I don't see it competing with DX9 anytime soon. Only about 5% of gamers now have DX10 cards (and about 3 or 4 people have DX10.1 cards, so I'm hoping DX3 will still extensively utilize the possibilities of DX9 besides other newer APIs.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:20
Its not Euphoria VS Unreal 3.
Its Euphoria VS Ragdoll...
Oh, I know, but my point remains: Even with Euphoria in it's stable, GTA's facial animations can't hold a candle to Mass Effects, or even Gears of War, both of which don't make use of it, instead just relying upon the Unreal 3 engine on it's own.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:50
That's because Euphoria doesn't do facial animations. Or at least, that's not what it specializes in. ;)

In GTA IV, try knocking someone off their feet. Then run into them again as they get up. I can guarantee at least 15 minutes of fun with that. More if you are sadist deep down with a strike of inventiveness.

This is where Euphoria shows itself, and it does so without interfering with other things. Which is nice. But as stated above, DX can only benefit from it so much if used by itself. But now picture Eidos taking this idea and running with it. Can you imagine stretching a trip wire across a hallway, throwing some rocks to alert the guard, and when he passes by, trips, and falls, clubbing him over the head with a baton. Or you know, whatever your preferred way of pacifying the guards is.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 20:52
I could live without it, but the original introduction to the Euphoria engine to this thread, was because someone suggested it for facial animations, something I thought GTA was not very effecient with.

K^2
15th Aug 2008, 20:58
But you have to agree, compared to facial animations in GTAIII through SA, it is a huge step forward for R*. I'm sure by GTA V or VI at the latest they'll get it right.

Romeo
15th Aug 2008, 21:15
Ok, valid, but it didn't take much to beat it's older brother. It had all the emotional range of trees.

ewanlaing
15th Aug 2008, 23:37
I think the game needs a little facial animation. The previous games characters fell flat on occasion simply because they seemed like talking paintings, and not real people.

Romeo
16th Aug 2008, 00:09
Oh most definately. We're simply throwing around ideas about how to go about that. I'm being pig-headed and stubborn, and the others are promoting ideas in which to go about it.

pauldenton
16th Aug 2008, 01:08
The advances in Facial animation and body animation/reaction are amazing and would make a huge impact on DX 3 if incorporated properly.

Let's hope they have the budget and the commitment to push the boat out at least someway in the direction of these highly immersive methods.

The euphoria demonstration as well as the facial demonstration were most impressive.

At least one simple thing i would insist on in DX is realistic eyes.

no more dead painted flat eyes. i want eyes that glint and have a depth.
there is no excuse for dead flat painted on eyes in this age.
just this simple touch can ad much to the immersion of a charature for minimun outlay.

Noceur
16th Aug 2008, 01:49
I could live without it, but the original introduction to the Euphoria engine to this thread, was because someone suggested it for facial animations, something I thought GTA was not very effecient with.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I wasn't promoting its implementation for facial animation, but body animation.

I also agree that voice acting is at least as important (if not more) as facial animation. A bad voice actor can make a perfectly plausible plot seem laughable in my experience.

Oh btw, I've also read about euphoria being used in racing games, but I'm not sure how and why. The whole DMS system that Euphoria uses is sort of like an AI though, so it might have to do with how drivers react to eachother
and such.
EDIT: Oh wait, it's motorbikes, not cars... then it makes more sense. :P

Romeo
16th Aug 2008, 02:11
Well, it's both, I was just saying the only visible people are the bikers, as the car drivers are hidden in glass coffins. And I understand what you mean now, still, I don't think Euphoria is truly necessary in a game like Mass Effect. But whoever mentioned the eyes, that is quite possibly the best feature of Mass Effect. And it would be especially cool with the augmentations involved. A nice deep set of eyes that suddenly shine an electric blue would be cool if the protagonist wanted to show off the fact he was augmented (either for intimidation or to connect with someone - either case would be awesome). Personal opinion.

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 02:43
I think the FX needs to be extended with more particles, shimmers, and blurs. Have things like shiny wavy strands of nanite fibers extend towards targets of bot domination or neural interface and the such. Make visual enhancement look less like a CRT circa 1980, and more like some medical visualization software with various boundary transparencies. Things like that. Maybe even come up with a few new augmentation types based around some neat visual effects.

I know it is more about gameplay than visuals, but the atmosphere is important. Just like Arthur Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And what we have in DX is definitely a case of sufficiently advanced technology. So we should have a bit of a kick of the fantasy genre in the game, at least as far as the visuals go.

Romeo
16th Aug 2008, 03:13
Oh, most definately. But I think we need to draw a line between being attractive and graphically whoring ourselves out.

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 07:01
As long as they keep the surface lighting as close to realistic as engine permits, don't stick particle emitters on everything, and keep emitters and shaders for FX localized to area of effect, I don't think it'd be possible to overdo it.

Graphics only start to look like devs discovered mushrooms when one of the above rules is broken. For example, the bloom shader is nice. Full screen bloom, GTFO. Environment map for shiny surfaces, awesome. But being applied to just about everything, it makes me expect a bunch of men in leather to jump out and proceed to do unnatural things. Yes, you know what game I'm talking about.

So I really would like to see them go all the way out with FX, but for crying out loud, keep it to areas where it is relevant.

gettrix
16th Aug 2008, 10:06
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
This demo video of euphoria is absolutely fantastic and revolutionary!
I hope Deus Ex 3 and every other game will have this, is it widely known among developers?
Surely anyone who is in the gaming development would want to have it by default, Eidos being among them?

El_Bel
16th Aug 2008, 10:24
In my opinion Euphoria cant offer anything to DX.. It will just be a terrible waste of money.

gettrix
16th Aug 2008, 11:24
In my opinion Euphoria cant offer anything to DX.. It will just be a terrible waste of money.

That's a pretty bizarre and stupid thing to say...

El_Bel
16th Aug 2008, 11:31
Why dont you explain me why Deus Ex needs Euphoria so bad smart guy?

gettrix
16th Aug 2008, 12:25
Why dont you explain me why Deus Ex needs Euphoria so bad smart guy?

Euphoria is just a NEW STANDARD of doing things which is superior to anything so far.
The only way any game would not benefit from Euphoria is if it doesn't have any moving 3D bodies, like Arcanoid, Invaders etc.
WTF are you even talking about?!
I guess every forum must have its own mindless troll...

Nathan2000
16th Aug 2008, 12:28
Why dont you explain me why Deus Ex needs Euphoria so bad smart guy?

You would probably have a hard time trying to explain why DX needs 3D graphics. "It's just a waste of money!".

The demo is very impressive and proves Euphoria to be much better than ragdoll physics. Something like that will probably become standard in the future. So what's wrong with wanting it?

jordan_a
16th Aug 2008, 18:06
New! Facial animation (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=79187)
I remind you we have a thread dedicated to the engine just in case.

gamer0004
16th Aug 2008, 18:25
I don't like Euphoria. It's too slow. People fall down too slow, they slow down to slow and so on. It still needs a lot of tweaking.

El_Bel
16th Aug 2008, 19:22
Euphoria is just a NEW STANDARD of doing things which is superior to anything so far.
The only way any game would not benefit from Euphoria is if it doesn't have any moving 3D bodies, like Arcanoid, Invaders etc.
WTF are you even talking about?!
I guess every forum must have its own mindless troll...

New standard? I dont think so!! Just because you liked it and it is superior to ragdoll doesen't mean its a new standard!!
euphoria is currently being integrated into multiple AAA next-generation console titles, including Grand Theft Auto IV, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Indiana Jones and Backbreaker.
As you can see it is far from being a standard. It is just used in 4 games smart guy!!

I like Euphoria too, and i dont have problem seeing it in DX3. But DX doesn't need it. It doesnt add to the immersion that much. Again it would be nice, but i really dont care.

Plus it is quite new technology and they could easily mesh it up. They have much more experience with Ragdoll.

K^2
16th Aug 2008, 19:48
Euphoria is the only way to go if the game is going to feature realistic space stations. It is also the only way to go if the game is going to give you more options on traps. Throwing a crate at an enemy used to merely deal damage, which made it pretty useless without a strength aug. With Euphoria, you'd be able to knock people off their feet, using it to your advantage. You'd be able to set up trip wires, and be able to pull cardboard from under their feet. You cannot do this with a rigid animation engine. You need something like Euphoria to handle these things.

gettrix
17th Aug 2008, 09:42
K^2, El_Bel's comments are completely bizarre. Anyone can see how vastly Euphoria can expand the scope of gameplay in Deus Ex 3, it's so vast that you can't even think about all the new options and additions it would make. Combined with physics Euphoria creates a proto-world kind of game.

K^2
17th Aug 2008, 15:23
Well, Euphoria has its drawbacks.

Personally, I would have developed my own system from scratch. Most of the things that make Euphoria complex aren't really necessary. As long as you are happy with mo-capped key frames as guides, and can write a reasonable AI, you can make a Euphoria-like engine that is more suited for DX.

But seeing how the team is basing DX engine on an engine developed by another team, I have a feeling that they probably lack high grade core engine coders. IW team tried to mess with basic collision physics without these, and look what happened. (To be fair, I had the same problem when I was writing collision code for my own needs, but I got it fixed. It's not trivial, but someone with experience would know what to do.)

So the way things stand, I'd recommend to whomever is in charge of the project to try to beat some money out of Eidos to purchase Euphoria license. That would be the best way to make it work.

gamer0004
17th Aug 2008, 17:00
I always wonder why there isn't a cooperationt between science, possibly the movie industry and the game industry. Seriously. We try to make physics as realistic as possible (Crysis for example) and they just aren't. They're just an imitation and it shows every single time. You can't get realistic physics unless you use all laws of science. So why can't the game industry cooperate with science, building together a simulator and then watch what happens? It's not going to work, but scientists will be bale to find out what's still missing and the game industry will after some time have a physics engine that's really close to being realistic.

minus0ne
17th Aug 2008, 17:47
I always wonder why there isn't a cooperationt between science, possibly the movie industry and the game industry. Seriously. We try to make physics as realistic as possible (Crysis for example) and they just aren't. They're just an imitation and it shows every single time. You can't get realistic physics unless you use all laws of science. So why can't the game industry cooperate with science, building together a simulator and then watch what happens? It's not going to work, but scientists will be bale to find out what's still missing and the game industry will after some time have a physics engine that's really close to being realistic.
What's missing is computing power, in that, the average dualcore computer coupled with mid-end GPU is still not capable of truly emulating anything even close to "real physics". Obviously, it'd be best to gradually roll-out, in leaps and bounds, physics engines that to the best of their ability make use of the player's interactions with the gameworld.

If we would just adopt an engine that simulates down to the molecular (or even atomic) level, like the sims they use at universities worldwide, our computers would all explode after trying to render the first frame :p On the other hand, it's very easy to account for things like object density and friction.

Euphoria has yet to prove itself in gameplay (I remember Havok being pretty awesome in demos until the first games rolled out, and let's not forget IW), but it could prove to be a leap forward once they get rid of the imminent glitches (which Havok also suffered from for some time). That said it's not at all necessary for DX3 to have great interaction with the environment, it's perfectly possible for EM to put in some good physics of their own.

gamer0004
17th Aug 2008, 18:51
I didn't think that the sim would be free for public in just over a couple of years. I meant that the supercomputers could possibly be able to do it. The sim would be a controlled environment and it's very easy to retrace what happens.

K^2
17th Aug 2008, 19:29
I always wonder why there isn't a cooperationt between science, possibly the movie industry and the game industry. Seriously. We try to make physics as realistic as possible (Crysis for example) and they just aren't. They're just an imitation and it shows every single time. You can't get realistic physics unless you use all laws of science. So why can't the game industry cooperate with science, building together a simulator and then watch what happens? It's not going to work, but scientists will be bale to find out what's still missing and the game industry will after some time have a physics engine that's really close to being realistic.
Erm, that happens all the time. The problem is that most developers cannot afford programmers who are versed in science.

I'm a Physicist by education, but I've held part-time employment as a programmer while getting through college. I've been coding since the age of 7, so it comes quite naturally to me. When I see a problem with a physical simulation in a game, I can tell you exactly what causes it, and how to fix it, because I've gone through it myself.

Most of the problems are due to the finite time steps, and the fact that programemrs who work on such simulations don't have a clue how to use analytic methods to reduce these otherwise accumulating errors to naught.

Some other problems are due to lack of generality. When HL2 leaked, I found a very simple glitch. Get onto a crate or some other movable object, and use the gravity gun to lift it. You shoot up into the air, but that shouldn't happen. If you pull on an object, that object should pull you back. It didn't. Why? Player does not interact with the world as a part of it, so the physics doesn't apply to player the same way. Valve fixed the problem with grav gun, but other, more subtle flaws caused by the same design problem remain.

minus0ne
29th Aug 2008, 07:06
The hype surrounding Euphoria seems to have quickly evaporated with the release of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed :p

ikenstein
2nd Sep 2008, 02:31
i gotta say, i'm kind of impressed with the quality of facial animation in the vid on this site -

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4557935.ece

it says it was done by the people who did some of the animation on gta4, is that the euforia people?

DXeXodus
2nd Sep 2008, 03:45
i gotta say, i'm kind of impressed with the quality of facial animation in the vid on this site -

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4557935.ece

it says it was done by the people who did some of the animation on gta4, is that the euforia people?

GTA 4 does use the Euphoria engine in it, correct. I am not sure as to whether it is the same people though.

K^2
2nd Sep 2008, 05:02
Euphoria is used to augment animation. The animations for GTAIV are still done using the good old motion capture way. However, they are then adjusted, on the fly, by Euphoria to account for various forces acting on a character.

So I don't know who have done the above video, but if they have done the actual animations for GTAIV, the did not work on Euphoria. And vice versa. If they are from Natural Motion (team behind Euphoria) they did not actually create GTAIV animations.

Romeo
2nd Sep 2008, 17:19
Because if they had, I would've put GTAIV in my top-spot without a second thought.

Abram730
26th Oct 2008, 07:10
I also believe that Euphoria is a great animation engine and if applied correctly it could have many positivie repurcussions in a game like DX3. I am not too fussed as to how they go about the facial animation. I am more concerned about the quality of the spoken dialoge in terms of content and voice acting. Another Oblivion would just be a disaster. You need more than a handful of voice actors.

using scripted flags for facial animation or pendulum or...?

parametric motions or Euphoria or...?

I'd like to make a note about mass effect.. I love the game for a 3rd person port, but the mission maps were cookie cutters and I don't want DX3 to run over budget and out of time on eye candy and actors. Look at time and resources both $ and human. It would be great icing like pendulum, but it's not the cake. The cake is the story and levels, the games playability and core systems will be most important.

I'm no expert.

NaturalMotion’s euphoria Technology: The Honeymoon is Over
http://aigamedev.com/editorial/naturalmotion-euphoria

Tracer Tong
26th Oct 2008, 09:15
Wow, Euphoria, Pendulum whatever and the company with the progressive textures (i.e. rusting walls over time, forgot that company's name but Roboblitz was made with it) would make games so realistic... I wish DX3'll use any subset of the three (not including the empty set).

It's MINDBLOWING :nut:

P.S. I heard that Havok has recently begun building shatterable objects and real-time cloth, but who needs them when humans are so realistic?

jordan_a
17th Nov 2008, 17:29
DX3 should introduce something unseen before. Better than Mass Effect or anything.

Romeo
19th Nov 2008, 01:20
DX3 should introduce something unseen before. Better than Mass Effect or anything.
Ah, it's unlikely. That was, undoubtedly Mass Effect's biggest focus. Even Fallout 3, which Bethesda designed to be better than their previous games for facial animations, couldn't hold a candle to it. Besides, everybody here loves Deus Ex, despite the fact it had some of the worst dialogue animations ever.

GmanPro
19th Nov 2008, 01:27
I thought they were good in their own little way.

At least they bothered to actually put in facial animations at all. Some games at the time were too lazy to even do that.

jordan_a
19th Nov 2008, 06:01
Ah, it's unlikely.Trust your insider. ;)

Jerion
19th Nov 2008, 06:06
Trust your insider. ;)

I do. and come march, you won't be the only one. ;)

AdamJensen
19th Nov 2008, 19:51
I'd like to use Wall Punch on Barett and see something like this

http://www.andrewferguson.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/matrix-super-punch.jpg

:D

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Nov 2008, 10:38
^
Hehe, funny! :D