Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Shooting rabbits takes on a whole new meaning
July 20, 2010 10:36 AM   Subscribe

A video of a bunch of CG physics demonstrations that can be interacted with in real time.
posted by cthuljew (32 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite

 
Cool. Too bad they have to kill the rabbits.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:43 AM on July 20, 2010


Very awesome.
posted by jeffamaphone at 10:46 AM on July 20, 2010


These looked like pretty cool advanced physics simulations and then it got to the sticky rabbit made of some gel substance and then it got like 10 times cooler.
posted by Phantomx at 10:51 AM on July 20, 2010


This is mind-blowing!
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:52 AM on July 20, 2010


Man, the last time I did any pro-level 3d stuff was 1997. Back then, this would have been like, Star Trek Future to me.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:53 AM on July 20, 2010


Helvete.
posted by pyrex at 10:56 AM on July 20, 2010


Those aren't real time. Still cool though.
posted by ecurtz at 10:57 AM on July 20, 2010




Just use a condom, man.

posted by Pope Guilty at 10:57 AM on July 20, 2010


So are people really impressed by the stuff at the beginning? It doesn't look very real to me the way that the particles flow. Much too "fluid" for a real non-fluid object.
posted by smackfu at 10:58 AM on July 20, 2010


I was thoroughly impressed.
posted by bonobothegreat at 11:00 AM on July 20, 2010


So you're saying you could tell it was fake by the particles?
posted by Babblesort at 11:01 AM on July 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


It's a sim. I can tell by the particles and having seen a lot of sims in my time.
posted by adipocere at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


Actually I think they just have the gravity set wrong to look more impressive. Or maybe not enough inter-particle friction.
posted by smackfu at 11:03 AM on July 20, 2010


ecurtz, the real-time bit starts at about the 1:50 mark
posted by Uncle Ira at 11:04 AM on July 20, 2010


The cloth was very good though. AAAAA++++ WOULD SIMULATE TABLECLOTH DRAPED OVER SPHERE AGAIN.
posted by GuyZero at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2010 [15 favorites]


This is pretty bad-ass.

The soundtrack is abysmal, though.
posted by Pecinpah at 11:10 AM on July 20, 2010


the real-time bit starts at about the 1:50 mark

Ahh, the video kept crapping out on me, so I didn't make it that far.

The only post I could find any performance info on was the old 620,000 particle fluid demo, which was 10 minutes per frame, pre-optimization.
posted by ecurtz at 11:14 AM on July 20, 2010


Okay... someone explain to me why this is significantly different than RealFlow and Maya Cloth. And you can let er rip technically, because I've been working on a particle simulation in Maya for about 10 years (unsuccessfully, I might add, since a quick calculation showed it would take more computing power than has ever existed on Earth, collectively, or is likely to in the next decade).
posted by charlie don't surf at 11:22 AM on July 20, 2010


carlie don't surf: For the record, I just thought it was a cool video. I'm not advocating anything about it because I don't know from computer animation.
posted by cthuljew at 11:24 AM on July 20, 2010


charlie^ (sorry)
posted by cthuljew at 11:24 AM on July 20, 2010


I work with computers for a living. After watching this... the work I do now feels like the equivalent of writing my name in the dirt, with a stick.
posted by avoision at 11:29 AM on July 20, 2010 [3 favorites]


Avoision, well, Flash...
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:31 AM on July 20, 2010


As effects go, this is at least as good as the CGI done for The Sci-Fi SyFy Channel. I couldn't tell from the video, but on the panel to the left, did they have a "Render Giant Snake" option?
posted by adipocere at 11:35 AM on July 20, 2010


Pfft, those aren't even real Floam rabbits.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:48 AM on July 20, 2010


It seems a little off-base somehow to put "interactive" in the description for a video.

The "interactive" clips have a tiny fraction of the number of elements seen in the really impressive parts. I'm guessing that the "wet sand" part at the start took orders of magnitude longer than real-time to produce.
posted by CaseyB at 12:22 PM on July 20, 2010


It's probably a good sign for the realism quotient of this engine that some of those demonstrations grossed me out a little bit. Am I reading correctly, from the vimeo description, that one man put the physics engine together?
posted by invitapriore at 12:47 PM on July 20, 2010


If somebody at Pixar hasn't extended this guy a job offer yet, they need a new HR department.
posted by schmod at 1:02 PM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, I always experience a twinge of sadness when I see this sort of stuff, because no matter how cool it gets it's still operating on a fairly high-level physical model. I know the alternative of modeling individual particle interactions as we understand them to take place isn't at all and probably never will be realistic, but my heart still holds out for it, somehow.
posted by invitapriore at 1:49 PM on July 20, 2010


I say, the presentation of these particle physics causes them to resemble pornography.
posted by LogicalDash at 3:07 PM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Nice!
posted by Artw at 4:39 PM on July 20, 2010


This will be great for Sandman-proofing my new lair!
posted by Eideteker at 8:31 PM on July 20, 2010


If somebody at Pixar hasn't extended this guy a job offer yet, they need a new HR department.

I don't think you quite have a handle on this scenario. This guy Thiago Costa was only able to do this stuff because guys at Pixar Research Group and ILM worked out the math first.

As mathematicians often say, "Q.E.D. The general implementation is left as an exercise for the reader."
posted by charlie don't surf at 9:57 PM on July 20, 2010


« Older Dickens' novels ranked....  |  Breitbart strikes again.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments