Hey,
I saw a few Particle Simulations online that use OpenGL. Wouldn't it make more sense using Opengl for TPT simulation? And would it even be possible?
For Example: Faultz/Newtonian-Particle-Simulator: C# OpenGL Particle Simulation, Real-Time GPU accelerated (github.com)
Even with 10 Million Particles, the Simulation ran with about 500FPS. (On a RTX 3080 Ti with Satisfactory open in background)
I'm not entirely sure if it would even be possible let TPT run on OpenGL and if it would be even possible since I'm not really familiar with OpenGL.
Short answer: It'll be nearly as fast as these simulations you mentioned, but this is nearly impossible.
Currently TPT is written in c++. Every element has it's own hardcoded behaviour, so you have to rewrite every element. Also it's impossible to run all simulation aspects (like pressure-particle coupled interaction) on gpu. And the last point, pushing down your suggestion is that TPT is actually gpu intensive app. Just compare Fancy display with Nothing one, for me it drops fps nearly by 2 times with 100000 particles.
As I know there is a possibility to multithread TPT, but devs say it is as impossible as gpu computing.
PalowPower:
Hey,
I saw a few Particle Simulations online that use OpenGL. Wouldn't it make more sense using Opengl for TPT simulation? And would it even be possible?
For Example: Faultz/Newtonian-Particle-Simulator: C# OpenGL Particle Simulation, Real-Time GPU accelerated (github.com)
Even with 10 Million Particles, the Simulation ran with about 500FPS. (On a RTX 3080 Ti with Satisfactory open in background)
I'm not entirely sure if it would even be possible let TPT run on OpenGL and if it would be even possible since I'm not really familiar with OpenGL.
the devs are lazy, as you said there are PLENTY of GPU or CPU multithreaded particle acceleration demos out there, hell even amd used TPT and ported most functions to openCL and sped up everything orders of magnitudes many years ago and showed it to display the power of its server cpus, its widely available on youtube to watch. yet these people keep claiming its "its impossible" to do something already done a decade ago by amd and being done in spades by other people like the one you linked and many others like these below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PAiCinmP9Y look at this, amd showcased tpt and made it speed up several times over lol, this alone busts any claim the current developers make , also the description says they did not do a damn thing to the application for this speed up, this was 12 years ago , whats stopping the current dev from doing the same?
https://www.opensourceagenda.com/projects/newtonian-particle-simulator
https://github.com/BoyBaykiller/Newtonian-Particle-Simulator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhnoNYqIhTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PAiCinmP9Y look at this, amd showcased tpt and made it speed up several times over lol, this alone busts any claim the current developers make , also the description says they did not do a damn thing to the application for this speed up, this was 12 years ago , whats stopping the current dev from doing the same?
you can clearly see in the demo that particles are actually interacting with each other , pressure waves are bouncing off the wall, so are fire and other particles in the demo by amd, and regardless that alone is a huge speedup. nothing is impossible here, thats a huge claim to make when it comes to programming, the only reason this has not happened is because of a couple or all of the following things, 1: not enough skillset with the current developer, 2: not enough motivation, or both. its really as simple as that, otherwise there would have been at least a start on it. but they should say it as it is, we don't want to do it , instead of telling people whats possible and whats not when amd did it 12 years ago, and they have no way of refuting that it worked or not regardless if a few features were missing, in what was quite possibly a few days worth of job on amds end
you can clearly see in the demo that particles are actually interacting with each other , pressure waves are bouncing off the wall, so are fire and other particles in the demo by amd, and regardless that alone is a huge speedup.
nothing is impossible here, thats a huge claim to make when it comes to programming,
the only reason this has not happened is because of a couple or all of the following things, 1: not enough skillset with the current developer, 2: not enough motivation, or both. its really as simple as that, otherwise there would have been at least a start on it.
but they should say it as it is, we don't want to do it ,instead of telling people whats possible and whats not
when amd did it 12 years ago,
and they have no way of refuting that it worked or not
regardless if a few features were missing,
in what was quite possibly a few days worth of job on amds end