I agree it doesn't have to be real-time to be valid, I think my mindset just goes to physics in video games which are usually real-time when I see contact solvers or most other things related to simulations.
claude 19 commits, +21,000 lines
It didn't help that they make meaningless claims like
> Physically Accurate: Our deformable solver is driven by the Finite Element Method.
I don't know or care if they used an LLM to write that readme, but it's hot garbage. A pity because it seems like a decent sim otherwise.
jayd16•2h ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VOORiyip4_c
embedding-shape•1h ago
Even the title of the video is straight up clickbait ("The Worst Bug In Games Is Now Gone Forever") since the context is all wrong, the metrics on the top left even shows "time/frame: 3.38 min", how could that be useful for games? The problem with physics in games is in real-time simulations, not in cached/animated "physics".
Don't get me wrong, the simulations are impressive, and hopefully will have a big impact on simulation stability for real-time and not, I was just taken aback by the video.
makach•57m ago
zokier•50m ago
MintPaw•45m ago
embedding-shape•42m ago
GuB-42•5m ago
I usually don't like too much sensationalism, but he gets a pass. That's just his style and I think he does it well without compromising on the information content. He acknowledges that the technique is slow by the way, but that's late in the video.
But I agree that the title is poorly chosen in this case and I think it would be more appropriate for the previous video about a similar paper [1] where the simulation is less accurate, but runs in real-time. It is as if the titles were swapped.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NF3CdXkm68