DIRT 5 Now Runs On Intel Arc Graphics Under Linux With Driver Workaround

[phoronix]

Phoronix: DIRT 5 Now Runs On Intel Arc Graphics Under Linux With Driver Workaround

The DIRT 5 racing game was one of the titles that hadn't worked on Intel graphics under Linux due to the sparse memory support for the ANV Vulkan driver. But with sparse support now enabled, the game was crashing at launch. But now a workaround is in place to allow Intel's Mesa 24.1 Vulkan driver to work with DIRT 5...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/DIRT-5-Intel-Linux-Graphics

[Quackdoc]

on one hand, I think the intel really should just support fp64 properly, on the other hand, WTF is a video game using FP64 for!?!? I always knew dirt 5 had terrible janky issues. but this is just stupid.

[quaz0r]

i am also curious what a video game is using fp64 for. though i simultaneously hate that consumer gpus dont get any fp64 to speak of. not everyone can or wants to or should have to pay a quadrillion dollars to get a device thats not intentionally hobbled to only run video games

[stormcrow]

on one hand, I think the intel really should just support fp64 properly, on the other hand, WTF is a video game using FP64 for!?!? I always knew dirt 5 had terrible janky issues. but this is just stupid.

Presumably they ran into situations where half (FP16) or single precision (FP32) weren't good enough. They may end up with "janky" physics artifacts. Any gamer that's been around long enough knows what I'm talking about. Nearly every game with a physics model has exhibited some form of WTF physics moments. I have to roll my eyes fairly often on a couple of games I like to play. In one of the two, the developers actively detect and have made in-game jokes about some of the problems they encounter with computational physics and path-finding as it relates to the game's context. There's more than enough videos of other games in WTF physics moments. So on hardware capable of handling double precision (FP64) they're probably using it in hope to minimize immersion breaking, and sometimes game breaking, WTF physics gone haywire.

We're past the point where some games are trying to make their physical models as realistic as they can manage instead of arcade-simplistic. Nearly every immersive environment uses a physics simulation model (Elder Scrolls 3-5, Fallout 3, NV, 4, Elite Dangerous, X universe, X-Plane, etc.) . In order to do that they'll need as much precision as any scientific modeling simulation, only in interactive real time rather than arbitrary time intervals. It's not unreasonable that games looking for whatever accuracy they can manage in real time physics computations are taking advantage of the same computational feature sets more formal scientific simulations use when they're available.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future to see advanced ML algorithms in games be able to switch to arbitrary precisions when necessary, especially if certain computations are faster in different precision than the default. Not all GPUs are created equal. It's not necessarily always the case that FP32 is slower than FP16, or that FP8 is "good enough". It depends on how the hardware design was tuned. That changes each generation & model even with the same vendor.

[Quackdoc]

Presumably they ran into situations where half (FP16) or single precision (FP32) weren't good enough. They may end up with "janky" physics artifacts. Any gamer that's been around long enough knows what I'm talking about. Nearly every game with a physics model has exhibited some form of WTF physics moments. I have to roll my eyes fairly often on a couple of games I like to play. In one of the two, the developers actively detect and have made in-game jokes about some of the problems they encounter with computational physics and path-finding as it relates to the game's context. There's more than enough videos of other games in WTF physics moments. So on hardware capable of handling double precision (FP64) they're probably using it in hope to minimize immersion breaking, and sometimes game breaking, WTF physics gone haywire.

We're past the point where some games are trying to make their physical models as realistic as they can manage instead of arcade-simplistic. Nearly every immersive environment uses a physics simulation model (Elder Scrolls 3-5, Fallout 3, NV, 4, Elite Dangerous, X universe, X-Plane, etc.) . In order to do that they'll need as much precision as any scientific modeling simulation, only in interactive real time rather than arbitrary time intervals. It's not unreasonable that games looking for whatever accuracy they can manage in real time physics computations are taking advantage of the same computational feature sets more formal scientific simulations use when they're available.

I wouldn't be surprised in the future to see advanced ML algorithms in games be able to switch to arbitrary precisions when necessary, especially if certain computations are faster in different precision than the default. Not all GPUs are created equal. It's not necessarily always the case that FP32 is slower than FP16, or that FP8 is "good enough". It depends on how the hardware design was tuned. That changes each generation & model even with the same vendor.

FP64 is way overkill for anything any sane game needs, especially a racing game. I've seen many simulation software that can function on FP16 let alone FP32. I don't know what the hell Dirt is doing, but whatever it is, it's overkill. It sure as sh*t didn't have that impressive of a physics system

[stormcrow]

FP64 is way overkill for anything any sane game needs, especially a racing game. I've seen many simulation software that can function on FP16 let alone FP32. I don't know what the hell Dirt is doing, but whatever it is, it's overkill. It sure as sh*t didn't have that impressive of a physics system

Prove it. Formally prove your statement. I can almost guarantee unless you WROTE those games or have interviewed the engineers along with suitable credentials in modeling physically interactive worlds yourself, you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't know their thought processes as they were working with whatever engine they brought in to manage the inworld physics unless you talked to them about it with a background in physics yourself. Neither do I. But I do have enough background in computational modeling that I can see why they'd want double precision in a game's physics.

[Quackdoc]

Prove it. Formally prove your statement. I can almost guarantee unless you WROTE those games or have interviewed the engineers along with suitable credentials in modeling physically interactive worlds yourself, you have no clue what you're talking about. You don't know their thought processes as they were working with whatever engine they brought in to manage the inworld physics unless you talked to them about it with a background in physics yourself. Neither do I. But I do have enough background in computational modeling that I can see why they'd want double precision in a game's physics.

I don't need to know their though process. I know that dirt does not that impressive physics simulation and that games have done similar things with less. Basically if Dirt devs need FP64, then they are really shitty devs. I don't need to know their though process to know that this would be massively laughable.

[dragorth]

FP64 is way overkill for anything any sane game needs, especially a racing game. I've seen many simulation software that can function on FP16 let alone FP32. I don't know what the hell Dirt is doing, but whatever it is, it's overkill. It sure as sh*t didn't have that impressive of a physics system

Open World Games would like to chat with you.

The way you are able to see 10 miles away in Unreal Engine 5 is because of their ability to use fp64 and higher.

Keep in mind, raytracing is now common, and to get that lighting to be accurate and good looking, you have to have decent accuracy to avoid jagged edges on 4K monitors.

[Delta_44]

The way you are able to see 10 miles away in Unreal Engine 5 is because of their ability to use fp64 and higher

Arma 3 has a maximum render distance of 20KM or more.
I bet that this game isn't even using FP32 or it's using FP32, not FP64.

[Quackdoc]

Open World Games would like to chat with you.

The way you are able to see 10 miles away in Unreal Engine 5 is because of their ability to use fp64 and higher.

Keep in mind, raytracing is now common, and to get that lighting to be accurate and good looking, you have to have decent accuracy to avoid jagged edges on 4K monitors.

Big lmao if true, because that just reinforces the meme of every single new game performing like dogshit and using lots of ram. Even modded skyrim with insane view distances doesn't need FP64, and still perform much better. FP64 math is quite a bit slower then FP32, and FP32 is still quite high precision. ofc you can emulate FP64, and some games do for very specific tasks, However they can usually get away bypassing it by doing other methods, which can sometimes involve more FP16 and FP32 calculations, but even that can still be faster then doing FP64 calc