Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Devs stopped caring about physics in general a decade ago. In fact, it's devolved since 2008. Look at the famous Crowbcat GTA IV vs GTA V comparison video for evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI
There's terrific fluid dynamics software (Next Limit RealFlow for example) but requires a bit of rendering horsepower. Implementing it into game engines requires optimization to keep the overall play performance at adequate frame rates is the challenge.
That's a ridiculous amount of ray tracing calculations to make the beads of water drops
https://nelstuff.itch.io/meor
Of course, as we get better hardware it enables games to have more and more realistic water physics and new techniques to get more realistic water can probably be developed. So by being creative I'm sure game devs will eventually find ways to make water seem realistic (i.e. gamers won't tell it's not realistic unless they look really, really close). The question isn't if it can be done but if game devs will want to do it, since it might not be top priority.