Effects Physics & Gameplay Physics Explored @ [H]

[Brent_Justice]

I'd love to see a Physics slider in games where you can lower or increase the amount of physics hardware acceleration and intensity.

 

[Terra]

Nice PR-piece.
Why do I say that?

HavokFX = Nothing but PR, no hardware, no games...nothing on the market.
ATI = Nothing but PR, no hardware, no games...nothing on the market.
NVIDIA = Nothing but PR, no hardware, no games...nothing on the market.
AGEIA = Hardware on the market + support in games already on the market.
Add to that that there are +100 games and +60 game developers that are supporting PhysX.

It's PR + PR + PR against retail hardware and games...

So the way I see it:
No value to me, wake me up when there is hard proof and not just PR.

Terra - Last post in this thread untill ATI/NVIDIA/Havok delivers more than PR

 

[Brent_Justice]

I completely disagree with you Terra. There was not much PR in their statements. I saw a lot of technical fact on the subject. I think we can walk away from reading that being much more informed now about capabilities, and what the differences are between effects and gameplay physics.

And about your "hardware and no games". ATI and NV do have hardware, current GPUs. But you have a point about games, they don't have games yet supporting the hardware. Ageia doesn't have much to show either in this regard, GRAW which isn't anything really, and Cell Factor, more of a tech demo than a full retail game, that's it, no killer app yet in retail. Havok doesn't make hardware, so that's irrelevant, they do make software though, and they do have an API that supports effects physics acceleration, with the potential for gameplay physics acceleration in the future.

Personally I feel effects physics hardware acceleration is a great place to start. It's a good transition into the whole idea of physics acceleration on the PC. It allows developers to do it without having to worry about game sells and requiring hardware to run their games. It allows an instant boost of gameplay immersion, something we will actually "see" and benefit from, just like 3D acceleration has done. What it then comes down to is what hardware is best for it, and that's the battle that is to be fought.

 

[psychoace]

Also to me it seemed like Ageia said the same stuff and answered the questions with the same drawn out over explinations that Nvidia, Ati, and Havok did. So if you say one is "BS PR" then your saying Ageia is too.

Add to that that there are +100 games and +60 game developers that are supporting PhysX.

Havok is still is still in it's infancy although they do show they have finally released the tools for hardware physics ( http://www.havok.com/content/view/341/53/ ) it dosn't mean they wont have any games to announce soon. Nvidia and Ati have a nice footing with a lot of game developers and publishers so I doubt they wont have a higher amount of games in development in the near future. It's just to early to announce anything.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

So the way I see it:
No value to me, wake me up when there is hard proof and not just PR.

That is true for ALL parties included in the [H] article.......

It is going to take more than tech demo to get me to sink 300.00 on dedicated hardware that doesn't do anything more than what GPU's can do today.

 

[pxc]

That was a great set of questions to ask all 4 parties and a very interesting read. Hopefully that will cut down on the FUD spread in this particular forum.

 

[ITOAO]

Interesting read. What I am left wondering is how this will affect me in the near future as far as hardware is concerned. I am thinking its not even worth it to buy another Graphics card and invest in SLI which I though I would be able to do and remain somewhat satisfied. However with DX10 looming and now all the Physics stuff it seems pointless. How will the new DX10 cards handle physics, and if I do decide to buy a PhysX card with the Card I have now will I be able to even keep up with newer titles? Not sure if I am making sense. It just seems like it will all end up costing me more money.

 

[SuperGee]

It would be like this. A Hardware physics supporting game. Detects what the setup of the Game rig is.
Is it single core. It wil use basic low level of crusial Gameplay Physics. and all effect Physics of.
Has it Dual core It pump up AI and a bit more and more important for the game Physics.
Detect it Hardware for Physics. It enables sliders for advance Physcs.
Largere scale Gameplay or effects Physics.

Because there are a lot of Physics features you can enable disable the features you like a play with the sliders to adjust it.
A R600 will do more then a X1900 but you can disable partical dust. but set cloths on max. Hair medium, while the R600 can take it all to the max.

With a X1600XT you can enable some more Physics but with a X1900 you put the slide to the max. And With a R600 ir will performe even better.

Because of the wide range of G-card and coming soon G-cards Games must put these option in it. On Fix solution would mean the load is to heavy or the avaible high-en dhardware would not be used to its potentional.

Like now every gamer is tweaking the game setting for how much FPS and IQ he wishes with i gamerig. Dito for Physic sin the future.

ATI has some wild performance claims. And there arent games to bench that because such game must support both solutions PPU and GPU thus supporting HavokFX and PhysX API Lile Some games can use GLide/DX/OGL

Its the game of budged for hardware and checkboxes and sliders.

It wil mean the option screen get a lot bigger or a new tab with lot of option to check or slide.

Also ATI claims it architekture is more Physics effective then nV curent one. think that nV next wil adress this means there could be a larger speed differens between G7X vs G80 card on the Physics side.Or it would be wiser to go now for ATI if you wil jump on the GPU Physic wagon.

 

[Terra]

That is true for ALL parties included in the [H] article....... .

Oh really, you got any ATI techdemo you can run?
(BTW, CellFactor is not a techdemo anymore, it's a demo of a comming retail game)
I have the hardware(PhysX) and I can use it in games...
Can you claim the same for the other parties?

Terra...

 

[merlin704]

Oh really, you got any ATI techdemo you can run?
(BTW, CellFactor is not a techdemo anymore, it's a demo of a comming retail game)
I have the hardware(PhysX) and I can use it in games...
Can you claim the same for the other parties?

Terra...

You're a bit bitter now that you have been proven wrong about ATi/nVidia not being able to do game-play physics.

Other than the Cellfactor Techdemo and really crappy effects physics in GRAW with the PhysX PPU, what else can your card do?

 

[psychoace]

until they release a new one it's still a tech demo so don't listen to terra. Just like the Quake 3 alpha's are still alpha even though the game came out the tech demo is still just a tech demo.

OH also the physix card can make a flame thrower into a lava thrower in bet on soldier even though it's still named a flame thrower but yet looks nothing like one.

 

[Terra]

You're a bit bitter now that you have been proven wrong about ATi/nVidia not being able to do game-play physics.

1. I am not bitter, I like my PhysX so you couldn't be more off...but thanks for the personal attack.
I deal with my feelings, you deal with yours, okay?!

2. I have no proof...and neither have you...so far it's still PR.
Just like ATI's SM3.0 "done right" or NVIDIA's SM3.0 served as SM3.0 vs SM2.0 when it actually only was SM1.0
Just a load of PR.
You got ANYTHING to show?
Anything?
Techdemo?
Runing hardware?
The API?
Anything?

Other than the Cellfactor Techdemo and really crappy effects physics in GRAW with the PhysX PPU, what else can your card do?

I can fiddle with 2 more games, some demos and ther stuff and look forward to +100 game titles comming...what can you do?
Look at PR slides?
Besides. the "techdemo argument" is getting old:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832220001

"CellFactor: Combat Training is a physics-intensive game originally developed as a demo for the Ageia PhysX chipset. Gameplay in the interactive concept demo uses the wildly powerful new technology for multiplayer mayhem in a physics-rich environment."
Since when is a techdemo "preorder" and cost money?

It's a demo of a comming game....like it or not...

Terra...

 

[psychoace]

The tech demo is based off of only showing the function of the card that demo in no way was a product of full game and is no way a respectful iteration of what the full game might be like. It's 1 level with a bunch of pipes and blocks. There is no story there is no defined characters there is nothing that gives it an inkling of what the full game might be like. It's a tech demo and it will always be like that forever and ever until the day we all die. The next demo they release though wont be a tech demo because it will actually be based off the work that is being done where they are knowling producing a full game.

Also I am sure there has been a lot of in house tech demo's these developers make that have become games. I am sure those tech demo's didn't get renamed to "real demos" when they decided to make it an actual game I am sure they are still titled as "Tech Demo" because that is what they are/were/always will be.

 

[psychoace]

1. I am not bitter, I like my PhysX so you couldn't be more off...but thanks for the personal attack.
I deal with my feelings, you deal with yours, okay?!

2. I have no proof...and neither have you...so far it's still PR.
Just like ATI's SM3.0 "done right" or NVIDIA's SM3.0 served as SM3.0 vs SM2.0 when it actually only was SM1.0
Just a load of PR.
You got ANYTHING to show?
Anything?
Techdemo?
Runing hardware?
The API?
Anything?

Terra...

There is a river in Africa called The Nile and I think Terra is swimming in it

 

[Terra]

#psychoace:
If you are writing to me your are wasting your time, you got a 1-way ticket to my ignore long ago, and I have already stated that for you several times.
If I am mistaken I appologize for make an wrong assumption...

Terra - Sorry for going OT.

 

[jimmyb]

#psychoace:
If you are writing to me your are wasting your time, you got a 1-way ticket to my ignore long ago, and I have already stated that for you several times.
If I am mistaken I appologize for make an wrong assumption...

Terra - Sorry for going OT.

You are mistaken actually. He didn't reply at all. You've been talking to yourself for the last couple posts.

 

[psychoace]

Remember if you have a response to whatever I say make sure to quote it otherwise Terra might not know what your talking about

 

[Terra]

You are mistaken actually. He didn't reply at all. You've been talking to yourself for the last couple posts.

Oh, sorry then, just noticed that he tends to reply rigth after me.

Terra - I stand corrected!

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Remember if you have a response to whatever I say make sure to quote it otherwise Terra might not know what your talking about

I keep coming back to the best post in years.

Terra - Last post in this thread untill ATI/NVIDIA/Havok delivers more than PR

 

[psychoace]

Psychoace- My last post in here until Ageia fans snap out of the denial they are in and figure out even Ageia is a master of the PR BS.

 

[Terra]

I keep coming back to the best post in years.

You made a false statement, that could not be ignored.
And I take it as I was right since you deliver NO counter arguments, but only have "argumentum ad hominem"

Terra - You post speaks for it self

 

[merlin704]

Nobody hates you Terra. It's just that you go through the entire PPU forum speaking so highly of AGEIA while at the same time speaking down about ATi/nVidia; saying that they can ONLY do effects-physics. But now that those 2 companies reveal that their GFX cards can in fact do effects AND game-play physics, you still post how it is nothing other than PR.

I mean the facts are there from ATI and nVidia but yet they just bounce off your AGEIA shields that are obviously set to Full Strength.

Now lets look at Bet On Soldier Terra which is one of the other games that you say you can play now with a PPU from AGEIA. It add effects to the flame thrower that supposedly makes it more realistic and so forth. Well after watching the videos of what the PPU/BoS can do, I must say the flamethrower from RTCW STILL looks better. I mean seriously it looks more like a Magma-Thrower than anything else.

Also to answer your question: "Since when is a techdemo "preorder" and cost money?"

A: 3DMark. Techdemo with no goal other than e-penis points and it can be pre-ordered.

 

[Tenebrus]

Good article. I had the distinct impression that passing data from the GPU back to the game engine wouldn't be feasible in the current generations.

All in all seems all options are open at the moment, but until there is a common and measurable way to compare performance on both solutions it will be hard to judge which will be the better solution.

Design wise, I still prefer Ageia's solution as a change in the brand of gfx card in your system won't necessarily render your physics solution unusable (I don't think we're nearly at the point where a single GPU has the power to spare on physics calculations).

 

[Flexmaster]

Good article. I had the distinct impression that passing data from the GPU back to the game engine wouldn't be feasible in the current generations.

All in all seems all options are open at the moment, but until there is a common and measurable way to compare performance on both solutions it will be hard to judge which will be the better solution.

Design wise, I still prefer Ageia's solution as a change in the brand of gfx card in your system won't necessarily render your physics solution unusable (I don't think we're nearly at the point where a single GPU has the power to spare on physics calculations).

Actually a single GPU still has quite a bit of power left on the vertex processors for physics calculations, even while rendering a game.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

Good article. I had the distinct impression that passing data from the GPU back to the game engine wouldn't be feasible in the current generations.

All in all seems all options are open at the moment, but until there is a common and measurable way to compare performance on both solutions it will be hard to judge which will be the better solution.

Design wise, I think most people would rather have less devices to fail or experience driver/conflict problems. Good example is onboard sound and it growing popularity.

 

[Terra]

Design wise, I think most people would rather have less devices to fail or experience driver/conflict problems. Good example is onboard sound and it growing popularity.

So the soundchip on the motherboard is less likely to fail than the chip on the soundcard?

Terra - And what onboard soundcard gives me EAX HD?

 

[psychoace]

So the soundchip on the motherboard is less likely to fail than the chip on the soundcard?

Terra - And what onboard soundcard gives me EAX HD?

Audigy 2 HD but he can't read this because he has me on ignore because he loves me a lot.

 

[Netrat33]

I can fiddle with 2 more games, some demos and ther stuff and look forward to +100 game titles comming...what can you do?
Look at PR slides?
Besides. the "techdemo argument" is getting old:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832220001

"CellFactor: Combat Training is a physics-intensive game originally developed as a demo for the Ageia PhysX chipset. Gameplay in the interactive concept demo uses the wildly powerful new technology for multiplayer mayhem in a physics-rich environment."
Since when is a techdemo "preorder" and cost money?

It's a demo of a comming game....like it or not...

Terra...

Heh. Dude. It's a techdemo! Has no representation of what the actual game might actually be like. 3Dc in Serious Sam 2 anyone? It can be pulled in a heartbeat

 

[jimmyb]

So the soundchip on the motherboard is less likely to fail than the chip on the soundcard?

This is likely the case.

That said, I've never had a soundcard (integrated or otherwise) fail on me.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

You made a false statement, that could not be ignored.
And I take it as I was right since you deliver NO counter arguments, but only have "argumentum ad hominem"

Terra - You post speaks for it self

What post was "false"? The fact GPU's can handle the level of physics today or that everyone who dumped 300.00 to play a few techdemos feel dumb right now?

My greatest enjoyment will be when the next Agiea card comes out and games still don't support a level of physics that can't be supported by a GPU. The posts will be very humorous.

- nothing like 300.00 to beta test and play techdemos.

So the soundchip on the motherboard is less likely to fail than the chip on the soundcard?

Terra - And what onboard soundcard gives me EAX HD?

Soundcards are a generalization but I know that NO ONE has every had a problem with their soundcard and IRQ conflicts or driver issues.

 

[Deleted member 133315]

This is one funny thread.....

 

[Tenebrus]

Design wise, I think most people would rather have less devices to fail or experience driver/conflict problems. Good example is onboard sound and it growing popularity.

Actually I'd rather that when my sound chip fails, I don't have to send the whole motherboard for repair and risk being without a computer for a few weeks. Given the option, at the same price, I always prefer modularity to having everything integrated in the same board. As for conflicts, haven't had one since the days of Windows Me.

 

[Terra]

What post was "false"? The fact GPU's can handle the level of physics today or that everyone who dumped 300.00 to play a few techdemos feel dumb right now?

*looks at his PhysX, his driver and his games.*
That part about it ALL was PR..I don't need to repeat my post now do I?

My greatest enjoyment will be when the next Agiea card comes out and games still don't support a level of physics that can't be supported by a GPU. The posts will be very humorous.

Yeah, the list of GPU physics games are enormous *chough*
Wich games are we talking about?
But do you mean like when CellFactor goes retail? (and loads of other games)

- nothing like 300.00 to beta test and play techdemos.

Beats having nothing to show

Terra - Was this all you got?





Soundcards are a generalization but I know that NO ONE has every had a problem with their soundcard and IRQ conflicts or driver issues.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pottsey]

“A: 3DMark. Techdemo with no goal other than e-penis points and it can be pre-ordered.”
Actually the tech demo part is free. You don’t pre order the tech demo you get it for free at the same time as everyone else. You do pay for the online orb storage space, benchmark parts, screenshot compare and all the other advanced features.

3Dmark is more then just e-penis points. Did you not look at everything it does apart from benchmarks? Even benchmarks are useful.





“I must say the flamethrower from RTCW STILL looks better. I mean seriously it looks more like a Magma-Thrower than anything else.”
The PPU it not about the look it’s about the physics. If you don’t like the way it looks well blame the artists choice and/or 3dcard. The flamethrower in RTCW has no where near as nice physics as Betn. The flame in RTCW does not bounce and on objects and it does not flow down walls and over bumps in the wall. It doesn’t flow down stairs e.c.t. Bet on has much better physics in the flamethrower.





“. The next demo they release though wont be a tech demo because it will actually be based off the work that is being done where they are knowling producing a full game.”
Are you not aware they bought out more then one version of Cellfactor? and I am sure it was after they said its now a full game. So by your definition its now a demo not a tech demo so stop calling it a tech demo.

 

[R1ckCa1n]

*l
Yeah, the list of GPU physics games are enormous *chough*
Wich games are we talking about?
But do you mean like when CellFactor goes retail? (and loads of other games)

How disappointed will you be when these games only have effects physics, which can be done without a 300.00 add-on board?

Maybe you did not get the whole point of the [H] article?

 

[Terra]

How disappointed will you be when these games only have effects physics, which can be done without a 300.00 add-on board?

Maybe you did not get the whole point of the [H] article?

Repetion:
You got ANYTHING to show?
Besides PR?

Terra - *yaaawn...*

 

[ivzk]

I'm sure he's probably taking a picture with $300 in his wallet, as per your request.

 

[Brent_Justice]

Actually a single GPU still has quite a bit of power left on the vertex processors for physics calculations, even while rendering a game.

It will be even more so possibly with DX10 GPUs that have geometry shader performance to spare. We'll find out next year though.

 

[Brent_Justice]

2. I have no proof...and neither have you...so far it's still PR.
.

It is not PR, the hardware doesn't know the difference between effects and gameplay physics, so it can do both. It's all about how the game developers use the hardware. (that goes for both GPUs and the PhysX processor)

 

[R1ckCa1n]

It is not PR, the hardware doesn't know the difference between effects and gameplay physics, so it can do both. It's all about how the game developers use the hardware. (that goes for both GPUs and the PhysX processor)

And that is what I took from the article. If/when additional hardware is required to enhance gameplay it will be a win win for everyone. What was exposed is it really isn't .