I don't think it will be either. I think physics in games will take several more years to evolve to any level of realism. Destructable environments are only part of what better physics can bring us.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Unreal Tourney 3 (2007) Physx
- Thread starter Bleedblue12345
- Start date
I don't think it will be either. I think physics in games will take several more years to evolve to any level of realism. Destructable environments are only part of what better physics can bring us.
I'm quite surprised that destructible environments has not caught on to a much larger extent already. Red Faction which was a release game for the PS2 incorporated destructible environments to a limited extent, and that was 6 years ago.
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
another game that incorporated this, (and ran well when not crashing,) was Soldnar: Secret Wars. Excellent concept, (being able to take the tower out from under the sniper,) but the game was a bit to bug ridden to catch on as well as it could have; and all of this before hardware phisics was a twinkle in the hardware developers.... eye.
WintersFury
Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 555
Can't agree more... I mean, if I shot a RPG at something in real life there would be a huge freakin hole in it not a cloud of smoke near where it hit.
I want realism! And the ability to take out the wall so it opens up access and crushes anyone on the other side. I can't understand why people wouldn't want to be able to do things like that. Secondary effects of explosions are where it's at! Perhaps their afraid of people like me planting C4 in the bottom of their sniper tower and killing them all at once when it collapses? I don't know, but progress will eventually happen...
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
that post above did not give not one good reason why destructable environment will be such a bad thing. i cant believe i wasted my time reading that useles shit he wrote. im not expecting everybody to like destructable environments but at least indicate a valid reaosn why??
just because it scuked on css dont mean it will suck on UT.
Destructive environments would have been there in most games since the 80's if it wasn't for technical limitations IMO. Liero was mad fun but it was doable only in 2D with the tech of the time.
Some people seems to fear a change toward more REALISTIC game play.
Some people seems to fear a change toward more REALISTIC game play.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Like Garth, he fears change.
QFT (and... awesomeness.)
Truth!
A game that looks great with bad gameplay will not survive these days. Look at Doom 3, STALKER, Painkiller. Games looked GREAT but lacked big time int he replay/online play aspect thus dieing off. Thats what killed UT2K3/2K4 for the UT99 players, strictly driven by graphics, ruined in gameplay. I certainly hope Epic/Midway get the hint.
I saw the newest UT demo movie, and it made me a sad panda.Heres to hoping graphics arent superior once again, as I could care less for some awesome explosion if Im not enjoying the game.
Haha..what about F.E.A.R? great looking game...but still a pretty decent sized online community
GoodBoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,760
Just because the unreal 3 engine will support physX, doesn't necessarily mean game developers have to use it. But it seems very very likely the engine will be able to support physX. One of the revenue streams companies like epic and id have is licensing the game engine to other companies to build games out of. It seems very logical to build support for physX into the engine because it does have the possibility to revolutionize gameplay. And it makes the engine more attractive to prospective game devs who may want to use Physx.
That doesn't mean all games made with the engine will necessarily have to use it...
However, I myself do think that the destructible environment will add a new dimension to the gameplay, and could revitalize interest in these teamplay games. We will not really know until someone tries it. The gameplay experience would need to be solid and well performing.... polished. As long as phyX experience doesn't somehow detract in some indirect manner the gameplay (crappy FPS, etc.), I think it is worth trying. I feel that online gaming isn't near what it used to be back in the Quake 1 - 3 days. Quake3 was the peak. (IMHO) We've had several years where the online multiplayer communities were more fragile and less stable than we were used to in the q3 days. basically there's some glimmer of new excitement if this makes the gameplay really fun. (sorry I got long winded there).
I'm not really sure that phyX is needed for destructible environments though... Red Faction had destructible environment and that game came out in what 2001? So the destructible environments could be added to a game without forcing players to have physx imho.
That doesn't mean all games made with the engine will necessarily have to use it...
However, I myself do think that the destructible environment will add a new dimension to the gameplay, and could revitalize interest in these teamplay games. We will not really know until someone tries it. The gameplay experience would need to be solid and well performing.... polished. As long as phyX experience doesn't somehow detract in some indirect manner the gameplay (crappy FPS, etc.), I think it is worth trying. I feel that online gaming isn't near what it used to be back in the Quake 1 - 3 days. Quake3 was the peak. (IMHO) We've had several years where the online multiplayer communities were more fragile and less stable than we were used to in the q3 days. basically there's some glimmer of new excitement if this makes the gameplay really fun. (sorry I got long winded there).
I'm not really sure that phyX is needed for destructible environments though... Red Faction had destructible environment and that game came out in what 2001? So the destructible environments could be added to a game without forcing players to have physx imho.
Whilst an add-in card not be needed, it might be necessary in order to maintain a fluid frame rate, depending of course on the degree to which the physics is implemented. Nobody needs an 8800GTX/Ultra, but such cards are necessary if you want to play at high resolutions with all the candy turned on.
The PhysX PPU cranks out many more calcs than anything on offer from Intel. Unless we see chipzillas cores hit (16?), this is likely to remain the case, IMHO. Whether or not this is sufficient a case to withhold development in the meantime remains to be seen. A killer app might deliver the push, but its a balancing act I think someone else further up pointed out that generating more candy on screen would of course place more load on the GPU. More importantly, though, were not exactly overrun with multi-thread apps at this time. Imagine having a quad core cpu with 2 cores idle and being told that you need an extra card to calc physics? Now whilst this may not apply as much to UT3 with its (sort of) quad support, it does apply to most other software at this time.
I would like to see the PPU triumph, at least in the short term, because I dont think were going to see the necessary horsepower from CPUs in the next year or two. That said Id be interested to know how players might be balanced in an online environment, those with & those without PhysX. That would be quite a stumbling block I imagine an important one for me as I dont play too much single player. Maybe someone can get something passable running on a spare core? That would go down well.
I don't mind add-in cards at all. In fact I wish someone made a motherboard with nothing onboard except for possibly the drive controller integrated into the chipset. I don't want onboard audio, network cards, video or anything else. (Firewire would be fine I suppose.) As it is I am not using anything onboard except the network card.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
I would like to see the PPU triumph, at least in the short term, because I don’t think we’re going to see the necessary horsepower from CPUs in the next year or two. That said I’d be interested to know how players might be balanced in an online environment, those with & those without PhysX. That would be quite a stumbling block I imagine – an important one for me as I don’t play too much single player. Maybe someone can get something passable running on a spare core? That would go down well.
Think about what you just said.
When in the last few years, with the possible exception of flight sims, have you seen any major title (that people didn't widely agree was just poorly written) that was CPU limited? The GPU has been the stumbling block for a long, long time. It's been the chokepoint. People that talk about "bottlenecking" their GPU are, in most cases, out of their minds, pure and simple. I had a single core Athlon 64 for 3 and a half years. It was never too slow to play the games -- the GPU was /always/ the weak point in that machine, from day one to the day I sold it. The GPU in my current machine is the weak point, even though it's the single fastest card on the planet right now, with the exception of overclocked versions of the same card.
With all that out of the way, and taking in to consideration that the instancing support introduced with DX10 should allow for a lot more debris and flying shrapnel, etc on screen with a minimal performance hit, PhysX is needed less now than it was at its inception. Many of us have, as you pointed out, 1 to 3 cores sitting idle, waiting for something to do. They can most /certainly/ handle the physics calculations for an exploding wall... or 30. This is not computational fluid dynamics, here -- game developers can cut corners to a great extent with regard to the complexity of the actual calculations in question, and no one would ever be the wiser... and there are an awful lot of idle cycles available, so I doubt they'd have to anyway. I don't recall any slowdown when blowing up walls in Red Faction, and I am /damn/ sure devs can do it better (prettier, more complex) now than they could in... what, 2001?
Many of us have been waiting for a killer app for these cards for a long time. When it came, I was going to buy one. They've failed to deliver, again and again. The few things they really do anything in -- Auto Assault, for example -- seem over-the-top in their implementation (in my opinion) and add absolutely nothing to the gameplay. They affect no one but the person on whose machine they originate. They wouldn't even affect anyone else if everyone had a PhysX card. They've been repeatedly shown to drop frame rate.
I wanted to like these things, wanted to see them as a great leap forward, a glimpse of the future and all that, but I don't think they will ever catch on in anything even vaguely resembling the 'mainstream'. I can think of many, many things I'd rather spend the money on, and so can most others, so the only place I think we're going to see PhysX cards, ever, is as a last minute addition to the "5k+ no holds barred" type build and in the machines of true 'believers'... who have /got/ to be disappointed by now.
The good news? Everything you wanted is possible. The bad news? The hardware necessary is available outside of your "PPU", to everyone with a Core2 or X2 series processor.
What's wrong with onboard NIC? Most motherboards now have an on-chip network controller that isn't even on the PCI bus which is superior to most add-in PCI cards. The problem I see with add-in cards is video cards now are just too darned big, I have to spend a long time doing motherboard research to find out with a favorable layout, which is to say, one that doesn't block a PCI slot when I install a dual slot video card.
Most competitive DM players rarely camp as having constant movement is important to controlling the map through power ups/ammo/health, and trying to get the enemies spawn points down. Competitive gamers can keep games alive or can kill them off completely, and developers know this... I doubt ID would screw themselves...
I though I had
. I've not presented an argument for any one side, it could be said that I've not presented an argument at all that I've simply voiced my thoughts on the subject. Regardless, in order to do so I would have had to have made a conscious effort, or 'thought' about it, if you will. I am physiologically bound to do so in getting it from my head to the keyboard. Anyway, with that out of the way, lets continue.
Possible exception?! I think that's a dead cert lol. What about UT2K4? In fact, what about every single-threaded premium game? They are all CPU limited by very definition. If we could have super-realistic AI/Physics et cetera I would imagine that the software developers would have coded it years ago. We have not because we have been CPU limited. I hope to see this change with multi-core, PhysX et cetera.
I wouldnt go so far as to suggest that people are somehow mentally deficient in stating such, but would I agree that for people running high resolutions it is the weak point. That said, for some people 35FPS is playable whilst for others it's 100FPS.
I cannot comment with any authority about what 1-3 idle core might be able to handle, but I believe that the general consensus is that it's nowhere near what a PPU might handle. Might it be enough for now? Possibly. Do I want a solution that cuts corners? Not if the alternative is pant-wettingly that much better AND its available. I've seen interesting demos from ATI & Aegia that reportedly would be a slide show on current CPU technology. I'd like that now. I'll buy the necessary 16 core CPU when it's available, by which time I'm sure everything will have moved on considerably.
I think that they don't affect anyone else because of bandwidth constraints. If we were on 100Mb I'm sure that would be sufficient, for now. Short of moving to Japan I guess we're stuck.
Maybe they wont catch on in the mainstream, but then the 8800GTX is hardly mainstream. We have them because we want tomorrows performance today. Sure, the technology & performance will trickle down over the next 12-18 months or so and become mainstream. I think we will see PPUs take off they cost less than 100 quid here. Also, dont forget that ATI are able to do it on their cards although not a PPU as such, they can be used. I think it remains to be seen if perhaps one of the big houses can launch them.
It's possible to some degree and I don't see it as 'bad news' that this might happen (to a satisfactory level) outside of a PPU (FYI, I don't own one, so it's not mine
.) Some people may be satisfied with the physics as seen in HL2, others may view it a very superficial implementation that clearly is in its' infancy, hampered largely by insufficient CPU resource.Anyway, cheers for the thought provoking post
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Anyway, cheers for the thought provoking post
Sorry I got so... negative with all of it. I've just been repeatedly unimpressed by these things, and honestly seen more done in software than what they've supposedly required hardware for.
I am excited and will buy ut3, but how long will the fun factor last? I played UT99 religiously until about 2001 2002, bought ut2k3 and played it through the single player and havent touched it since. It felt like quake 3 and just wasnt fun. Played the demo for 2k4 and it felt the exact same except with some vehicles added.
I would love destructable levels and all that jazz, if the game play is really that amazing I would probably buy a PhysX card. But theres just no way I want to waste my money on it with how the previous ones have gone. Even more so with the power of current GPU's and quad core CPU's coming out games will have the ability to do so much more without requiring the PhysX card.
I would love destructable levels and all that jazz, if the game play is really that amazing I would probably buy a PhysX card. But theres just no way I want to waste my money on it with how the previous ones have gone. Even more so with the power of current GPU's and quad core CPU's coming out games will have the ability to do so much more without requiring the PhysX card.
Onboard networking controllers suck. I benchmark them and test them all the time for reviews and if you go back two years ago and look at the data moving forward the onboard NICs have actually been getting worse it seems. They are using cheaper ASICs all the time. Many add-in PCI cards aren't that great either. But there are network cards out there you can buy that are FAR superior to the onboard shit we have now which either performs decently with rediculous CPU usage or it has low CPU usage and shit performance. Yes they are good enough to get the job done when it comes to internet access but they aren't nearly as good as they could or should be.
One thing I am very happy about is the fact that my video cards are now single slot solutions after ordering a new IO bracket and waterblocks for my video cards. Now all my extra slots are free to use. I've got something like two or three leftover expansion slots. I know I have one PCIe slot left and one regular PCI slot at least.
Manny Calavera
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 3,986
I think Dan is onto something here,and besides if you cant afford to run the game @ max settings,just turn it down a little is all.The game will still look tons better then UT99,and run well.I ama huge UT series fan,and prefer UT99 of all of them.What I really want is a
real single player sequal to Unreal done by Epic.
Unreal 2:Awakening was kinda ok,but not anywhere as good as it could have been.Getting Legend to ev it was a mistake.
The outcome very much surprised me,as WOT was excellent,and a game I played to death,in single player and MP.
SEALTeamSix
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 2,434
Destructible environments would work, but you couldn't have attack choppers respawning every 30 seconds like in Battlefield... I think it'd be pretty easy to destroy all the cover in any game that has a reasonably fast respawn rate.
Just my $0.02
Just my $0.02
Well obviously destructable environments would and should have limitations. For example, a wall made of metal shouldn't be destroyable by hand guns etc. Each game would have to have it's own balance point. Games with more destructables might put limits on how many rockets are available in the level and so on.
Games don't necessarily have to go all out for it to be a successful concept. They can start with making all fences and streets destructable, and a hand full of buildings. One of my biggest gripes is that not all windows are destructable and most doors should be.
Granted I agree that somethings are more suited to being destructable in single player games than in multiplayer ones, but still the amount of destructability and the relatively primative physics are getting stale and we have the technology now to make things so much better than they are today.
I think that gameplay should work more like it does in Farcry. I'd like to be able to take a multiple approach angle to a situation. For example, there is a locked door and inside the room is someone you need or want to rescue. Ok, you have a 12guage shotgun and the door is simply wooden. You could shoot through it, but then you will alert anyone inside or in the area. If you want to take the steathly approach, find the keys for the door somewhere in the building.
Each method has it's advantages and disadvantages, so give the player the choice. Farcry deserves credit for introducing this type of thinking in game design. You can approach an island or area with in a few different ways. You can use stealth and a sniper rifle to soften the target at long range, then move in and get down to business, or you can take my approach which involves many explosions and a great deal of expended ammunition to accomplish my goals. (I save often as I die alot using this method.)
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
yet another great post by dan_d. true say that should allow all windows and doors to be destructable at least in a game
People just don't seem to understand how more realistic physics should work in a game and what they could bring to the table.
Obviously, you wouldn't want to be able to level everything on the map. With real physics calculations the game would know that a bullet from a handgun can't do much to a concrete wall no matter how much you shoot through it. At best you can make the wall ugly or crack it, possibly make a small enough hole for someone to climb through. But if I crash a helicopter into that same wall, a huge section of it should be leveled. Also that same game would know that a bullet from anything outside of a .50BMG rifle can not hurt a tank. It simply won't have the velicity needed to penetrate the armor. At the same time it knows that a rocket does. Also anyone wearing the right body armor within the game would be invulnerable to certain types of handguns and rifles while in the armor and it wouldn't degrade to an appreciable extent. This would force the attacker to either hit the head or legs instead or find a more powerful weapon. The way it works now is that handguns do xx damage and riles do xxx damage. When hitting body armor it causes the armor to degrade either way. Real body armor doesn't work like that. Some types of armor can be hit multiple times without penetration by various calibers.
Also you wouldn't have anymore bullshit shots to your shoes killing you and preventing you from fighting back. As it stands now the entire hitbox for the player basically depletes the amount of HP you have and non-realistically lethal shots will kill you.
I just see potential for there to be better games and new experiences. I know that change can be scary, and yes it's not always for the better, but companies need to try something new because the gaming genre needs an infusion of new blood, and new ideas. We really do need to change the way we play these games because I've seen too many titles that are just reskinned recycled versions of things I've played in the last 10 years. The only games I enjoy now are ones that are different in theme and storyline. Only those games get my attention anymore. This is also why I've become much less of a multiplayer kind of guy and more of a single player gamer. I've gotten sick of the same old run around and shoot people experience that each game re-creates. Playing Quake 3 and Quake 4 online feel almost exactly the same to me. They differe slightly in mechanics and differently in graphics, but not in the overall experience. That's why Quake 4, CS:S, and so many other games aren't as good as the original. All they do is try to re-create the original. Where is the fun in that?
My 2 cents.
A gamedesign with that features set will of course been balanced as a whole. To reach a Specific gameplay wich would be fun for a decent amount of audience as you cant keep everybody happy.
This means wenn a Dev choose the route of Destructable or non destructable they go for a compleetly different game. It might look the same but gameplay wise it will be differrent afthre balancing it out.
This means No game as now can be easaly slapped on with destructable enviorment and structures. Because the impact is high on other game mechanics like AI.
First point is: Wenn a fix enviorment can do with A* star Pathing and hybrids. Pathing can be pre calculated as it's static. Routes are known and wont change. While destructable enviorment makes a dynamical enviorment the AI need to be a whole lot smarter. It must do Pathing on the fly takin into account the dynamical enviorment. Path come up and disapeer. This feature has large grand scale impact on the whole gamedesign and production and must be balanced to reach that fun level of gameplay
The reason why JTF hasn't debri that don;t disapear with destructable objects is the problem that AI need be more advanced. And some Dev team are to small or don't have the time or expertise or budged or mix of it to boost that to make it happen.
Crysis mentioned it. The AI was a heavy burden to takle but the have the time money and expertise to pull it off. As there enviorment is dynamical as Path change due to destruction of things. So boosting AI requierments for that Gamedesign.
Don't forget that in order to do all this, a return on investment is needed. With millions of gamers wanting a fast kill (Halo), is realistic injuries feasible? Is there a consumer base to support this?
I'd love to see it, too many games cheese out these days, or reward twitch play. Yes, I suck at twitch play.
But it seems the majority of people want bigger, better, faster, not more realistic and thought provoking with tactics WintersFury
Gawd
- Joined
- May 19, 2007
- Messages
- 555
I'd love to see it, too many games cheese out these days, or reward twitch play. Yes, I suck at twitch play.
Perhaps that's why I want more realism as well... I'm not very good at the "twitch" style of gaming myself. And being a fan of strategy games, I'd love to have strategy in my FPS... And not getting killed by being shot in my weapon, which is about the lamest way to die ever...
I unfortunately think your right about a lot of people not wanting it. But I have the feeling there are a lot who do want it or would like it if they tried it. Since there are no games with it, we just hear the people not wanting it shouting about how they don't want it. Whoever makes the loudest noise often is the one who is heard even if the majority wants something else. (I'm not saying which side has a majority as I really have no clue, I'm just using it to point out that people who make a lot of noise are often the ones listened to)
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
true but cant they implement it on a small reletively cheap game to begin with and see how well it goes? cant they make the unreal engine physix enabled so that modders could use physix to design destructable environments?
What is the cost to license the Unreal Engine? A small game studio can't afford that if they won't sell a certain number of units. It's all about the return.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
It's insane. Several hundred thousand dollars for a full license, I think?
You haven't really been doing your homework have you?
I consider myself a pretty hardcore UT2004 player, I play a lot of tam and know my way around the bigger Unreal forums.
What you're saying here talks against everything I've read to be perfectly honest.
I do not mean any offense, but all the forums I've read lately and all the players I've talked to have shown great anticipation towards what physics and interactive invironments bring to the gameplay.
It seams to me that interactive invironments has a lot of good it bring within gameplay.
For instance, in best UT style one could kill a player by shooting a watertank sitting in the level and drown his opponent, or shoot a lamp hanging overhead to have it swing down electricuting the enemy.
By the way, as I see it there are 2 scenes to UT. All the hardcore clanbase players in one, and all the level designers, uscripters and modders in another. One is all generally all about playing against eachother and winning, and one where people are all about making new stuff and utilizing the engine to it's fullest. I take part in both most of the time, and I haven't heard anything bad from any of them.
r_picmip anyone? When I play RA3 it looks older than Quake 1. Why? Because pretty pictures don't help me win.
Yes a very large one more then a millions. You think those fast action market is large is actualy real large just the counter part is also large wich give Dev's the room to reach all.
Like 67% want's it your way the other part 30% want tactical 3% are realy different wishes that would be niche market gameplay. This out of a pool of 50 million world wide. Also there are more Dev houses releasing there title to compete with each other.
As there is one thing gamers, are differrent you can't plaese 100% with one game. That why there is room for a few gameplay formulas.
That why there is
Ghost recon series
Rainbowsix series.
Operation flashpoint Armord Assault
America operations
Unreal (T) series is a counter part of that style.
With both combined you reach a realy broad audience.
On game only reach a part of the heap. It's after that more the the point how big the slice is and how many ofthem are pulled to this title as it's would not be the only one.
Als I don't like ID soft games after and including quake2. Others do like them.
R6LV I played.
It's more a decent part of the heap of FPS gamers want fast action. A other decent part maybe smaller want more tactical slower pace and realistic gameplay that still fun.I'd love to see it, too many games cheese out these days, or reward twitch play. Yes, I suck at twitch play.
This slice may be smaller but big enough to be pofitable.
I think that People that are Fast and very reactive like to play fast action because the will do well and win more then loose in combat. Kid and adult up to 25 year and some older exceptions. And some clanners trained to keep up with the rest.
Other people like me are slower are thinkers don't like fast action because they can't handle the fast players and will mostly loose. They get tyerd of loosing.
That why a online fast action bunny hop game can't please all player. Because a large part can't handle that gameplay style well.
I prefere tactical slow peace realism with a few hitpoint and the most realisc system that support fun gameplay. It's more stealth and be the one that see the other first give the upperhand.
Yes people are differrent and this means differnt games and game styles needed.
That Will be Warmonger a free public test bed for a larger Project a Physics rich MMO game. Coming in the second halve of this year.
Build with the unreal 3 engine
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
That Will be Warmonger a free public test bed for a larger Project a Physics rich MMO game. Coming in the second halve of this year.
Build with the unreal 3 engine
aint we already in the second half of the year?
Funny, I'd rather snap the PCI slot off and force it into my eye socket than spend money on the Killer NIC
Funny, I'd rather snap the PCI slot off and force it into my eye socket than spend money on the Killer NIC
I have a pretty severe hatred for onboard NICs. They just plain suck. Their test scores get worse every year it seems. The ones onboard now aren't as good as the ones on the i975P chipset. The Intel chips that were on the CSA bus before PCIe came out were VASTLY superior to the Broadcom and Marvell PHY crap we are forced into using now. Granted they all get the job done and are good enough for internet access but little else. That and spending $250 or so doesn't bother me too much. I can afford it.
Ok, the article is a little old but it still shows the lowly onboard NIC in a pretty good light when compared to the KNIC.
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2865&p=8
I think the summary hit the nail on the head - if you have an old machine that's really not up to much then perhaps it's for you. It would seem that today's CPUs have plenty to spare and generally don't sweat when placing packets of data inside TCP/IP packets.
Not saying you won't see an improvement, just that it would most probably be minimal. That said, it's still [H]ard given its other features
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
LOL where did you get that idea from? our company uses onboard network stuff and it works flawlessly with servers and stuff running from behind it all