Bioshock and ppu

T

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,563
bioshock runs on the unreal3 right? well is there ppu support for bioshock, i haven't heard anything about it.
 
no it uses Havoc
MoH:A demo does and let me know how it runs/looks with hardware
 
I've tried moh:airborne and I can tell it ran great, and it support the ppu just like monster madness. This means you don't get special physx effects like hardware cloth, smoke, particles, etc.
You get generic physics effects that can run on cpu also, but if you have the ppu theses calcs are done by ppu.
 
Don't you read what I have posted. There's no difference in effects, just performance.
The game don't have special hardware effects.
 
MoH:A
So they just support it for offloading the load. So for smoother frame rates?
They could do some extra effect Physics. It's a shame. :(

It doesn't support Vista 64 so downloading it on my XP rig with PPU to.
It's CPU is a tad slower then the Vista gamerigs.

Also I saw a VSnet 2005 redistibutal. wenn I tryid it to install on vista64 So it's developt on Visualstudio 2005. I think.

Don't care about Bioshock. Not my thing.
 
Yeah, I just read that Havok was implemented for Bioshock, and shortly after I decided that they must've had an "lets do acid" day when that decision was made.

I'll take it right from the start for you. Bioshock runs on the Unreal 3.0 Engine, which happens to already come with the PhysX Engine implemented (in my opinion a much better physics engine than havok). So the good guys at 2K Boston/Australia choose to discard this engine, and spend Time and Money on first licensing and then Implementing Havok into Unreal 3.0, which is where I get off.

Just, why? The only reason I could come up with was something about already having a license, and having strange porgrammers who'd rather implement it than learn to use physX.
EDIT: Which very likely seams to be the case, as they indeed have licensed Havok for SWAT 4 which they built on the Unreal 2.0 Engine, making it very likely that implementing Havok was a breeze for them.
 
SuperGee said:
MoH:A
So they just support it for offloading the load. So for smoother frame rates?
They could do some extra effect Physics. It's a shame. :(

It doesn't support Vista 64 so downloading it on my XP rig with PPU to.
It's CPU is a tad slower then the Vista gamerigs.

Also I saw a VSnet 2005 redistibutal. wenn I tryid it to install on vista64 So it's developt on Visualstudio 2005. I think.

Don't care about Bioshock. Not my thing.
Click to expand...

moh: a runs fine in vista 64
 
SafeFire said:
Yeah, I just read that Havok was implemented for Bioshock, and shortly after I decided that they must've had an "lets do acid" day when that decision was made.

I'll take it right from the start for you. Bioshock runs on the Unreal 3.0 Engine, which happens to already come with the PhysX Engine implemented (in my opinion a much better physics engine than havok). So the good guys at 2K Boston/Australia choose to discard this engine, and spend Time and Money on first licensing and then Implementing Havok into Unreal 3.0, which is where I get off.

Just, why? The only reason I could come up with was something about already having a license, and having strange porgrammers who'd rather implement it than learn to use physX.
EDIT: Which very likely seams to be the case, as they indeed have licensed Havok for SWAT 4 which they built on the Unreal 2.0 Engine, making it very likely that implementing Havok was a breeze for them.
Click to expand...

Strange could be they have already a Havok licence for use on different projects.
This one happens to use Unreal3 and they have experience with Havok so stick to havok.
The choice of a full fledge game engine is time to market. Learning a new SDK/API is counter produktive in this way.
Like Grin droped Havok to use physX full. Because the had the experience with both.

Wich make me think if usingTruevison3d as gameengine, intead use it's incorporated newton I could use PhysX. Might be with margenta to.
 
I did two runs of MOH:A one with PPU on, and one off, ran fraps each time.
and both runs were within a few FPS of each other..

I do not think this game uses the PPU

Emmett
 
I know when you install the demo I get the install routine for the PhysX application.

This is the same if you install the GRAW demo as well.

So the support is there. Perhaps it will be more substantial in the full release. I have a feeling you will see more benefit if you run a single core with a PPU.

A dual or quad core would get much less choked up on the background physics calculations than a single core.
 
SuperGee said:
Strange could be they have already a Havok licence for use on different projects.
Click to expand...

if it's simply a matter of what they had already paid to license, then that's moot. The Ageia SDK is free to use and freely available. cost is a non-issue there.

What _could_ be happening is that they had an _exclusive_ license for Havok and are required by that contract to use Havok and nothing else.
 
svet-am said:
if it's simply a matter of what they had already paid to license, then that's moot. The Ageia SDK is free to use and freely available. cost is a non-issue there.

What _could_ be happening is that they had an _exclusive_ license for Havok and are required by that contract to use Havok and nothing else.
Click to expand...


Or it could be that they just reused some physics code from another of their titles that they happened to use havok in.. Code reuse is common and can sometimes really save a lot of time/money...
 
Bioshock doesn't even use all of the UE3 engine, so they might not even have had to remove the physx support in the first place.

It's kind of like how deffered rendering compatible AA is going to be a DX10 exclusive feature in UT3, but Bioshock doesn't support that because Epic's DX10 renderer isn't finished or available yet. Licensees are currently making their own custom DX10 renderers which is part of the reason why the DX10 support is so underwhelming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top