![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Effects Physics & Gameplay Physics Explored @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
R1ckCa1n said:
That's irrelevant.
What process technology silicon uses is not the primary concern here, different architectures and technology use different manufacturing processes, you can't really compare GPUs to the PhysX processor in that regards, they are two different beasts, just cause they differ in process technology doesn't make one better or worse than the other.
Brent_Justice said:
To me it does...... 130nm is big and hot compared to the process Creative is using for the XFI, which doesn't require a large heatsink with fan. If Ageia wants my money they best be using the latest technology and processes to earn my money; and have some measurable impact to my gaming experience.
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
I've read this thread and I decided to give my opinion.
And Brent you are absolutely correct about everything.
Atleast someone in here looks at it perspectively and doesent get pulled to one side for no reason.
Anyway we know for a Fact that both can do Effect and gameplay physics, I dont know why theres still discussions about this, it has been cleared up.
It all comes down to the games as you said Brent and I agree with you 100%, until theres a Killer app on the PPU or GPU front, you cant say which is ahead.
Sure many in this thread said that the PPU has been out, but that is irrelevant because there is no Killer app and therefore the acceptance rate of the hardware is very low, and there is bascially no reason to have it now, the GRAW and bet on Soldier additions are medicore at best and dont show what the hardware is capable of whatsoever.
Also there might be a list of games that will use or are supposed to use the PPU hardware, but we cant say anything until they are released.
In other words no ones ahead until someting worthwhile is released.
So theres no reason to argue, we should just observe the matter and see where it goes, as said both are capable of the same so its up to the games.
And Brent you are absolutely correct about everything.
Atleast someone in here looks at it perspectively and doesent get pulled to one side for no reason.
Anyway we know for a Fact that both can do Effect and gameplay physics, I dont know why theres still discussions about this, it has been cleared up.
It all comes down to the games as you said Brent and I agree with you 100%, until theres a Killer app on the PPU or GPU front, you cant say which is ahead.
Sure many in this thread said that the PPU has been out, but that is irrelevant because there is no Killer app and therefore the acceptance rate of the hardware is very low, and there is bascially no reason to have it now, the GRAW and bet on Soldier additions are medicore at best and dont show what the hardware is capable of whatsoever.
Also there might be a list of games that will use or are supposed to use the PPU hardware, but we cant say anything until they are released.
In other words no ones ahead until someting worthwhile is released.
So theres no reason to argue, we should just observe the matter and see where it goes, as said both are capable of the same so its up to the games.
People talk about Crysis and Physcis:
Crysis gameplay video(96MB WMV)
Look at around 1:00m and around 2:20m
That is NOT impresssive IMHO
Terra - Enjoy...
Crysis gameplay video(96MB WMV)
Look at around 1:00m and around 2:20m
That is NOT impresssive IMHO
Terra - Enjoy...
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Looks pretty nice to me.Terra said:
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:
So what is next gen physics to you?
Those are probably the best physics shown in playable form.
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Its subjective, but to me what I have seen in Crysis looks far better. The trees collapsing, fully destructible environments and the explosions look incredible.Terra said:
Flexmaster said:
Watch more video's the collapse the same way
Where the hell did you see that?!
I guess you impress more easily than I then...
Something like this impresses me:
http://www.cellfactorgame.com/forums/showpost.php?p=174&postcount=9
Terra...
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:
I have seen the Cellfactor footage and I am aware of the game, and as I said its subjective. And I have seen demonstrations of Crysis where grenades were thrown and chunks fly out of the ground with the explosion creating a hole.
Flexmaster said:
Do you have anything form Crysis stating fully destrucatable enviroment?
As a sidenote I just found this funny thing abut CellFactor:
http://www.cellfactorgame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13
Look like the "techdemo" will be much, much more
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:Do you have anything form Crysis stating fully destrucatable enviroment?
As a sidenote I just found this funny thing abut CellFactor:
http://www.cellfactorgame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13
Look like the "techdemo" will be much, much more
I never said Cell Factor isnt enough, its great. But Crysis just has better physics IMO.
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:
Oh that one here you go:
"Everything you see in your environment can affect the gameplay in someway. Almost everything can be destroyed including vegetation, buildings and vehicles. Even enemy fire will destroy the vegetation around you - so don't think you can take shelter behind a tree! Throwing a grenade will clear the foliage enabling you to view your enemy hiding."
http://www.incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:
You should study reading comprehension that is implied that not EVERYTHING can be detroyed.
Can you destroy the sky NO
Ocean NO
There is some things that arent meant to be destructible. Everyone should know that.
Flexmaster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 141
Terra said:Ground?
Terra...
Um yeah you can make holes in the ground. The article just said that not everything is destructible. And that is a no brainer, because some things arent meant to be.
Terra said:
Wow now that is really stretching it pre defined holes? How can you make pre defined holes in a huge map that for every inch of space because you don't throw grenades into pre determined spots. Also Cellfactor physics are over the top and ment to be an extreme case scenario while Cyris is more real world physics which allows is all about subtleness not being flashy. The fact that leafs will move when you shoot a bullet at it and will also be have great collision detection when you pass through them is sign enough that they have great physics.
Wow. I cannot believe I see someone trying to take apart physics in Crysis. It's the "art'" direction of the programmers of what will and wont be destructable just like in any game with physics.
But I guess GRAW and Beat on Soldier look more impressive because it's Ageia right. "It's a real world application of a PPU!"
But I guess GRAW and Beat on Soldier look more impressive because it's Ageia right. "It's a real world application of a PPU!"
Once people play a game with fully destructable environments they'll finally realize that the concept sucks and we won't hear "ZOMG FULLY DESTRUCTABLE!!111" anymore. Partially destructable environments are OK (to a degree), but when you can destroy the entire map the gameplay will be aversely affected and the game will cease to be fun. Just think of how sweet it would be to spawn in the crater of some blown up building only to get owned by someone throwing grenades inside or to spawn on some barren field to get steamrolled by tanks, planes, and helicopters!
Exactly! And no matter what Terra insists on guaranteeing, multiplayer games, with "gameplay" physics with fully destructible environments will not take off for another 5 years. And yes you can bookmark what I said Terra, and come talk to me in 5.
This is assuming that they ever take off, which I doubt, for the reasons the poster above said, and the pure bandwidth issues required for this kind of gameplay.
And I wouldn't consider LAN support for the above a success.
This is assuming that they ever take off, which I doubt, for the reasons the poster above said, and the pure bandwidth issues required for this kind of gameplay.
And I wouldn't consider LAN support for the above a success.
Netrat33 said:Wow. I cannot believe I see someone trying to take apart physics in Crysis. It's the "art'" direction of the programmers of what will and wont be destructable just like in any game with physics.
But I guess GRAW and Beat on Soldier look more impressive because it's Ageia right. "It's a real world application of a PPU!"
I have seen several video's of Crysis no.
Explosion that dosn't affect the envirmonent, bullet thats does NOT effect vegitation are some of the things that are celray visible, despite people that claim opposite.
Watch the vidoe I linked too, at 2:40 to 2:46, the bullet "magically" does not affect the plant...wow for physics.
Or another video where a cra explodes, but dsn't affect the "physcs"-tree...like nothing happend...
Terra...
Does the slime/lava thrower in bet on soldiers burn down tree's or push over vegitation? Does it it singe the grass and start a fire in the forest that has to be treated by airplanes and hundreds and hundreds of fire fighters? Just because Crysis can't do it dosn't mean the other people can.
Actually in some areas I do see trees and smaller plants being shredded. Trees that are destroyed being destroyed even more. I see walking into vegetation and it moving away from the player like how I would brush away a leaf. I see a game with volumetric clouds, motion blur, depth of field and so on (yes not totally related to physics) But these are all being handled by a graphics card with physics.Terra said:
And like pyscholace has said, I don't see every game with ageia affecting everything in the game like it's a magic "real" bullet (pun intended) You are fooling yourself if you think every game is suddenly going to have interactive EVERYTHING.
I'd like to point this out tooTerra said:
All the games you constantly use as an argument for a physx card not being useless (GRAW, Bet on soldier, City of Villians, Cellfactor techdemo and something else) ...
Wow for physics. The implementation of physics in those games....just sold everyone an ageia card now didn't it?
Being absent for "spamming nonsense," *looks at the previous 5 pages and laughes*, I may have old stuff to say.
Why is GPU physics so attractive? From what I see... Price (correct me if I am wrong...)
A GPU physics solution will bottleneck the GPU graphics solution.
Ok, this is why ATI is hyping three GPUs in one.
Good, because I cannot spare any GPU performance and game developers agree.
I don't have any usable ATI cards, so I will now need to go and buy three.
I could use X1600s, but that would be a terrible step down from my current rig and not an option.
Looks like I will need X1900s. Ooops, this already costs nearly 5 times as much as Ageia and I am just starting. Don't forget the loss I take when I sell my old GPUs = ~$300 (I could still use my old GPUs with Ageia). O great... my motherboard isn't ATI and doesn't have 3 pci-e slots. I will not buy into low-end motherboards, so it looks like I am down by another $200. Now I need a new proc, because I can only get an intel board that supports 3 pci-e. Bye Bye another ~$200 taking a loss selling my AMD (I could use my old proc with Ageia...). Ooops, looks like my only choice is Conroe ATM. Bye bye another ~$300. Ooops, I now need a new PSU to supply all this trash... Bye bye another ~$200 for reliability. What?!?? new memory??... $200+ What?? overheating?!? ~$150+ cooling.
Let me see. My options consist of either buying Ageia for $300, or buying into ATi's solution (which requires a complete system makeover) for ~$3000+. I am glad I let ATI's director of marketing decide what is best for me. Or how about account managers? hahahahahahahahaha. the first post is not a review, but an advertisment...
Why is GPU physics so attractive? From what I see... Price (correct me if I am wrong...)
A GPU physics solution will bottleneck the GPU graphics solution.
Ok, this is why ATI is hyping three GPUs in one.
Good, because I cannot spare any GPU performance and game developers agree.
I don't have any usable ATI cards, so I will now need to go and buy three.
I could use X1600s, but that would be a terrible step down from my current rig and not an option.
Looks like I will need X1900s. Ooops, this already costs nearly 5 times as much as Ageia and I am just starting. Don't forget the loss I take when I sell my old GPUs = ~$300 (I could still use my old GPUs with Ageia). O great... my motherboard isn't ATI and doesn't have 3 pci-e slots. I will not buy into low-end motherboards, so it looks like I am down by another $200. Now I need a new proc, because I can only get an intel board that supports 3 pci-e. Bye Bye another ~$200 taking a loss selling my AMD (I could use my old proc with Ageia...). Ooops, looks like my only choice is Conroe ATM. Bye bye another ~$300. Ooops, I now need a new PSU to supply all this trash... Bye bye another ~$200 for reliability. What?!?? new memory??... $200+ What?? overheating?!? ~$150+ cooling.
Let me see. My options consist of either buying Ageia for $300, or buying into ATi's solution (which requires a complete system makeover) for ~$3000+. I am glad I let ATI's director of marketing decide what is best for me. Or how about account managers? hahahahahahahahaha. the first post is not a review, but an advertisment...
PPU does the same though. Also who said you had to buy 3 cards in order to use ATi's or Nvidia physics solutions? They are just giving an option for people who still want crossfire and also a physics solution with the card. Since you don't have sli or crossfire i don't see a reason why you would think it was neccesary to buy 3 cards. I like your over exaggerating though i am pretty sure most people can see through it anyhow.
Also the total i came up with using your numbers was less then $2000 not $3000. Although I am sure if you have sli right now (although I doubt it since you said you can sell your gpu solution for only $300) you should have a good enough power supply for your new setup so -200 bucks from the $2000. Also I am sure a $50 HSF and the fans you already have in your system should be suffice of a cooling option so -$100. Also if you have a nvidia sli solution you don't even need to worry about a third card because it can use your excess bandwidth and gpu process to hand the physics calculations. It wont effect your frame rate any different then a PPU and you wont need another card thus saving you about $2000 compared to ATI.
I'll explain why I find it attractive.cyks said:
I already have a video card, which means I'm not spending any extra money. I'm pretty cheap with my computers, so this is a big plus for me.
I'm also normally cpu limited (for instance now - 2600XP w/ a 6800GT), so there's plenty of room for the video card to do physics without impacting performance much.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
R.E. Crysis, it may be that Crysis is like GRAW in that it doesn't show off the full potential of GPU accelerated physics like GRAW doesn't show off the potential of PhysX processor accelerated physics.
This technology is new on both sides, it will take time for games to build up to utilizing the hardware to its full potential. Look at 3D gaming now, 3D games don't even tap the full potential of GPUs still, sure they max out the performance, like Oblivion, but they don't max out the features, Oblivion is still a Shader Model 2.0 game. I think physics will follow the same pattern, they won't fully tap the absolute maximum potential of the hardware. Maybe one day they will, but definitely starting off they wont. Some acceleration is better than none though.
It's something to keep in mind.
This technology is new on both sides, it will take time for games to build up to utilizing the hardware to its full potential. Look at 3D gaming now, 3D games don't even tap the full potential of GPUs still, sure they max out the performance, like Oblivion, but they don't max out the features, Oblivion is still a Shader Model 2.0 game. I think physics will follow the same pattern, they won't fully tap the absolute maximum potential of the hardware. Maybe one day they will, but definitely starting off they wont. Some acceleration is better than none though.
It's something to keep in mind.
How impressed is everyone that this NEW hardware is based on maufacturing processes over a year old?
Smart idea if you ask me. There is no point in using a top notch manufacturing processes when the year old method will do. There are a number of reasons to use a year old process like better yields for starters. Plenty of good new hardware comes out based on year old manufacturing processes.
New manufacturing processes tend to have bugs and poor yields. You only use new processes when you have no choice.
Using new or old manufacturing processes does not determine how good or bad the hardware is only the cost of producing it.
Oh also on another post they state Hellgate and Alone in the dark will have support for HavokFx so that's two big name games while Ageia only has 1.
Hellgate isnt a big name game its an unknown game from an unknown started company who are making there first game so it could well flop. If you ask an average gamer what hellgate is, or mention the developers names working on the hellgate or the company its self most would have no idea who you are talking about.
Alone in the dark isnt big either is it? I mean the movie flopped the last game came out 5 ish years ago and didnt sell well did it? Its not a small game by any means but its not a well known game like GTA, UT or NeverWinter Nights. The Havok FX list is nothing so far compared to leading game engines like Unreal Engine 3, Emergents Gamebryo and Biowares Eclipse all which support the Ageia PPU.
Smart idea if you ask me. There is no point in using a top notch manufacturing processes when the year old method will do. There are a number of reasons to use a year old process like better yields for starters. Plenty of good new hardware comes out based on year old manufacturing processes.
New manufacturing processes tend to have bugs and poor yields. You only use new processes when you have no choice.
Using new or old manufacturing processes does not determine how good or bad the hardware is only the cost of producing it.
Oh also on another post they state Hellgate and Alone in the dark will have support for HavokFx so that's two big name games while Ageia only has 1.
Hellgate isnt a big name game its an unknown game from an unknown started company who are making there first game so it could well flop. If you ask an average gamer what hellgate is, or mention the developers names working on the hellgate or the company its self most would have no idea who you are talking about.
Alone in the dark isnt big either is it? I mean the movie flopped the last game came out 5 ish years ago and didnt sell well did it? Its not a small game by any means but its not a well known game like GTA, UT or NeverWinter Nights. The Havok FX list is nothing so far compared to leading game engines like Unreal Engine 3, Emergents Gamebryo and Biowares Eclipse all which support the Ageia PPU.