Oh yah I hope some of the upcoming PhysX title rock in gameplay and well done Physx. Hope the don't make a mess out of it.
If Ati make the Performance claim true it means that a lot of Babes with long hair and cloths can be renderd simultainliously.
There are a lot Of Physics. So also a lot of eye candy Physics. that makes the game look more realistic lookin. Each feature wiil demand Power so There wil be a limit PPU can do. And you can do more if these powers are bundeld. Splitting a way heavier load between them. Where you can cranck up every Physics Feature on ultra high.
Like your hardware fixating and the games where it's all about don't matter?
I would say no against eye candy Features. PhysX can do them to. So they can add to a game. Like other take no less but must have FSAA HDR
The situation would be very different then.
Depends how populair the PhysX games will be till then.
Do you think I care what you want. I want it all. I do like ageia approach but that doesn't mean I ignore HavokFX for what they can do.Terra said:PhysX does both, so what it the point?
And I don't want more effect-physcis, I want more gameplay physcis.
Game programmers needs to learn(and hollywood too) that bullets don't make sparks.
Intuitor Insultingly Stupid Movie( and games too) Physics
If Ati make the Performance claim true it means that a lot of Babes with long hair and cloths can be renderd simultainliously.
There are a lot Of Physics. So also a lot of eye candy Physics. that makes the game look more realistic lookin. Each feature wiil demand Power so There wil be a limit PPU can do. And you can do more if these powers are bundeld. Splitting a way heavier load between them. Where you can cranck up every Physics Feature on ultra high.
For lots of eyecandy features. And what if in 2008 most games your like are using Havok FX. Buy PPU games like second choice.. Or play first choice HFX games with HFX disabled.And I end up paying extra for yet another card(GPU), that we have no proof of what can do.
And for what?
For doing something that I already have the hardware for(PhysX)?
Like your hardware fixating and the games where it's all about don't matter?
Sure Game physX is a plus. But is eyecandy Worthless? I think not. These are very visible and marketable features wich take a lot atention. Gameplay Physics is a litle harder to market. It must be experienced in a demo.And a BIG minus in fatures...for gamers.
I would say no against eye candy Features. PhysX can do them to. So they can add to a game. Like other take no less but must have FSAA HDR
Ageia core busness is on this moment API and PPU. You must pay for the CPU and console API. Only the PPU enabled version is free.Yup, they played that one smart
Unlike someone else here who tried to tell us that AGIEA wanted to make money on their software...not hardware...
true for dev's but for PPU the gamers wine over a $300 cost. For Class AAA title mostly very GFX fixated eyecandy has a huge marketing plus. and budged is no problem.Paying $0 is better than paying $250.000..for a lesser solutuion.
I hope so.UT2007 will be effect-physcis only , but the UnrealEngine3 will be FULLY physX capable.
Me toI look forward to Joint Task Force later this year
I see Ageia as the underdog. HavokFX is running behind so that ageia has a chance, that is good. But then the competition of HavokFX vs PhysX games start.Nope, the first fully PhysX capable games are comming out this year
Terra - But we still have NO ETA on ATI/NVIDA/HavokFX...only PR...nothing more...
The situation would be very different then.
Depends how populair the PhysX games will be till then.