Agree about this. It was quite off-putting to see the same flimsy limb effect that I've seen since CS vanilla show up in a game for 2009.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Infernal Engine VELOCITY Physics PS3 Demo
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Agree about this. It was quite off-putting to see the same flimsy limb effect that I've seen since CS vanilla show up in a game for 2009.
This does indeed look pretty good, I loved the goo string parts. Do you guys think the physics will run well on a dual or triple core processor, or are we getting to the point where things a sophisticated enough to require a quad core for the best effects?
Multiplectic
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2006
- Messages
- 24
If it has a "no-limits" scaling, the more CPU power the better.
Death to PhysX!!! Mirror's Edge could have done much, much better without PhysX, by allowing the same physics effects to be done on the CPU cores instead. I mean, the flying flag cloth and shattering glass shards, and maybe a tiny bit of falling water mists, could have looked way better if Nvidia did not try to implement such horrible PhysX algorithm that makes it stutter even at 60fps minimum.
Seeing this makes me so excited since Nvidia would be hard-pressed to try to keep us thinking that we still need PhysX.. heh heh!
Seeing this makes me so excited since Nvidia would be hard-pressed to try to keep us thinking that we still need PhysX.. heh heh!
looks like the proton pack got some upgrades?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proton_pack_replica_prop.jpg
demo is not very encouraging at all, looks like it's about to crush my rig to death. the textures ain't bad but it looked well under 25 fps at most the whole time even though it was pretty smooth.
anyone worried about this game selling should not be concerned. it's a bunch of dudes fighting ghosts with proton packs, what's not to like? the concept itself is full of win, that's why they sold so many toys. it would sell even if there was never such a movie, and then they would make a movie about the game. but then it would suck. so here's hoping this title turns out well, it would be such a huge letdown to wait 25 years for it to be just a pretty graphics show about some oldschool blockbuster with shit gameplay.
demo is not very encouraging at all, looks like it's about to crush my rig to death. the textures ain't bad but it looked well under 25 fps at most the whole time even though it was pretty smooth.
anyone worried about this game selling should not be concerned. it's a bunch of dudes fighting ghosts with proton packs, what's not to like? the concept itself is full of win, that's why they sold so many toys. it would sell even if there was never such a movie, and then they would make a movie about the game. but then it would suck. so here's hoping this title turns out well, it would be such a huge letdown to wait 25 years for it to be just a pretty graphics show about some oldschool blockbuster with shit gameplay.
Looked pretty good to me. The addition of fairly accurate physics modelling is welcome in any upcoming game if you ask me as it will open up new avenues of play,especially if you're a FPS fan. If it's as scalable as clamed and coders can make better use of parallel processing we're all in for a [H]elluva experience. Might find something other than SupCom to feed my quad-core beast...
A sidenote is of course that the 7-SPE, 1 PPC core Cell 'CPU' in the PS3 is a far cry from the in-order, stripped down, triple-core PPC CPU in the X360. There's no way that the X360 can simulate anywhere near the number of physics objects using its CPU as the PS3 can (7 Altivec-equipped SPEs!), which would give the PS3 an instant advantage over the X360 physics-wise.
X86 CPUs? Heh, SSE 3/4 as implemented on modern x86 CPUs is hardly comparable to the Cell's SIMD capabilities. Having seen myself the difference between running physics calculations on a CPU (quad-core Core 2) versus running it on a Geforce 8-series GPU, the difference is that the latter allows like 10-100 or more physics objects to be simulated at any given time.
In the recorded demo they got the weight of the cars set all wrong or so, as their behaviour didn't seem realistic at all. The ragdoll part didn't strike me as any different from what Havok showed with Half-Life 2 years ago.
Colour me unimpressed and sceptical.
X86 CPUs? Heh, SSE 3/4 as implemented on modern x86 CPUs is hardly comparable to the Cell's SIMD capabilities. Having seen myself the difference between running physics calculations on a CPU (quad-core Core 2) versus running it on a Geforce 8-series GPU, the difference is that the latter allows like 10-100 or more physics objects to be simulated at any given time.
In the recorded demo they got the weight of the cars set all wrong or so, as their behaviour didn't seem realistic at all. The ragdoll part didn't strike me as any different from what Havok showed with Half-Life 2 years ago.
Colour me unimpressed and sceptical.
Global_Inferno
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2003
- Messages
- 238
As a massive ghostbusters fan; I'm mightily impressed. Especially if the PC version is (as Kyle says) much, better. I'll be interested to see how the Xbox 360 copes with the level of detail and physics calculations, knowing that the PS3 has another 4-cores to it's advantage. 
As for the aren't they marketing this to a load of 25-40 year olds debate.. If you have kids, are you trying to tell me that you haven't *made* them watch it yet!?
As for the aren't they marketing this to a load of 25-40 year olds debate.. If you have kids, are you trying to tell me that you haven't *made* them watch it yet!?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
As a massive ghostbusters fan; I'm mightily impressed. Especially if the PC version is (as Kyle says) much, better. I'll be interested to see how the Xbox 360 copes with the level of detail and physics calculations, knowing that the PS3 has another 4-cores to it's advantage.
As for the aren't they marketing this to a load of 25-40 year olds debate.. If you have kids, are you trying to tell me that you haven't *made* them watch it yet!?
I THINK the 360 will be at a total disadvantage to PC and PS3, but the game is not scaled to use 4000 physics objects in a room as shown on the DEMO.
I agree with their decision, offload onto the CPU, make multicore a requirement and use all that spare CPU power that isnt used for anything else, don't drain our FPS by doing physics calculations on hardware designed to render.
All said and done I dont see a huge amount of difference between this and when I first played with garrysmod in about 2005, firing about 1000 boxes into a large river and hopping about on them and firing hundreds and hundreds of melons about the place with no performance issues.
Yeah, kinda have to agree here, I guess the consoles are really just that much behind the times and naturally multiplatform games means the PC version inherets all the console constraints for the game, oh well :}
All said and done I dont see a huge amount of difference between this and when I first played with garrysmod in about 2005, firing about 1000 boxes into a large river and hopping about on them and firing hundreds and hundreds of melons about the place with no performance issues.
Yeah, kinda have to agree here, I guess the consoles are really just that much behind the times and naturally multiplatform games means the PC version inherets all the console constraints for the game, oh well :}
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 10,195
haha - Took me a minute to figure out what game this was. At first I thought this was something to do with the game "Infernal" which wasn't that great - couldn't figure out why they'd be creating a next-gen engine for a sequal to something like that...
Now that I know it's the new GB engine, it does look pretty cool. I will have to get this one dispite my lack of enthusiasm with the subject matter. I somehow missed out on the whole GB craze when I was a kid, and just finally got around to watching the movie for the first time last week - feeling a need to catch up in preperation for the game. It was pretty much what I expected it to be... waaay too cheesy for my taste these days, but it was pretty funny.
Now that I know it's the new GB engine, it does look pretty cool. I will have to get this one dispite my lack of enthusiasm with the subject matter. I somehow missed out on the whole GB craze when I was a kid, and just finally got around to watching the movie for the first time last week - feeling a need to catch up in preperation for the game.
It was pretty much what I expected it to be... waaay too cheesy for my taste these days, but it was pretty funny.Funny how people keep confusing pointless crap with fun.
SUPOR MAREEEOO BRUTHORS GOOOOO!
lol, I 'm just messing around though.
I'm curious about the 360 version. I have a ps3 so I'm not too concerned, but I wonder if they'll be able to scale back the physics without being noticeable. They're probably have people test it over and over and remove physics from rarely interacted with items. That or kill some of the destructibility in places.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
What games have you been playing with 4000 physics objects in them for the last 3 years? Trust me too, I have seen a LOT of physics demos, but few games that use them for more than eye candy.
Roger that.
[H]adouken!
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 55
exactly, im sick of all the rubbish Xbox 360 ports!!!!
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
Roger that, then I guess you have no more interest in this story. Thanks for keeping up till now.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
I don't really think there is any reason to sport that in this particular game. Not sure what a mashed fender is giong to do for Ghost Busters gameplay, but I do understand your concerns.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
The important part that is impressive to me is the fact it is running all of that on the CPU, and not a GPU. CPU's are notoriously slow at such things, unless you have the capability to scale well across cores, and this looks like it can do that very well.
Between NVIDIA's PhysX and Intel's Havok (supported by AMD) I have a hard time to see the lasting effects of this CPU-physics engine.
What ever they can do on the CPU, can be done better and faster on the PPU or a +G80 GPU today.
All the major players are going dedicated hardware for physcis (off the CPU), but I should dig up the old PhysX Rocket and see how much I can tax my CPU in it...when ever I get the time for that between work, gaming, the GF and the spring that just creept up on Denmark
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
I don't really agree with you there, but I do know one thing for sure. PhysX has been around for a LONG time and I have yet to see ANYTHING in a retail product that impresses me as much as VELOCITY Physics in the Infernal Engine.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
Please name all these players and please specify what dedicated hardware they are going to for physics please. Educate me.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
The point I gather is that this shows what can be done on the CPU, leaving the GPU to graphics. We've got multi-core CPUs, I say it is about time games started using all those cores! Cause right now, not many do in any real meaningful way.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
Exactly. I want my multicore CPU handling physics and my GPU handling rendering. We are seeing things done here that NVIDIA and ATI told us would never be done on the CPU.
No, but to quote yourself:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029282114&postcount=7
Did the math change?
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
^ that's raw combined performance comparing flops, in a synthetic environment, the demo Kyle has shown us is a real-world working example of what a developer can actually do on the CPU, I am as surprised as you it can be done so well and scale so well, but there you have it, that's why I'm impressed by it
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
Yeah, been hearing that for a long time now. Over 4 years, still yet a AAA title to ship with full support (and if you try to say Mirror's Edge is proof, well you are grasping to straws) Shit in one hand hope in the other, see which fills up first.
I still stand by the opinion that GPU based physics' day is past us.
I think we will see some OpenCL things that will be very good, but it won't be because of NVIDIA GPUs. Larrabee possibly, but I don't think it will have the horsepower to spare for high end gaming physics in 2010. Our CPUs will though.
Physics has always been done on the CPU, just like rendering has been done on the CPU for the longest time (took until the first Voodoo and TNT cards). Nobody is saying that software rendering is the way to go now, even though one could get a respectable renderer together, as that Coding Horror blog described a short while ago.
It makes sense to use the right tool for the job. It just takes a while for everyone to upgrade to the right tool, be it a GPU, soundcard (luxury for the longest time for PCs) or physics card (PPU, GPU or otherwise). A CPU has got almost nothing to offer in terms of raw SIMD (vector) performance, which is what physics calculations require. SSE is still somewhat of a kludge and most definitely not even close to the hundreds of SIMD units modern GPUs have with the number of SSE units in a CPU measured in single digits still.
I still stand by my comment that Cell is _not_ a standard CPU by any stretch of the imagination as well. Cell _is_ the right tool for physics processing, as it has enormous SIMD performance relative to standard CPUs.
PCs have been off-loading processing tasks from the CPU to dedicated hardware just like the Amiga did right from the start, and I don't see this process reversing any time soon.
It makes sense to use the right tool for the job. It just takes a while for everyone to upgrade to the right tool, be it a GPU, soundcard (luxury for the longest time for PCs) or physics card (PPU, GPU or otherwise). A CPU has got almost nothing to offer in terms of raw SIMD (vector) performance, which is what physics calculations require. SSE is still somewhat of a kludge and most definitely not even close to the hundreds of SIMD units modern GPUs have with the number of SSE units in a CPU measured in single digits still.
I still stand by my comment that Cell is _not_ a standard CPU by any stretch of the imagination as well. Cell _is_ the right tool for physics processing, as it has enormous SIMD performance relative to standard CPUs.
PCs have been off-loading processing tasks from the CPU to dedicated hardware just like the Amiga did right from the start, and I don't see this process reversing any time soon.
Not impressed. It doesn't seem much different from good HAVOK implementations. It seems you can have more objects with more detail and that's cool but certainly no "wow" to it. The physics animation isn't any better with many distracting, old flaws as others have noted.
I'd prefer a physics engine that can't handle the 3000 cardboard boxes which can't figure out how to sit on a table edge if it could make 300 boxes (or whatevers) behave 100% realistically.
I'd prefer a physics engine that can't handle the 3000 cardboard boxes which can't figure out how to sit on a table edge if it could make 300 boxes (or whatevers) behave 100% realistically.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 58,628
And they call me the fanboy!
What is it doing for my gaming now? Nothing....
The difference being that you are going to see a heavy implementation of VELOCITY Physics in a game in June. Do you have any links to Havok pulling off something of this nature? If so, I would like to see it.
Havok demoed chicks with skirts at GDC this year. While I love a girl in a skirt, I am not so sure as to what that is going to do to impact my gaming environment unless I am playing Muff Diver 5: Return of the Yeast Monster.
Wait, you consider box spam + a tornado more important to a game than realistic hair and clothing on characters?!?
they have been able to do that for a while, nvidia produced a kind of crappy demo of it. the havok is much nicer but still haven't seen it in an actually game. and it would be very nice addition as far as I am concerned but I think he is referring to things that actively affect game play, not character interactions. ( I could be wrong)
I have yet to see a tornado box spam level in any of the games I play, nor have I seen a plinko map. Likewise, VELOCITY is so far only in one game afaik. Havok has been used in 150 games so far, and its safe to say it'll be used in at least a dozen more, so the chances of its cool features (like cloth) being used in a game are much higher than velocity's cool feature (box spam).