Physics rendering with nvidia

[Silent Fart]

Do you think they are going to announce something like using your old 6800 gt or something to render physics while you use your new 7950 GX2 to do the graphics? Similar to what ATI is doing with there "1+1" thing.

-Silent

 

[heatlesssun]

That was the rummor I heard somewhere. Cool for some folks, but for high-end systems, you're not going to waste a x16 PCI-E slot on a 6800.

I like the Aegia solution the best right now, simply because its not taking away from graphics performance to do physics.

 

[Brent_Justice]

I like the Aegia solution the best right now, simply because its not taking away from graphics performance to do physics.

And you are saying a GPU would? I don't get your statement.

 

[heatlesssun]

I was just saying that taking GPU processing power to do physics has to take something away from graphics, unless the GPU doing physics is dedicated to physics. But then if you're using a dedicate GPU for physics, say like in an SLI setup, but then that GPU is not dedicated to graphics any more. If were an old GPU, that GPU is now taking a slot for another high end graphics card.

A separate PPU doesn't have these issues was what I was trying to say.

 

[belmicah]

I think that the best soltuion would be to use these old video cards, because 1) you already got'em 2) they are probably at least as good as ageia if the drivers can be coded properly

Nvidia and ATI will end up either buying Ageia, or squashing them like a bug. Technological prowess is beautiful isn't it?

 

[Silent Fart]

I was talking about using my 6800gt soley for physics, and using a newer faster card for graphics.

 

[pxc]

I was talking about using my 6800gt soley for physics, and using a newer faster card for graphics.

I would prefer to use a $55 7300GS for physics if Havok FX is used in games. ATI is allowing X1300 cards to be used in that way.

 

[Lord_Exodia]

I believe they will go that route. The inquirer had an article saying that nvidia was going back to the drawing board. In fact here it is http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32228. Now they have been pretty reliable lately but again many things said on this site are just for the sake of fun. I think nvidia will do something similar to what ATI is doing.

 

[HighTest]

Personally I could care less. See my post #48 in the PPU thread http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029530218&postcount=48.

This actually refers directly to Havok's Q&A about Havok FX. Both ATI and nVIDIA are using Havok FX to provide the "physics", but since it's only for a single function "Debris Primitive", how is that a PPU?

That's like saying, I've got a special coprocessor that can do multiplication, but not addition, subtraction or division. Limited purpose for the GPU physics outside of "eye candy" as all the physical interaction with your environment still has to be calculated by the CPU.

In fact, the only thing the cards are really being used for is the "Graphical" element.

Just Hype. Only Aegia has a true physics solution, but there are 0 titles that demonstrate this beyond "eye candy", hence the debate on what's better.

Once a truely environmentally interactive physics model is released in a game that uses the PPU will this become evident. Interactive as described in you being able to manipulate more of the environment as a gameplay enhancement.

SM 3.0 use was in FarCry, but are we all talking about that "physics" enhancement? No, because we knew that it was just for extra eye candy.

 

[pxc]

Personally I could care less. See my post #48 in the PPU thread http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029530218&postcount=48.

This actually refers directly to Havok's Q&A about Havok FX. Both ATI and nVIDIA are using Havok FX to provide the "physics", but since it's only for a single function "Debris Primitive", how is that a PPU?

"Single function"? C'mon, that's just plain FUD.

http://www.havok.com/content/view/187/77/

What Kinds Of Effects Does Havok FX Enable?

Havok FX will enable dynamic in-game effects that are based upon rigid-body collisions and constraints – including debris, smoke, fog, and ultimately simulated liquids - but on a scale that goes well beyond the magnitude and volume of objects normally simulated in CPU-based game-play physics. By performing simulation, collision detection and rendering directly on the GPU, Havok FX avoids the transfer of large amounts of data between the CPU and GPU, enabling a level of performance of object collisions in the 1000’s occurring in real-time, without putting any additional burden on the CPU or otherwise slowing down the game.

 

[HighTest]

"Single function"? C'mon, that's just plain FUD.

http://www.havok.com/content/view/187/77/

You obviously didn't read my post in its entirety, or the article you directly linked. Sure Havok FX will do ALL OF THOSE THINGS, just primarily in CPU.

See specifically from the article

Havok FX will support a new type of rigid-body object called a Debris Primitive. A Debris Primitive is a compact representation of a 3D collidable object that can be procedded via Shader Model 3.0 (SM3.0) in a very efficient manner. Debris Primitives can be pre-modeled as part of a game's static art content (e.g. custom/textured boulders, space junk, or collateral objects waiting for an explosive charge). They may also be generated on the fly during game play by the CPU, based on the direction and intensity of a force (e.g. brick and stone structure blown apart by a cannon blast). Once generated by the CPU, Debris Primitives can be dispatched fully to the GPU for physical simulation and final rendering - comprising a powerful blending of physics and state-of-the-art shading effects for particulate and large scale phenomenon.

EYE CANDY, and also in regards to the GPU's SM 3.0 hardware A SINGLE FUNCTION called "Debris Primitives" (yep I was yelling )

The "eye candy" is further illustrated further in the article as

Havok FX gives consumers an option to leverage their GPU hardware investments for incremental effects physics. Games that support Havok FX effects on Shader Model 3.0-capable graphics cards will not require consumers to purchase any additional hardware to see effects physics in their games

"Effects Physics" = "Eye Candy".

As to actual gameplay physics, what is Havoks response?

Havok believes that fast game-play physics starts with excellent software technology, and gets faster with increased general CPU computing power – specifically from multi-core and multi-cell computing architectures.

Gameplay physics ala Havok FX = CPU architecture. Hoping Dual core and above will save their bacon over the Aegia PPU.

The funny part is that the last statement above could certainly prove true as we wait for any title that actually demonstrates Hareware accelerated gameplay physics with the Aegia PPU. This could be long enough off that the CPU's available at the time will yield similar performance benefits.

It's not that I'm dissing what Havok states in terms of CPU's possibly being sufficient for game physics (after all that's the "current relality"), but that the "Effects Physics" hype seems to paint the picture that this is all we'll ever need.

I'll agree that for "effects physics" Havok FX in combo with an ATI or nVIDIA could be faster than the Aegia PPU solution, why preprocess the effects any further when you can send them to the SM 3.0 shader hardware. But if true gameplay physics commerical titles shipped right now, you'd see the Aegia PPU provide the benefit over the CPU Havok FX.

 

[pxc]

You obviously didn't read my post in its entirety, or the article you directly linked. Sure Havok FX will do ALL OF THOSE THINGS, just primarily in CPU.

By performing simulation, collision detection and rendering directly on the GPU

You are trying to define what "single function" means to suit your own purpose. That's like saying a video card only handles a single function vertex. The vertex is a rendering primitive like the debris primitive is on Havok FX. Both can be created and manipulated by the CPU, or used as part of "static art" or static meshes.

 

[HighTest]

You are trying to define what "single function" means to suit your own purpose. That's like saying a video card only handles a single function vertex. The vertex is a rendering primitive like the debris primitive is on Havok FX. Both can be created and manipulated by the CPU, or used as part of "static art" or static meshes.

The single function I refer to is the "Debris Primitive". This function will meet the "opening statment about Havok" that you are focusing on, but it's important that the "Debris Primitive" is the only portion of the Havok FX physics engine that works directly with the SM 3.0 GPU hardware. The rest is a CPU calculation. You can continue to focus on the generalized "what Havok FX" does, or you can go into the details.

Moving on now, as your argument over this doesn't deminish the end result that Havok FX only using the GPU for "effects physics" which is eye candy. But when shipping titles actually use the GPU for gameplay physics using Havok FX you can come back and !!!! on me all ya want.

back to ya. If you feel the need to correct further, why not email them directly and then post the full details? This isn't hidden info, I'm just trying to use material that most forum users can easily link to and view for themselves. That material specifically states what the SM 3.0 GPU hardware will be used for.

Of course the generalized "rendering directly on the GPU" and going no further into the details makes it sound really cool.

 

[pxc]

These functions all provided by the "Debris Primitive". That single function is in reference to the single API hook that could perform the actions you mentioned above.

I can tell you're not a developer, but you are trying to argue about a programming topic. There's no point in engaging a "believer."

Havok FX does more on the GPU than the FUD you're starting. Time will tell how well each method does.

 

[HighTest]

I can tell you're not a developer, but you are trying to argue about a programming topic. There's no point in engaging a "believer."

Havok FX does more on the GPU than the FUD you're starting. Time will tell how well each method does.

Just curious if you had gone to these:https://www.cmpevents.com/GD06/a.asp?option=C&V=11&SessID=2113 or https://www.cmpevents.com/GD06/a.asp?option=C&V=11&SessID=2385

I'm sensing that you might have. Can you leak more details to a n00b like me?

I'm not going further with the "single function", I don't want to fill the thread up with an argument about the actuall programming functions. I looked back and realized even if valid that I had thread crapped. The primary point of my post was the issue is that "anything" that is not "effects physics" is CPU calculated and not enhanced by the GPU. This was the original "intent" of my post and I'll stick to that like grease.

To the original poster, I apologize. To pxc, your right, let's just drop this and time will be the proof. The best part is, as an nVIDIA owner, even if you are right, I'm still a winner in the ability to take advantage of the features. Of course you'll be able to spank me all over with "I told ya so". I'll also take it and be proud of the learning experience. We're both fans of nV, so no need to punish me further than that.

But just to poke this with a stick again, it's not gameplay physics

 

[HighTest]

Do you think they are going to announce something like using your old 6800 gt or something to render physics while you use your new 7950 GX2 to do the graphics? Similar to what ATI is doing with there "1+1" thing.

-Silent

To get this topic back on thread. Yeah, I believe that this is a possibility. The question is if they'll implement the support.

Of course, there may be a minimum GPU level that yields really good results over the use of just a CPU.

 

[Trimlock]

I would prefer to use a $55 7300GS for physics if Havok FX is used in games. ATI is allowing X1300 cards to be used in that way.

i don't think the X1300's will be supported in this set up, i think it stops at the X1600's

someone correct me if i'm wrong

 

[Unperson]

The word "function" is not exclusive to programming, as you should know. Programatically it may have more than one "funciton", as in procedure call, however "what it does" is essentially one thing -- rendering debris / explosions / other thigns of that nature. It is not going to make it so you can topple over a stack of 500 barrels and have them hurt your character in the game -- that part has to be done by the CPU. Until ATI/nVidia develop fast 2-way communications between video card and GPU optimized for such things, video card physics processing will be limited to, as HighTest said, "eye candy".

Fancy eye candy is always nice but I think what a lot of us really want is advanced physics that has an effect on gameplay. If Aegia wasn't $300 with no killer app I'd probably buy it (maybe when it comes down to $150....)

 

[pxc]

The word "function" is not exclusive to programming, as you should know.

And comprehension benefits from context. Read the usage from all the posts and come back with another reply.

i don't think the X1300's will be supported in this set up, i think it stops at the X1600's

The X1600XT is more ideal, but the X1300 is the minimum. See the stories (older and newer ones) on the front page.

 

[Unperson]

And comprehension benefits from context. Read the usage from all the posts and come back with another reply.

I read the entire thread before I posted. It seems the only person referring to "Debris Primitive" as a "function" in code as in debirs_primitive(), is you. HighTest seems to be referring to it as a "feature" essentially.

The only apparent usage of this as a method in code appears to be this quote which you attribute to HighTest:

"These functions all provided by the "Debris Primitive". That single function is in reference to the single API hook that could perform the actions you mentioned above."

Which does not appear anywhere else in the thread (perhaps it was edited out of one of the posts?).

Anyway I understand what he is arguing about, that the video-accelerated physics is NOT a complete physics acceleration system, it merely accelerates certain types of particle effects and such. It does NOT make changes that affect the game world, those changes must be made by the CPU or PPU.

 

[Unperson]

Also considering that debris primitive is an object type, there is obviously more than one object method ("function") associated with it. I have yet to see an object type in code that has only one method that magically makes it do anything, unless it's something very small and simple, which I don't think a particle system with rigid body physics would qualify as. . .

 

[Earthworm48]

I have a question, the 7950GX2, does it work just the same as 2 cards in SLI? So you could buy one of these and have your GPU for graphics and your GPU for physics on the same card? I know this is a pretty n00btacular question but I'd like someone to clarify, as these cards aren't much more than a 7900GTX or X1900 XTX over here and that would be better value with the physics as far as I can tell.

 

[Trimlock]

think of the 7950GX2 as a SLi solution in one slot, it uses the bridge chip inbetween the two PCB's

 

[Terra]

Hehe...
I find this both funny and very saying.
HavokFX beeing debated...in the graphics forum.

My point?
HavokFX is not real physics, it's eye-candy.

Terra - Now we are getting somewhere

 

[MrNasty]

That said, this should probably still be in the PPU subforum

Earthworm: no-one has the faintest idea how any of this stuff performs as of now - not even Ageia's PPU, the sensible thing to do would be to wait!

 

[Silent Fart]

I've CREATED A MONSTER!