Why the Graphics Physics Name Should Die

[gerbiaNem]

It seems like many people are beginning to get excited about the physics wars coming on. But what many fail to realize is that graphics physics don't add anything at all to the gameplay.

"ATI does not see their physics technology as an offload for the CPU but rather processes a new category of features know as “effects physics.” ~ [H]

You are basically paying for a graphics card to give you better physics, to give you better graphics.. er.. what? You won't be getting any better framerate in cellfactor with a graphics card, and you sure as hell won't be adding on any gameplay enhancements.

What they are selling you isn't any advance in physics, it's pure eye candy. I just wish they would market it as such, since Ageia will probably lose sales to ATI/Nvidia from consumers thinking the actual physics gameplay will be improved. They should call it Graphys or something to differentiate the use of it.

I'm just worried that one unrelated technology will be killing off another due to consumer ignorance.

 

[cyks]

oooops nvm, your right!!!!

 

[nhusby]

I agree entirely.

I think Ageia's physics is the future (atleast the way I want the future) of gaming. and I could care less about pritty graphics FX unless it changes the logistics of the gameplay.

 

[Menelmarar]

How is this different from Physx?

GRAW. Physx accelerated but only has effects Physics. No substantial if any performance increase.

UT2007. Physx accelerated but will only have client side effects physics.

CellFactor. Physx accelerated for gameplay physics but doesn't provide higher framerate. Works just as well without a dedicated Physx PPU minus the cloth effects physics (which is to be incorporated into their software engine in the near future anyway)

A $100 X1600XT doing nothing to me is better than a $299 PhysX card doing nothing.

 

[MrNasty]

How is this different from Physx?

GRAW. Physx accelerated but only has effects Physics. No substantial if any performance increase.

UT2007. Physx accelerated but will only have client side effects physics.

CellFactor. Physx accelerated for gameplay physics but doesn't provide higher framerate. Works just as well without a dedicated Physx PPU minus the cloth effects physics (which is to be incorporated into their software engine in the near future anyway)

A $100 X1600XT doing nothing to me is better than a $299 PhysX card doing nothing.

With a PPU at least the possibility is there...

And if it's a given that possibility does not equal sales then you're going to wind up buying into the same thing either way.

And when, exactly, are havokfx games coming out?
Or ati's stuff?
Don't know the answer? Neither does anyone else - but the ppu is here, there are games coming out that will use it better than GRAW soon.

Buy one now? Hell no - unless you like checking out the latest stuff first-hand and being one of the early adopters.

It's another early market sell-fest, except in one corner you have the huge names of e-peendom and in the other you have a fresh company with a potentially fresh product - it might just be that everyone trying to shoot them down may just wind up doing that, and that's a shame.

To quote something I heard recently: "I hope ATi/Nvid integrate this on a graphics card quickly - I need some slogans to tell me what to buy..."

 

[nhusby]

How is this different from Physx?

GRAW. Physx accelerated but only has effects Physics. No substantial if any performance increase.

UT2007. Physx accelerated but will only have client side effects physics.

CellFactor. Physx accelerated for gameplay physics but doesn't provide higher framerate. Works just as well without a dedicated Physx PPU minus the cloth effects physics (which is to be incorporated into their software engine in the near future anyway)

A $100 X1600XT doing nothing to me is better than a $299 PhysX card doing nothing.

well... I agree, using current standard hardware would be much more convenient and certainly easyer to sell.

my point, and I bilieve MrNasty's point is that real PhysX in games would be much more immersive and enjoyable than the type of FX in GRAW. And if I understand correctly most of the FX physics are actually Havok, and the explosions are Ageia PhysX.

Graw is to the PPU what mustard is to a hamburger, its just a part of the taste.

 

[pxc]

I don't think either should die now, but that both proprietary methods (Havok FX and PhysX hardware) should go away eventually.

What I mean is that both methods should be allowed to be implemented into game engines where utilization can be improved, bottlenecks identified and actual horsepower required can be determined. While that's happening, a standard API should be created and the proprietary accelerated APIs should die for future games. Unfortunately, that can't happen fast enough and there's nothing solid on the horizon.

I'm not hoping for some open standard. If MS adds it to DX, fine. The implementation details would still be up to manufacturers and if PhysX hardware is general enough to adapt, that's also fine (if not, too bad... look up the mid-90s 3D API mess and how that shook out). But there's no reason not to encourage different ways of accelerating physics, especially this early. See Crysis for an example of great non-PPU physics.

A standard API would hurt Ageia, but that's the problem with their business model: $300 razors + cut everyone (forced driver installation ever hear of a DLL?) with free blades. Havok probably wouldn't care since they sell their middleware on consoles, a bigger market than PC games and Havok FX isn't even their main product.

 

[MrWizard6600]

it does a little more then that, and it can* raise frame rates, it takes the complecated processes needed to produce phisics and does it in the PPU instead of the GPU. at the same time however, physics enabled games have way more polygons. top of the line graphics cards have trouble rendering some of the scenes in Cell factor. Im still wondering how UT2007 is gonna play out.

and its not emproving on graphics, its just making the game a little more emersive. now its not like this yet, but image a game that REALLY reacts the way something should. in CSS. if someone wants to camp in an impenatble position would the abillity to set the roof on fire, and watch his panicked ass run out, quickly being owned by you, be satisfying? how bout in Assult. you could damage the infastructure, and watch the roof come crashing down on everyone. or the abillity to throw a nade beside a window, to shower the person inside with broken glass (all of these ideas are making me sick ), you get the picture. all the physics in games right now are rather pathetic. the Havok engine of source is generally considered pretty good. but you can see it differing between computers, and physics dont actually effect gameplay, well the do, but minimally.

so physics, has the power to become just as big and just popular as VGA cards. they could someday require PCI-E 16X, slots, as im sure they eventually will, eventually beeing overclockable and liquidcool able.

Nvidia and ATI have taken the hint, and even if these giants manage to pumble AGIEA to the ground, they will work on ways to make there physics better.

edit: what im hoping will happen is what happened to graphics, someone (namly microsoft) will step in and make a standard thought the industry (Direct Physics). and then the physics effects will be changable through software.

 

[Sniper X]

I would rather have a PPU that takes up a single pci slot instead of a huge powersucking gfx card that needs a fancy 3 pci-e mobo.

 

[Shogo]

Physics does not affect gameplay? Think about Half-Life, wich has been successfully innovating in gameplay, with the Havok physic engine, adding a new level of gameplay. Before, the only way to kill a enemy was to shoot it, in the future, lets say all the props in the game are props_physics, it means that you can use the surrounding environement as a gameplay element, throw things at the enemy, bulding a briidge to reach your objective on the other side of the canal by throwing air filled plstic barrel and wooden 2x4, thats what i call gameplay!

Sure it is not more beautifull, but it is more immersive! I have some friends that are currently working on the new EA game called army of two , and most of the environement will be physic. IE; you have a wall, you can use the door, or you can use your gun, shoot at the wall, make an hole, throw a grenade, clean the room, and then use the door!

I think physics can add alot on gameplay, but the most important thing that is currently unreachable, is internet bandwith. If physics is only on the client side, i mean, its pointless. The reason why most game grow and become popular, is because you can challenge other people on internet, wich adds longetivity to the game. If internet would be fast enough to register every milisecond the xyz position of every objects , it would be THE feature.

my 2 cents

 

[Mentali$T]

I heard yesterday that ATi are bringing out a new mobo with 4 pci-e slots on it. 2 can be used for crossfire and the other slot is for a third graphics card which deals with the physx part.
So basically you could have 2 x X1900XTX and then a X1800XT for the physx (or any other ATi card) Could even have 2 x R600 cards with a X1900XTX as physx

 

[Shogo]

I heard yesterday that ATi are bringing out a new mobo with 4 pci-e slots on it. 2 can be used for crossfire and the other slot is for a third graphics card which deals with the physx part.

*cough* front page *cough*

 

[Terra]

How is this different from Physx?

GRAW. Physx accelerated but only has effects Physics. No substantial if any performance increase.

UT2007. Physx accelerated but will only have client side effects physics.

CellFactor. Physx accelerated for gameplay physics but doesn't provide higher framerate. Works just as well without a dedicated Physx PPU minus the cloth effects physics (which is to be incorporated into their software engine in the near future anyway)

What you write here, conflicts with what you write next:

A $100 X1600XT doing nothing to me is better than a $299 PhysX card doing nothing.

So is the PPU doing something or isn't it?
Or are you just putting a leg on both sides of the fence?

Terra - Fuck PR...no benches, no cookie...

 

[Menelmarar]

Don't know the answer? Neither does anyone else - but the ppu is here, there are games coming out that will use it better than GRAW soon.

I once thought that too. But the largest if not biggest most anticipated title is UT2007, and Sweeney say that they would be doing merely effects physics with the PhysX card. Which will probably do nothing for performance and may not even look all that good, similar to what we've seen with GRAW...only time will tell, but my wishful bubble has been burst

Then if you think of some of the other big name games, Vanguard and Warhammer that are proclaiming support. Both are MMO games. Sweeney's primary reason for only having effects physics is the difficulty in having gameplay effecting physics across the net and syncing clients....that's even more difficult with an MMO type game....if Sweeney can't do it with UT....I have incredible levels of doubt that Mythic or SOE can do it with Warhammer and Vanguard respectively. All we're going to see in the future is more effects physics which might as well be run on a $100 graphics card vs. a $300 PhysX card.......am I right? especially if what ATI claims about the X1600 being faster than a PhysX card.

What you write here, conflicts with what you write next:

So is the PPU doing something or isn't it?
Or are you just putting a leg on both sides of the fence?

Terra - Fuck PR...no benches, no cookie...

I don't think I contradicted myself. Look at what I said for each game and the minimal, practically zero, impact the PhysX card is providing gamers. I wouldn't personally spend a cent on it...but even then $100 to ATI is easier on the wallet than $300 to Ageia.

From what people have reported the only thing you get with a PhysX card right now is that the software unlocks graphic capabilities to award you for dumping $300 into Ageia's pockets. Cellfactor is probably the clearest example of this, an INI tweak allows the game to work in software with similar performance that you get with a PhysX card. Your only missing cloth physx because it isn't implemented into the software model yet...but it's planned to be in the future....What then? what use would the card be if there is no tangible visual or performance benefit......NONE

Based on that, if you could find out how to unlock the software limitations in GRAW that are requiring the card, you could almost certainly have the same explosion effects running on their software engine.

Spending even $100 on an X1600 for these effects physics isn't worth it from what I'm hearing...but $100 is far less painful than $300.

 

[Menelmarar]

What really gets me is all we're seeing from Ageia is effects physics. It's been shown that Cellfactor's gameplay phyics run fine on regular hardware running in software mode like Havok does. And all the hardware gets you at this time is unlocking the cloth effects on people which is really only an effect. We haven't yet seen a good example of how a dedicated card, or at least this dedicated card we have on the market, helps gameplay. If it can't properly acclerate the physics to give a performance benefit...why buy into it?

Some say that in Cellfactor and what we will be seeing in future titles with increasing the amount of objects being displayed the bottleneck is with the graphics card. That could very well be true, maybe the physx hardware really is good and doing a great job of accelerating Physics. But in the end, as gamers who dropped $300 on this card to improve gameplay aren't benefiting from he $300 spent, can you justify spending money on it? I can't.

You know a PURELY THEORTICAL case where without the Ageia card you might have usage like:
CPU: 100% usage
GPU; 100% usage
for 40fps

Then with the card:
CPU: 30% usage
GPU: 100% usage
PPU: in use
still 40fps

So the PPU releived 70% of your CPU's power, it's doing a great job...but the graphics card is still under strain and therefore you get no benefit from your $300. Essentially it's doing nothing for you. Is this what we're seeing when we Cellfactor is run in software mode?

 

[MrNasty]

Whoa, slow down there, Nelly.

You've just thrown around a whole lot of assumptions there and I think you should rethink them, but first;

Fact:

UT3 engine uses PhysX for all physics - non HW too.

Tim (bless 'im) has said that in UT2007 all the hardware features will be used for client-side effects.

Hardware (ie features software PhysX doesn't support currently) includes cloths and liquids.

So what he's saying is that the game can be run entirely in software mode - much like Quake of old. But with a PPU these features will be hardware accelerated, having as yet unknown effects on the gameplay and or fps. GRAW I'll come to later.

What he doesn't say is if these features can be gameplay enabled or not - but because the way the SDK works is that the feature-set for hardware is included and so can be used as developers see fit, it all boils down to what will be done with it.

Mods for UT2K7 will doubtless take advantage of these features even if actual games based on the UE3 engine do not - and we all know how [H] the UT modding community is.

So why don't you suspend judgement on what a PPU will and won't do in UT2K7 until a few of us good-for-nothing early adopters test it out for you?

Try, just for a moment, to see that GRAW is the result of a poor engine - the effects were put in by the devs, not Ageia - PPU's have feck all to do with how the end effect looks. With GRAW the devs dropped the ball, and I have no doubt this will not be the last time.

 

[nhusby]

I agree with everyone that $99 for graphic effects is better than $300 for graphic effects.

but I dont think the PPU is meant for graphics effects. I would like people to make a better distinction between PhysX and effects physics. because havoc effects physics are not the same thing as full interactive physics implemented with a PPU.

 

[Menelmarar]

Whoa, slow down there, Nelly.

You've just thrown around a whole lot of assumptions there and I think you should rethink them, but first;

Fact:

UT3 engine uses PhysX for all physics - non HW too.

Tim (bless 'im) has said that in UT2007 all the hardware features will be used for client-side effects.

Hardware (ie features software PhysX doesn't support currently) includes cloths and liquids.

It's sounds like your saying the same thing I was, that UT2007 will only be using the PhysX hardware for effects physics. My argrument is that this doesn't really significantly differientiate the PhysX hardware from Havok FX's proposal of using a second cheaper graphics card for effects physics.

So what he's saying is that the game can be run entirely in software mode - much like Quake of old. But with a PPU these features will be hardware accelerated, having as yet unknown effects on the gameplay and or fps. GRAW I'll come to later.

You say having unkown effects on the gamplay or fps. However, take a look at Cellfactor and the performance numbers that our fellow Hard members have shown. Demonstrating that having the Physx hardware has little effect on the FPS in our only example of interactive/gameplay physics with PhysX hardware. Maybe both the GRAW engine AND the Cellfactor engine are poorly coded? I suppose it's possible. Ageia is a glowing ray of perfection, if something is wrong blame the game developers!!

What he doesn't say is if these features can be gameplay enabled or not - but because the way the SDK works is that the feature-set for hardware is included and so can be used as developers see fit, it all boils down to what will be done with it.

Mods for UT2K7 will doubtless take advantage of these features even if actual games based on the UE3 engine do not - and we all know how [H] the UT modding community is.

This is just as much speculation and assumption as any of the crap I've posted here

Maybe it can be done, it obviously can because Cellfactor has done it. But will it be used by developers!? I doubt it they wouldn't have a market to sell to, Sweeney has commented on the difficulty of getting gameplay physics with the PPU to work in multiplayer environments. And multiplayer is where the industry is focused. Games like Vanguard and Warhammer two on Ageia's list that I personnally am curious about for the future are MMO games and certainly wont be implementing hardware accelerated interactive physics, only effects physics. If Sweeney can't pull it off, I doubt they can either. HL2 was great, but one key thing...it's physics worked over the network. Shooting barrels, chairs, etc at players in a multiplayer game and seeing them bounce around was serious fun. Gameplay physics is where it's at....but there aren't many singleplayer only games anymore. Oblivion and the GTA games are rare examples that stand out to me from the recent past.

 

[MrNasty]

We're not saying the same thing:

You're saying GRAW would be the same in hardware or software and cellfactor isn't any different.

I'm saying UE 3 is based from the ground up on physics and is a finalised product and so should give the best indication when it comes of the capabilities of the PPU.

Those are very different statements.

You also pull numbers out of a hat for a quick comparison when in reality there is no direct comparison: Do you have proof that the software model is exactly the same as the hardware model for cellfactor? No, you don't. Do you know how badly developers implement their hardware support for newer hardware? I've seen that first hand - pick up any random title from 1996.

What I am saying is why don't we wait and see what direction UE 3 takes and compare it to HavokFX's adoption then see. Not attempt to destroy a new product from a new face with idle number-throwing.

I can't believe I have to say this again: Just because quad-bikes aren't road-legal and therefore have limited uses doesn't mean they're a pile of crap.

I like the dust-pools GRAW delivers - they're really subtle but cool. Go have a look.

I am not idly speculating either - I have history backing me up on the UT mod front and I happen to have read enough about these middleware API's to make basic judgement on how their integration in to an engine works. Go and play some red orchestra if you don't get it, or do some more reading.

Either way - while you make some interesting points I just don't think they stand up very well with the speculation you yourself admit as "crap"

x1600's are 3-4x more powerful than a PPU?
x1600's are up to 5 times as efficient as a 7900GTX for physics?
3 slot boards the way to go?
Keep your old graphics card - it's guaranteed to work as a full PPU?
The PPU will be grounbreaking when it's finally used right?

Wait and see is the wisest standpoint here for any of these questions. It is way too early to tell.

Edit: If this sounds like I'm having a go bear in mind that I'm not, I just happen to be quite matter of fact - apologies if this in any way causes offence.

I think you've got some good points when it comes to the whole MMO situation, but again - no definitive answers around - yet

 

[Terra]

x1600's are 3-4x more powerful than a PPU?
x1600's are up to 5 times as efficient as a 7900GTX for physics?
3 slot boards the way to go?
Keep your old graphics card - it's guaranteed to work as a full PPU?
The PPU will be grounbreaking when it's finally used right?

Wow, why does that sound like an ATI PR slide?
I am going to have to link to you old calculation again now:
Thread: ATI Physics - Post 79.

Terra - I hate when PR is in overdrive and has left reality...

 

[Menelmarar]

We're not saying the same thing:

You're saying GRAW would be the same in hardware or software and cellfactor isn't any different.

Pretty much. Another thread around here shows direct benchmarks in Cellfactor of with and without hardware acceleration. The averages improved 1-6 fps, for $300, you don't have me impressed. Based on that, I am saying you'd see a similar small inprovement in GRAW if you could pull off the same technique of running the extra effects without hardware. From what I understand of the Physx licensing Ubi gets to use the SDK free if they implemented some hardware support, so bam some juicer explosions for hardware only and they don't have to pay licensing fees. This would be pretty good reason to drop in even a pointless use of the hardware. It's pure speculation, but it seems plausible. The amount of objects interacting in Cellfactor is stunning and if we can do that without the PPU well, the much less comlpex stuff in GRAW should be doable in software quite easily.

EDIT:
The thread I was mentioning:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1029445660&postcount=25
The single cpu shows a reasonable amount of improvement. But any performance pc now and in the future is going to be at least dual core, especially how cheap the Pentium D's are and conroes soon launch. The difference in averages with a dual core is 1-4 fps....for $300!?
/edit

I'm saying UE 3 is based from the ground up on physics and is a finalised product and so should give the best indication when it comes of the capabilities of the PPU.

I would hope so. But the hardware is still only for effects physics, so there is no reason to differentiate between the technologies of Havok and Ageia. Both would use software for the gameplay physics and hardware for the effects physics......essentially the same approach. Except....ATI claims a cheap $99 X1600 is faster than a $299 PhysX card....that certainly sounds good on paper.

You also pull numbers out of a hat for a quick comparison when in reality there is no direct comparison: Do you have proof that the software model is exactly the same as the hardware model for cellfactor? No, you don't. Do you know how badly developers implement their hardware support for newer hardware? I've seen that first hand - pick up any random title from 1996.

What I am saying is why don't we wait and see what direction UE 3 takes and compare it to HavokFX's adoption then see. Not attempt to destroy a new product from a new face with idle number-throwing.

The only numbers I threw around were an example of what might be happening if the GPU is being bottlenecked. Several people have predicted this is why the Physx isn't showing significant increase in FPS. Should this be a correct explaination....it's not a fault of Ageia's technology, but you still aren't benefiting from your $300. And maybe as GPU's improve up and into the next year the difference PhysX makes would become more prominant!? More speculation.

The only numbers I through around was merely brainstorming a possible scenario where the additional objects in something like Cellfacter were bottlenecking the GPU. I didn't claim this was what was happening. But several people have predicted this is the reason why the PhysX hardware isn't showing significant gains in FPS. Should this be happening, it totally negates both Havok and Ageia's premium cost.

Either way - while you make some interesting points I just don't think they stand up very well with the speculation you yourself admit as "crap"

x1600's are 3-4x more powerful than a PPU?
x1600's are up to 5 times as efficient as a 7900GTX for physics?
3 slot boards the way to go?
Keep your old graphics card - it's guaranteed to work as a full PPU?
The PPU will be grounbreaking when it's finally used right?

Wait and see is the wisest standpoint here for any of these questions. It is way too early to tell.

About all we have now is speculation and assumptions backed up with only some make shift benchmarks on the forums and a few scattered review sites

The OP was aruging that Havok FX and the graphics companies should call their tech something significantly different so as not to comapre directly to Ageia's PhysX since Ageia's PhysX can do interactive physics. I was primarily disagreeing because the primary purpose of Ageia's PhysX hardware is going to be effects physics, just like Havok FX + ATI + nVidia's solutions. The games that use Ageia's hardware for interactive physics seems far and wide, a majority games are going to be only effects physics accelerated it seems. At least for the present and near future.

As far as all your other questions about ATI's claims of how good their X1600 is and needing a 3 slot mobo. I'm not about to claim their approach is better. I'm not big on SLI/CF so it sounds like a good eal to me if you use a common SLI/CF 2 slot mobo to pair a single $99 card next to a X1900 rather than a $299 card. But Havok FX claims no large industry support!? Ageia's page lists several developers and future games supporting their tech....I don't see that for Havok's FX engine.....So is Havok FX and ATI and nVidia's approach going to go anywhere significant.....time will tell.

A case of wait and see, indeed. Definitely agree there.

I think you've got some good points when it comes to the whole MMO situation, but again - no definitive answers around - yet

Maybe it's doable..I just don't see it. If Sweeney doesn't think it's viable to implement in a mostly small scale game like UT then my confidence in developers having interactive physics implmented for those MMO's is pretty slim.

 

[gerbiaNem]

Another point of discussion is Cryengine 2, which will be using Phys-X over Havok. It has fully interactive environments which can be destroyed (leaves move also), volumetric clouds, and soft objects. It seems like Phys-X might start being required for all of those gameplay effects to work. Imagine running your jeep through a hut to kill the enemies instead of gunning them down.

I agree with the argument that Phys-X is currently also for FX physics, but the scope is much larger. With the graphics card physics, they will probably be limited to explosions and particles which cannot be touched. What is the use of having a river of realistic water if when you walk through it you don't redirect the stream? Or having a tank explode with shrapnel that doesn't kill your oponents? The effects remain in the realm of graphics and eyecandy, not truly physics.

So I guess you could say my argument begins when the real physics based gameplay games begin appearing.

 

[Menelmarar]

Another point of discussion is Cryengine 2, which will be using Phys-X over Havok. It has fully interactive environments which can be destroyed (leaves move also), volumetric clouds, and soft objects. It seems like Phys-X might start being required for all of those gameplay effects to work. Imagine running your jeep through a hut to kill the enemies instead of gunning them down.

I agree with the argument that Phys-X is currently also for FX physics, but the scope is much larger. With the graphics card physics, they will probably be limited to explosions and particles which cannot be touched. What is the use of having a river of realistic water if when you walk through it you don't redirect the stream? Or having a tank explode with shrapnel that doesn't kill your oponents? The effects remain in the realm of graphics and eyecandy, not truly physics.

So I guess you could say my argument begins when the real physics based gameplay games begin appearing.

You supprised me because I thought the new Crytek stuff was software physics, so I googled.

According to this gameplay review of Crysis (CryENGINE2):
"They confirmed that there are no plans to integrate Aegia PhysX support, and that all the physics routines were written by themselves."
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/05/11/crysis_playtest/

So, awesome gameplay physics, and not using any Ageia Physx hardware. Hmmm no need for a $299 Physx hardware here....

 

[gerbiaNem]

You supprised me because I thought the new Crytek stuff was software physics, so I googled.

According to this gameplay review of Crysis (CryENGINE2):
"They confirmed that there are no plans to integrate Aegia PhysX support, and that all the physics routines were written by themselves."
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/05/11/crysis_playtest/

So, awesome gameplay physics, and not using any Ageia Physx hardware. Hmmm no need for a $299 Physx hardware here....

Whoops, my bad, I read that before, but my brain left out the no.

 

[Lo Pan]

Physics does not affect gameplay? Think about Half-Life, wich has been successfully innovating in gameplay, with the Havok physic engine, adding a new level of gameplay. Before, the only way to kill a enemy was to shoot it, in the future, lets say all the props in the game are props_physics, it means that you can use the surrounding environement as a gameplay element, throw things at the enemy, bulding a briidge to reach your objective on the other side of the canal by throwing air filled plstic barrel and wooden 2x4, thats what i call gameplay!

Sure it is not more beautifull, but it is more immersive! I have some friends that are currently working on the new EA game called army of two , and most of the environement will be physic. IE; you have a wall, you can use the door, or you can use your gun, shoot at the wall, make an hole, throw a grenade, clean the room, and then use the door!

I think physics can add alot on gameplay, but the most important thing that is currently unreachable, is internet bandwith. If physics is only on the client side, i mean, its pointless. The reason why most game grow and become popular, is because you can challenge other people on internet, wich adds longetivity to the game. If internet would be fast enough to register every milisecond the xyz position of every objects , it would be THE feature.

my 2 cents

It is..........cable internet is a LOT faster than most computers can use right now due to a NIC card bottelneck.

 

[Menelmarar]

It is..........cable internet is a LOT faster than most computers can use right now due to a NIC card bottelneck.

I hope your joking. Cable internet is usually at best around 3-8mbps depending on your provider and the plan you choose. That doesn't take into account any other bottlenecks and latencies you would encounter across all the other hardware you would have to pass outside your provider in order to reach the game server.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

It seems like many people are beginning to get excited about the physics wars coming on. But what many fail to realize is that graphics physics don't add anything at all to the gameplay.

"ATI does not see their physics technology as an offload for the CPU but rather processes a new category of features know as “effects physics.” ~ [H]

You are basically paying for a graphics card to give you better physics, to give you better graphics.. er.. what? You won't be getting any better framerate in cellfactor with a graphics card, and you sure as hell won't be adding on any gameplay enhancements.

What they are selling you isn't any advance in physics, it's pure eye candy. I just wish they would market it as such, since Ageia will probably lose sales to ATI/Nvidia from consumers thinking the actual physics gameplay will be improved. They should call it Graphys or something to differentiate the use of it.

I'm just worried that one unrelated technology will be killing off another due to consumer ignorance.

There's a problem here.

ATi's Physics has two API's.
HavokFX (effects physics)
Microsoft/ATi joint API to be included in DirectX (All physics)

So at first, Graphics physics will only process effects physics using HavokFX (Like Ageia currently) but soon after they get there API fully launched it will be able to do all the same things AGEIA can do at a cheaper price using a graphics card you no longer need as you upgrade.

In other words... it's not going to be limited to effects physics. AGEIA does't currently give you a framerate increase now does it? Tis the same THING.

 

[nhusby]

It is..........cable internet is a LOT faster than most computers can use right now due to a NIC card bottelneck.

that makes me sick. I may not have a CCNA, but I took 2 years of cisco, and all I have to say is that you are dead wrong.

the bottleneck on cable modems is the "last mile" infra structure. cable modems are a hirearchy. much like a tree. DSL is better, but in most systems it still passes through a frame relay network.

2Mbps should be more than enuph, its latency that causes issues, thats where cable falls short.

 

[Menelmarar]

There's a problem here.

ATi's Physics has two API's.
HavokFX (effects physics)
Microsoft/ATi joint API to be included in DirectX (All physics)

So at first, Graphics physics will only process effects physics using HavokFX (Like Ageia currently) but soon after they get there API fully launched it will be able to do all the same things AGEIA can do at a cheaper price using a graphics card you no longer need as you upgrade.

In other words... it's not going to be limited to effects physics. AGEIA does't currently give you a framerate increase now does it? Tis the same THING.

Do you have proof to back this up, because I haven't read either one of these things before. If so....wow

 

[MrNasty]

There's a problem here.

ATi's Physics has two API's.
HavokFX (effects physics)
Microsoft/ATi joint API to be included in DirectX (All physics)

So at first, Graphics physics will only process effects physics using HavokFX (Like Ageia currently) but soon after they get there API fully launched it will be able to do all the same things AGEIA can do at a cheaper price using a graphics card you no longer need as you upgrade.

In other words... it's not going to be limited to effects physics. AGEIA does't currently give you a framerate increase now does it? Tis the same THING.

You got the wrong idea there, this is how it works as of now:

Havok SDK/API:

HavokFX is an API extension available for additional cost.
HavokFX is available to generate effects physics (full feature set yet to be confirmed, but so far includes spherical collisions and particles) by using SM 3.0 hardware.

Havok API is a full physics API with interactive physics support.
Havok in and of itself is executed solely on the CPU (multi-threaded support is coming) and is not executed on any other piece of hardware. It does not currently support fluids (I'll look up if it does pseudo-cloths).

Ageia:

Ageia Hardware API is a full physics API with interactive physics support.
Ageia's HW API runs on the PPU only and includes fluids and cloth simulation support.

Ageia software API is a full physics API with interactive physics support that comes with Ageia's HW API. As with Havok it is multithreaded , is only executed on the CPU and does not support fluids or pseudo-cloth simulation at this time - they are saying maybe by the end of the year.

Microsoft:
Microsoft has not announced any DirectPhysics API developement, general speculation holds that, if this rumour is true, DP will form part of what will effectively be DX11.

ATi:
ATi announced that it was working with a partner on a physics API that could be executed on a graphics card after nVidia announced they were working with Havok. This API turned out to be HavokFX, and a search of their website reveals no further physics projects in developement that have been announced at this time.

 

[Majin]

Look at it this way, With this new addition from ATI, Ageia's PPU prices may come down.

If they drop even a bit I know what I am gonna buy.
Then maybe GRAW will give me something to look at while I die and die again on the solo mission.

 

[Croak]

It is..........cable internet is a LOT faster than most computers can use right now due to a NIC card bottelneck.

You realize that in the case of MMO games, those companies are paying for bandwidth on a usage basis, not a flat rate like most North American home broadband connectivity.

Adding interactive physics data traffic would be a huge increase in bandwidth costs, for very little real return, not to mention the additional CPU and storage overhead routing and recording physics effects in a persistent game world.

That's not taking into account things like latency, client support for physics, etc.

Long story short, just not gonna happen in the foreseeable future with an MMO.

Oh, and finally, the only reason Vanguard is on that PhysX list is because they're an Unreal 2.5/3.0 licensee, not because they had some grand design for physics in mind...when I left we weren't even taking good advantage of built-in Ragdoll software physics. Maybe things have changed in that regard since I left, but I kind of doubt it, coding time is always in short supply, as is artist time to create assets that take advantage of physics processing, and designer time to implement gameplay to do the same. That said, it's possible, and it's a nice tool to have in the box after release, or for some E3-type showcase area.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

It is..........cable internet is a LOT faster than most computers can use right now due to a NIC card bottelneck.

WTF are you talking about?
Show me a cable connection that can max out even an old 10BaseT card

 

[MrWizard6600]

i love how soo many companies use "X" in everything. guess what fellas, its already taken, and buy the porn business.... i wont name names XFX.

just an example. there are more:

X800 = ATI graphics card
X6800 = higher level Conroe Processer
6800 = Nvidia Graphics card...

 

[Flow]

you may want to read this.

Ageia responds to ATI's Physics hardware solution
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=10584

ATI gets boundless with CrossFire physics
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6538332.html

 

[Earthworm48]

I worry about the level of Quality in Havok FX. ATi allows you to use lower powered cards alongside higher ones which leads too the ability to have a X1900 for your graphics and a X1600 for physics. However Havok were saying before "Oh you can get some physics running it ona GPU but you get the full experience with an SLi setup and more powerful cards" e.t.c. This makes me worry as the 1900 is "9x" more powerful than the Physx card (apparently) and the 1600 is only "2x" according to ATi, so while I'm attracted to being able to buy a cheaper graphics card for physics, does that mean I'll just get some physics but still need to spring for the faster card for the full thing? If so then we get back to the older cost debate of HavokFX against Physx.