• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GPU physics Havok FX dropped from first game

To sum up the three different options for physics acceleration:


CPU physics:

Advantages:
* Easiest to program
* Will be universally compatible (any CPU will run the same code)
* Makes use of idle CPU cores, and can be adjusted to use however many cores are 'idle' or underused
* Everyone will have a multi-core CPU so no additional hardware required

Disadvantages
* Potentially the least powerful in terms of raw floating point calculations per second (due to no specialisation for physics-type calculations)


GPU physics

Advantages:
* The most powerful option, in terms of raw floating point calculations per second. Potential for massive numbers of physics objects in game.
* People who play games will already have a GPU of some kind. Hence no additional hardware required.

Disadvantages:
* Will require a high level of programming skill (and a lot more development time) to implement efficiently
* Any effort spent on physics is taken away from regular graphics calculations. Extra graphics card required for true 'free' physics
* Will likely require developers to make two different physics implementations (for nvidia and ATI)


Dedicated physics hardware:

Advantages:
* Hardware's memory stucture can be optimised to handle the size of data structures usually associated with physics calculations (will give efficiency benefits relative to the GPU, though the GPUs raw power will let it win out every time)
* Specialisation should make programming for the accelerator easier than programming for the GPU (note 'should'; I have no actual experience programming for physx cards).

Disadvantages
* Requires the user to buy an extra piece of equipment. Until ownership is widespread enough, game developers must write both a software and a hardware physics engine, limiting how integrated into the game the physics can be.
* If other companies also bring out physics accelerators, we have a potentially unlimited number of different platforms to support. Games will have to choose which to support (and every additional one will mean more development time)




Well there we have it. From these I hope some of you can make up your own minds about which platform will be best. Like I said earlier, my money is on CPU physics, simply because it is the easiest to program and most universally supported option.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but aren't we going down the second route now with tri - pci express boards where the third gfx card is going to do all the physics calcs?

Well that's the way nvidia would have you do it and they have more "brute" force and money than Ageia
 
Greebo said:
Yeah but aren't we going down the second route now with tri - pci express boards where the third gfx card is going to do all the physics calcs?

Well that's the way nvidia would have you do it and they have more "brute" force and money than Ageia
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a big problem for Ageia. Even if their hardware was the best option, they would likely get bullied into submission by ATI, nvidia and intel.

As for the dedicated GPU - they are flexible enough that you can choose either option. Add another GPU for dedicated physics, and you will get 'free' accelration and loads of power. Just use the single GPU, and you will still get access to massively accelerated physics, but at some cost to the framerate when the physics are actually in action.
 
Pottsey said:
There are tons of great games from GRAW 2, Gothic 3, Medal Of Honor: Airborne, Clive Barker's Jericho, Warhammer Online: Age Of Reckoning and BioWare - Eclipse Engine. Have Bioware ever made bad game?

Then there are the none PC games like Splinter cell, Gears of war e.c.t
Click to expand...
ROFL @ these "great games". *Snore.*

Half the ones you listed aren't even out yet, I listed tons of AAA titles that are already out. Something that PhysX just does not have with the exception of Airborne and even that's had a lukewarm launch.

You're pulling at straws here, sorry. Only thing on there that makes me tingle is Warhammer.
 
Last edited:
I love how he says airborne yet it doesn't, the ue3 engine makes use of it for ut3 and some of the ue3 games just kept that aspect of it. Airborne make ZERO use of physx.
 
“I love how he says airborne yet it doesn't, the ue3 engine makes use of it for ut3 and some of the ue3 games just kept that aspect of it. Airborne make ZERO use of physx.“
As far as I can tell all the physics are done via Ageia Physx. If you have evidence saying other wise please post it.






"non PC games like Splinter Cell, Gears of War"
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't that prove a PPU isn't needed?“
Only if your happy with those physics and don’t want more.
 
Pottsey said:
“I love how he says airborne yet it doesn't, the ue3 engine makes use of it for ut3 and some of the ue3 games just kept that aspect of it. Airborne make ZERO use of physx.“
As far as I can tell all the physics are done via Ageia Physx. If you have evidence saying other wise please post it.






"non PC games like Splinter Cell, Gears of War"
Correct me if im wrong but doesn't that prove a PPU isn't needed?“
Only if your happy with those physics and don’t want more.
Click to expand...



No need to have any evidence, theres damn all in the game that would even suggest any form of physics acceleration. Play the demo and thats pretty much the level of interactivity in the full game, an almost totally static world.
 
Crysis doesn't need a physix card does it? Yet id say what with all those trees and walking into leaves making them move etc that thats highly physical... perhaps the wrong word to use. But you get my point. We dont need them or want to have to folk out for somthing which is pointless!

Why do youawnt physx to succeed so much when it can easly be put onto a vga or cpu?
 
“No need to have any evidence, theres damn all in the game that would even suggest any form of physics acceleration.”
I wasn’t talking about physics acceleration, I was talking about the physics API and how its used in lots of game so isn’t going die out like many say.
 
Pottsey you never answered my question. Why do you support physx and ppu so much when it would be so much more benefishal for it to be put on vga or cpu. And youd see more effects if it was put on them rather then having to buy a phyx card. So if yu are supporting them in the hope of better effects then surely thats the wrong way to go?
 
Gerard said:
I love how he says airborne yet it doesn't, the ue3 engine makes use of it for ut3 and some of the ue3 games just kept that aspect of it. Airborne make ZERO use of physx.
Click to expand...

yet it insists on installing the ageia physx drivers or it won't even run?

SO I guess it does support some physics but I don;t have a card to know what the difference is?
 
Pottsey said:
As far as I can tell all the physics are done via Ageia Physx. If you have evidence saying other wise please post it.
Click to expand...


that explains why the physics are crap in airborne. can;t shoot through thin wood or thin sheets of metal, totally unrealistic physics. they shoudl have gone with havok like half life 2 did.
 
“Why do you support physx and ppu so much when it would be so much more benefishal for it to be put on vga or cpu.”
There are certain physics effects that CPU’s are to weak to do fast. GPU are a better choice but they are limited to affect physics only, not game play.

If everyone had a PPU either built into the CPU, GPU, motherboard or what ever and all used a standard API then physics could be pushed far beyond what we have in games now. PPU are way more powerful for physics then any current GPU or CPU. I don’t have a problem with PPU being built into other things. But its not happened yet.



EDIT
“that explains why the physics are crap in airborne. can;t shoot through thin wood or thin sheets of metal, totally unrealistic physics. they shoudl have gone with havok like half life 2 did.”
That’s a design choice by the devs not a limit of Ageia. Half Life 2 has the same stuff, you cannot shoot though wood, thin sheets of metal e.c.t in place’s.

Half Life 2 has average physics for today. It’s not longer top of the range physics wise.
 
Last edited:
HL2 still has the most "fun" physics IMO. Remember it runs flawlessly on a single core cpu, so imagine how many objects it could do with todays CPUs.
 
“Remember it runs flawlessly on a single core cpu, so imagine how many objects it could do with todays CPUs.”
HL 2 engine cannot do many objects, or cloth, wind, liquids, soft metal and many other effects. Just look at the mods with tons of objects on. Just cloth by its self puts the fps down to single digits.

Physics wise Crysis is far better then HL2.
 
metalmackey said:
@Pottsey I dont hate Ageia (using the SDK and its great) but phyhsics are fine without the PPU. They should ditch the PPU and optimise fore multi-core CPUs.
Click to expand...

The trouble is general purpose CPU's are not brilliant when it comes to complex physics, basic physics they may very well cope with but when it comes to the more advanced stuff it requires either a PPU or GPU, since GPU's are busy rendering scenes then surely a PPU is the best option?

I don't understand why there is so much anomosity towards a piece of tech that could revolutionise gaming if given a decent chance.
 
mmj_uk said:
I don't understand why there is so much anomosity towards a piece of tech that could revolutionise games given half a chance.
Click to expand...
It's been given a chance and it doesn't deliver what you would expect for the price.

If the next generation of PPUs are cheaper and actually do something interesting, my hat is off to Ageia. I might even buy one myself! Until then, I'm going to judge these cards a pretty humiliating failure and ignore them like any passing fad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom