Wow..definately a AGEIA fanboy or employee...no way can you be saying such things unless you work for them (even though you keep denying it
) None of your points hold water.
Pottsey said:
When software has equal visual physics as the Ageia PPU provides then software gets 1FPS while the PPU gives us playable FPS. How does that prove Ageia have a bad implementation? Not only that but even without the cloth effects the software minimum FPS is up to 50% less then the Ageia PPU depending on the situation.
It's 1 fps for cloth effects.... We have tested the game for visual physics performance. Interaction of objects is the main functional point of a PPU. It failed to deliver in distinguishing an advantage to use a PPU.
When a game has poorly coded graphic or graphic effects are rushed and turn out poor you don’t blame directX or OpenGL you blame the developers not using the API correctly. Yet when the developers rush’s and adds the NovadeX PhysX API in at the last minuet giving basic effects you blame Ageia? Is that really fair? That seems like a double standard to me.
Forget graphics, we're talking about physics. Graphics effects and how objects interact with physics are two separate things. No developer will rush a something as huge as adding physics effects. Your point holds many flaws again.
Now if the next 10 games come out with a bad physics then I will agree with you there’s something wrong with the API, but you can never judge an API with the first few games to use it. Right now 4 games do not mean its Ageia fault as it could be the developers fault. It’s too early to tell. But it is something we need to watch closely.
That's one thing I agree with. Purchasing PhysX now with a lack of games which can demonstrate that using PhysX, will actually enhances the games physics performance, has yet to be seen.
Yes you do add a bit of functionality without lots of development. It’s common for patch’s or games late in development to get a bit of functionality like physX implanted instead of a full functionality and only a small amount of development time spent on the new feature. Unless the game developers got hold of the PPU from the start of development they have no choice but to add limited functionality due to time constraints. Ghost Recon appears to fall into the category of physics where added late into development so only a bit of functionality was added.
You sir know nothing about game development. Nothing is ever done like that.
Why? Because you’re just making up that it’s certainly a fault with AGEIA. There is nothing to indicate that it is or isn’t there fault. If it was there fault I don’t think 60+ developers would be working with them. If it was as poor as you say they would have 5devlopers if that.
Also new features require time to learn how to do correctly. Look at the first T&L games, first pixel shaders 2 or pixel shaders 3 games, first bump mapping the list goes on. When ever something new comes out developers have to spend hours learning how to do it. The same will also apply to Nvidia and ATI GPU physics. I don’t expect the first gamer to be anywhere near a stunning as the later games.
If there are no faults with AGEIA then why are AGEIA releasing patches? As I remember, the last patch fixed faults with a certain game... £10 to guess which one
It's good that AGEIA take notice of their flaws and they are fixing it. Hopefully when ATI's and Nvidias physics solution becomes mainstream, there should be some nice competition. Win-win for us all
As for your other points, they're from someone else's post, I will let that person deal with it.
