Merry Xmas Pottsey

[Finguz]

How many times is it possible to have the same argument?

Wait until you get married for the definitive answer, and you're not going to like it

 

[Pottsey]

“not even played it, and isn't willing to download the demo so that they can at least see they're completely wrong.”
I have downloaded the demo and it did just what I said it would. I have posted videos, I linked to other thread showing lots of people with the same problem. You’re the one who’s wrong. You have not backed up one thing you said. You keep saying the game can do something everyone else says it cannot. You say I don’t have a clue. Well its you who’s ignoring evidence and not posting any. The game is proven to be CPU limited with high end physics and your still insisting its not CPU limited even after the FPS went down to 1fps due to the CPU.

I will post a screenshot from the demo tonight with a FPS counter on.




“I've not seen it do any of that and you've not shown me any of it either. All I've seen so far is crappy tech demos,”
Yes I have shown you before I even posted the video in this thread before.
http://www.ageia.com/physx/videos.html very top video Bet On Solider. Press the HD version button or click the centre image for a low res version.





“Show me the word "nuke" in the paragraph you just paraphrased me in."
You didn’t say nuke, you said you can knock down half the forest without slow down. The only way to do that is with a nuke.




“And yes, you showed me a video that was recorded and encoded on the CPU simultaneously as the game was running. And yet you somehow accuse me simply running the Crysis benchmark being "unfair testing."”
As proved by the thread showed early on everyone who tried it without video encoding had the same performance problem. The video was just to show the effect. Your test was unfair as you ran the benchmark without high end phsyics. Then said the game can run high end physics based on that benchmark.





“you would know that mowing down a forest doesn't make the game slow down because the game is totally GPU limited.”
Every time its been tried in the sandbox it becomes CPU limited and slows down. Everyone else says it slows down whos tried it. You’re the only one saying different. Show me half the forest being mowing down without slowdown.

 

[Marc Fraser]

Physics is already at a level where it is perfectly acceptable for gameplay, tree's swaying in the wind do not affect gameplay in any manner so that point is mute.

Before Crysis came out people were saying physics were perfectly acceptable as they were. Then Crysis came out and people went "Wow look at the physcis in Crysis". The same happened when people saw the demo for alan wake.

If developers knew everyone had a PPU the quality of the physics could be moved on at a far faster rate than they are today.

So now its about graphical quality and immersiveness of the enviroment;
What good is swaying tree's if they looks horrible compared to the rest of the game? the answer, no good at all as it brings down the effect of the enviroment imo as proven in UT3. Amazing looking game, add a PPU and the extra effects just look poor.

Just because the trees move more realistically and are handled by the PPU there is no reason why they would not look as good as the rest of the game. As the trees would already be being drawn you are not putting any additional load on the GPU by make them behave realistically with the environment.

Why do you assume they would look any worse? They are modeled by the same artist, drawn by the same GPU and would use the same shaders.

I was saying you may need to lower the visual quality overall if you decide to add effects that produce additional objects to render. i.e destructable terrain as this would put more strain on the GPU.

The alternative is as you say, tone down the graphics and have a less pretty game like warhawk, which to be frank isnt much better than HL2 from that vid (abeit poor quality and beta so i am saying that with a pinch of salt)
I would rather have a pre-scripted/low physics tree that looks stunning than a high physics poor looking tree personally

As I explained the tree could look just as good in either scenario as no additional burden is placed on the GPU.

I personally prefer a game to feel more realistic than look especially stunning. Take the Warmonger video, you shoot a rocket at the wall and it breaks. This to me feels far more realistic compared to a game where the wall looks visually stunning but remains undamaged when you set off explosives next to it.

Besides from physics there are lots of ways that you can make a game feel more realistic. Take the control method of the Wii as an example. The graphics on the console are nowhere near as good as the PS3 or 360 however it has outsold them pretty much on the basis of the controller and the Wii sports game. Could you imagine it selling if it was graphically stunning yet you had to use a standard control pad to play it?

And to clarify we are talking about Physx cards, not PPU's in general. I think a PPU is a great idea, but in practice today it is dead weight.
Ideally a ppu would be built onto a gfx card/cpu rather than as a seperate entity wasting a slot

So are you saying you would happily spend the money to upgrade your graphics card or cpu if it had a PPU built in? If it was the cpu you would probably need to upgrade the mother board as well. This is likely to cost just as much if not more than a separate add in card. The current situation would also still be the same. i.e. developers would not be able to rely on everyone having one so would have to carefully choose how to use it. The same additional strain would also be put on the GPU if effects are added that produce more objects to render.

 

[Pottsey]

“as it brings down the effect of the enviroment imo as proven in UT3. Amazing looking game, add a PPU and the extra effects just look poor.”
One very large problem with that statement. Adding a PPU doesn’t add extra effects. How can extra effects look poor when there are none? The game looks the same with or without a PPU. the only diffrance is speed as its slower without a PPU. How does UT prove the PPU brings down the effect of the enviroment. When no new enviroment effects are added with a PPU?

All the PPU’s does is speeds up the current effects in UT. Nothing new is added. The PPU succeeds in this as it boosts FPS.

 

[Chronictank]

Before Crysis came out people were saying physics were perfectly acceptable as they were. Then Crysis came out and people went "Wow look at the physcis in Crysis". The same happened when people saw the demo for alan wake.

If developers knew everyone had a PPU the quality of the physics could be moved on at a far faster rate than they are today.


Just because the trees move more realistically and are handled by the PPU there is no reason why they would not look as good as the rest of the game. As the trees would already be being drawn you are not putting any additional load on the GPU by make them behave realistically with the environment.

Why do you assume they would look any worse? They are modeled by the same artist, drawn by the same GPU and would use the same shaders.

You used the tree example, i just carried it on for sake of simplicity i didnt myself mean it would look worse just made a point using it as an example

I personally prefer a game to feel more realistic than look especially stunning. Take the Warmonger video, you shoot a rocket at the wall and it breaks. This to me feels far more realistic compared to a game where the wall looks visually stunning but remains undamaged when you set off explosives next to it.

Each to their own, the wall wouldn't "remain unchanged" it would explode but sections break off in less pieces,
Be it poor programming or the sdk just being rubbish warhawk doesnt look realistic either

Besides from physics there are lots of ways that you can make a game feel more realistic. Take the control method of the Wii as an example. The graphics on the console are nowhere near as good as the PS3 or 360 however it has outsold them pretty much on the basis of the controller and the Wii sports game. Could you imagine it selling if it was graphically stunning yet you had to use a standard control pad to play it?

The wii targets a certain market, the ps3 and 360 target another sorry but thas a poor example. That's like comparing a ferrari and a golf

So are you saying you would happily spend the money to upgrade your graphics card or cpu if it had a PPU built in? If it was the cpu you would probably need to upgrade the mother board as well. This is likely to cost just as much if not more than a separate add in card. The current situation would also still be the same. i.e. developers would not be able to rely on everyone having one so would have to carefully choose how to use it. The same additional strain would also be put on the GPU if effects are added that produce more objects to render.

Yes i would if the difference was worth it, the issue is not the existance of a PPU, because it is a good thing imo but i would not buy a (i'm getting tierd of repeating myself so i'll put it in bold) Ageia PhysX Card in its current form because it is a waste of money

“as it brings down the effect of the enviroment imo as proven in UT3. Amazing looking game, add a PPU and the extra effects just look poor.”
One very large problem with that statement. Adding a PPU doesn’t add extra effects. How can extra effects look poor when there are none? The game looks the same with or without a PPU. the only diffrance is speed as its slower without a PPU. How does UT prove the PPU brings down the effect of the enviroment. When no new enviroment effects are added with a PPU?

All the PPU’s does is speeds up the current effects in UT. Nothing new is added. The PPU succeeds in this as it boosts FPS.

UT adds the extra physics bits afaik when the card is added, those bits make the game look worse whichis what matters. The non physics maps look better...
You sure are a fan or arguing semantics

 

[Darkwave]

You didn’t say nuke, you said you can knock down half the forest without slow down. The only way to do that is with a nuke.

Jesus Christ Pottsey. Seriously I'm done with you now, this just shows you're being an idiot if you're going to take a blatantly obvious figure of speech as a fact and turn it into some BS about nukes.

 

[Pottsey]

“Jesus Christ Pottsey. Seriously I'm done with you now, this just shows you're being an idiot if you're going to take a blatantly obvious figure of speech as a fact and turn it into some BS about nukes. ”
What is wrong with you? You said you could knock down half the tress in one go without slowdown. I point out you cannot and you all me an idiot. So now it’s a figure of speech and you cannot really knock down all the tress without slowdown?. Could that be cause what I said about slowdown was true? The nuke its self doesnt matter. What matters is the physics and the slowdown when all the phsyics on all the tress happen at once. Without the physics the nuke is 100% smooth without slowdown.

You say the game is never CPU limited, I show it is and you call me an idiot.
You’re the one coming out with BS and insisting its true. So please stop calling me an idiot.




“UT adds the extra physics bits afaik when the card is added, those bits make the game look worse whichis what matters. The non physics maps look better...
You sure are a fan or arguing semantics“
Zero extra bits are added. I don’t see how you can say it looks worse with a PPU as its looks 100% the same. The only difference is the speed is faster with the PPU. The PPU also works on the none physics maps. I am not arguing semantics. Your saying the PPU looks worse when it looks 100% the same. Yes the non Ageia maps look better but the PPU does the same thing on the none Ageia maps as it does on the Ageai maps.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Q.F.T:

Yes i would if the difference was worth it, the issue is not the existance of a PPU, because it is a good thing imo but i would not buy a (i'm getting tierd of repeating myself so i'll put it in bold) Ageia PhysX Card in its current form because it is a waste of money

PhysX and the arguments that Pottsey brings to the table reminds me of this:

At some stage you are going to have to accept that from a gaming perspective the hardware is not worth the PCB it's printed on. Bet on Soldier has gotten some of the worst reviews that I have ever seen, and none of the other games on offer significantly benefit from it. By all means argue the merits of the hardware in physics simulations, movie making perhaps and 3D modelling tools but don't you think that it is time to let the gaming perspective die the quiet death it deserves? By all means feel free to have a nice big 'I told you so' if/when there is a meaningful implimentation but up until then all that occurs is a pointless reduction into semantic discussion.

 

[Chronictank]

“UT adds the extra physics bits afaik when the card is added, those bits make the game look worse whichis what matters. The non physics maps look better...
You sure are a fan or arguing semantics“
Zero extra bits are added. I don’t see how you can say it looks worse with a PPU as its looks 100% the same. The only difference is the speed is faster with the PPU. The PPU also works on the none physics maps. I am not arguing semantics. Your saying the PPU looks worse when it looks 100% the same. Yes the non Ageia maps look better but the PPU does the same thing on the none Ageia maps as it does on the Ageai maps.

No i am saying the ppu maps look worse, the ones designed to be used with the PPU so they are not the same as the other maps are they? they have content added to utilise the PPU regardless if you have the ability to force it without one.
In addition the difference in the nomal game itself is negligible, if you can proove otherwise feel free, fraps footage is sufficient as i said before to which you replied you cant work out a "fair" way of testing it

So yes you are arguing semantics, when it is pretty obvious what i was getting at

 

[Darkwave]

What is wrong with you? You said you could knock down half the tress in one go without slowdown.

Jesus Christ. Quote me saying "in one go", and stop being an utter fool.

I said you can "mow down half the forest" without it slowing down, and I meant with automatic firearms.

 

[FirebarUK]

Pottsey's arguements are always spot on, but people seem to miss the point of them entirely?! From just scanning through this last page, there seems to be those who ultimately can't differentiate between physics and graphics.

 

[Marc Fraser]

You used the tree example, i just carried it on for sake of simplicity i didnt myself say it would look worse just argued your point

But the tree is a perfect example of how you can improve the realism using physics without putting additional stress on the graphics card.

Each to their own, the wall wouldn't "remain unchanged" it would explode but sections break off in less pieces,

I don't get your point here. There are loads of games out where you can shoot rockets at things all day and all you get is an extra texture added to make it look like an explosion has taken place. Granted some walls can be destroyed but these are largely all predetermined. In most cases the debris from the explosion fades out after a few seconds as well so the CPU does not need to keep track of it.

Warmonger is the only example I have seen where you can destroy as much of the environment as you like and the debris remains to play a further part in the gameplay. As it is all physically modeled you do not need pre determine whether a object can be broken and what weapon you need to fire at it to break it. It can all be based on the force generated by an explosion and calculated by the physics engine. With the advances in CPUs this is becoming more possible to calculate on the CPU but not on as bigger scale as you can with a PPU.

Be it poor programming or the sdk just being rubbish warhawk doesnt look realistic either

Which part in particular does not look realistic?

If you are refering to the blocky nature of the way the walls break and the debris this is understandable when you consider the complexity of what is actually being achieved. To get a GPU to draw an object on screen you need to provide it with the vertices (points) that make up the object and the order that three vertices are joined up to form the triangles which make up the object you see on screen. A flat wall can be made up of a minimum of 8 vertices and 12 triangles. Now if you break that wall into much smaller pieces you need to provide all the additional vertices and triangles that make up those individual pieces. Due to the complicated nature of 3d graphics a typical vertex is made up of several elements. A position, normal (a vector that points in the direction that light is reflected), binormal and tangent (vectors used for normal mapping), texture coordinates. As it would take a long time to calculate all these new vectors and coordinates from a flat wall on the fly during the game it is likely that you would model the parts that make up a wall in advance then use them in game when the wall breaks. It looks like Warmonger has used a collection of squares and rectangles to model the wall physically and graphically.

If all the separate parts of the wall are to remain in the game after the explosion you also need to be able carry out collision detection and know the rough shape of them to be able to calculate how they will react to physical effects when modelled as rigid bodies. Using boxes is far easier and less computationally expensive than complex shapes which make the fact they are modeled as rectangles and squares understandable.

The wii targets a certain market, the ps3 and 360 target another sorry but thas a poor example.

I was giving an example of how something other than graphics can improve the realism of a game so it is not a poor example.

Yes i would, the issue is not the existance of a PPU, because it is a good thing imo but i would not buy a (i'm getting tierd of repeating myself so i'll put it in bold) Ageia PhysX Card in its current form because it is a waste of money

You say it is a waste of money but would be happy to pay for it if it was intergrated into a GPU or CPU even thought the same issues would apply. i.e extra objects and effects would put more load on the gpu, developers would not be able to rely on people having them so would probably not include the need for them as standard in the minimal spec so as to keep the market as wide as possible and the CPU or GPU would cost more as a result.

 

[Chronictank]

You're tree example is flawed, you can do that on a cpu's.
CPU's are very viable to do simple physics, and lets be honest you wouldnt even notice the difference between low and high physics on a tree swaying in the wind


i'm tierd of repeating points go back a few pages and u have your answers to all your replies,

Yes i would if the difference was worth it, the issue is not the existance of a PPU, because it is a good thing imo but i would not buy a (i'm getting tierd of repeating myself so i'll put it in bold) Ageia PhysX Card in its current form because it is a waste of money

 

[metalmackey]

Box to box collision is fast, BUT isnt that the point of a PPU? To have realastic physics with mesh to mesh collision to make physics accurate.

 

[Chronictank]

Pottsey's arguements are always spot on, but people seem to miss the point of them entirely?! From just scanning through this last page, there seems to be those who ultimately can't differentiate between physics and graphics.

Actually you are missing the point, its the end result that matters not the component parts

Or are you seriously incinuating you would be happy spending £1000 on a gaming pc, which may be technically brilliant but can only play doom 1

 

[Marc Fraser]

Box to box collision is fast, BUT isnt that the point of a PPU? To have realastic physics with mesh to mesh collision to make physics accurate.

It depends what the scenario is you are carry out the collision detection for. If it is a destructable environment you probably wouldn't need much more than box to box as the pieces would be moving so quickly.

While box to box detection is faster than complex meshes, carrying out dynamic collision detection for tens of thousands of fast moving boxes is not that fast and will bring a cpu to a crawl.

You are right that the PPU can allow you to carry out more realistic calculations but one of the main points is also to increase the number of physically modeled objects you can have in the scene.

 

[metalmackey]

You dont have to calculate tens of thounds of objects every frame. Just like rendering the whole map/level and all models every frame would be stupid and very slow.

 

[Marc Fraser]

You're tree example is flawed, you can do that on a cpu's.
CPU's are very viable to do simple physics, and lets be honest you wouldnt even notice the difference between low and high physics on a tree swaying in the wind

I never said you could not do it on a CPU. I was using it as an example of how you can use physics to increase the realism of a game. It's not just about how it reacts in the wind it is about when explosions happen next to them or a helicopter is flying overhead. Granted this to a certain extent can be handled on the CPU but add very large forests and lots or very large explosions and you get slow down on the CPU. For example the nuke effect in crysis when the blast radius is increased to be more realistic.

 

[Marc Fraser]

You dont have to calculate tens of thounds of objects every frame. Just like rendering the whole map/level and all models every frame would be stupid and very slow.

You are correct that when you are rendering a scene one of the main optimisations is not to render things that are not in view. However, it is not that simple with physics. You cannot just not carry out any calculations on objects because they are not in view as this would be completely unrealistic, however, on the other hand it would be wasteful to carry out very accurate calculations on them. You would need to approximate maybe by doing sphere to sphere collisions which are much easier and by having less realistic reactions.

One optimisation you can do is to split the world into sections and only carry out collision detection for objects against other objects in the same section.

 

[FirebarUK]

Actually you are missing the point, its the end result that matters not the component parts

Or are you seriously incinuating you would be happy spending £1000 on a gaming pc, which may be technically brilliant but can only play doom 1

I'm afraid I fail to follow you. How am I incinuating this? I merely commented on some posts which said things look naff. Now I don't really think that graphics is the concern here, it's the usefulness of a PPU to take work off the CPU (and therefore allow for better physics within playable limits).