Merry Xmas Pottsey

[metalmackey]

The PhysX SDK isnt optimised for multi core CPUs. A quick test I did with a stack of 1250 cubes being knocked down. I got 24fps with 50% load on 2 cores. Increasing or decreasing the amouts of cubes changes the fps but the load is allways about the same.

 

[Pottsey]

“Jesus Christ. Quote me saying "in one go", and stop being an utter fool.”
Re read post 231
I was talking about shooting down trees all in one go. Saying there is no slow down when you hit a few trees at a time, only when you hit them all at once.

You then said while quoting me about all trees at once. “There is no slowdown in Crysis when you mow down half a forest, had you played it you would know.”

Considering the reference of what we where talking about and the way you quoted me it sure sounds like you meant all trees in one go. I was clearly talking about the slowdown happening only when all trees are hit at once. In the way you wrote it, it appears your where disagreeing with me and saying I was wrong. After all you said "had you played it you would know" Which implies you where talking about my comment on all trees.

If you only mean a few trees at once, well then we both agree. As I said before Crysis can handle a few trees at a time. Your not CPU limited with a few trees, your only CPU limited when you hit them all at once.


EDIT some funny Crysis physics here.
http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crysisphysicsib5.png

 

[Darkwave]

Re read post 231

Yup, just did, and I quote: -

Yes when you shoot down a tree there is no slow down. Emphasis on the word “a”. Once you shoot down lots of trees in one go there is massive physic slow down. Thats when you need a PPU.

There is no slowdown in Crysis when you mow down half a forest, had you played it you would know.

There, even you were talking about shooting down trees so stop grasping at straws and pretending that I said or made any reference to nuclear explosions just to support your argument. That's called putting words into my mouth and not only does it make you look like a proper fanboy, I don't appreciate it being done to me.

 

[Tom|Nbk]

Christ are you guys still going...

 

[Darkwave]

Christ are you guys still going...

I'm not wasting my time arguing with a self-proclaimed fanboy about physics anymore, this is purely about him misrepresenting what I've said and expecting me to defend claims I didn't make.

I think that would **** anybody off TBH.

 

[Pottsey]

“There, even you were talking about shooting down trees so stop grasping at straws and pretending that I said or made any reference to nuclear explosions just to support your argument”
Why do you keep bringing up the nuke? It doesn’t matter how the trees get knocked down. You’re the one grasping at straws, talk about changing the topic all the time. Look I was talking about physics, lots of it happening all at the same time and the how the game gets CPU limited if to much happens.

If it’s a nuke, lots of guns or something else it doesn’t matter. The fact is what I said was right and your just picking at my posts, calling me names and trying to change the topic now you no you’re wrong. Its very tempting to report you to a mod and see what they decied. At least you edited the worst of it out.

This started as I said the game is CPU limited when lots of physics go off at once but not when there physics in a small area. You told me I was wrong as the game isn’t CPU limited. You also quoted me saying I was wrong and the game runs fast with half the forrest being knocked down which is a lie. I proved my self right and now you playing silly games.

You don’t need to defend claims about a nuke. You need to defend claims on saying the game is never CPU limited and doesnt have slow down when half a forrest is knocked down at once. As that’s what you told me I was wrong about when you quote my post.

 

[Darkwave]

Yes because I am the one who keeps bringing up the nuke.

Dude, I'm done with you now. I've said my bit.

 

[Lightnix]

Thing is, though, it's not necessarily the collisions or where the particles and such will go as much as it might be for rendering the movements and such correctly. What's the point of knowing where shards of a blown up wall will go if the GPU isn't capable of rendering it well, what with all the realistic effects being made extremely dynamic... I tells you it isn't the CPU limiting here.

 

[metalmackey]

Who needs nukes, cloth, falling trees or exploding walls. The best physics ever is the ball movement in Pong LOL

 

[ps3ud0]

So guys whose buying one?

Ageia have done much to harm the PPU market and alienated a lot of gamers due to the high prices and poor lack of supported games. Most will blame the game developers, but ultimately Ageia needed to make this the next big thing or an essential part of any gaming PC. No developer worth their salt knowing the penetration of the product would bother to spend significant amount of time developing for it...

Its hard not to reflect that if they had entered at this lowered price point then a lot more people would have just bought them on a whim as part of a new upgrade or PC since ~£50 is really nothing (c.f. KillerNIC)...

I, for one, would have and if it turned out to be the albatross it is now then I would have shrugged off the loss and marked it down to experience rather than attempt to try and justify countless times why its more important than sliced bread...

ps3ud0

 

[Pottsey]

EDITED bickering out
I never intended to put words in your mouth and don’t see where I have. Sorry that you think I am having a go at you. Can we get back on topic now?





“What's the point of knowing where shards of a blown up wall will go if the GPU isn't capable of rendering it well, what with all the realistic effects being made extremely dynamic... I tells you it isn't the CPU limiting here.”
The GPU can render it all. The GPU only renders what you see. It’s the CPU that’s the problem. A failing brick or still brick isnt that diffrent to a GPU.

 

[willhub]

I think we should just take the damnd argument to Ageia and make them drop the prices down to £30, then I'm sure they'll sell a lot more units then we wont be bothered if its CPU or PPU thats better coz we'll have both . But they are just doorstops at the shop mainly untill they come down in price.

 

[Marc Fraser]

The PhysX SDK isnt optimised for multi core CPUs. A quick test I did with a stack of 1250 cubes being knocked down. I got 24fps with 50% load on 2 cores. Increasing or decreasing the amouts of cubes changes the fps but the load is allways about the same.

The Physx SDK is multithreaded to work on multi core CPU's. Just because you are not seeing an equal load on all your cpu cores does not mean it is not multithreaded.

Multithreading an application is not a trivial task. It is not just as simple as saying there are 1000 bricks therefore each core can work on 250 each.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I think we should just take the damnd argument to Ageia and make them drop the prices down to £30, then I'm sure they'll sell a lot more units then we wont be bothered if its CPU or PPU thats better coz we'll have both . But they are just doorstops at the shop mainly until they come down in price.

Nope - I still wouldn't buy one. It's a frivolous piece of hardware. They can argue the semantics of physics and argue the squat between CPU physics and the PhysX card but there are some cold hard facts that this whole thread keeps swanning around.

1. Games developers are not 'yet' supporting the PhysX hardware in a meaningful way. BOS and Cell Factor both got pretty well slated in all reviews so from a market perspective these are not wins for Ageia.

2. When faced with a choice between producing a game that is heavily reliant on a proprietary piece of hardware like the PhysX card which has very little market penetration or going with CPU physics, an item which you'd hope everyone had, I strongly suspect that they would go the CPU way. Even if the physics implementation is perceived to be substandard when compared to what the PhysX card is supposed to be capable of (which I again point out has not been shown in a meaningful manner - and tearing cloth does not a game make!) any gaming producer worth their own pennies will go with the CPU option.

3. As the article I posted regarding the opinion of one of the ATI heads mentioned - They are waiting to be bought and integrated into a hardware solution that will give them more market penetration. Until the time that the PhysX hardware is integrated into either a motherboard or a graphics card then even £30 will not justify the purchase. Games developers will not risk their own livelihood and the incomes of their employees on something like the PhysX card.

Games devs are putting the 'single level' PhysX maps in because of two reasons - it's a marketing gimmick and you can bet that Ageia gives them some sort of windfall in their API/SDK payments if they do it.

Any discussion of PPU vs CPU physics is purely academic at this stage because in the real world the industry is driven by the customers money and the customer demand, neither of which Ageia have.

 

[Pottsey]

“1. Games developers are not 'yet' supporting the PhysX hardware in a meaningful way.”
Isn’t a speed increase a meaningful way, what about games like GRAW 2 that’s a meaningful way. Though I agree with most of the rest of post. Ageia really messed up with the way they delivered the PPU. Personally I think the hardware is fine it’s the software, marketing team and lack of game support that’s bad. They should have had over 100 games out by now and a good 10+ games ready for when the first PPU came out.

The few games I have that support the PPU I am happy with the way it works. Take UT its pretty good you get a speed increase on the normal levels. But the bonus levels are a disaster, not because of the physics but extremely poor level load times and bad level layout. I don’t see my self-playing the bonus levels, only the normal game.

 

[jrodga2k5]

Hold on so your saying the PPU increases framerates in UT3? Are there any benchies with and without to look at?

 

[MystaEB]

Reaction: Immediate disappointment. On the standard gaming rig we use – housing an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, a GeForce 8800 Ultra and 2GB of RAM whilst running Vista – the framerate fell through the floor. What had previously averaged at a smooth 30-35 FPS with everything on maximum now suffered 4-7FPS even with everything on minimum.

Source: http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/11/23/unreal_tournament_3/4

I am skeptical that you would get a speed increase in any of the non-PhysX maps, too. Let's say game X is running on a map with no PhysX effects, how could adding a PhysX card possibly help the framerate when there are no physics to process? It wouldn't be doing anything. It would only help framerate once you actually enabled the PhysX effects, which is a given really. It only helps framerate if you are actually bothered about running games with PhysX effects cranked up, and with the current status of PhysX games available, I'd say there is close to nil interest. I know that I personally couldn't care less.

 

[SteveOBHave]

“1. Games developers are not 'yet' supporting the PhysX hardware in a meaningful way.”
Isn’t a speed increase a meaningful way, what about games like GRAW 2 that’s a meaningful way. Though I agree with most of the rest of post. Ageia really messed up with the way they delivered the PPU. Personally I think the hardware is fine it’s the software, marketing team and lack of game support that’s bad. They should have had over 100 games out by now and a good 10+ games ready for when the first PPU came out.

The few games I have that support the PPU I am happy with the way it works. Take UT its pretty good you get a speed increase on the normal levels. But the bonus levels are a disaster, not because of the physics but extremely poor level load times and bad level layout. I don’t see my self-playing the bonus levels, only the normal game.

Sure a speed increase would be 'in a meaningful way' but only if it were a gameplay change. To be fair someone that had a PC incapable of playing GRAW2 then the last thing they'd be purchasing would be a PhysX card. They would go out and spend the same money on a better video card or at least put the money towards a better video card. The point I am making is that if the game is playable without the card then how can you fairly state that it is a meaningful implementation?

 

[RavenXXX2]

What had previously averaged at a smooth 30-35 FPS with everything on maximum now suffered 4-7FPS even with everything on minimum

LMAO. how many times has it been said that Ageia physx is a complete waste of space and time, virtually no games support " decent games anyway " the one big title they do have absolutely sucks with the physx levels, 7fps on hardware that's suppose to do this thing for fun, its embarrassing, a joke, cant see how any one can defend this POS hardware, they must be delusional.

 

[MystaEB]

LMAO. how many times has it been said that Ageia physx is a complete waste of space and time, virtually no games support " decent games anyway " the one big title they do have absolutely sucks with the physx levels, 7fps on hardware that's suppose to do this thing for fun, its embarrassing, a joke, cant see how any one can defend this POS hardware, they must be delusional.

I agree, but it's not even just the lack of games that is the problem, it's the fact that you're paying for something that you're not really getting anything out of. It's basically just a gimmick.

I mean, let's stop and look at what you actually get from a PhysX card. First off, you only get a handful of games that support it anyway, 99% of which are not really worth playing. Secondly, in the games that do support it, what do you actually get? You basically gets tonnes of extra polygons on screen (which promptly disappear, see: GRAW1/2 PhysX videos) and the ability to have tearing cloth. In some cases I guess you also get more physics effects stretching a larger scale, which is nice, but not really essential or even worth shelling out money for.

Let's look at the game that pretty much re-defined the way we look at physics: Half Life 2. Why was it successful in this field? It didn't have fancy physics effects like the PhysX card can produce - but it was better. Why? It was available to everyone who played the game, that’s why. You weren't alienated; anyone with a computer capable of playing the game got the effects. Half Life 2 also added interaction - using physics as a core game play element - something I have yet to see done with PhysX effects. Crysis does the same thing - the physics play a key role in the game, they aren't just there to look good, they actually serve a purpose. You can knock buildings down to kill enemies; you can create cover. You can expose enemies using mass deforestation if you like.

So what’s the main point here? The integration of physics into game play that is widely available to anyone. These are just a couple of examples, but I'm sure there are many, many more.

When given a choice of what physics I would prefer to have in a game, physics that may not be as pretty, but actually benefit the game experience such as in Crysis, or purely cosmetic and quite frankly, clumsy, physics effects provided by the PhysX accelerator. Which would I pick? The former.