-
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.
Merry Xmas Pottsey
- Thread starter helmutcheese
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
Id say its more like mass-mascioration ... o my how do i spell that... masicaration? i think i made the word up but o well it sounds good 
To be honest, pottsey has some good points. But i think at the end of the day for it its the fact that i dont feel the phyx being added into any game ive seen in the video links he shoulded to be all that impressive and they were a year old and now i beleive taht with the quads it could easly be done.
ALan wake has a lot of physics runnign in the background. They are doing it all on a quad. They said it wouldn't be possible to do without one.
To be honest, pottsey has some good points. But i think at the end of the day for it its the fact that i dont feel the phyx being added into any game ive seen in the video links he shoulded to be all that impressive and they were a year old and now i beleive taht with the quads it could easly be done.
ALan wake has a lot of physics runnign in the background. They are doing it all on a quad. They said it wouldn't be possible to do without one.
I don't disagree with your post in general, but they said specifically said multi-core (which includes dual-core) and not quad-core. It just happened that they were demonstrating the game on quad-core at IDF.
Just thought I'd point that out before someone skitzes about needing a quad-core to play a game.
I was just having a laugh 8igDave m8 and not pointing you out.
I think it might be worth it but tbh I'm not that fussy. I will probably pick one up when I build my system next year. It's only gonna be about £50 (not my system, the phys-x card b4 someone says something
) which is nothing (life isn't permanent). I have a DeathAdder mouse, a Copperhead and I'm already thinking about getting the new Razer Lachesis even though I've had the DeathAdder for about 2 months. That could be seen as a waste but hardly anyone will attack me for my purchases?. It seems this graphics card section is just plain ol' mean sometimes 
.
I don't think from what I've read on some of these threads that the CPU is totally up to the task that the PPU handles though.
I think it might be worth it but tbh I'm not that fussy. I will probably pick one up when I build my system next year. It's only gonna be about £50 (not my system, the phys-x card b4 someone says something
) which is nothing (life isn't permanent). I have a DeathAdder mouse, a Copperhead and I'm already thinking about getting the new Razer Lachesis even though I've had the DeathAdder for about 2 months. That could be seen as a waste but hardly anyone will attack me for my purchases?. It seems this graphics card section is just plain ol' mean sometimes .I don't think from what I've read on some of these threads that the CPU is totally up to the task that the PPU handles though.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
I don't disagree with your post in general, but they said specifically said multi-core (which includes dual-core) and not quad-core. It just happened that they were demonstrating the game on quad-core at IDF.
Just thought I'd point that out before someone skitzes about needing a quad-core to play a game.
In a video review i saw they did say "we wouldn't be able to do this without the q6600 quad core". Where or not that was a one off or even marketing for intel im not sure. But that is where i got it from. Probably only needs a dual core, but you never know. Perhaps on the highest settings of physics you need a quad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
I was just having a laugh 8igDave m8 and not pointing you out.
I think it might be worth it but tbh I'm not that fussy. I will probably pick one up when I build my system next year. It's only gonna be about £50 (not my system, the phys-x card b4 someone says something
I don't think from what I've read on some of these threads that the CPU is totally up to the task that the PPU handles though.
Im still making my mind up. But if the physx actually looked good and was more commen id buy them. If you awtch the videos he showed in the links i just dont really think they are special. The liquid looks very bad and the textures on the liquid dont look good either. The fire looks similar to the liquid, which just looks weird.
Also your not really going to buy a lachesis are you? The death adder is great ive got one. What is the difference between taht and a lachesis? I would image its only the shape as you cant notice a difference from 1000dpi to 4000dpi unless your an alien with super sensitive relexs on your fingers....
Omg a 50 quid pc
wonder if it will run crysis even on low!o :EDIT: skim read haha jk lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
You might not want to buy a lachess http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10552611#post10552611, some say the death adder is better and more comfortable.
Associate
Isn't the fact that most people on here dont want a PPU (no matter how good Pottsey and others say it is) mran Agiea is doing something wrong? Be it marketing or whatever.
Tbh the videos dont look to good, the tornado on UT3 looks ok but all the other stuff 
the destructable objects just look like generic objects, weather they be walls, floors or boxes.
http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html
The destructable stuff and physics in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (havok 3) look much better. When they compair the average engine to theirs but the generic one is comparable to boxes in the Airtight Games demo
http://www.podtech.net/home/2461/havok-behavior-debuts-at-the-game-developers-conference
Basically the Havok engine should have been PhysiX's goal, continual development using the latest graphics card tech and a scalable card.
Just look at the number of games there in http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/29/73/
the destructable objects just look like generic objects, weather they be walls, floors or boxes.http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html
The destructable stuff and physics in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (havok 3) look much better. When they compair the average engine to theirs but the generic one is comparable to boxes in the Airtight Games demo
http://www.podtech.net/home/2461/havok-behavior-debuts-at-the-game-developers-conference
Basically the Havok engine should have been PhysiX's goal, continual development using the latest graphics card tech and a scalable card.
Just look at the number of games there in http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/29/73/
Last edited:
Very likely a one-off, and quite recent too since when they first showcased Alan Wake on quad-core there was no Q6600. If you have a link to this video I'd like to see what enhancements they've made that require quad.
“the extra physx as the fire seemed to act like liquid also which doesn't seem right.”
That’s because it is a liquid. Its not pure fire. Its compressed fuel exploding out from the canister. If its weapon you mean well it's not a flame thrower but a lava thrower.
“ALan wake has a lot of physics runnign in the background.”
Where are the hard to do physics? I haven’t seen anything but the relative easy stuff. Where are the cloth and liquids or gas, soft metal or other hard to do stuff? Just look at how bad the tornado was. It had a very small area of effect, objects about 5 metres away where not effected by the tornado and where perfectly still like there was no wind.
“But with games such as crysis showing amazing physics. It just convinces me further that we dont need Phyx cards.“
Crysis doesn’t have amazing physics nothing new in it.
Crysis is a perfect example of how we do need a PPU. Just look at how much the physics cripple the game speed. No cloth, no liquids, no soft metal pretty much none of the hard to do physics are found in Crysis. The simple stuff turns the game into a slide show as well. Try a nuke with the physics area turned up larger then a few meters. As soon as the physics effect more then a very small area the game goes down to a slide show as the CPU cannot handle it. Crysis physics engine is also very poor in areas.
“The liquid looks very bad and the textures on the liquid dont look good either.”
Well if you don’t like the way it looks that’s the graphics card fault not the PPU. The PPU is responsible for how it moves and acts. The GPU draws it.
“If you awtch the videos he showed in the links i just dont really think they are special.”
Find a none PPU games with better dynamic fully cloth that tears and liquids. If it’s nothing special it should be easy to do.
That’s because it is a liquid. Its not pure fire. Its compressed fuel exploding out from the canister. If its weapon you mean well it's not a flame thrower but a lava thrower.
“ALan wake has a lot of physics runnign in the background.”
Where are the hard to do physics? I haven’t seen anything but the relative easy stuff. Where are the cloth and liquids or gas, soft metal or other hard to do stuff? Just look at how bad the tornado was. It had a very small area of effect, objects about 5 metres away where not effected by the tornado and where perfectly still like there was no wind.
“But with games such as crysis showing amazing physics. It just convinces me further that we dont need Phyx cards.“
Crysis doesn’t have amazing physics nothing new in it.
Crysis is a perfect example of how we do need a PPU. Just look at how much the physics cripple the game speed. No cloth, no liquids, no soft metal pretty much none of the hard to do physics are found in Crysis. The simple stuff turns the game into a slide show as well. Try a nuke with the physics area turned up larger then a few meters. As soon as the physics effect more then a very small area the game goes down to a slide show as the CPU cannot handle it. Crysis physics engine is also very poor in areas.
“The liquid looks very bad and the textures on the liquid dont look good either.”
Well if you don’t like the way it looks that’s the graphics card fault not the PPU. The PPU is responsible for how it moves and acts. The GPU draws it.
“If you awtch the videos he showed in the links i just dont really think they are special.”
Find a none PPU games with better dynamic fully cloth that tears and liquids. If it’s nothing special it should be easy to do.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
If its not too much trouble any chance you could fraps some footage of "good" physics justifying £50 in whatever game?
I was interested as UT was on the horizon, but after seeing the videos i was put well off
It's all well and good having the capability of doing better physics, but when there are no games which actually look better whats the point? (i may be wrong but reading your posts, and looking around i am yet to find a game which looks visually enhanced enough to justify the extra hardware and more importantly the extra slot being used)
I understand the potential, what i want to see is the actual use if you get what i mean
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WppbK-_K2xo
Here is a newer PPU game check 2.min 9 sec in that that’s how an explosion should be. Affects both side walls and ceiling. Notice how the rubbles doesn’t disappear like in CPU only games. The cloth is great and the game has soft metal, if you hit metal hard enough it bends.
The game is still in beta but its comeing along nicely
Here is a newer PPU game check 2.min 9 sec in that that’s how an explosion should be. Affects both side walls and ceiling. Notice how the rubbles doesn’t disappear like in CPU only games. The cloth is great and the game has soft metal, if you hit metal hard enough it bends.
The game is still in beta but its comeing along nicely
Last edited:
No offence, but that looks horrible. Square chunks and even when it does break up, it just explodes into tiny pieces. Not very realistic at all. The game runs like a dream too...
Show me a better game on the CPU then. As far as I can see its 10x better then anything the CPU does.
"Crysis is living proof that you don't need a PhysX card."
Crysis is perfect proof how you do need a PhysX card. Unless you like 1fps as your speed. High end physics in Crysis kill the CPU.
"Crysis is living proof that you don't need a PhysX card."
Crysis is perfect proof how you do need a PhysX card. Unless you like 1fps as your speed. High end physics in Crysis kill the CPU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
Think you posted this one before, i did like the metal but the cloth just didnt look right to me, i dont know what it is but it seemed to look somewhat of a delayed reaction
The debris looked just like games today, there were no little bits flying everywhere, dust etc just big chunks like in most games (such as alan wake)
In addition things didnt break like it was done by a physics engine, they just suddenly explode instead of blowing up where they are shot
Maybe its because it is a beta? but to me that wasnt particularly impressive
The blood splatter when he was doing headshots also looked pre-scripted
I am not having a go, so please dont take it like that but do you see what i mean?
there is nothing in there that provokes a WOW
rection like the gfx in crysis did for exampleit is not about aegia vs havok, its about the extra card not providing enough of a wow factor to make people want it
With dedicated hardware i would expect things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0I47n5A4Qc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq3iwWQ9bNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkynSj-3MN0
The day games have effects to this level is the day people will say oh my god i want one
Even this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZ1WOx3gB4&feature=related
Last edited:
That's funny, considering I'm running it on high phsyics on a dual core CPU and it doesn't hurt my framerate at all. In fact, dropping my my physics setting to low from high yields no performance boost, proving that my CPU is coping just fine.
Crysis has physics far more pleasing to the eye (for me) than any of the PhysX demos and videos I have seen. I guess the only thing missing is the cloth crap that people keep raving on about, which, to be fair, I honestly couldn't give a flying crap about. £80 for tearing cloth? Fail. I'm willing to bet a good lump of cash that Crytek could do tearing cloth better than Ageia could using the CPU.
“The debris looked just like games today, there were no little bits flying everywhere, dust etc just big chunks like in most games (such as alan wake)”
What! What game today lets you have that much debris on the screen without turning into a slideshow? What game lets you blow up all the walls and everything without turning into a slideshow? What game keep the debris after you cause it, most games fade it out after 5 seconds to help the CPU along. What game today has as much dust and partials as Warmonger?
The key points are the amount of debris way higher then any CPU games. The length of time the debris stays far longer then CPU games. Also the fact you can blow up pretty much anything or bend metal.
None of it was pre-scripted.
“there is nothing in there that provokes a WOW rection like the gfx in crysis did for example”
I think some of you are confusing graphics and physics.
To me the physics in there are way better then Crysis and more of WOW factor. Crysis has poor physics.
“That's funny, considering I'm running it on high phsyics on a dual core CPU and it doesn't hurt my framerate at all. In fact, dropping my my physics setting to low from high yields no performance boost, proving that my CPU is coping just fine.”
That’s because on high it’s still got low end physics. Tweak the physics so it’s on high and they tell me you have a high framerate. Get the nuke increase the physics to high so it affects a large area then watch your CPU struggle big time. Your PC will turn into a slideshow. Crysis is fine as long as you only use physics on a few objects at once. Use physics on lots of objects and the CPU cannot cope.
“I honestly couldn't give a flying crap about. £80 for tearing cloth? Fail.”
You’re missing the point increase the physics in Crysis and the FPS drops massively. Increase the physics in a PPU game and FPS go up as the CPU isn’t doing the work. Its also £50 not £80.
“With dedicated hardware i would expect things like this:”
You can if you use the PPU with the plugging for CAD software. Don’t expect it in games any time soon.
“I'm willing to bet a good lump of cash that Crytek could do tearing cloth better than Ageia could using the CPU.“
Considering how badly they fail at doing physics on lots of objects that’s a safe bet for me. If you cannot handle lots of objects you cannot handle full cloth.
What! What game today lets you have that much debris on the screen without turning into a slideshow? What game lets you blow up all the walls and everything without turning into a slideshow? What game keep the debris after you cause it, most games fade it out after 5 seconds to help the CPU along. What game today has as much dust and partials as Warmonger?
The key points are the amount of debris way higher then any CPU games. The length of time the debris stays far longer then CPU games. Also the fact you can blow up pretty much anything or bend metal.
None of it was pre-scripted.
“there is nothing in there that provokes a WOW rection like the gfx in crysis did for example”
I think some of you are confusing graphics and physics.
To me the physics in there are way better then Crysis and more of WOW factor. Crysis has poor physics.
“That's funny, considering I'm running it on high phsyics on a dual core CPU and it doesn't hurt my framerate at all. In fact, dropping my my physics setting to low from high yields no performance boost, proving that my CPU is coping just fine.”
That’s because on high it’s still got low end physics. Tweak the physics so it’s on high and they tell me you have a high framerate. Get the nuke increase the physics to high so it affects a large area then watch your CPU struggle big time. Your PC will turn into a slideshow. Crysis is fine as long as you only use physics on a few objects at once. Use physics on lots of objects and the CPU cannot cope.
“I honestly couldn't give a flying crap about. £80 for tearing cloth? Fail.”
You’re missing the point increase the physics in Crysis and the FPS drops massively. Increase the physics in a PPU game and FPS go up as the CPU isn’t doing the work. Its also £50 not £80.
“With dedicated hardware i would expect things like this:”
You can if you use the PPU with the plugging for CAD software. Don’t expect it in games any time soon.
“I'm willing to bet a good lump of cash that Crytek could do tearing cloth better than Ageia could using the CPU.“
Considering how badly they fail at doing physics on lots of objects that’s a safe bet for me. If you cannot handle lots of objects you cannot handle full cloth.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
I doubt it, cloth needs a crazy amount of calculation
BUT as you said, average joe just wont care if its not there as pre-scripted actions look satisfactory and dont cost £60
Thats exactly the point mate, there is nothing the card can offer that looks good enough to warrant the card.
Us gamers are a vain bunch in general, if it doesnt look that much better than without (as essentially thats the purpose of the physx card) then why bother getting one.
Do you see my point? or am i explaining it badly
Edit:
Not at all, i just used the gfx example for last gen gfx vs this gen (crysis) to illustrate that if the difference between current cpu based physics and the physx version was the same significant jump it would be more popular
Last edited: