Nvidia says it's first to offer full OpenGL 3.0 support

Final8y · 20 Dec 2008 at 21:07

Rroff said:
However you spin it tho - nvidia is first to the table with a robust and easy to implement hardware physics API and there doesn't look like being anything from anyone else til the second half of 2009 at the earliest if then... so I'm critical of ATI/AMD, intel and MS as they've really not put any effort in to something thats going to be a major feature - like it or not - in the coming months and years...

That's your opinion that its robust and easy to implement hardware physics API because from what i have seen its crap.

There is no grounds for anyone to believe or seen many developers demanding that's its imperative to have hardware physics right now.

Rroff · 20 Dec 2008 at 23:46

Final8y said:
That's your opinion that its robust and easy to implement hardware physics API because from what i have seen its crap.

There is no grounds for anyone to believe or seen many developers demanding that's its imperative to have hardware physics right now.

Have you actually programmed for the physx api?

Most 3d game developers would love to have hardware accelerated physics right now. Obviously you don't need it for every game but its increasingly becoming a requirement for complex 3d games especially fps games.

Final8y · 21 Dec 2008 at 06:57

Rroff said:
Have you actually programmed for the physx api?

Most 3d game developers would love to have hardware accelerated physics right now. Obviously you don't need it for every game but its increasingly becoming a requirement for complex 3d games especially fps games.

Show me.. no really show me all those titles in development that are using accelerated physics which is more than a little extra eyecandy that are any good & make a big difference to the game play & could not have been done any other way because so far all your talk has been theoretical.

It maybe Easy to program but with rubbish results is all that i have seen.

J.D · 21 Dec 2008 at 09:01

Who cares?. Both manufacturers have to both have what the majority of developers will use in games or it'll be a divide. Both companies NEED each other to be honest.

ATI have DX10.1 which hasn't really been used too much. Nvidia have Physx, again it's not really cared about. The point of this being that if the titles could give out a lot more using DX10.1 or Physx for the majority then both Nvidia and ATI would have both

.

Come on, with that ATI/Nvidia email thing recently regarding prices it's a wonder why people think one side is better than the other when it's so bloody close and the added features on one manufacturer against the other is not so impressive. When Open GL 3.0 is in use for most of the games ATI will have it. What's the point? really!.

I'd buy Nvidia as much as I'd buy ATI right now and it's certainly not for Physx or DX10.1 and certainly not for Open GL 3.0. It's for the power they give in the games that matter. All this nonsense to get fanboys arguing for to advertise this. It's pretty funny to be honest.

Carry on................

londonbairn · 21 Dec 2008 at 09:51

J.D said:
I'd buy Nvidia as much as I'd buy ATI right now and it's certainly not for Physx or DX10.1 and certainly not for Open GL 3.0. It's for the power they give in the games that matter.

Exactly! Been making this point

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 14:48

Final8y said:
Show me.. no really show me all those titles in development that are using accelerated physics which is more than a little extra eyecandy that are any good & make a big difference to the game play & could not have been done any other way because so far all your talk has been theoretical.

It maybe Easy to program but with rubbish results is all that i have seen.

As I keep saying and the whole point is developers aren't using these features even tho they want or need them in many cases because there is no standard. ATI, intel and so on are holding up progress in this area and its going to be another 18 months minimum before we even start to see features we could have right now if physx was adopted.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:20

Final8y said:
because so far all your talk has been theoretical.

It maybe Easy to program but with rubbish results is all that i have seen.

That why EA, 2K games, THQ and several other larger studios have signed on in the recent weeks and why others like activision are taking a long serious look at it...

james.miller · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:34

So much for ATi holding them back then

Let's just hope they do something more useful with acellerated physics than add bits of random cloth.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:36

Thats the thing tho - I don't see them commiting to using it fully at this stage as it would reduce market appeal considerably unless ATI, etc. have a working solution. So people are gonna say results are crap we don't need this

mrk · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:43

Well they've just signed a new deal with various devs to use PhysX in all new games so this can only be a good thing.

james.miller · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:44

They arent going to commit fully to even if both nvidia and ATi had working hardware acceleration because 90% of the cards out there right now dont. They'd be cutting their own hands off if they wrote software that needed acceleration to run at acceptable levels.

layte · 21 Dec 2008 at 15:45

Rroff said:
That why EA, 2K games, THQ and several other larger studios have signed on in the recent weeks and why others like activision are taking a long serious look at it...

For a handful of selected and partially financed by Nividia titles.

Interestingly two of what I would consider top tier PC developers (Valve and Blizzard) don't want anything to do with PhysX. In both cases actually paying for a different Technology. EA or Valve/Blizzard, I know who I would rather have championing my cause.

In fact the biggest and most anticipated PC title in years will be using Havok: http://www.havok.com/content/view/371/53/ Valve, Crytek and ID do not seem sold on PPU/GPU physics either: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/valve_and_crytek_won_t_support_physx_any_time_soon

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 16:17

Valve obviously are gonna stick with havok, not sure why blizzard are going with it for SC2, etc.

id's engines have never leant themselves to physx style APIs but they are already coming to the top end of what they can do with their own physics simulations in software.

layte · 21 Dec 2008 at 16:20

Rroff said:
Valve obviously are gonna stick with havok, not sure why blizzard are going with it for SC2, etc.

id's engines have never leant themselves to physx style APIs but they are already coming to the top end of what they can do with their own physics simulations in software.

The likes of Valve and Blizzard always aim their titles as being as available to as large a market as possible, going down the PhysX route especially with NV pushing it as they are would hamper that.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 16:28

Yeah but with SC2 they are using field effects which would run far faster on hardware with 200+ objects.

layte · 21 Dec 2008 at 16:33

Rroff said:
Yeah but with SC2 they are using field effects which would run far faster on hardware with 200+ objects.

..and sell to a tiny fraction of their possible market. I imagine Blizzard have a good idea as to what is best for them and their customers.

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 16:34

hence my point about ATI and so on holding up game development.

layte · 21 Dec 2008 at 17:31

Rroff said:
hence my point about ATI and so on holding up game development.

Even if ATI supported it on their latest GPU's you would still be looking at a small fraction of the market the likes of Valve and Blizzard target their titles at. DX9 and sub 8800 level hardware still make up the majority of what is out there being used.

Plus you own argument could be aimed at Nvidia, by attempting to force their own propitiatory standard rather than working with others they are stifling the adoption of an industry standard hardware physics implementation.

Fun this circular argument, same time tomorrow yea?

Rroff · 21 Dec 2008 at 18:25

just to keep the roundabout turning... nvidia have been making attempts to work with others on this

just that aside from sony no one else has been really that interested.

Final8y · 21 Dec 2008 at 19:19

Rroff said:
just to keep the roundabout turning... nvidia have been making attempts to work with others on this just that aside from sony no one else has been really that interested.

That goes with out saying seeing as NV is a hardware company that do not make their own games & is pushing a Proprietary API.
They have little choice but to work with others to get it implemented.