Purposely slowing down the game for people that don't own physics cards is almost at the level super-villainy. I just lost any interest I might have had in the game or the company.
FreddyD on
0
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
You know, all these arguments - almost exactly phrased as current - came up way back when graphics cards were introduced. Eventually, developers took advantage of the new hardware, and the results were stellar.
I don't forsee that happening this time - but it's entirely possible. Dedicated silicon can do wonderful things, and we've been told (and responded to the claim) that physics-based gameplay is the next big thing.
my only problem with it is now in the age of dual and even quad core processors, the physics could be offloaded on to a core.
Truth. With multi processor desktops becoming the norm, a dedicated card for graphics processing is exceptionally redundant.
Yep.
Wrong. Graphics processors work in a very different manner and perform very different calculations compared to a general purpose processor. Graphics processing is a very parallel structure, with an incredible emphasis on fill rate. Think of it like trying to run an airplane using a motor designed for a speedboat - the concept is the same, but the design isn't suited for it at all.
Physics processing, however, is something that can be done fairly easily using today's central processor architecture, and with multi-core processors becoming more common, there's not a huge fundamental difference between an add-in physics card and just using an extra core to do the calculations.
Besides, PCs had special cards for graphics through most of the 80s, well before they evolved into video cards. Not exactly a new concept.
Putting a physics card in a computer is like genetically splicing a fifth leg onto a hamster. A lizard leg.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
The idea of having a dedicated PPU is awesome. I don't believe it should be it's own card (it should be an extra chip on a video card, or at least part of the overall purchase), but you fuckers need to stop pretending that a PPU won't eventually be a necessity.
Pros: Great realism with almost any game! Played Lego's Star wars at almost 900FPS with a XFX 7950GT and 4600+!!!! Also playes WOW with it, and got a 70-110FPS without running over 36C.
Cons: Price, and games fully supported
====================================
Also playes WOW with it, and got a 70-110FPS without running over 36C.
Yes, WoW is renowned for its fancy physics.
This card will enable all mobs to have a knockback.
zerg rush on
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
Though what I wonder is why this level of consumer deceit isn't almost criminal. I mean the company is purposely putting out a incredibly staggered tech demo saying, see how awful it runs on your computer, now get our product and it will run great, when we all know damn well that it runs fine on current hardware, they are just trying to trick us into buying their product. They only further incriminated themselves when immediately removing the first demo after it was discovered that you could get about equal benchmarks as people with the card without it by tricking the game into thinking you had one.
You know, all these arguments - almost exactly phrased as current - came up way back when graphics cards were introduced. Eventually, developers took advantage of the new hardware, and the results were stellar.
3d accelerators, you mean?
But it wasn't just that the developers took advantage of the hardware, it was that the hardware stopped sucking. Seriously, the very first 3d accelerators? Utter shit.
Yeah, physics cards might make a dent if someone can drop a bombshell on the market with an amazingly advanced card, popular game support, decent price, etc. 3D accelerators were pointless until the 3dfx Voodoo, which was basically an orgasm in a box.
Eggplant Wizard on
Hello
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
You know, all these arguments - almost exactly phrased as current - came up way back when graphics cards were introduced. Eventually, developers took advantage of the new hardware, and the results were stellar.
3d accelerators, you mean?
But it wasn't just that the developers took advantage of the hardware, it was that the hardware stopped sucking. Seriously, the very first 3d accelerators? Utter shit.
Yeah, physics cards might make a dent if someone can drop a bombshell on the market with an amazingly advanced card, popular game support, decent price, etc. 3D accelerators were pointless until the 3dfx Voodoo, which was basically an orgasm in a box.
Any solid benchmarks, i.e. FPS with and without the PPU?
At this point in time, physics can be done perfectly fine without dedicated hardware. With a multi-core CPU, you've even got your dedicated hardware: a full CPU core that you can dedicate to physics. A PPU is basically that, a mini processor that's dedicated to one thing. Until a PPU comes out that can do some orgasmic physics and can increase the game's performance by a large margin, this shit ain't sellin'.
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
Yeah but apparently no one's actually put together anything that legitimately demands the PPU, and the so-called justification provided is a massive lie. Which is weak.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
This is fairly pathetic. I've dropped the resolution 2 levels, and knocked the texture detail from 100% to 90 and the FX from 100% to 90 and then 80 and I still get around the same FPS. Once again the FPS does not dip at all noticeably if I'm fucking with several dozen physics objects as opposed to just walking. Exactly how believable is that?
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
Yeah but apparently no one's actually put together anything that legitimately demands the PPU, and the so-called justification provided is a massive lie. Which is weak.
Damn right it is. I'm sure not buying one at $300.
This is a multiplayer game, right? If so, exactly what kind of bandwidth is needed to sync all those many, many objects? Or does just the server need to be running a PhysX card?
I think what I'm asking is what objects are actually in the same locations on all machines playing in these matches? Just the huge ones? Is the rest just pretty, and does no actually cumulative damage? (ie, no death from a hail of smaller objects)
I can also back up those claims it was an orgasm in a box.
If anything it was a screaming, flop-around-on-the-floor, foaming-at-the-mouth, hernia-inducing, tears-of-joy, let's-go-smoke-a-pack-of-cigarettes orgasm.
So im wondering has anyone besides me and spaniard actually given this a go or are you all just bitching.
I'm just waiting to hear more from you brave physics-based frontiersmen before I bother. Maybe you'll find a .ini tweak and make the download worth my while? :P
well I'm looking fr someone who wants to try risking a 1v1 DM with me to see how the physics affect lag.
What kind of framerate you getting?
one the level I think its called training grounds if I have no bots, I get about 30fps solid no matter what I do with the physics and thats on a AMD dual core 4200 2 gigs ram and a 7900 GT and that with 1280x1024 and HDR on and both gfx sliders at 70%
and the other level is choppy as shit when moving around
bloodyroarxx on
0
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
well I'm looking fr someone who wants to try risking a 1v1 DM with me to see how the physics affect lag.
What kind of framerate you getting?
one the level I think its called training grounds if I have no bots, I get about 30fps solid no matter what I do with the physics and thats on a AMD dual core 4200 2 gigs ram and a 7900 GT and that with 1280x1024 and HDR on and both gfx sliders at 70%
and the other level is choppy as shit when moving around
Hmm, these are cheaper than I remembered- down to $150 on Amazon. If there were more games out there that really used the thing I might actually get one.
Although, their SDK is free now. For $150 it might be fun to write up a whoa fuckawesome particle system, or play with cloth...
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
??
Dedicating a core from a multi core CPU to just physics is not completely wastefull. If you have a game that NEEDS a whole CPU for physics, then its probably going to be one hell of physics intensive game which would be the whole point of the thing...
The whole point of having multi core CPU's is to be able to better handle stuff like physics.
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
??
Dedicating a core from a multi core CPU to just physics is not completely wastefull. If you have a game that NEEDS a whole CPU for physics, then its probably going to be one hell of physics intensive game which would be the whole point of the thing...
The whole point of having multi core CPU's is to be able to better handle stuff like physics.
Man, what? Physics calculations are by nature hugely parallel. General-purpose CPUs suck at doing parallel computations, plus they're pretty busy doing what they're good at- AI, game logic, running your OS, downloading porn in the background, etc.
Performing physics calculations on a graphics card is a step in the right direction since the advent of programmable shaders (especially geometry shaders, those are huge fun), but there's still currently no (usable, convenient) way to get information off the card and back to the CPU which severely limits what GPU-based physics can do. Of course that's just my observation from working with programmable shaders, if anyone knows differently, feel free to correct me.
If they really want to make the PhysX card sell, Aegia would be kind enough to package a few games with it as well. Sure, for a while, GRAW was included in some packages but if the consumer got along with it Cell Factor and maybe some other game, it would appeal much more appealing not to mention worth it. GRAW is still $50, yes? A fully finished version of Cell Factor would also really help Aegia's hardware. I mean now were taking about $100 worth of games coming with a $200 piece of hardware. Now it doesn't seem too bad. However, Aegia didn't really mean to make Cell Factor into anything more than a tech demo so them putting out a playable demo is a whole nothing beefstick.
The idea of having a dedicated PPU is awesome. I don't believe it should be it's own card (it should be an extra chip on a video card, or at least part of the overall purchase), but you fuckers need to stop pretending that a PPU won't eventually be a necessity.
doubt we'll ever need a ppu. if anything, most devs will start making games to better utilize dual and quad-core cpus.
got an extra core? turn up that physics up to 11. another one? ramp that a.i up!
Plain-jane CPUs suck at doing physics, comparatively. Video cards do it better, physics cards even better still. Saying a PPU is "just a mini processor" is a gross misrepresentation, and dedicating a core of a multi-core CPU to just physics is hugely wasteful and inefficient.
People saying that using extra cores of a CPU to calculate physics are misinformed, yes.
However.
Both nVidia and AMD are pulling a new design with their graphics cards, starting with the Geforce 8 series and the Radeon HD 2000 series. The idea is that, instead of the usual pixel pipelines, pixel shaders, vertex shaders, etc, a graphics card should just be a large collection of small "stream processors" that can be reconfigured for each of these tasks.
It's not unreasonable to think that physics calculations, with their heavy reliance on floating-point, could be one of these tasks.
tl;dr: Not the extra cores on your CPU, numbskulls, the extra cores on your graphics card(s)!
EDIT:
Performing physics calculations on a graphics card is a step in the right direction since the advent of programmable shaders (especially geometry shaders, those are huge fun), but there's still currently no (usable, convenient) way to get information off the card and back to the CPU which severely limits what GPU-based physics can do. Of course that's just my observation from working with programmable shaders, if anyone knows differently, feel free to correct me.
Zilo, let me introduce you to a bus called PCI-Express. It's been taking the graphics card market by storm over the past three years or so, and unlike AGP, is fully symmetrical and duplex. That x16 speed (in reality, 4 GB/s or so)? That goes both ways, unlike AGP, which had a very high speed for stuff going to the card and a very low speed for stuff going out from the card.
I love how this game has like almost no tweaking options in the settings. can't turn down shadows, AA, etc.
Someone with leet skeelz needs to find the code to disable AA since that might be something that fucks with me as I will be using my E6400 Proc, 1 gig of ram, and a 7600gt to take on this thing...
Posts
Wrong. Graphics processors work in a very different manner and perform very different calculations compared to a general purpose processor. Graphics processing is a very parallel structure, with an incredible emphasis on fill rate. Think of it like trying to run an airplane using a motor designed for a speedboat - the concept is the same, but the design isn't suited for it at all.
Physics processing, however, is something that can be done fairly easily using today's central processor architecture, and with multi-core processors becoming more common, there's not a huge fundamental difference between an add-in physics card and just using an extra core to do the calculations.
Putting a physics card in a computer is like genetically splicing a fifth leg onto a hamster. A lizard leg.
30 seconds of guys running around doing random deathmatch stuff. No music. Then the logo. The end.
===================================
Tech Level: high
Ownership: 1 day to 1 week
1/30/2007 8:27:25 AM
Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5Rating + 5 Great!!!
Pros: Great realism with almost any game! Played Lego's Star wars at almost 900FPS with a XFX 7950GT and 4600+!!!! Also playes WOW with it, and got a 70-110FPS without running over 36C.
Cons: Price, and games fully supported
====================================
I lol'd.
PSN: Broichan
Yes, WoW is renowned for its fancy physics.
This card will enable all mobs to have a knockback.
Yeah, physics cards might make a dent if someone can drop a bombshell on the market with an amazingly advanced card, popular game support, decent price, etc. 3D accelerators were pointless until the 3dfx Voodoo, which was basically an orgasm in a box.
I can also back up those claims it was an orgasm in a box.
If anything it was a screaming orgasm.
At this point in time, physics can be done perfectly fine without dedicated hardware. With a multi-core CPU, you've even got your dedicated hardware: a full CPU core that you can dedicate to physics. A PPU is basically that, a mini processor that's dedicated to one thing. Until a PPU comes out that can do some orgasmic physics and can increase the game's performance by a large margin, this shit ain't sellin'.
Yeah but apparently no one's actually put together anything that legitimately demands the PPU, and the so-called justification provided is a massive lie. Which is weak.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Damn right it is. I'm sure not buying one at $300.
I think what I'm asking is what objects are actually in the same locations on all machines playing in these matches? Just the huge ones? Is the rest just pretty, and does no actually cumulative damage? (ie, no death from a hail of smaller objects)
THOSE are physics I would pay good money for.
I'm just waiting to hear more from you brave physics-based frontiersmen before I bother. Maybe you'll find a .ini tweak and make the download worth my while? :P
Waiting for my download to finish, and I'll post my performance with a midrange rig.
one the level I think its called training grounds if I have no bots, I get about 30fps solid no matter what I do with the physics and thats on a AMD dual core 4200 2 gigs ram and a 7900 GT and that with 1280x1024 and HDR on and both gfx sliders at 70%
and the other level is choppy as shit when moving around
Dammit, that's like my exact set of specs.
Although, their SDK is free now. For $150 it might be fun to write up a whoa fuckawesome particle system, or play with cloth...
??
Dedicating a core from a multi core CPU to just physics is not completely wastefull. If you have a game that NEEDS a whole CPU for physics, then its probably going to be one hell of physics intensive game which would be the whole point of the thing...
The whole point of having multi core CPU's is to be able to better handle stuff like physics.
Man, what? Physics calculations are by nature hugely parallel. General-purpose CPUs suck at doing parallel computations, plus they're pretty busy doing what they're good at- AI, game logic, running your OS, downloading porn in the background, etc.
Performing physics calculations on a graphics card is a step in the right direction since the advent of programmable shaders (especially geometry shaders, those are huge fun), but there's still currently no (usable, convenient) way to get information off the card and back to the CPU which severely limits what GPU-based physics can do. Of course that's just my observation from working with programmable shaders, if anyone knows differently, feel free to correct me.
doubt we'll ever need a ppu. if anything, most devs will start making games to better utilize dual and quad-core cpus.
got an extra core? turn up that physics up to 11. another one? ramp that a.i up!
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
People saying that using extra cores of a CPU to calculate physics are misinformed, yes.
However.
Both nVidia and AMD are pulling a new design with their graphics cards, starting with the Geforce 8 series and the Radeon HD 2000 series. The idea is that, instead of the usual pixel pipelines, pixel shaders, vertex shaders, etc, a graphics card should just be a large collection of small "stream processors" that can be reconfigured for each of these tasks.
It's not unreasonable to think that physics calculations, with their heavy reliance on floating-point, could be one of these tasks.
tl;dr: Not the extra cores on your CPU, numbskulls, the extra cores on your graphics card(s)!
EDIT:
Zilo, let me introduce you to a bus called PCI-Express. It's been taking the graphics card market by storm over the past three years or so, and unlike AGP, is fully symmetrical and duplex. That x16 speed (in reality, 4 GB/s or so)? That goes both ways, unlike AGP, which had a very high speed for stuff going to the card and a very low speed for stuff going out from the card.
Athlon 64 3800+
2 gigs RAM
GeForce 6800 GT
I get a slide show of 5-7 FPS on the second map with 6 bots (I think) and nothing fancy turned on.
Buy some useless stuff at my Cafepress site!
int main() { if (physics_card_present == false) { rape_framerate(true); } else { rape_framerate(false); } play_game(); }They do. It's called the Radeon X1900.
Someone with leet skeelz needs to find the code to disable AA since that might be something that fucks with me as I will be using my E6400 Proc, 1 gig of ram, and a 7600gt to take on this thing...
Installing now.