Wrong, city of heroes & villains use itNabraham wrote:
I doubht it will be the next big thing. Especially with Nvidia and ATI saying that you can put one of there weaker cards into a PCI slot to do the same thing. $300 is just to much, espeically since GRAW is the only thing using it right now.
Poll
Will Ageia's PhysX be the next big thing for games
| Yes | 54% | 54% - 47 | ||||
| No | 33% | 33% - 29 | ||||
| What? | 12% | 12% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 87 | ||||||
Atm ATi and Nvidia are also working on a physix solution and from the rumors that have come out Nvidia and ATis solution could end up being alot cheaper then Ageias Physix card.max wrote:
it does.Janus67 wrote:
I believe it uses PCI
also the more particles is more myth than fact. i looked at a series of screenshots and videos made in GRAW and frankly couldnt really tell the difference. You also get a slight drop in framerates.
I think that if the games support it and it uses a faster bus, it just might be sucessful (especially since it theoretically can do physics much faster than a cpu and is probabely cheaper than a solution from ATi or nVidia). But for now its just a waste of money.
ATI and Nvidia both are working on physix solutions were you use a grafix card for physix (so 2 grafix cards 1 for grafix and a 2nd for Physix).
a GPU is alot better at calculating physix then a CPU. Ofcourse a GPu wont be as powerfull at Physix as Ageias solution but these grafix cards are alot cheaper.
imagin using an radeon X1600Xt or a geforce 7600 for physix you can pick both up for less then 100 euro were Ageias card costs 280 euro atleast. So yes performence of ATI and Nvidias soltuion will be lower but the price is also lower so aslong as the price is ok for the performence it could work.
Atm the 2 main down sides to Ageias physix card is the price (280 euro) and the performence.
GRAW has physix but they arent that spectecular compaired to what is possible and when enabling physix ur frames per second (performence) will drop even if u got a physix card in ur PC.
Hopefully this will change when more mature physix games will apear (and ofc beter software support from Ageia) and hopefully the performence drop wont be big when games pop up that have better features then GRAW (cause in the physix area GRAW is rather a dissapointment.
Furthmore Ageia said that atm over a 100 games are in development that support their physix solution.
Sadly Ageia cant give names of developers or games (except for a handfull).
So there is no word on if Ageias claims are true, further you have physix and physix.
Who says them 20 games that are coming this year that support physix will be any good? Maybe most of em will suck, be buggy as hell or hardly have any physix at all.
@rustynutz
City Of Villains physix are even worse then GRAWs tbh, the games that use real nice physix stil have to come and the wat Ageias Physix card performs in those games will make or break Ageia.
Last edited by Static-nl (2006-06-20 10:26:32)
My bad, still, they need to get some killer apps where the game looks and plays much better with the card then without it.rustynutz wrote:
Wrong, city of heroes & villains use itNabraham wrote:
I doubht it will be the next big thing. Especially with Nvidia and ATI saying that you can put one of there weaker cards into a PCI slot to do the same thing. $300 is just to much, espeically since GRAW is the only thing using it right now.
imo its too early for physics in gaming... probly next year. ageias biggest mistake is not realeasing the card on PCI-e
Half Life 2 used physics really well. How was it a mistake not to release the card on PCI?? Every motherboard has one so it works perfectly. Requiring it to use a PCI-E slot could alienate more people as their motherboard might not have the extra slot for it.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
imo its too early for physics in gaming... probly next year. ageias biggest mistake is not realeasing the card on PCI-e
what he means is that it is a mistake to only have PCI versions available and not both PCI and PCI-E.Nabraham wrote:
Half Life 2 used physics really well. How was it a mistake not to release the card on PCI?? Every motherboard has one so it works perfectly. Requiring it to use a PCI-E slot could alienate more people as their motherboard might not have the extra slot for it.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
imo its too early for physics in gaming... probly next year. ageias biggest mistake is not realeasing the card on PCI-e
cause yes atm all motherboards got PCI but what in 3 years?
PCI will slowly dissapear, lets say u buy a new PC in 18 months and the good motherboards at that time got only 1 PCi bus.
if ur lucky that PCI bus is at a good postion (bottom fo the board) if ur unlucky its below the grafix card slot and is practicly unusable. Or what if u only got 1 PCI bus but have both an Ageia and a good soundcard wich use PCI. both are stil good but u can only use 1.
Thats the point why alot of people wont buy Ageia, simply cause they know that PCI is dying.
I see your point but how long has PCI been around now?? Quite some time. Plus if this thing really catches on im sure motherboard manufacturers will start putting in additional PCI bus slots on motherboards.Static-nl wrote:
what he means is that it is a mistake to only have PCI versions available and not both PCI and PCI-E.Nabraham wrote:
Half Life 2 used physics really well. How was it a mistake not to release the card on PCI?? Every motherboard has one so it works perfectly. Requiring it to use a PCI-E slot could alienate more people as their motherboard might not have the extra slot for it.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
imo its too early for physics in gaming... probly next year. ageias biggest mistake is not realeasing the card on PCI-e
cause yes atm all motherboards got PCI but what in 3 years?
PCI will slowly dissapear, lets say u buy a new PC in 18 months and the good motherboards at that time got only 1 PCi bus.
if ur lucky that PCI bus is at a good postion (bottom fo the board) if ur unlucky its below the grafix card slot and is practicly unusable. Or what if u only got 1 PCI bus but have both an Ageia and a good soundcard wich use PCI. both are stil good but u can only use 1.
Thats the point why alot of people wont buy Ageia, simply cause they know that PCI is dying.
im talking about all pci-e slots, the 8X, 4X 2X and 1X... pci is ok, but if they release both it would be better.
ya PCi has been around for a while but alot of people are lately pushing the motherboard companys to slwoly ditch PCI.Nabraham wrote:
I see your point but how long has PCI been around now?? Quite some time. Plus if this thing really catches on im sure motherboard manufacturers will start putting in additional PCI bus slots on motherboards.Static-nl wrote:
what he means is that it is a mistake to only have PCI versions available and not both PCI and PCI-E.Nabraham wrote:
Half Life 2 used physics really well. How was it a mistake not to release the card on PCI?? Every motherboard has one so it works perfectly. Requiring it to use a PCI-E slot could alienate more people as their motherboard might not have the extra slot for it.
cause yes atm all motherboards got PCI but what in 3 years?
PCI will slowly dissapear, lets say u buy a new PC in 18 months and the good motherboards at that time got only 1 PCi bus.
if ur lucky that PCI bus is at a good postion (bottom fo the board) if ur unlucky its below the grafix card slot and is practicly unusable. Or what if u only got 1 PCI bus but have both an Ageia and a good soundcard wich use PCI. both are stil good but u can only use 1.
Thats the point why alot of people wont buy Ageia, simply cause they know that PCI is dying.
Basicly PCI-E has more bandwith and is more universal.
like if i got a PCI-E 4x slot i can put a PCI-E 1x device into it and it will work flawlessly.
I can even take a PCI-E grafix card wich is PCI-E 16x and put it in a PCI-E 4x slot it will work np although it will have less bandwith.
Check around and ul see that there already are motherboards that have only 1 PCI slot, and it doesnt matter if the physix card will become a hit yes or no PCI is gonna fade away and tbh i dont want to run the risk of buying a 280 euro physix card for PCI to find out in 18 months that my new motherboard hasnt got the slot for it.
It amazes alot of people that Ageia only made a PCI version and No PCI-e.
If they cared they could have made a physix card that has both a PCI and a PCI-E slot, there have been grafix cards that had both an AGp and a PCI-e connection and they both worked.
That's the point - hardware physics will change just about everything - no you couldn't really have that level of physics in BF2 as it is today - the BF2 of the future won't be like the BF2 of today.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Yeah but how could that be implemented in a game like BF2?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Rather just a few players, vehicles, objects and the odd bit of breakble scenery having physics properties, everything will - you will be able to have truly destructive scenery for example.
You won't have to worry about flag's becoming un-usable, 'cos you won't have flags. I can envision the BF2 of the future having fully destructable scenery - maybe you'll have something like an engineer class that repair or build any structure - so rather than having fixed flags, you have the eb and flow of battle defining the key areas and fortifications. Grunts go in and take a strategically important location, then hold and defend while the engineers go to work building defences and fortifcations.
And you don't need to test everything - much of the glitches come from the fact that the physics is done in software at the moment - so shortcuts are taken, corners are cut, etc - hardware physics can make a much better job of it - for a start solid, or effectively solid, objects can be truly solid - no more glitching into silo's and being able to shoot out from an indistructable shield - even if someone did glitch into something it would be fully destuctable so you just go blow the thing up.
But real life physics will never be able to be added to games, It just would never be possible, It would take way too much power to work out all the shit going on with light and photons etc.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
if all games have real physics that would be awsome, first physx cards were just supposed to take load off cpu, for example, garry's mod in half-life 2. add 200 water melons, and throw a grenade at them... u get uber lag. but when a physx card is inserterd it shouldnt be lag since the card will take load of cpu
sum1 gave me neg1 karma for my mommy doesn't like ur sig cuz it has a semi naked woman on it. READ THE RULES OF FORUM. and a mod make my sig, go contact alpha.
Oh, and rofl at the guy who diddn't like your boobs
Okay, full photon simulation based lighting, no we're not going to see that for quite a while. But don't think that 'real life physics' is an impossibility, as I implied in my previous posts, it not so much a problem of 'kind' as more a problem of 'degree' - even to the extent of photon simulations - all physics code use the same core techniques, just as all graphics code uses a core of techniques based around rendering textured and lit triangle-mesh based models. This PhysX card will only scratch the surface of what can be done with hardware accelerated physics and I'm sure it will take far less time than you think to escape the limitations of the current technology.[UCF]Dauntless wrote:
But real life physics will never be able to be added to games, It just would never be possible, It would take way too much power to work out all the shit going on with light and photons etc.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
if all games have real physics that would be awsome, first physx cards were just supposed to take load off cpu, for example, garry's mod in half-life 2. add 200 water melons, and throw a grenade at them... u get uber lag. but when a physx card is inserterd it shouldnt be lag since the card will take load of cpu
well right now Advanced WArriors, it doesnt look that good
I voted yes, but not for its current incarnation. You all must remember that PhysX is really taking baby steps right now. I expect that the hardware, implemented into a motherboard or a video card, will be alot more commonplace than an independant PCI card in the future, and that's really where I expect Ageia knew it was heading all along.
See, it isn't really interactive geometry that causes so many problems with fast computers; it's advanced particle and fluid systems. Go onto UnrealED and place about fifty particle emitters that spew out 100 sprites every second. Doesn't run too bad, does it? Now go back in and give each of these sprites collision factors, and try again. Oh...shit, huh?
See, it isn't really interactive geometry that causes so many problems with fast computers; it's advanced particle and fluid systems. Go onto UnrealED and place about fifty particle emitters that spew out 100 sprites every second. Doesn't run too bad, does it? Now go back in and give each of these sprites collision factors, and try again. Oh...shit, huh?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-06-21 18:38:32)
The PhysX is pointless for the following reasons.
1) It uses a bit of software to produce more detailed physical effects rather than hardware. you can run it on your CPU if you want to its just a bit slower than sub contracting it out to the PPU. This means unlike a graphics card the physX does not hardware accelarate the physics effects
2) it costs way too much for what it is
3) it is possible to use an SLI set up with one card on textures and the other on physics thus making a dedicated PPU pointless
4) I have precious few PCI slots as it is, make it PCI4x and 25% of the price and I might consider it
5) it runs on a whole 3 games ..... thats right 3 .... the only one I've even heard of is yet another boring Clancy game .... seriously do we have to go through the whole , kick door down, throw grenade it, run in and shoot ppl again .....
1) It uses a bit of software to produce more detailed physical effects rather than hardware. you can run it on your CPU if you want to its just a bit slower than sub contracting it out to the PPU. This means unlike a graphics card the physX does not hardware accelarate the physics effects
2) it costs way too much for what it is
3) it is possible to use an SLI set up with one card on textures and the other on physics thus making a dedicated PPU pointless
4) I have precious few PCI slots as it is, make it PCI4x and 25% of the price and I might consider it
5) it runs on a whole 3 games ..... thats right 3 .... the only one I've even heard of is yet another boring Clancy game .... seriously do we have to go through the whole , kick door down, throw grenade it, run in and shoot ppl again .....
Cell factor uses PhysX Ageia. You can get the tech demo somewhere. I got it to run without the PhysX card and let me tell you it lagged on my 3.3GHZ P4E. It might have been graphical lag but when the stuff starts flying ho ho ho.
If you say that this thing wont get into use later on your wrong. People thought having seperate a video card seperately from the motherboard was ludicrous some tiem ago. Same goes with this people think that the processor can handle it but come on its a lot better to have a seperate processor/card.
If you say that this thing wont get into use later on your wrong. People thought having seperate a video card seperately from the motherboard was ludicrous some tiem ago. Same goes with this people think that the processor can handle it but come on its a lot better to have a seperate processor/card.
there are more then 3 games out there that support this Physix card.alfius wrote:
The PhysX is pointless for the following reasons.
1) It uses a bit of software to produce more detailed physical effects rather than hardware. you can run it on your CPU if you want to its just a bit slower than sub contracting it out to the PPU. This means unlike a graphics card the physX does not hardware accelarate the physics effects
2) it costs way too much for what it is
3) it is possible to use an SLI set up with one card on textures and the other on physics thus making a dedicated PPU pointless
4) I have precious few PCI slots as it is, make it PCI4x and 25% of the price and I might consider it
5) it runs on a whole 3 games ..... thats right 3 .... the only one I've even heard of is yet another boring Clancy game .... seriously do we have to go through the whole , kick door down, throw grenade it, run in and shoot ppl again .....
but most of these games dont need a dedicated PPU for the few physix effects them games got.
And for point nr1 Ageia Physix card uses a Hardware PPu todo the phsyix, the software bit is neccesary for it to work just as ATI and Nvidias solution will need software.
The stupid thing is that it only works with certain games. It's kind of expensive too. Some people would prefer if it was PCI-e also.
I wish it is pci-e 1x, then it can fit in any pci-e slot.
My graphics card covers up my pciie 1x slot, but i still have a 4x slot open.
My graphics card covers up my pciie 1x slot, but i still have a 4x slot open.
What if quad cores come out next year, wouldnt that be able to handle the calculations
Nobody should be multitasking that much, lol.Maj.Do wrote:
What if quad cores come out next year, wouldnt that be able to handle the calculations
lol... u cant really dedicate a cpu core for a physics card... it would handle physics easier, but not as good as a physx card_j5689_ wrote:
Nobody should be multitasking that much, lol.Maj.Do wrote:
What if quad cores come out next year, wouldnt that be able to handle the calculations
The CPu architekture isnt very efficient todo physix calculations.
A good GPU will 0wn a CPu at doing physix calculations this is cause a GPu has more raw power.
Although i could imagin that in the near future when we have good Quad Cores that u could let 2 cores do the physix.
But i think in the near future the best solution could be ATI/Nvidias idea of using a 2nd grafix card.
Ageia is kicking its own ass with the price they dare to ask for a card that hardly works.
it would already be possible now to have 1 of the 2 cores in a Dual Core CPu do the Physix but like said a CPu is to ineffecient at physix calculations so it wouldnt be worth it.
A good GPU will 0wn a CPu at doing physix calculations this is cause a GPu has more raw power.
Although i could imagin that in the near future when we have good Quad Cores that u could let 2 cores do the physix.
But i think in the near future the best solution could be ATI/Nvidias idea of using a 2nd grafix card.
Ageia is kicking its own ass with the price they dare to ask for a card that hardly works.
it would already be possible now to have 1 of the 2 cores in a Dual Core CPu do the Physix but like said a CPu is to ineffecient at physix calculations so it wouldnt be worth it.
CPU's are pretty efficient for Physic calculation... but nvidia physics SLI is dumb... i dont want to spend 1200 dollars on a high end system just to have fancy debris... i would agree that 300 bucks is just waaaay to much for a physX card... 240 bucks sounds more reasonable.Static-nl wrote:
The CPu architekture isnt very efficient todo physix calculations.
A good GPU will 0wn a CPu at doing physix calculations this is cause a GPu has more raw power.
Although i could imagin that in the near future when we have good Quad Cores that u could let 2 cores do the physix.
But i think in the near future the best solution could be ATI/Nvidias idea of using a 2nd grafix card.
Ageia is kicking its own ass with the price they dare to ask for a card that hardly works.
it would already be possible now to have 1 of the 2 cores in a Dual Core CPu do the Physix but like said a CPu is to ineffecient at physix calculations so it wouldnt be worth it.
They can charge whatever they want as long as there's no competition.