PDA

View Full Version : I have seen the future....


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

XMAN52373
03-23-10, 08:54 PM
You were the one who took up the whole Havok vs PhysX stuff to begin with - I just said that gpu-accelerated PhysX is a gimmick and you still haven't addressed that argument which was the point to begin with. I honestly don't care what physics engine a game uses as long as it doesn't affect the game itself(which is exactly what nvidia's PhysX does).



This has nothing to do with ATI at all. They are not arguing that nvidia should give them PhysX for free. They are just sticking up for the consumers calling nvidia out on the lies they are feeding us. We don't need a gpu to run those effects currently presented in PhysX titles and that is the truth.



Red Faction:
baWbh9062VE

Mirror's Edge:
D58DlquZjKY

Just to prove that you don't need a gpu to simulate broken glass. Funny how a game made in 2001 can look better than a game made in 2009.



What are you talking about? No one is saying that gpu accelerated physics would be WORSE. We all know what PhysX is capable of - what we are saying is that it isn't being utilized for anything beyond what could be done on a cpu.

Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

XMAN52373
03-23-10, 08:59 PM
I get what you are saying and definitely wouldn't mind getting an extra physx card if there was a game that required it(/made proper use of it). Sadly this is not the case.

What I think is going on is that nvidia knows that a single GPU running both physics and rendering wouldn't outperform a multicore CPU + GPU doing the same task(fluidmark proves this, see chart below). They also know that most people wouldn't shell out for an extra card unless there are games out there that make use of it(reason why I think ageia would have failed). So they gimped the cpu support of physx to make having a physx-capable card look more attractive. It's marketing and makes them money they otherwise wouldn't get, but unless you own nvidia stock this is not behavior you should support as it hurts the consumer.

http://physxinfo.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fluidmark_graph.jpg

And yet you fail to address the point that GPU based Physics, when used soley for that purpose, totally out classes what any multi core CPU can hope to do.

shadow001
03-23-10, 09:15 PM
I still don't understand why people are calling the destruction in Bad Company 2 "physics".

The only thing being calculated in real time is the dozen or so random chunks of wood\stone that actually collide with things. Beyond that, they're simply deleting "wall" models and replacing them with "hole" models. If enough walls have been deleted, the building plays the "fall over" animation, which is the same every time. They cover all of the transitions up with smoke effects but none of it is dynamic, even if it looks good.

There is no physics calculation being done for any of that, other than the chunks of wood that bounce (rather than fall through things).

A far better example of the kind of physics a CPU can do would be Flatout Ultimate Carnage. Just look at all of the debris flying around that actually has physics interactions:

som7lmVkrX4

... or you could look at Crysis for several examples of real physics calculations as opposed to canned model swapping and preset animations:

hGrMIJirJPY

I know that isn't in real-time, but the engine can do it in real time with enough rendering and processing power. You won't see anything like this in Bad Company 2. Absolutely nothing close to it.

BC2 is a great game, but it doesn't do anything that proves that we don't need GPU physx. In fact, with GPU physx they could have made the walls actually fall apart dynamically, but it wouldn't be usable for everyone so that's obviously not realistic at this point. The game is already a multicore CPU hog. If it was doing more real physics it wouldn't even be playable.


And adding even better physics to battlefield bad company adds what to the game gameplay wise?....Do players have enough time to apreciate how the buildings fall apart realistically and avoid getting killed by other players in the process....Hell no.


It's a game that always emphasizes being constantly on the move after completing an objective,and always looking around you to avoid getting shot at,so i don't see how even better physics would improve things,since the fast paced action leaves little time to apreciate it anyhow,even if it were added.

Sazar
03-23-10, 09:16 PM
Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

Yah, such boring crap.

I mean all games in 2001 were doing that right?

:bleh:

CaptNKILL
03-23-10, 09:18 PM
And adding even better physics to battlefield bad company adds what to the game gameplay wise?....Do players have enough time to apreciate how the buildings fall apart realistically and avoid getting killed by other players in the process....Hell no.


It's a game that always emphasizes being constantly on the move after completing an objective,and always looking around you to avoid getting shot at,so i don't see how even better physics would improve things,since the fast paced action leaves little time to apreciate it anyhow,even if it were added.

The same can be said for anything that is done to improve visuals and realism. None of it is necessary to gameplay.

shadow001
03-23-10, 09:20 PM
And yet you fail to address the point that GPU based Physics, when used soley for that purpose, totally out classes what any multi core CPU can hope to do.


Hence why GPU physics also fails,as at least for now,it requires at least 2 GPU's to perform well,one for the graphics and another for the physics calculations,especially when the user wants to play at high quality graphics settings.


Once a single GPU can handle both tasks at the same time,with at least playable performance,then you have something that can appeal to a larger market,as a single card does it all....That's not the case right now,not even close to it.

CaptNKILL
03-23-10, 09:25 PM
Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

Actually, it is real time calculated glass shards:
Hnj3HE1zorg

Incredibly impressive for the time really. Newer implementations are probably more accurate but for a 9 year old game RF did an extremely good job.

XMAN52373
03-23-10, 09:25 PM
Hence why GPU physics also fails,as at least for now,it requires at least 2 GPU's to perform well,one for the graphics and another for the physics calculations,especially when the user wants to play at high quality graphics settings.


Once a single GPU can handle both tasks at the same time,with at least playable performance,then you have something that can appeal to a larger market,as a single card does it all....That's not the case right now,not even close to it.

That largely depends on what resolution your are playing at and with what GPU you are using. Alot of people still have 17", 19" and 19" wide screen LCDs. Most of what is sold at WallyWorld and BB either have standard 19s or 19WS.

shadow001
03-23-10, 09:27 PM
The same can be said for anything that is done to improve visuals and realism. None of it is necessary to gameplay.


To a point i agree,but having played the game on 3 monitors for instance,and having a much wider field of view,which has on many occasions saved me from getting killed by enemy players that like to use the knife,as i can see them coming at me from the side monitors,when i normally wouldn't be able to see them coming using just one display.


Or how about being a tank driver and see enemy players trying to plant C4 on the tank with the side displays,or being a helicopter pilot and seeing most of the map and those that are trying to shoot me down with RPG's or heavy machine guns.


Call it a crutch or even cheating if you want,but it's fun as hell,enhances the gameplay for me,and doesn't require any specific support from developers either...;)

XMAN52373
03-23-10, 09:27 PM
Actually, it is real time calculated glass shards:
Hnj3HE1zorg

Incredibly impressive for the time really. Newer implementations are probably more accurate but for a 9 year old game RF did an extremely good job.

I have my doubts, but for 2001, I guess scripted is as good as you can get.

shadow001
03-23-10, 09:32 PM
That largely depends on what resolution your are playing at and with what GPU you are using. Alot of people still have 17", 19" and 19" wide screen LCDs. Most of what is sold at WallyWorld and BB either have standard 19s or 19WS.


Those that are using such small displays also aren't using the latest GPU's since the low resolutions those displays support don't require such powerfull cards to begin with,and there's been plenty of users out there with a single GTX 260/275/280/285 that has complained about having to seriously lower the graphics quality/resolutions,while keeping GPU physics enabled and running smoothly enough to play the game.


Only those with SLI setups get to use high quality graphics and GPU physics with good performance overall.

Xion X2
03-23-10, 09:42 PM
I still don't understand why people are calling the destruction in Bad Company 2 "physics".



I don't understand why you wouldn't. There are plenty of good physics effects in that game.

The walls are blown apart at different angles and locations depending on where the impact is and what is shooting at them. When tanks aim at you, the walls are blown apart exactly where you're standing. And debris flies off the walls at different angles depending on where you shoot them at.

I don't know what you consider "physics," but to me that resembles it.

And have you seen the car chase in the single player campaign? When you're being chased by cars and you shoot at them, they respond realistically depending on where the impact is. If the impact is at the back wheels, for example, the back end of the car will spin out. Whereas if the impact is at the front, it will flip over, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hE1t6n46Fc

Heck, when the jeep hits a tree in that video the snow even dumps all over you.

More good car action. Look at all the snow particles that fly up every time a bullet hits the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMMh2ICGtO4&NR=1

Guess everyone sees things in their own way.

CaptNKILL
03-23-10, 09:46 PM
I have my doubts, but for 2001, I guess scripted is as good as you can get.

I don't really see anything scripted about it. The pieces fall and interact with surfaces. If it was just a canned animation they would lay flat out in mid air the same way every time, regardless of the surroundings.

CaptNKILL
03-23-10, 09:56 PM
I don't understand why you wouldn't.

They're not "preset"; the walls are blown apart at different angles and locations depending on where the impact is and what is shooting at them. When tanks aim at you, the walls are blown apart exactly where you're standing. And debris flies off the walls at different angles depending on where you shoot them at.

I don't know what you consider "physics," but to me that resembles it.

And have you seen the car chase in the single player campaign? When you're being chased by cars and you shoot at them, they respond realistically depending on where the impact is. If the impact is at the back wheels, for example, the back end of the car will spin out. Whereas if the impact is at the front, it will flip over, etc.

There are plenty of good physics effects in that game. I haven't seen anything in Crysis that's any better, honestly.

Guess everyone sees things in their own way.

The game is full of physics, obviously. I'm just saying that the "destruction" contains very little in the way of physics calculations.

When you say this:
They're not "preset"; the walls are blown apart at different angles and locations depending on where the impact is and what is shooting at them. When tanks aim at you, the walls are blown apart exactly where you're standing. And debris flies off the walls at different angles depending on where you shoot them at.

Its flat out wrong. I'd love to see an example of the walls actually breaking apart from an impact and not just vanishing in chunks while smoke and moving debris are spawned in. It looks pretty good but from a physics stand point it isn't doing anything new.

Compare what is happening to the actual surfaces in this video:
WDJqetBhR-Y

To this:
8JtAdTon0JA

Bad Company 2 looks better because of the smoke and excellent graphics all around, but its extremely obvious that things are just deleted and replaced with moving debris that vanishes almost instantly.

I love BC2, I just don't think it makes sense to say the physics are anything ground breaking.

Iruwen
03-23-10, 10:20 PM
Only those with SLI setups get to use high quality graphics and GPU physics with good performance overall.

That's another point where Fermi comes into play. It's not like Nvidia didn't do their homework in some points, they spent a lot of work on parallelization. That's why it's such a huge monster. AMD will surely go the same way with their next generation hardware (in 28nm if possible though).

This is not strictly Nvidia/ATI related: I think what we currently see in games is just the tip of the iceberg. GPU physics are used to blow things up, tesselation is used to make things round. And because it has to be noticable, it doesn't look realistic at all. It's not impressive because it's been done over and over before. It's more of a design problem.
The next generations of games will use those advanced technologies to actually make the virtual world more realistic. GPU physics won't be used for debris, but smoke, cloth and fluid simulations. This is also the point where CPU based physics simply won't be able to keep up since they are what they are, general purpose hardware with a very limited number of cores and simultaneous processing.
It's up to the extremely parallelized hundreds or even thousands of cores of GPUs to efficiently render real time particle physics. The same is true for tesselation, developers are just playing around with it in current implementations, the real power of displacement mapped subdivision surfaces will show in future generations of games and hardware. It allows extreme levels of detail while providing real LOD, it saves huge amounts of memory and bandwidth, it allows blending and morphing and perfectly integrates with physics.
This won't happen with the current generation of hardware and games, but that's why I hope ATI will actually come up with their open GPU physics solution and real DX11 cards (which means they need a programmable tesselator) soon. I don't think so because their hardware isn't capable of it yet, but maybe next year.

shadow001
03-23-10, 11:24 PM
That's another point where Fermi comes into play. It's not like Nvidia didn't do their homework in some points, they spent a lot of work on parallelization. That's why it's such a huge monster. AMD will surely go the same way with their next generation hardware (in 28nm if possible though).

This is not strictly Nvidia/ATI related: I think what we currently see in games is just the tip of the iceberg. GPU physics are used to blow things up, tesselation is used to make things round. And because it has to be noticable, it doesn't look realistic at all. It's not impressive because it's been done over and over before. It's more of a design problem.
The next generations of games will use those advanced technologies to actually make the virtual world more realistic. GPU physics won't be used for debris, but smoke, cloth and fluid simulations. This is also the point where CPU based physics simply won't be able to keep up since they are what they are, general purpose hardware with a very limited number of cores and simultaneous processing.
It's up to the extremely parallelized hundreds or even thousands of cores of GPUs to efficiently render real time particle physics. The same is true for tesselation, developers are just playing around with it in current implementations, the real power of displacement mapped subdivision surfaces will show in future generations of games and hardware. It allows extreme levels of detail while providing real LOD, it saves huge amounts of memory and bandwidth, it allows blending and morphing and perfectly integrates with physics.
This won't happen with the current generation of hardware and games, but that's why I hope ATI will actually come up with their open GPU physics solution and real DX11 cards (which means they need a programmable tesselator) soon. I don't think so because their hardware isn't capable of it yet, but maybe next year.


It's possible i guess,but i believe it's something to strive for within the next 10+ years,not right now,and for several reasons:

1:As it is,not everyone will own the latest cards as soon as they're released,with most users out there trying to use their hardware as long as possible...Only hardware enthusiats change hardware every year,simply because something much faster is being released,not because the games demand that kind of power....I only did it because these latest cards support 3 displays,as other than that,my old setup was handling things fine using 1 display....It wasn't for DX11 support in the least,as that will take time to become popular.


2:Games are taking ever longer to develop,sometimes as much as 4~5 years if they're developing their own graphics engine along with the game itself,and it's only shorter than that if they're licencing an existing game engine and building their game on top of that(think source engine,UT3 engine,ID tech 4 engine,etc).


3:Given that long time span for game development,it's easy to imagine that the overall situation for developers isn't easy,when in that period of time,there could be as many as 3~4 generations of new hardware releases,each one supporting more features and overall performance than the previous,so try being in developers shoes and deciding what to support and what not to,isn't easy in the least....I don't envy that aspect of having to chose between something they'd like to have in their game,but it'll take longer to implement,or having to lower their vision to cater towards the reality of the market and/or development budget constraints.


4:Most games are multiplatform these days,with the baseline being consoles,which the latest ones are still stuck with DX9 level GPU's in them,while we're already at DX11 on PC's,so there's already a huge gap right there in both raw speed and feature support,and only recently has there been a developer with the guts to release a game with no fallback to DX9 whatsoever and needs DX10 as the minimum,so it's basically restricted to PC's....It's from futuremark(makers of 3Dmark vantage) and it's called shattered horizon.


5:I think it was someone at Nvidia that stated at a conference last year,that the objective is to have on the market,by 2015 so just 5 years from now,GPU's with 20 terraflops of single precision power....The current Fermi chip has only 1.4 terraflops right now,so as crazy as it sounds,GPU's might get about 15 times faster in some aspects within the next 5 years if they hit that objective.....My setup has 10 terraflops right now in that area,but that's split between 4 GPU's,and they're talking about a single one packing twice that amount by 2015,so it's a crazy increase in performance to say the least.


The basic idea is that the hardware will get to the needed performance level a lot faster than the actual software to exploit that power and features,and that's been the case for years now,so i don't think that based on what we've seen in the past 10+ years,that that's going to change.

nekrosoft13
03-23-10, 11:54 PM
wow, all the trolls jumped out from their hiding spots.

Xion X2
03-24-10, 12:07 AM
Compare what is happening to the actual surfaces in this video:
WDJqetBhR-Y

To this:
8JtAdTon0JA

Bad Company 2 looks better because of the smoke and excellent graphics all around, but its extremely obvious that things are just deleted and replaced with moving debris that vanishes almost instantly.

I love BC2, I just don't think it makes sense to say the physics are anything ground breaking.

Well, for one here you need to consider what material it is that you're shooting at. Bricks from your PhysX video react differently than wood in the BF BC video when being shot at. When you shoot grenades at wood, it blows apart like it's supposed to.

But I get where you're trying to go. Honestly, I think that BF BC damage looks more realistic, and in the end that's what matters to me because we're talking about making a game more immersive. When you shoot at bricks with a grenade launcher, they blow apart violently. They don't topple over like a deck of cards like in the PhysX video. Perhaps a few of them may after impact, but not as drastic as the PhysX video makes it out to be. And if you look at the PhysX video, almost every time the guy shoots the bricks fly in the same direction, so I really don't get what's so special about it.

CaptNKILL
03-24-10, 12:26 AM
That's fine, its obviously all opinion on what looks better. I was just trying to differentiate between a wall being dynamically broken apart piece by piece and a wall disappearing and being covered up by smoke and newly-spawned debris chunks.

BC2 does a great job for what it does.

Sazar
03-24-10, 12:31 AM
So, does anyone know if there are any vendors coming out with cards with red heat-sinks with black accents?

:D

Xion X2
03-24-10, 12:38 AM
You made some good points, Cap'n. I do understand the distinction that you're making. I guess my stance is that I just don't see a big enough difference in PhysX yet to make such a big deal about it. I think that it has potential--just comes up short at the moment.

It's definitely a key component of immersion that needs to be better explored. I just don't know if that can happen as fast as we'd like it to as long as Nvidia keeps it proprietary. Developers aren't going to invest nearly as much time in it as they would if everyone would be able to benefit from it.

Frankly, I'm surprised by the graphs that razor showed in that there are that many titles that support it. But again, we don't know how many of those are GPU-based and how many are CPU-based.

CaptNKILL
03-24-10, 12:45 AM
For me, GPU Physx is one of those things that isn't incredible, but is cool enough for me to want a card that supports it.

I absolutely hate the fact that nvidia has possibly (most likely...) limited CPU physx to single-threaded usage to make GPU physx look more appealing, but it doesn't really change the fact that some games make good use of it, and I have a weak spot for getting the most features possible out of good games.

The list of actual GPU-Physx accelerated games is incredibly short:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

But Cryostasis, Batman and Mirrors Edge alone make it worth it to me. I really like what I've seen of the effects in these games, and the games are good enough for it to matter.

I'd prefer there was an open standard that didn't use any lame tactics to manipulate the market, but for now, there aren't any alternatives and I'm going to keep buying the products that have the features that appeal to me.

Rollo
03-24-10, 06:11 AM
The list of actual GPU-Physx accelerated games is incredibly short:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

But Cryostasis, Batman and Mirrors Edge alone make it worth it to me. I really like what I've seen of the effects in these games, and the games are good enough for it to matter.



It's incredibly long compared to the list of GPU physics accelerated games people can play with ATi cards:
1.<pending?>

It's about to become very difficult to seriously consider an ATi card. For a person to lock themselves out of PhysX and 3D Vision just doesn't make sense. More games are on the way with PhysX, the Unreal guys announced UE3 be optomized for 3d Vision, and TWIMTBP is so widespread it's pretty obvious which direction physics and 3d are going.

And what does AMD have? Oh yeah, they hope their main competitor Intel will help them out with their Havok company, as they have been hoping for years. For 3d they hope some 3rd party vendors who have no presence in the gaming market will develop hardware and drivers for them. Basically they don't want to spend the money to bring a better gaming experience to their customers and they hope someone else will do it for them.

ATi fans will post "Lower power! Cheaper to make!" but in the end people buying will be faced with "Do I want a card that locks me out of CUDA apps, PhysX, 3D Vision, 3D Vision Surround, UE3 AA, ambient occlusion so I can get EyeFinity on one card?"

My guess is they won't and we're about to see big price cuts on ATi products.

Revs
03-24-10, 06:27 AM
My guess is they won't and we're about to see big price cuts on ATi products.

I'm an vN fan, but 130 minimum difference per card is a lot. If you want two cards plus an additional PhysX card (9800GT) you're talking 350 more, just for PhysX. Is it that good?? Throw in a very hot running card (?) and the 5870 looks pretty appealing, at least to me.

Edit: Metro 2033 scaling is gonna be the decider for me.

Toss3
03-24-10, 06:41 AM
It's incredibly long compared to the list of GPU physics accelerated games people can play with ATi cards:
1.<pending?>

It's about to become very difficult to seriously consider an ATi card. For a person to lock themselves out of PhysX and 3D Vision just doesn't make sense. More games are on the way with PhysX, the Unreal guys announced UE3 be optomized for 3d Vision, and TWIMTBP is so widespread it's pretty obvious which direction physics and 3d are going.

And what does AMD have? Oh yeah, they hope their main competitor Intel will help them out with their Havok company, as they have been hoping for years. For 3d they hope some 3rd party vendors who have no presence in the gaming market will develop hardware and drivers for them. Basically they don't want to spend the money to bring a better gaming experience to their customers and they hope someone else will do it for them.

ATi fans will post "Lower power! Cheaper to make!" but in the end people buying will be faced with "Do I want a card that locks me out of CUDA apps, PhysX, 3D Vision, 3D Vision Surround, UE3 AA, ambient occlusion so I can get EyeFinity on one card?"

My guess is they won't and we're about to see big price cuts on ATi products.

Read the thread on PhysX and see how important it really is. 3DVision requires a new monitor, surround three new monitors and a second card. Cuda is worthless unless you fold. All I see are marketing gimmicks. No one cares for eyefinity either. Where are the real performance numbers? You know that thing we actually buy these things for in the first place?
Why do we even let nvidia focus members post on these forums? Corporate shills are what they are. Stick to the nvidia official forums where you belong!