Microsoft to make a physics API

[Siskods9]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31385

Hope this is the best place to post this and that it hasn't already been posted...

[Superfly]

if MS did provide an API for physics it would be the death of the Ageia API and any others for that matter.

I think this is a great idea

[Siskods9]

MS could just buy Ageia :D

[Superfly]

MS could just buy Ageia :D


I bet they could if they wanted too......

[retsam]

I bet they could if they wanted too......
they could by anyone they wanted to...they could buy nvidia in a heart beat with the money they have on hand...

[|MaguS|]

I bet they could if they wanted too......

They can only buy companies that want to be up for sale (unless publicly traded).

[MUYA]

They can only buy companies that want to be up for sale (unless publicly traded).
Every boadroom has its price ;)

[superklye]

Every boadroom has its price ;)
Touche.

And if anything was needed to get these physics PPUs going, this would be it. MS ftw!

[Superfly]

yeh Ms doing physics is just what a PPU needs, if Vista had a physics API then things would really kick off.

[agentkay]

I can see quite a decent future for Ageias PPU if DirectPhysics (I guessed the name) supports the hardware. Imagine every game with DirectPhysics automatically taking (more or less) advantage of the PPU. That sounds very good to me, better than just a few games using the Novadex/Ageia API.

Havok FX (both implementations from Nvidia and ATI) should be included into Mircosofts DirectPhysics API as well. It would be very interesting to see how the performance would scale when a PPU, CPU, or GPU are used for physics.

Maybe it would be even possible to share the work load between all 3 (if available), or a game would run an internal benchmark during installation to find and select the best HW for the phyics.

Many people have different systems, not always best balanced, like a strong GPU, but older CPU, etc. In this case the CPU could be selected to calculate less physics, and the biggest part of the physics bill could be calculated by the GPU in this case.

Anyway, thats my crazy 2 cents about this one. I know it sounds fairly unrealistic as well. :D

[JamesDax]

if MS did provide an API for physics it would be the death of the Ageia API and any others for that matter.

I think this is a great idea

Perhaps the API but not the hardware. This is a good thing for the PhysX PPU.

[Superfly]

Perhaps the API but not the hardware. This is a good thing for the PhysX PPU.

Its only good for the AGEIA card if the MS API is compatable with AGEIA's - my money would say that MS would set the standard themselves and drop any other API's.

Dont get me wrong I think physics acceleration is a great idea I just dont think AGEIA is the solution to the problem.

[AthlonXP1800]

DirectX will have Physics API but what about open source OpenGL? It does not have physics API, maybe they will create one or require either AGEIA physix API or Havok API will became open source.

[nekrosoft13]

DirectX will have Physics API but what about open source OpenGL? It does not have physics API, maybe they will create one or require either AGEIA physix API or Havok API will became open source.

it already been said that openGL will be emulated on top of directx10

[nutball]

DirectX will have Physics API but what about open source OpenGL? It does not have physics API, maybe they will create one or require either AGEIA physix API or Havok API will became open source.

OpenGL is *not* necessarily open source; that's not what the Open in OpenGL stands for.

OpenGL won't do physics (as such) just like it doesn't do sound, keyboard/joystick input or anything else that DirectBlah does. It's not what OpenGL is for.

There's already an OpenSomething aimed at physics, the name escapes me at this time though (just like there's an OpenAL for sound, etc.). It hasn't gained much traction to date for semi-obvious reasons.

[Nutty]

it already been said that openGL will be emulated on top of directx10

Pretty much wrong, but;

Just because MS may put a physics API into DirectX, doesn't stop you using it with OpenGL.

You can use DirectInput and DirectSound with OpenGL just fine.

[Rakeesh]

DirectX will have Physics API but what about open source OpenGL? It does not have physics API, maybe they will create one or require either AGEIA physix API or Havok API will became open source.

OpenGL stands for Open Graphics Library. Meaning it is only for graphics rendering and nothing else. Open as in it is an open specification and anybody can add support for it to their software, royalty free (IHV's on the other hand have to pay to add support for it.)

Like others have said, OpenGL isn't open source. You are thinking of MesaGL, which is an open source clone of OpenGL.

[Karl_uk]

Personally, I'm glad Microsoft are stepping in on this one because the Nvidia/HavokFX API seemed like a bit of a con to me, just showing 'pretty' physics eye candy rather than real, interactive physics. It'll also mean that we can compare Ageia's, Nvidia's and ATi's hardware fairly when games use a common API.

[nutball]

Personally, I'm glad Microsoft are stepping in on this one because the Nvidia/HavokFX API seemed like a bit of a con to me, just showing 'pretty' physics eye candy rather than real, interactive physics.

What makes you think that Microsoft's API will be any better? Novodex and Havok (the "brains" behind the Ageia and NVIDIA stuff) are two of the leading players in the physics engine market. They have experience which Microsoft doesn't. So it's kind of strange to simply assume that Microsoft will do better because they're Microsoft.

It'll also mean that we can compare Ageia's, Nvidia's and ATi's hardware fairly when games use a common API.

Yes it does. Standardisation in the API is a good thing, of that there's no doubt.

However something you should note is that the algorithms which underly textured-triangle-based immediate-mode graphics have been "solved" for decades now. The current developments are merely about who can make the biggest, fastest chip to run them faster than anyone else. Fundamentally ATI and NVIDIA chips run the same algorithms. Sure you hear the zealots ranting about how tile-based deferred renderers would be better, or drooling over the phrase "hardware ray-tracing", because ray-tracing was cool in the 80's... but they're always going to be backing the losing horse because those schemes have issues which are as big if not bigger than the currently accepted way of doing things; short-comings which are obvious to those in the industry.

The same isn't really true of physics I don't think. It's not a solved problem in the way graphics is. Certainly there is some commonality in the approaches used by the big players, but the underlying algorithms and numerics I think are still not "solved". My worry would be that defining an API, particularly a closed non-extensible API as Microsoft has a penchant for doing, will close off innovation. Yes there will still be scope for differences at the implementation level, but to some degree an API defines a "mindset". Using Direct3D or OpenGL as an API to program a ray-tracer or TBDR is fitting a a round peg in a square hole to some degree -- they're written with immediate mode triangle rasterisers in mind and anything else doesn't fit as well as it should. What happens if someone comes up with a radically new (and demonstrable better) way of doing physics ... will it fit to Microsoft's mindset, and what happens if it doesn't.

So that's my worry. I think it's a laudable goal to standardise things, I also think that now is too early.

[CaptNKILL]

yeh Ms doing physics is just what a PPU needs, if Vista had a physics API then things would really kick off.
Heh, thatd be cool if it USED one. Like if you click and drag your icons, you can toss them and they bounce off of other ones and then fall down to the bottom of the window :lol:

[Remi]

What makes you think that Microsoft's API will be any better? ... Using Direct3D or OpenGL as an API to program a ray-tracer or TBDR is fitting a a round peg in a square hole to some degree -- they're written with immediate mode triangle rasterisers in mind and anything else doesn't fit as well as it should.
Having read MS's research papers left me with the impression that the system described really do not help much to fit a round peg in a square hole. Which is good, because that means you're free to do it your way, and bad because that means it's not helping. And to tell the truth, it left me with the impression that it only made the (rather) square hole... ...more square. Oh well.

We'll see what they come with...

[jolle]

if MS did provide an API for physics it would be the death of the Ageia API and any others for that matter.

I think this is a great idea
Well they dont really have a API as much as a physics engine right?
I think they could rewrite the Novodex engine to work with the PPU via this DX API, and then they would have to retool the drivers to speak with the new API.
So people could still use the Novodex physics engine, or any other physics engine for that matter to run on the DX API.
HavokFX could be running on either GPU or PPU if it only had to speak with the API, which then spoke to the hardware via drivers.. I guess.
Devs would still have to make custom PPU "modes" tho, but could prolly do so with any physics engine using the DX API.

I guess the only really major change will be opened up competition without anyone having the "support" benefit by promoting their own specific physics engine for their hardware.
And instead of choosing HavokFX and only enable GPU assisted physics, or Novodex and require a PPU for additional features, devs could go with either one and have anything running on it, via the API.. atleast thats how it sounds to me..
Well, that and another API for MS to control hehe.

[ViN86]

Heh, thatd be cool if it USED one. Like if you click and drag your icons, you can toss them and they bounce off of other ones and then fall down to the bottom of the window :lol:
:rofl

he didnt mean it like that. he just meant if they bundled the API into vista, lol.

[maddbomber83]

LoL, I think that is why he said USED (look at the caps).

Oh, and that would be the ****.

[retsam]

am i the only one that thinks that the whole physics thing on pc's feels alot like the force feed back deal a few years ago?...