PDA

View Full Version : BioWare (Dragon Age) to use PhysX


Pages : [1] 2

Zelda_fan
11-09-06, 04:03 AM
With two major developers backing PhysX (Epic and BioWare), I think this pretty much solidifies AGEIA's place in the industry. Dragon Age is going to be a killer game.

http://ageia.vnewscenter.com/press.jsp?id=1162845287633

http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=514268&forum=84

K007
11-09-06, 04:33 AM
With two major developers backing PhysX (Epic and BioWare), I think this pretty much solidifies AGEIA's place in the industry. Dragon Age is going to be a killer game.

http://ageia.vnewscenter.com/press.jsp?id=1162845287633

http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=514268&forum=84

Solidifies...i dont think so. Nvidia did say they plan to do there own physics thing..and if they do come out with one..they will have more support..the price on the ageia card isen't work it till its actually used in more than 5% of the games..its like paying for SLI for only 1 or 2 games/ year..sure its engine if used in other games 'may' take advantage..but you never know..

Has there been any games with the use of this hardware in action compared to not used..and how much help it does for the fps? The idea behind using one of these is so that the gpu can focus on the graphics and let the physics get done by the other card..thus..allowing more fps?..but i dont think i haven't seen anything of that yet..all i see is more crap that goes all over..most of which is just plain stupid..

Zelda_fan
11-09-06, 12:23 PM
Solidifies...i dont think so. Nvidia did say they plan to do there own physics thing..and if they do come out with one..they will have more support..the price on the ageia card isen't work it till its actually used in more than 5% of the games..its like paying for SLI for only 1 or 2 games/ year..sure its engine if used in other games 'may' take advantage..but you never know..

Has there been any games with the use of this hardware in action compared to not used..and how much help it does for the fps? The idea behind using one of these is so that the gpu can focus on the graphics and let the physics get done by the other card..thus..allowing more fps?..but i dont think i haven't seen anything of that yet..all i see is more crap that goes all over..most of which is just plain stupid..

nVidia is WAY to late to the ball game at this point. 5 years down the road, maybe it'll be a different story, but by that time AGEIA will have a ton of games for it. Within 6 months PhysX games are going to start comming out.

queth
11-09-06, 02:55 PM
theres no room for a aegia card in new mother boards lol.

get sli with a sound card and possibly a wireless card and forget it.
nvidia will win the physics though there willl need to be a standard api or developers will say to hell with it trying to make 1 for each of the vendors.

nekrosoft13
11-09-06, 02:58 PM
yeah the way new boards are made, no physx for me

dedicated x-fi or auzentech, and good canopus capture card, nothing else

Zelda_fan
11-09-06, 03:36 PM
yeah the way new boards are made, no physx for me

dedicated x-fi or auzentech, and good canopus capture card, nothing else

To be quite honest, I'm really losing faith in sound cards these days. What do I need an X-Fi for? EAX? No thanks, I play my games with that worthless stuff turned off, and unless you want to send a DTS optical signal to your A/V receiver there really isn't a point in getting an X-Plosion. Just about all high end mobos these days have a decent 7.1 audio system on them, so I just don't see the point anymore.

Not saying that I should make room for a PhysX chip, but I really don't see audio cards as a real reason people won't adopt PhysX.

nekrosoft13
11-09-06, 03:43 PM
there is a difference between decent and good

I'm keeping an eye on "merdian" (spelling) that new Auzentech card.

onboard will never match dedicated card.

Tygerwoody
11-09-06, 03:58 PM
there is a difference between decent and good

I'm keeping an eye on "merdian" (spelling) that new Auzentech card.

onboard will never match dedicated card.

Well... I have an Audigy gamer 24bit card... I tried out my onboard sound one day and it actually sounds BETTER... to me at least. :p . I know its nothing compared to XiFi, but still shows the onboard sound is decent.

Zelda_fan
11-09-06, 04:19 PM
there is a difference between decent and good

I'm keeping an eye on "merdian" (spelling) that new Auzentech card.

onboard will never match dedicated card.

Please tell me the practical benefits of a dedicated card over onboard sound.

I don't give a rats ass about audio memory, EAX, X-Fi crystalizer, etc. In fact the ONLY feature I possibly care about is the DTS encoding available on the X-Plosion and the X-Meridian. But let's just say that at the moment, I don't have a good home theatre audio system to hook it up to.


As far as audio fidelity, most onboard sound is just as good, so what's the actual benefit?

Quickstar
11-09-06, 04:34 PM
Please tell me the practical benefits of a dedicated card over onboard sound.

I don't give a rats ass about audio memory, EAX, X-Fi crystalizer, etc. In fact the ONLY feature I possibly care about is the DTS encoding available on the X-Plosion and the X-Meridian. But let's just say that at the moment, I don't have a good home theatre audio system to hook it up to.


As far as audio fidelity, most onboard sound is just as good, so what's the actual benefit?

What you're saying about onboard vs dedicated sound cards reminds me a lot of the physics card because with it you only really get little bonuses like cloth and maybe water physics.Its funny that you're arguing FOR onboard which is the opposite of PhysX. You'd think, being the onboard fan you are, the new G80 would appeal to you with their physics integration.

CaptNKILL
11-09-06, 04:37 PM
Personally, the Crystalizer effects have spoiled me. Nothing sounds anywhere near as good to me as my system with the crystalizer. Everything else sounds like im listening to music with my hands over my ears.

And good hardware sound chips like the X-fi can handle a lot more sounds playing in a 3d space without having to cut things out.

And EAX actually sounds great when its used properly, but from what I've seen no one knows how to freaking use it. In Battlefield 2 it sounds amazing when you walk inside a building with eax effects on... all the sounds from the outside echo and seem to "fill" the room. As soon as you walk outside though, there are no EAX effects... they simply didnt code any into the outdoor areas of the game. Pure lazyness IMO.

I think the X-Ram thing is a total gimmick though.

I'm very glad that I bought the extreme music model. It has all of the benefits of a top of the line hardware sound card, without 64mb of useless memory bloating the price by $200.

Onboard sound chips are great now (compared to the horrid crap we had 4-5 years ago), but dedicated cards have more features and better performance and once you get used to them, its hard to go back.

superklye
11-09-06, 05:36 PM
I'm very glad that I bought the extreme music model. It has all of the benefits of a top of the line hardware sound card, without 64mb of useless memory bloating the price by $200.
Not quite, brah.

The Elite Pro has professional-level codecs/DACs.

But you're close enough I s'pose. Me? I think it's worth it. I love my Elite Pro so much. :)

ynnek
11-10-06, 12:16 AM
Totally agree with CaptNKILL.

the games that fully use the latest EAX/OpenAL effects are pretty impressive... Its actually a big difference.. Only a few though actually do this..

My fav is still Quake 4.. the difference is night and day.. Its hard to immediately switch back other games that aren't as advanced.. Everything sounds so dull and flat.


Even then, the 5.1 positional clarity of the X-Fi is worlds better than my onboard sound in 5.1.. As in you can really easily pinpoint which direction the sound is coming from.

FCGD
11-10-06, 12:27 AM
a dedicated APU has clear benefits over on-board integrated audio.. obviously.

speaking just for myself, the sound quality boost was huge going from on board to my audigy 2 ZS, even without enabling EAX effects. there are also minimal performance gains to be had from a dedicated audio processor.

also, check out this if you plan on using EAX:http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/onboard-eax/index.x?pg=1

and if you really cant tell the difference between EAX and non EAX in games that support it, well, "ignorance is bliss." ill be enjoying my EAX thanks.

Zelda_fan
11-10-06, 01:07 AM
What you're saying about onboard vs dedicated sound cards reminds me a lot of the physics card because with it you only really get little bonuses like cloth and maybe water physics.Its funny that you're arguing FOR onboard which is the opposite of PhysX. You'd think, being the onboard fan you are, the new G80 would appeal to you with their physics integration.

I'm a fan of whatever works solution works the best.

EAX is totally useless. I've bought Creative's cards for years, so I know what I'm talking about. I can name two games that I've played that actually sound good with EAX turned on. Most just slap on the feature and add reverb and echo effects at weird locations.

Better performance is really laughable. What like 1 or 2 fps? I'd rather not have an extra card junking up my system if that's all it gives.

The Crystalizer is a cheap **** excuse for not have a good sound system or poorly encoded music. I'd rather listen to music the way it was recorded in the studio. That's just my personal opinion though.

As far as audio quality is concerned, yeah, if your onboard sound has a lot of white noise or other distortion in it then by all means get a dedicated card, but from what I understand, most enthusiast motherboards these days have audio chips that support high quality sampling rates.

The ONLY tangible feature as far as I'm concerned is the realtime DTS encoding found on the X-Meridian and the X-Plosion. With those you could connect your computer to a very powerful home theater setup and get DTS quality audio. Even then, most high end onboard sound supports optical output so it isn't like I can't get the signal to a receiver, it just won't be DTS encoded.

russ_3d
11-10-06, 03:56 AM
The Crystalizer is a cheap **** excuse for not have a good sound system or poorly encoded music. I'd rather listen to music the way it was recorded in the studio. That's just my personal opinion though.



NO NO NO, it clearly states from this graph that if i enable X-Fi - my 'experience' goes up more than if i was in the studio listening to it!!

http://images.creative.com/iss/images/inline/products/xmod/fe_an_experience.gif


see? it magically restores the detail that has been lost by Mp3 encoding!


but, how does it know what detail was there before it got lost? :freaky:


(im guessing its just an exciter, which means that its actually distorting the top-end. albeit harmonically, but still distorting.)


edit* and im not saying it doesnt make stuff sound better, im sure it does. thats what exciters do, make stuff sound more exciting - but on my audio forum there was a massive thread of everyone laughing and making gifs about the claims made by creative.
if it is any exciter - it will also make your ears more tired O.O

CaptNKILL
11-10-06, 04:52 AM
I'm a fan of whatever works solution works the best.

EAX is totally useless. I've bought Creative's cards for years, so I know what I'm talking about. I can name two games that I've played that actually sound good with EAX turned on. Most just slap on the feature and add reverb and echo effects at weird locations.

Better performance is really laughable. What like 1 or 2 fps? I'd rather not have an extra card junking up my system if that's all it gives.

The Crystalizer is a cheap **** excuse for not have a good sound system or poorly encoded music. I'd rather listen to music the way it was recorded in the studio. That's just my personal opinion though.

As far as audio quality is concerned, yeah, if your onboard sound has a lot of white noise or other distortion in it then by all means get a dedicated card, but from what I understand, most enthusiast motherboards these days have audio chips that support high quality sampling rates.

The ONLY tangible feature as far as I'm concerned is the realtime DTS encoding found on the X-Meridian and the X-Plosion. With those you could connect your computer to a very powerful home theater setup and get DTS quality audio. Even then, most high end onboard sound supports optical output so it isn't like I can't get the signal to a receiver, it just won't be DTS encoded.
When I mentioned performance I was referring to the number of hardware sounds a card can process without having problems or cutting out sounds. Playing a game like Battlefield with dozens of people running around shooting and bombs exploding, you will be losing some sounds when you run in hardware mode on an onboard sound chip.

And the "quality" and amount of white noise has nothing to do with maximum sampling rates. How many CDs do you buy that are recorded in 24bit 96000khz quality? The quality difference (IMO) has more to do with the amount of interference and the quality of the DACS on analog connections on onboard audio compared to stand alone cards. And seeing how very very few onboard sound chips can encode digital audio, you're stuck with either stereo digital or surround analog.

All of what you're saying is just your opinion. I'm not richy rich, I dont have a $40,000 sound system connected to my PC, and music can only sound "so good" on an original recording anyway... if it sounds muffled to me I'm not just going to say "oh good a mediocre recording, I'll just live with it even though it bothers me"... I'm going to try to make it clearer, so the crystalizer does make things sound quite a bit better to my ears.

If you're concerned about the differences in quality and you want the absolute best audio quality, there are professional audio cards that can give you that... If you simply don't care that much about the quality of the audio that you put through your high priced sound system, sure onboard is fine, but why are you arguing against people wanting "more" from their sound?

Its a personal preference thing Zelda. I like reverb effects in games when they are available, I like the extra quality settings and number of hardware sounds available on my x-fi, and I love the crystalizer when listening to my crappy sounding professional recordings and low end $250 PC speakers.

I know creative is full of crap and I generally dislike them quite a bit, but my x-fi has most definitely made me enjoy the sound coming out of my computer more than I did using onboard sound.

EDIT: For what its worth, if I had a choice between a well priced Physx card that makes lots of games run faster while using full cloth and water physics and a dedicated sound card that makes things sound clearer, I'd go with the physx card. But as it is now, the physx card slows things down in the very few games it works in and it doesnt appear to do all that much... all for a whopping $300 price tag. I'm not against the idea, but given a choice between enjoying my music more all day and not getting much of anything (yet)for $300, I'll take the increased music enjoyment.

Hopefully next gen games will make physx worth the sacrifices in audio quality, but to be honest, I'd rather have my 8800GTX take care of it.

CaptNKILL
11-10-06, 05:11 AM
Not quite, brah.

The Elite Pro has professional-level codecs/DACs.

But you're close enough I s'pose. Me? I think it's worth it. I love my Elite Pro so much. :)
Ah, I forgot about the higher quality DACs. Its still way too expensive for me, but between that and the front panel I can see why someone would want that model now. :thumbsup:

Redeemed
11-10-06, 05:32 AM
Solidifies...i dont think so. Nvidia did say they plan to do there own physics thing..and if they do come out with one..they will have more support..the price on the ageia card isen't work it till its actually used in more than 5% of the games..its like paying for SLI for only 1 or 2 games/ year..sure its engine if used in other games 'may' take advantage..but you never know..

Has there been any games with the use of this hardware in action compared to not used..and how much help it does for the fps? The idea behind using one of these is so that the gpu can focus on the graphics and let the physics get done by the other card..thus..allowing more fps?..but i dont think i haven't seen anything of that yet..all i see is more crap that goes all over..most of which is just plain stupid..

No, no, no, no, no! Physx will not get you more fps. And I don't know how anybody could ever come to this conclusion.

First off, look at it merely from a common sense perspective: With added physics, comes added graphical objects. No matter how awesome a card Ageia or even nVidia made, you will still take more of a performance hit- as in lower frames per second.

Okay, let's say you are playing F.E.A.R.: The Awakening (made up game, pretend it is the sequel to F.E.A.R.). Okay, now let's assume that this new FEAR game supports accelerated phyics via PhysX (or even HavokFX).

This will mean, that when you lob a grenade at a cluster of "bogies", when that grenade explodes there will be a realistic amound of shrapnell... the GPU will have to not render everything it normally would, but now that extra shrapnel as well.

With that explosion the actual eruption of energy itself (the explosion itself) will have realistic physics properties as well. Fire will have to obey the laws of physics, which will cause even more work on the GPU. The "bogies" being blow apart by the grenade: now the GPU has to render the body parts flying in which ever direction, the blood with real-fluid-physics, the clothing, etc. All that now has to be rendered by the GPU taking physical reaction into account.

In regards to that clothing, there is a good possibility that some of it would catch fire in that explosion. Yet more work for the GPU. And how about any light or window near by? All that glass will now have to shatter and even melt if the temperatures were extreme enough. More work for the GPU.

I can easily continue the list, and this would only be for the scenerio I'm using. There are far more scenerios to consider as well. As you should be able to see, the addition to realistic physics in games will have an impact on performance. In time, hardware will adapt to negate this performance hit (think AA and AF). But right now no such hardware exists that can negate this performance penalty.

And I am aware that no game has as realistic effects as that FEAR example I mentioned above, but in the future they more than likely will. For now, all games using any sort of physics solution will take a performance penalty. Regardless.

Redeemed
11-10-06, 05:40 AM
Well, you could get the Auzentech X-Plosion, it is under $100 at Newegg. And, get a cheap reciever and speaker setup- nothing fancy. That can be had for just over $100. There, now you have something that will sound far better than anything EAX can do. Thanks to your new 5.1 (or even 7.1) DTS and Dolby Digital encoding audio! :p

I'm not impressed with EAX one bit.

CaptNKILL
11-10-06, 05:48 AM
Well, you could get the Auzentech X-Plosion, it is under $100 at Newegg. And, get a cheap reciever and speaker setup- nothing fancy. That can be had for just over $100. There, now you have something that will sound far better than anything EAX can do. Thanks to your new 5.1 (or even 7.1) DTS and Dolby Digital encoding audio! :p

I'm not impressed with EAX one bit.
EAX doesnt have anything to do with positional audio or sound quality. Even EAX 1 in 1998 had reverb and atmospheric effects that most standard Direct Sound games today dont have.

The good examples are few and far between, its sad, but when EAX is implemented properly in a game it sounds amazing. If you havent heard it first hand you couldnt imagine what it sounds like.

CaptNKILL
11-10-06, 07:46 AM
Since it seems like a lot of people don't even really know what EAX does, let alone what it sounds like... I recorded some comparisons of BF2 gameplay audio. One running with High quality sound and no EAX, the other running with Ultra quality sound and EAX (ultra is only available on X-Fi as far as I know).

They are downsampled to 22050Hz and saved as 8bit (to prevent 25mb file sizes), but they are stereo and they are recorded straight from the game without any modifications other than cutting and pasting some pieces together.

BF2 isnt really even the best example of EAX but it was the easiest to test. Like I said earlier, the idiots didnt set any EAX effects for outdoor areas so I was running around inside buildings and under roofs and things like that during both of these recordings. Also the geniuses made the player's first person gun sounds "2d" stereo sounds so the hardware sound effects arent applied to them either... like I said, not the best example game for EAX but in the places that actually use the effects, the atmosphere of the battle is much more realistic and everything just sounds more "full". I'll let you decide though...


High Quality sound
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LWQXURRG

Ultra High quality sound + EAX
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OIJWQL4A

Badboy_12345
11-10-06, 08:04 AM
well the only thing the physx does is taking over some work that is handled by the proc and with todays C2D with 2 and four cores proc Physx card has little usage its just marketing...

You could do the same exact thing on the other core of your proc.
Its like the "enchanted" graphics in the "x64" version of Far Cry its just BS when you could do the exact same thing in 32bit.
Yeah it offloads the proc somewhat but the procs are getting so good that it isnt needed

|MaguS|
11-10-06, 08:55 AM
Erk.... Aegia is still useless... Untill I see a game supporting it and using it to imprive performance with the same effects going off (not claiming that effects are only capable with it on) then it still a waste of money.

Basically I want to see a comparison like there was when 3D Acceleration first came around. I rememeber seeing benchmarks of Tribes 1 running on Glide or Software mode... thats what made be buy a graphics card...

Redeemed
11-10-06, 12:32 PM
Erk.... Aegia is still useless... Untill I see a game supporting it and using it to imprive performance with the same effects going off (not claiming that effects are only capable with it on) then it still a waste of money.

Basically I want to see a comparison like there was when 3D Acceleration first came around. I rememeber seeing benchmarks of Tribes 1 running on Glide or Software mode... thats what made be buy a graphics card...

Then you might be waiting a while, as neither HavokFX nor Ageia can implement the added physics effects without it having a hit on your performance.