View Single Post
Old 03-23-10, 12:56 PM   #35
Toss3
.<<o>>.
 
Toss3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 4,763
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1 View Post
You want to list out when those game came out in the market, Xbox games stopped coming out in in late 2005. You still think that graph is still wrong? If you look at 2006 and up, which is what those graphs are showing, the number of Havok titles for PC goes down pretty fast. This is when Havok was the only solid physics engine out there prior to Novedex

What are you talking about now? First you want to talk about PC only, the list you just showed me a list that isn't PC only. What do you exactly want to talk about? Because throwing a billion darts at a board you are bound to hit something correctly.
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).

Quote:
There is only one camp because ATi doesn't get off their butt to do anything, they can talk and show powerpoint slides all they want it, buts till they actually get some decent opencl and direct compute drivers and with bullet with some games, they don't have much of a choice (yeah they aren't in the greatest shape right now).
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.

Quote:
Funny thing is games 10 years ago had very little outside of collision detection based on bound box, even games 5 years ago, same old collision detection based on pre poly (acutally just more precise bound box based on skeletons), now we are doing per poly with physX, see the difference in escalation.
Red Faction:


Mirror's Edge:


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.

Quote:
When you really want to talk about things like this, guys really read some basic game programming books, don't need to know the real thing and make a game, just the basics and history have how games have evoloved from a tech point of view. To me when people put out for the most part pointless arguements based on crap knowledge, guess what.........
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.
__________________
: :Asus Rampage II Gene : : Core i7 920 4011Mhz : : 6Gb 1600Mhz A-Data DDR3 : : Club3D Theatron Agrippa : : Intel 80GB SSD : : 2xSamsung F1 750Gb : : Sapphire 5850 @ 850/1225Mhz : :
: :Benq FP241W : : Optoma HD80 Projector + 92" Screen : : Genelec 8020B speakers : : Sony MDR-XB700 Headphones : : Razer Lycosa : : Razer Lachesis : :
Toss3 is offline   Reply With Quote