View Single Post
Old 03-23-10, 12:24 PM   #37
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toss3 View Post
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:


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.



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.


All of these things, you forget that now the glass in Mirror's edge also causes damage to the player, as in per poly collision detection, and also now the amount of object calculations of the glass itself. What am I talking about? The amount of calculations to do these things, aren't just a visual crap shot. This is what you guys are missing, you think game developement is still like the text based games of the 80's? I think you guys think it is. Guess what I've been around long enough to know some of the best things in games, that I like, I don't see them in the best games today, and thats why I still play at times text based games.

You guys want realism in physics, lets go through some simple neutonian fluid dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid

now what were we using in games 5 years ago, were we using physics for water? Whats the difference in calculations amounts? Are we using physics in todays water, yeah on a per poly basis, to show interaction, lets get some real physics involved the increase is in the tens of thousands of increase in calculation amounts and more so because we have to use particles. I don't need to keep posting but a basic understanding is all I'm looking for, if you think physics is easy to implement there are quite alot of implications from design, hardware side that without understanding now computers and games evolve on features, anyone even a two year old can say something is a gimmick. I can say Sh*t my favorite games are wizardary 1, 2, 3 and they still are, and everything since then has been a gimmick with game design is involved.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote