Asus Ageia Physics Card release date?

[Striker-1991]

None of those effects you described should really take all that much memory

...

So while you would still need some memory (prefferably onboard obviously, otherwise it would take all day to load each calculation) it shouldnt be anything like what graphics cards need. Thats simply because with a graphics card you have to do a little bit of processing to a lot of stuff, whereas with physics you do a lot of processing to a little bit of stuff.

...

These are the effects (taken from the ageia website)

* Fluid Dynamics

* Rigid Body Dynamics

* Finite-Element Fracturing

* Universal Collision Detection

* Hair and Clothing Simulation

* Soft Body Dynamics

Fluid dynamics, Finite-Element Fracturing, Hair and Clothing Simulation, Universal Collision Detection need much memory believe me, they don't put 128 GDDR3 RAM

on the board for nothing.

You can do lot of them with a stock CPU or SPU's if we talking about the Cell processor. Check the web for some Fluent benchmarks and you find esp. server

hardware because of the high IO and memory usage. same for FEA

[desertranger12]

logos do you have a link for the AEGIA site?

[Striker-1991]

logos do you have a link for the AEGIA site?

←

http://www.ageia.com/

[Papa6]

I watched the videos and am Not impressed. A pistol cannot throw a crate unless 1) it's made of balsa wood and 2)it's being shot on the moon, but even then I have my doubts as to it reacting to being shot as such.

in the next video, I watched a plane being shot. now how are the panels going to go flying when shot? that was stupid. Physics will not and cannot evolve until they incorporate gravity. besides one or two shots will not knock an airplanes panel off. you might dent or put holes in the panels..

don't look to me to buy this AEGIA card.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Papa6

[Striker-1991]

I watched the videos and am Not impressed. A pistol cannot throw a crate unless 1) it's made of balsa wood and 2)it's being shot on the moon, but even then I have my doubts as to it reacting to being shot as such.

in the next video, I watched a plane being shot. now how are the panels going to go flying when shot? that was stupid. Physics will not and cannot evolve until they incorporate gravity. besides one or two shots will not knock an airplanes panel off. you might dent or put holes in the panels..

don't look to me to buy this AEGIA card.

←

There are lots of things we know about physical behaviour. Why should we calculate that realtime. As you said Papa6, they showing the one physical stuff and ignoring the good old Newton. Games presenting reality by faking all the visuals and audio. This is the same in the movie industry. Do we need a waterfall with exact physics and particle flow?

I'm fine with good faked physics if it looks and behaves relalistic.

[RatoN]

It’s all about interactivity with the environment of that world and the entire object it may contain. Not the looks of it.

It’s more like a collapsed wall may affect the outcome of a game, especially if 1 brick can kill you with sufficient velocity/weight. Not a beautiful water falls that doesn’t have an impact on the game outcome. How much data this 1 brick of this wall demands?

Now imagine 2 bricks, or 12, or 162 bricks.

There are differences between objects. Understanding that, the question now is; what component should do the physics in/out data job, and not what the devs decide to do with that physic.

Edited February 18, 2006 by RatoN

[Striker-1991]

There are differences between objects. Understanding that, the question now is; what component should do the physics in/out data job, and not what the devs decide to do with that physic.

I like that brick example Because this wall you describe is an already simplified model.

A house is build of bricks, concrete, steel, cables, wood, ..... Building that more complex model and interact with this model. In GRAW we put a 203 in the wall. It will be different to the simplyfied one with only bricks. So simulation of real life is a very interesting thing but you can't do currently with a pc card and not with 128 MB RAM. So everything is relative to the model you choose.

As HL2 came out everybody said wow, thats cool, everything has physics. But looking a second time on it. Every physical behaviour had a simplified model. You can stack hundred of crates, but the crates should normally crash because of the weight.

To make it short, it does not depend on the hardware (I think a cpu or cpu core can do that) it depends on the models choosen to recreate reality.

[RatoN]

A CPU could do the job perfectly, so a beefed up video card, or an onboard PPU chip.

My worry is the cost of these components and their lives spend. They already have their in game specific task to do, and I’m afraid that if the physics are calculated by the CPU, it will prevent AI improvement in the future because there is so much computing power a CPU can give.

And when you have to upgrade the CPU, most often you got to change the mobo, RAMs, and PSU. Dangerous Avenue that is imo.

Why not keep it separated?

[Striker-1991]

...

Why not keep it separated?

It must be separated, not onboard because this part is not a mainstream part.

Nobody need it in an office pc. But what I said in the beginning of the thread.

I don't think there is a commerial success. There are lots of special boards

on the market doing their job well. But which is commonly known. We all know

sound cards, gfx cards. In the early 90's everything was on a single separate

board even the hd controller, IO, game ports. Now that these parts are very

common to all pc, they went back to the mainboard. Even the sound card is going

onboard (ok, is dislike this).

If we want processing units for all the stuff we like in games, we need not only

one or two extension cards, we need some more, e.g. for the AI. Compared

with physics calculation, doing a good ai with neuronal networks, we need much

more computing power and memory. But as said before AI models are also

simplified.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Striker-1991

[Papa6]

I watched the videos and am Not impressed. A pistol cannot throw a crate unless 1) it's made of balsa wood and 2)it's being shot on the moon, but even then I have my doubts as to it reacting to being shot as such.

in the next video, I watched a plane being shot. now how are the panels going to go flying when shot? that was stupid. Physics will not and cannot evolve until they incorporate gravity. besides one or two shots will not knock an airplanes panel off. you might dent or put holes in the panels..

don't look to me to buy this AEGIA card.

←

There are lots of things we know about physical behaviour. Why should we calculate that realtime. As you said Papa6, they showing the one physical stuff and ignoring the good old Newton. Games presenting reality by faking all the visuals and audio. This is the same in the movie industry. Do we need a waterfall with exact physics and particle flow?

I'm fine with good faked physics if it looks and behaves relalistic.

←

That's cool. My comments were pointing to the fact that the whole concept of physics is to make your environment act real. If I shoot those wood boxes/crates and they roll like marshmallows, as in the video, then I don't think it's real.I'll use halflife. That was a step in the right direction. The boxes didn't roll all over but the tech just wasn't there, they did use what they had and it was realistic.

[Specter]

I watched the videos and am Not impressed. A pistol cannot throw a crate unless 1) it's made of balsa wood and 2)it's being shot on the moon, but even then I have my doubts as to it reacting to being shot as such.

in the next video, I watched a plane being shot. now how are the panels going to go flying when shot? that was stupid. Physics will not and cannot evolve until they incorporate gravity. besides one or two shots will not knock an airplanes panel off. you might dent or put holes in the panels..

don't look to me to buy this AEGIA card.

←

Ditto.

Looking cool is just not near enough. especially when it is so UNREALISTIC.

[Rocky]

I think the whole point of these physics cards is that they DO render realistically, taking gravity and momentum into the equation. I dare say the movies that have been released so far are quite early attempts at this new technology, so I wouldn't be knocking it this early.

[SteelHack]

What Rocky said

I dont believe those videos are showing "IN GAME FOOTAGE"

They are simply trying to show what is possible.

I dont expect to see the bouncing crate shot anytime soon in a game.

HACK

[Specter]

I think the whole point of these physics cards is that they DO render realistically, taking gravity and momentum into the equation. I dare say the movies that have been released so far are quite early attempts at this new technology, so I wouldn't be knocking it this early.

←

True. But seeing what it is right now, I sure as heck wouldn't be running out to spend 200-300.00 dollars on it right now either.

[Striker-1991]

True.  But seeing what it is right now, I sure as heck wouldn't be running out to spend 200-300.00 dollars on it right now either.

me neither

[insane snyper]

The point of that video was not to demonstrate realism, it was to demonstrate the abilities of the card. Is it impressive that it can do all of that calculating? IMHO yes. As you say shooting a crate probably wouldnt really do all that much to it. So it wouldnt really do for them to make a video of them shooting a crate in a realistic environment. Like I say, it was simply intended as a demonstration.

Additionally, if I buy one of these cards next month, and three months from now its out of date, sure I will be unhappy that I have to buy another one. On the other hand I would be tremendously pleased because that would mean there were games with stunning physics.

[Specter]

The point of that video was not to demonstrate realism, it was to demonstrate the abilities of the card. Is it impressive that it can do all of that calculating? IMHO yes. As you say shooting a crate probably wouldnt really do all that much to it. So it wouldnt really do for them to make a video of them shooting a crate in a realistic environment. Like I say, it was simply intended as a demonstration.

Additionally, if I buy one of these cards next month, and three months from now its out of date, sure I will be unhappy that I have to buy another one. On the other hand I would be tremendously pleased because that would mean there were games with stunning physics.

←

Depending on how many developers are actually ready to jump on the technology, that is....

[Logos]

I watched the videos and am Not impressed. A pistol cannot throw a crate unless 1) it's made of balsa wood and 2)it's being shot on the moon, but even then I have my doubts as to it reacting to being shot as such.

in the next video, I watched a plane being shot. now how are the panels going to go flying when shot? that was stupid.

←

OMG

Look, the demos were to show physics, not visual quality, not ingame play. That scene of the boulders rolling down the mountainside is ugly, and unimpressive if you're looking at for its aesthetic appeal. But how many of you think your computers could render that scene real-time, with realistic physics/boulder interaction, with that many boulders, and at 50fps?

Now, anyone with your hand up, you're mistaken. Your processor couldn't handle that and render it real-time. There are too many objects.

Look. Lots have responded here, and I don't want to respond to each individually, so here is the point of this card:

Someone mentioned HL2, said that HL2 was moving in the right direction. True. Great. Agreed. That's SOFTWARE. The point of this card is that it can do the Physics calculations necessary for software (software coded to use it, of course) to work so that your CPU isn't overburdened by those calculations. Pretty, complex textures aren't the only things that effect your framerates. Physics and AI chew up resources, as well.

Will this hardware be supported by enough software to justify the expense to someone for whom $300 is going to be missed? No way. Is it necessary? No way. Not yet, anyway.

However, Nvidia's first GPU was neither necessary nor taken advantage of at the time of its release either. Nor was DX9, 8, 7, etc. Nor was EAX. Nor was AGP. Nor was\is PCI-E. Is 48x cd burning speed really necessary compared to 32x? Very few new hardware technologies are taken advantage of immediately. The PPU will be no different.

Just try to see the potential: a $300 add-in card that will handle physics calculations that would bankrupt any of our processors. This will allow designers to do much more with games, not just with physics, but with AI - by freeing up your proc of working with physics. They haven't done these amazing things yet with this card. They won't have done it for quite some time to justify the expense for most computer players, but it will come. New games with support will come.

Has anyone seen demos for the Unreal 3 engine? It's REALLY nice. Not my style of game, but stunning nonetheless. Unreal Tournament 2007 is the biggest upcoming title to use AGEIA's card. How many games over the next few years will be based on Unreal's new engine? A bunch, I bet.

And the designers, btw, the only people to really see this stuff in action, are thrilled by it. Give it time. The people working with it, the people who have seen it, love it. We just don't know yet.

--Logos

Edited February 19, 2006 by Logos

[Papa6]

@ Logos. Noone said anything about visual quality. that's what Videocards are for. We are talking about an add-in card for physics. someone here earlier said something about the videos showing what the card is capable of.

But what I've seen, the card isn't worth the extra cost. those videos were of a game being played in real time. The videos are for showing how the physics card works. to be honest, todays processors and games have HAVOC capabilities which do not require an extra cost add-in card. I don't see too many developers jumping on with AGEIA's technology except a few.

Now..would I forgo the extra $100-$300 bucks for such a card? no, why have a card put in my machine if it hasn't gained atleast a moderate acceptance from the game companies. That right there's the main hangup about this AGEIA Physx card.

If AGEIA were to get some overall acceptance such as, game firms using it in thier development or motherboard manufacturers adding AGEIA physics into chipsets, then I'd be happy to affirm that yes AGEIA is worth the time. but giving up a PCI slot to beat out the johnsons to be the first with AGEIA's card...no. Kinda like how Winxp was exciting at first and pretty to look at, but then over time was a bore.

[Specter]

@ Logos. Noone said anything about visual quality. that's what Videocards are for. We are talking about an add-in card for physics. someone here earlier said something about the videos showing what the card is capable of.

But what I've seen, the card isn't worth the extra cost. those videos were of a game being played in real time. The videos are for showing how the physics card works. to be honest, todays processors and games have HAVOC capabilities which do not require an extra cost add-in card. I don't see too many developers jumping on with AGEIA's technology except a few.

Now..would I forgo the extra $100-$300 bucks for such a card? no, why have a card put in my machine if it hasn't gained atleast a moderate acceptance from the game companies. That right there's the main hangup about this AGEIA Physx card.

If AGEIA were to get some overall acceptance such as, game firms using it in thier development or motherboard manufacturers adding AGEIA physics into chipsets, then I'd be happy to affirm that yes AGEIA is worth the time. but giving up a PCI slot to beat out the johnsons to be the first with AGEIA's card...no. Kinda like how Winxp was exciting at first and pretty to look at, but then over time was a bore.

←

Agreed.

And by the time the developers are all on board, we won't be looking at 300.00 for a card, we'll probably be looking at half that. Not to mention that by then, most of the bugs should be worked out if it.

And even if it is still 300.00 by the time that all the developers are onboard with it, then it will be worth it, because it won't only apply to one or two games.

300.00 right now is just better spent on a graphics card and RAM. Even a dual core processor.

[Papa6]

@ Logos. Noone said anything about visual quality. that's what Videocards are for. We are talking about an add-in card for physics. someone here earlier said something about the videos showing what the card is capable of.

But what I've seen, the card isn't worth the extra cost. those videos were of a game being played in real time. The videos are for showing how the physics card works. to be honest, todays processors and games have HAVOC capabilities which do not require an extra cost add-in card. I don't see too many developers jumping on with AGEIA's technology except a few.

Now..would I forgo the extra $100-$300 bucks for such a card? no, why have a card put in my machine if it hasn't gained atleast a moderate acceptance from the game companies. That right there's the main hangup about this AGEIA Physx card.

If AGEIA were to get some overall acceptance such as, game firms using it in thier development or motherboard manufacturers adding AGEIA physics into chipsets, then I'd be happy to affirm that yes AGEIA is worth the time. but giving up a PCI slot to beat out the johnsons to be the first with AGEIA's card...no. Kinda like how Winxp was exciting at first and pretty to look at, but then over time was a bore.

←

Agreed.

And by the time the developers are all on board, we won't be looking at 300.00 for a card, we'll probably be looking at half that. Not to mention that by then, most of the bugs should be worked out if it.

And even if it is still 300.00 by the time that all the developers are onboard with it, then it will be worth it, because it won't only apply to one or two games.

300.00 right now is just better spent on a graphics card and RAM. Even a dual core processor.

←

@Spector agreed. But why not do things this way. since we aren't but "just" tapping dual cores, why not thread the physics through the second core? core 1 will do the game and core 2 will process the physics. I like to keep my slots free which lowers the overall bandwidth saturation on the PCI bus. during game installs it can determine how many cores you have then install the game to thread the physics through the second core? just a thought.

[Foxtrot360]

Additionally, if I buy one of these cards next month, and three months from now its out of date, sure I will be unhappy that I have to buy another one.

I agree with that.

I agree with all that Spectre and Papa6 said, doesent look worth it to me.

then there will probably be an AGEIA II card if anyone uses it.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Foxtrot23

[Specter]

@ Logos. Noone said anything about visual quality. that's what Videocards are for. We are talking about an add-in card for physics. someone here earlier said something about the videos showing what the card is capable of.

But what I've seen, the card isn't worth the extra cost. those videos were of a game being played in real time. The videos are for showing how the physics card works. to be honest, todays processors and games have HAVOC capabilities which do not require an extra cost add-in card. I don't see too many developers jumping on with AGEIA's technology except a few.

Now..would I forgo the extra $100-$300 bucks for such a card? no, why have a card put in my machine if it hasn't gained atleast a moderate acceptance from the game companies. That right there's the main hangup about this AGEIA Physx card.

If AGEIA were to get some overall acceptance such as, game firms using it in thier development or motherboard manufacturers adding AGEIA physics into chipsets, then I'd be happy to affirm that yes AGEIA is worth the time. but giving up a PCI slot to beat out the johnsons to be the first with AGEIA's card...no. Kinda like how Winxp was exciting at first and pretty to look at, but then over time was a bore.

←

Agreed.

And by the time the developers are all on board, we won't be looking at 300.00 for a card, we'll probably be looking at half that. Not to mention that by then, most of the bugs should be worked out if it.

And even if it is still 300.00 by the time that all the developers are onboard with it, then it will be worth it, because it won't only apply to one or two games.

300.00 right now is just better spent on a graphics card and RAM. Even a dual core processor.

←

@Spector agreed. But why not do things this way. since we aren't but "just" tapping dual cores, why not thread the physics through the second core? core 1 will do the game and core 2 will process the physics. I like to keep my slots free which lowers the overall bandwidth saturation on the PCI bus. during game installs it can determine how many cores you have then install the game to thread the physics through the second core? just a thought.

←

Excellent idea, and it would also lower heat and increase airflow, not to mention save us all a small fortune.

We ought to start running some of these companies, and re-introduce common sense to the PC world.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Specter

[Striker-1991]

This is the first and only generation of that boards ... when we have 2007 the physics computing is done by one of our 4 cpu cores. Because they are bored so much at the moment feeling useless in current games.

maybe the ppu chip will survive on one of the next gfx boards, because 90% of what the chip calculates is releated to the visual experience, maybe nVidia or ATI putting Ageia into their portfolio

[Specter]

I don't think that this board will be around long, actually.

Remember the 3D add-on boards, The Monster3D and 3D2?

Then here comes the video cards, and the accelerators no longer needed.

With processors making the advances they are, especially AMD, and physics software, I'm with Papa6. I'll bet that withing 2 years, the proc handles it all. Especially now with multi-cores being the common tool.

I think this Aegia thing is going to be short lived, and therefore not worth the 300.00.