Jump to content

Real time footage of GRAW


Recommended Posts

But from listening to you guys (or rather reading your posts) I've come to consider that perhaps Aegia might indeed be better.

Additionally, th AGEia card will handle about three times the number of rigid body objects as the NVidia solution 32,000 vs. "10,000+".

Thing is though I think ATI just announced that they are throwing in their support for HavokFX as well.

Time will tell if either Aegia or Havok will win the physics fight.

Hey, so like, what aegia cards are available as of now? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But from listening to you guys (or rather reading your posts) I've come to consider that perhaps Aegia might indeed be better.

Additionally, th AGEia card will handle about three times the number of rigid body objects as the NVidia solution 32,000 vs. "10,000+".

Never said Ageia is slow, but think ahead all these objects must be displayed and so all location and transformation info must go back to the gpu! All that for additional $300 plus a new power supply (for me) is an absolutely no go. Everybody should play at least a demo to decide between ppu and current max cpu setting. This 3 sec video is an Ageia ad. "Let's unpimp the cpu physics, boom boom :ph34r:"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read an interesting post regarding this topic at another site:

Nvidia just this week announced its competitor to Ageia PhysX. It's Nvidia/Havoc SLI Physics. The idea is to use a second graphics card (GPU) in SLI mode for physics when possible, and for graphics when not. I think this is an awesome approach to hardware-based physics. A modern GPU has a very similar architecture to the Ageia PhysX chip. This makes sense because the math for doing newtonian physics in a 3D world is very similar to the math for doing 3D graphics.

The Geforce 7900 GTX is actually a beefier chip than the PhysX. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot faster at physics than PhysX is. The Geforce 7600 GT is probably also as fast as PhysX for $199.

Also, there are some other things I like better about the Nvidia/Havoc solution than the PhysX solution:

1) Not every game has or needs physics acceleration, but all games have and need graphics acceleration. In a non-hardware-physics game, the 2nd Nvidia card can be used to boost your rendering speed, whereas the PhysX chip just sits there sucking power.

2) On Nvidia SLI setups there is a fast interconnect between the two cards. This means that once physical simulation results are computed on one GPU they can be transferred quickly to the other for rendering. The PhysX chip has no such interconnect. They have to send the data back over the old PCI or PCIE bus to the main memory, and from there to the GPU. I was at a talk given by the CEO of Ageia, and he said they really need a dedicated link to the GPU. But they don't have one.

3) Nvidia has over a thousand engineers constantly cranking out faster and better graphics chips. Ageia has probably 30 or so engineers. They're not likely to be able to improve their product line very quickly, whereas with Nvidia chips you can get better ones all the time, and they will improve both your graphics and your physics.

I agree that it's a great idea for Nvidia and ATI to get into this scene, and that they should eat Ageia's lunch. It's a much better value proposition to have a chip that can do both graphics and physics than a chip that can only do one or the other.

And here is another point AGAINST Nvidia/ Havok FX:

Not a expert on the subject, but the PPU is better adapted for its task, as the GPU is better for its task..

Imagine using the GPU by only allowing it to work with 1 pixel at a time, a 7900GTX is beefy indeed, but its not working optimally if only one pipeline is acctually working.. its acctually a huge waste..

Plus GPU assisted Physics does supposedly have to be mapped to Direct3d calls, and it doesnt seem to be as functional as a dedicated PPU.

Quote:

Because of these limitations, the physical simulations that are possible on a GPU are limited mainly to eye candy and special effects. And actually, NVIDIA didn’t try to deny this fact during our briefing on SLI Physics, so it makes a lot of sense. However, AGEIA doesn’t want to just bring eye candy to games, they want to change the way games are made and played from the ground up.

In this article they mentioned one example, you cant write back to the GPU pipeline..

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=225&type=expert&pid=1

So the PPU is prolly both cheaper to make, and better suited for the task, IE faster, while perhaps not more powerful on paper, depending on what theoretical numbers you choose to look at..

Edited by agentkay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is though I think ATI just announced that they are throwing in their support for HavokFX as well.

Time will tell if either Aegia or Havok will win the physics fight.

Hey, so like, what aegia cards are available as of now? :unsure:

At the moment only BFG I think.

http://www.bfgtech.com/

but they deliver to Alienware and Falcon Northwest first, then the regular customer ;)

ok, and Asus in May

Edited by Striker-1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ageia works hard to show Hanger of Doom, a game based on Unreal Engine 3 and it looks like upcoming QuakeCon 2006 will be the place. Usually this event takes place in Texas in August.

People will be able to play Artificial reality game in multi player LAN environment again at QuakeCon. This demo will be heavily Ageia PhysX influenced, as its goal is to boost the physics processing unit card sales. The best gaming mod will be awarded with the nice amount of money. The best part is that Asus and BFG have these cards available today but only for modders who will buy them and sign an NDA (non disclosure agreement) before they can get their paws on the card.

Ageia continues to keep a low profile but also keeps delaying its launch.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30469

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a "nice" looking explosion, although it's a 2 second clip. From what people have stated before about the Aegia PPU aided explosion and the non PPU explosion, it sounds like the non PPU explosion is more realistic (within context of that particular scenerio). If we're talking about an explosion from a frag. The PPU explosion looks so much more dramatic, but not quite what would be expected (according to those who have experience with explosives). A frag would not have such a huge explosion, unless it hit the gas drum ( I guess).

I think what we are looking at is style. I'd say that the 360 GR:AW has a lot more style points for explosions, but not exactly realistic (based on the 360 videos that I have watched). For GRIN and RSE, both dev teams are trying to find the balance of stylistic and realistic explosions. This balance is going to come down to taste and simple overall design direction. In the end, an explosion is not realistic because a PPU or some physics coding was used. It really depends on how and what the dev team is trying to accomplish.

I'm not former military nor do I have any experience with explosives. I'm basing some of what I stated on other forum members' posts.

silent_op

Edited by silent_op
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm impressed. I'll be buying a physics card. As for the price, I really don't think it's that expensive. Looks like it'll be worth it. Besides, in the end, money is only good for one thing...buying stuff.

If there's an "equalization" feature for Team vs. Team play, all the better for me as I'm a coop man. I'd rather have the visuals. Come to think of it, this may increase the popularity of coop-style games as there would be less need to equalize. It would be awesome if Coop games turn out to have the visual edge over Team vs. Team types.

How anyone can be concerned about the current lack of titles that support physics cards beyond me...As long as I have an Ageia card and GRAW, why would I want to play anything else? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two critical things to keep in mind when debating the 'do I need a PPU' question:

1. Chicken/egg. There aren't a lot of games that support the PPU yet, but then again, almost nobody has a PPU installed. Demand is a two way street.

2. There was a time, not that long ago, when people ridiculed the idea of spending $300 on a dedicated 3D video card, claiming that the technology would be a waste of time and money, and would never take off.

Will PhysX be the next 3Dfx? Time will tell, but this is certainly a technology with similar implication for the PC gamer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stalker,

I got my first copy of GR1 Christmas of 2001, with my first dual CPU system and a 19 inch monitor-2001 was a great Christmas-the game was release November of 2001. My best friend bought it on or about our US Thanksgiving.

So It has been 4 plus years and a couple of months.

I am sorry that I offended you or anyone else for that matter that read this my responce to this post. I did not realize that you modded. I liked IGOR myself.

I do not let Cheaters get me down I just like killing them-so I am an MP type of shooter.

I have purchased 5 additional copies of GR1, over the years, and have given them away as gifts. I hope that the newest version will raise the same passion that I had for GR1-for 3 years it was the only game that I played.

Demo SA-80

Peace Out

NOX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm sorry, but the explosion without the PPU looks so halfassed. Seriously, Return to Caslte Wolfenstein had better explosions than that (maybe not realistic, but certainly looked better). Are they serious that this was the best they could do without a PPU? Seems like a pretty crappy use of a PPU, especially since the physics does not affect the gameplay. I mean, the PPU is so powerful that without it, the explosion is just a couple puffs of smoke? I'm still hopeful for GRAW, but after playing a game like Oblivion, seems like GRAW for the PC should be so much more than what the video and screenshots show (graphically at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But from listening to you guys (or rather reading your posts) I've come to consider that perhaps Aegia might indeed be better.

Additionally, th AGEia card will handle about three times the number of rigid body objects as the NVidia solution 32,000 vs. "10,000+".

Thing is though I think ATI just announced that they are throwing in their support for HavokFX as well.

Time will tell if either Aegia or Havok will win the physics fight.

Hey, so like, what aegia cards are available as of now? :unsure:

PS3 will use Ageia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm sorry, but the explosion without the PPU looks so halfassed.  Seriously, Return to Caslte Wolfenstein had better explosions than that (maybe not realistic, but certainly looked better).  Are they serious that this was the best they could do without a PPU?  Seems like a pretty crappy use of a PPU, especially since the physics does not affect the gameplay.  I mean, the PPU is so powerful that without it, the explosion is just a couple puffs of smoke?  I'm still hopeful for GRAW, but after playing a game like Oblivion, seems like GRAW for the PC should be so much more than what the video and screenshots show (graphically at least).

That were medium settings. There are high settings and THEN Ageia PPU settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, You see the aiming tool for the Grenade launcher with the numbers...that tell you high you should aim for a certain hight and what not....Um whats the point of it if the display moves with the gun? I mean If I want to aim lets say 90 meters away should my gun be pointing in the 90 section? I never undesrtood it.

Sorry I'm very un educated about this =x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to believe we've waited so long for any motion. Quite aside from the fact that ALREADY it looks fantastic (combat, weapon model, sound) without the the PPU, and miles better than the 360 version, then you have reason to believe THIS is why they have been keeping it under wraps.

When you add the PPU and see the revolutionary effects, you KNOW they have been keeping this under wraps for a good reason - it makes the 360 version look like its little brother. THIS is the definitive GRAW my friends. THIS is what you should be spending your money on. Who needs a 360 when you can have realistically modelled particle effects like that smoke and dust?

Wow... all that from a 3 second clip.

Are the tides of the forum turning yet again?

:rofl::rofl:

Well my impressions was it was a comercial, tweaked graphics to promote the PPU card, NOT an exaple of the card ability to bring bitching eye candy to the screen. Do the two videos look very differnt ? hell yeah,Is it cause the PPU card is exploint some new untouch options a game dev can have when developing eye candy, ... hell no.

I would love to direct these questions to Bo, or John here. But what are your impressions of the PPU card? How much of what we see in this 3 second video is utilizing the potential this card has (Im guessing 5%)? Does a PPU cause the game performance to suffer? lets face it, the card is only doing Phys caluculation, and from the video, it looked to me like PhysX mode tossed out a TON of extra junk for the GPU to render out, kinda defeating the selling point a PPU card had for me at least. Does this card handle any of the rendering tasks?

There is still a ton of info lacking in what this card means, but its funny to see how easy it is to hook buyers. Tech toys are a drug, its easy to push that ###### to us junkies :P.

I personally hope there is a way to turn PhysX mode on without the card, either through a hack or whatever. This way we can see/compare what this card can really do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my impressions was it was a comercial, tweaked graphics to promote the PPU card, NOT an exaple of the card ability to bring bitching eye candy to the screen. Do the two videos look very differnt ? hell yeah,Is it cause the PPU card is exploint some new untouch options a game dev can have when developing eye candy, ... hell no.

I would love to direct these questions to Bo, or John here. But what are your impressions of the PPU card? How much of what we see in this 3 second video is utilizing the potential this card has (Im guessing 5%)? Does a PPU cause the game performance to suffer? lets face it, the card is only doing Phys caluculation, and from the video, it looked to me like PhysX mode tossed out a TON of extra junk for the GPU to render out, kinda defeating the selling point a PPU card had for me at least. Does this card handle any of the rendering tasks?

There is still a ton of info lacking in what this card means, but its funny to see how easy it is to hook buyers. Tech toys are a drug, its easy to push that ###### to us junkies :P.

I personally hope there is a way to turn PhysX mode on without the card, either through a hack or whatever. This way we can see/compare what this card can really do.

Well, I don't have any idea how it's used in GR:AW, but I do have knowledge of the actual PhysX SW and HW. From watching that clip it is definately enhancing eye candy and in my opinion it doesn't exploit the full potential of the card. That isn't to say it's bad or wrong, but that eyecandy will be the #1 use of a PPU for a while. To really see the worth of a PPU can check out the CellFactor videos that have all kinds of crap blowing up and the players able to use all that destroyed junk to toss around. The objects being blown up and the resulting pieces anre 100% interactable world objects.

I have played this personally, both by myself (SP so to speak), on a LAN and direct IP so I know what I am looking at. :) I would even say that CF is pushing the PPU to only about 60% - 70% as well and doesn't even come close to pushing one of my ATI 800XL GPU's at 1280x1024 res. To truely appreciate what it could do start thinking along the lines of destroyable buildings where you could then fully interact with the rubble. Possible while walking up a pile of rubble the dirt and smaller pieces shift and slide around as you step on them. Or fully interactive forests where all the plants move as you brush against them kind of thing.

Does all that extra crap on screen stress a GPU? Well sort of. It all depends on what that "crap" is. Is it just more particles? Is it more geometry ? Is it instanced? The list goes on. Adding more stuff on screen obviously will effect frame rate, but it matters what that stuff is and how it relates to everything else that will determine how it effects things. It's tough to keep a GPU fed with the right information at the right times so one part of it isn't sitting there waiting on another part.. ie: the geometry processor waitng for the shaders to finish with fill-rate tasks and vise versa.

-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see that I’m not the only one who was expecting more from this technology. What worries me is just how many will go out and buy this card? If it would have been used as environment interactivity instead of looks, then I think everybody would want to have one within a month. Thus solving the PPU vs non PPU players in MP.

But now, the PPU vs non PPU players in MP problem will persist for a longer period until a title uses this technology as Physics and not Graphics.

Especially considering that PC gamers have repeatedly stated that we prefer game play over graphics and to have destroyable buildings would add to the strategy aspect of the game. Non lethal explosion and smoke wont.

Still is a strange decision to use this improvement for special effect only.

Maybe they can make maps in the upcoming expansion pack that will have more physics and game influencing events? :huh: I think I just found me a new campaign cause :devil: Stand by ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...