Peace Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Conclusion Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the game with which we tested and the only available game with PhysX support, is not a very good advertisement for Ageia's new physics accelerator technology. Presently, there are simply too many irregularities among the physics effects. These problems are especially apparent in network games when players that don't have the PhysX card are within visual range - a scenario that will likely occur often during online play... Link to full article with lots of screenies and clips etc here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/19/can_ageia/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulater Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 basically what pc gamer said about it. not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zantar45 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) physic stuff is the kind of thing that player say, Wow cool. Then turn it off because it give them a disadvantage over those who don't have "realistic" physic activated... Just think of Half-Life 2 single player, the first time you play it, great physic puzzle. The second time, cool physic stuff The third time, hmm, i wish i could skip those annoying pointless physic puzzle that i already did 2 time before. The fourth time, awww, dam physic stuff really ruin the pace of the game. The fift time, I give up thats soo annoying, NEXT GAME. The sixth time, Hmm i had forgot all those physic stuff.... maybe i will play it an other time The seventh time, what seventh time? I think the only thing player really want is a belivable physic no need to have a super hyper realistic physic, thats just a game. Edited June 19, 2006 by Attila Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 In other words, Great for Single player, but not for multi online play as others see it differently from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyHalfMexican Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 (edited) Yeah, I think it should be for a single player only experience. Use a different physics engine for MP, one thats not so demanding. Or just do away with most phsyics. Atleast until we see if Phsyx will even prevail, or if it will be replaced by something better. So far, I dont think GRAW is a good representation of what the Phsyx card can do, only one game shows what it's possible of. And that's Cell Factor. The gameplay isn't my kind of stuff either (CF). So I'm not going out and putting out $300 to get some extra particles in an explosion for GRAW. Just not worth it. Edited June 19, 2006 by SillyHalfMexican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semperfi_bohica Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 they don't need to worry about different effects with Mutliplayers because there are no Multiplayers currently, unless you count the 100 or so online presently... Grin turn my MP frown upside down!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 they don't need to worry about different effects with Mutliplayers because there are no Multiplayers currently, unless you count the 100 or so online presently... Grin turn my MP frown upside down!!! Which is more the GR1 had on any given night for the last year You forgot that part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyHalfMexican Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Erm, rocoafz, how long has GR1 been out though? lol... It is quite sad for a game like this to have not many players at all. But oh well, atleast 90% of them aren't complete noobs that play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CkZWarlord Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 well, what I read from the article, I still can't tell wether the "faulty" physics are due to the card/driver or due to the game. Even before I read the specs and this article, it was obvious that it isn't worth $300,-- .... who is going to pay $300 for something you don't need to play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge_Recluse Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 well, what I read from the article, I still can't tell wether the "faulty" physics are due to the card/driver or due to the game. Even before I read the specs and this article, it was obvious that it isn't worth $300,-- .... who is going to pay $300 for something you don't need to play? After reading the article I was confused as well. I agree its not worth adding to our systems just yet. The part about the car and tires sinking into the ground made it sound like the PPU was not doing its job. And the only thing it was actually doing was adding more debris in the game instead of actual physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannik Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 who is going to pay $300 for something you don't need to play? It was really only a few years ago that people were saying the same thing about a dedicated hardware 3d render card, like the 3dfx Voodoo1. Many people thought it was a gimmick, but once the game developers started to latch onto the new possibilities it presented, well, how many games are released nowadays that don't have a (fairly) hefty 3d renderer requirement? Sure, the PPU is a gimmick now, but if it is required (or at least heavily encouraged) in a major release (sorry, GRIN, but it appears your implementation only touched the surface of the technology) you'll be off the the store in a flash to get yourself one. By then, though, I would expect the PPU will have been integrated into the next-gen video cards, instead of being a standalone. Sort of like the Voodoo2 integrated 2D with 3D, suddenly making it a lot more attractive to the average gamer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CkZWarlord Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I guess we will never know Recluse, as we aren't familiar with how the drivers of the PPU interface with the enviroment (IE: Diesel). I suppose through APIs. But still, even if the interfacing was flawless, the sinking might as well be caused by Diesel and not by the PPU. Perhaps it is caused by the PPU being designed with Matrox gfx cards in mind. But even the comment about how it just adds extra debris to the screen... is that caused by the PPU or that just the way GR:AW was programmed? Worthless article come to think of it... proves nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge_Recluse Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Worthless article come to think of it... proves nothing. Same exact thought I had when I was done reading it. I learned nothing.........except for the fact not to buy one till they are better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
}PW{ Postal Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Well, I have one but i didnt buy it, it was a gift. I will say this, Graw doesnt really show off the physx card at all. I see more sparks when shooting metal and more debris but thats about it. Now..Cellfactor is a whole other world. That game really utilizes the physx card but thats only one game so far. Well that i have played anyways. There are more coming but who knows how they will do. I think in the future this will be great but its way too early to tell for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.