Forums | MacLife

ut2k7's graphical orgy be damned, i want ageia's hardware tied into that game.

Apologies for the long quote, but I feel that it is the most important part of the article.

PC Perspective wrote:

The GPU had a couple of advantages to help in its transition that the PPU doesn't have.  First, the 3D graphics processing unit had a very good stepping stone to work with in the form of an already existing graphics card.  2D video cards already existed, and the jump to 3D video cards was a small one that simply meant users wanting to get a 3D GPU would simply buy a new video card to replace their current one, or more likely, wait until their older 2D card was outdated and then when buying a new one, make sure to get one with 3D acceleration.  This meant that the GPU transition was going to happen eventually to everyone, and when that did occur, developers knew that PC gamers all had to have the technology in their machines, and could stop holding back their games by keeping support for CPU-based graphics.

This is NOT the case with AGEIA and their PhysX processor.  There are no current PPU in anyone's system that I know of, so upgrading to an AGEIA PPU isn't really on the table.  AGEIA is instead attempting to add an entirely new genre of card into your PC.

The other main disadvantage that the AGEIA PhysX PPU has is that in order for games to use physics in a way to drastically affect gameplay, they have to be able to write ONLY for the physics model of a PPU card.  On the other hand, in order for finicky gamers to buy a PPU card, they are going to want to see games that take full advantage of the physics processor.  It brings about a "chicken or egg" debate on who will be the ones to bite the bullet and spend the money first: a gamer on a PPU card or a developer on PPU card development.  Why is this a requirement?  Simply put, developers can't dramatically change gameplay in a game engine utilizing a PPU in a way that is not possible to also do on a CPU-based physics engine without alienating a HUGE portion of their market.

That means that what current game engines, and those for the immediate future, that have implemented support for the PhysX processor with the inclusion and use of the NovodeX API are merely going to see game "fluff" added to systems with a PPU in them.  In this case, I mean "fluff" in the sense of new effects and interactions that may be very, very cool, but won't be required to finish or play the game.  There won't be any game coming out that is going to require you to blow apart a building full of completely interactive crates (that wouldn't be possible for a CPU to handle) to find a key to move on to the next level.  Instead you might see some added mist into a jungle portion of a game that instead of being stagnate and permanent, might move when you or another character walks through it.

What is it going to take for the industry to make the move to requiring a PPU to play a PC game?  It's hard to tell, but there are several possibilities.  First, a BIG name developer like id or Epic could require a PPU in a new engine they are creating.  This would force gamers wanting to take part in those games to take the plunge in and buy a physics processor card.  But any developer is unlikely to do this as they would be taking a move that would cut out a very big portion of the market, and thereby their game sales.  Another option might be to bundle a PPU-enabled game and card together in a way that makes the option seem more appealing to gamers.  Again, this would have to be a big name title from a very big name game company to work at all.  Finally, and our most likely option, we'll have to wait several years for PPUs to come down in price and for developers to find enough neat "tricks" that gamers want to have a PPU in their system for the added "fluff".  Then developers can fully utilize a PhysX processor for in game physics and real world interaction.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=14 … &pid=3


My only problem with what he's saying is that "new effects and interactions that may be very, very cool, but won't be required to finish or play the game" includes the progression of video cards as well.

Hey you, gimme back my nick !  Why you youngens come around here and cause all this ruckus

The Cynic wrote:

Topic.

What about it ?

Perhaps progress will come if the physics processor could be integrated with the graphics card. This would make sense and speed up the penetration into the mainstream.

I wrote:

Also, upgrades could become majorly restricted by the progress of PPU or GPU tech.

Just as to not confuse anyone about this,
Imagine you are in a situation where you want to make a decently high-end gaming computer with nice video card, and a ppu as well.  Here are your options:

(all realism to the prices aside, the models are just for performance ideas)

$350 7800GTX (no integrated ppu)
$250 PhysX 1 (first gen performance)
-or-
$600 7800GTX/PhysX1 combo card

Okay?

_____________________________________________________________________
Imagine you got the two separately.

A few months pass by, and AGEIA decides to release the PhysX 2 (second gen performance) at $300.  Now, it can handle a stupidly large amount of interacting objects, say, 100,000.  You reaaaaly want it.

So you get the PhysX2, and it replaces your PhysX1.  All is well, and you enjoy fully (to the foundation and beyond) destructable buildings, etc.  About half a year passes (all along, you are enjoying your fancy physics simulations) before nV releases the 8800GTX 1GB.  So you get that, when it comes out, and enjoy (un)real graphics.
_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________
This time, imagine you got the combo card.

A few months pass by, and AGEIA decides to release the PhysX2 (second gen performance) at $300.  Now, it can handle a stupidly large amount of interacting objects, say, 100,000.  You reaaaaly want it.

But wait, your PhysX1 chip is piggybacked on your 7800GTX, and you can't just replace the ppu element of it.  = you.  Unless you are richie-rich, you probably aren't going to upgrade one part, leaving it's counterpart behind.  So about half a year passes (all along, you are waiting as your computer becomes more and more outdated) before nV releases the 8800GTX 1GB.  So you being the combo-liking person that you are, finally gets the 8800GTX 1GB/PhysX2 card.
_____________________________________________________________________




The problem with that last situation is that AGEIA's sales stay at a standstill when they release a new standalone PhysX until nV/ATi release a new card that can be combined with it.

The first situation assumes that there will be a certain level of demand for the ppu when it is released.  Kinda bad assumption, some might think.  The second situation, however, assumes this as well.

Now that I've written entirely too much to read in one sitting, I'll just end this post now.

People have to buy the product for it to become cheap(er).

That or AGEIA can take über losses.

I thought this was a brainstorm discussion, not an argument.
Anyhoo,


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by

The graphics chip itself could be split into a geometric processor and a pixel renderer, each being seperately upgradeable.

I mean, at that point, why not just sell the PhysX card with a wide assortment of other high-end video cards (bundles, not integrated hardware)?

There could be a way to allow a "processor upgrade" for that conceptual p/gpu, but I really don't know how that would be done.

Dude, the PM system exists for a reason.

Ran across this with a google on physics processors

Graphics Processors Capable of Physics Processing – ATI. GPUs Will Process Physics, ATI Says

Something like this would solve the Chicken or Egg problem.

Just to make sure, you all have seen AGEIA's video demos, right?


Interesting finds:  see second question in interview.
:spacespacespace:@CES, BFG = major AGEIA partner
:spacespacespace:BFG's on-site teaser flash
:spacespacespace:recent interview with AGEIA.

edit: links


It seems we are really on the cusp of seeing some real hardware.

Last edited by The Cynic (2006-03-13 2:29 pm)

Please don't bother trolling if you aren't going to contribute to the thread.  The point of all these games is to simulate reality.  This is the next step, so why are you complaining?

I also think UT still looks good from an age standpoint.

(emphasis mine)

No.

It is just extra fluff that adds nothing

There's a stack of iron |-| bars above you, held up by 4 wires.  I shoot one or two, and they all come cascading down... onto you.  Score one for me.  That walkway is also blocked now, unless someone has the proper ordinance to "relocate" it.

As for what you said, no games need fancier graphics.  You don't need three meals a day.  We don't need games at all.  It isn't a need, it's a want.

All in all, I think you say it best:

socamx wrote:

I'm old fashoned

Well said, well said.