quote: Right, so no-one's using Havok. I know HavokFX is a new iteration of the tech and all that, but I really can't see that people are less likely to use something as well-established as Havok in favour of Ageia's solution (whose name I've temporarily forgotten).
quote: And Ageia solution improves frame rates, yeah right...
quote: Havok Physics (on the CPU) is used for all game-play physics in both the multiplayer and single-player PC versions of the game. All persistent collidable objects in the game are simulated using Havok software technology running on the CPU.
quote: AGEIA PhysX had to be layered on top of Havok to extend the physics effects beyond that which could be achieved with CPU only. Imagine what you’ll see in tomorrow’s games in which all resources can be dedicated to PhysX without the hinderance of a software physics engine that runs on general purpose hardware.
quote: So is everyone forgetting about the Cell Factor issues where the game runs just as well (or should I say just as badly?) with or without a PPU?
quote: As far as I'm concerned, the AGEIA chip is currently nothing more than a waste of money for no performance gain in the best case, and a fairly large performance decrease for very little improvement in other areas.
quote: Maybe somebody else can expand on this, but it seems like physics cards should be able to work in conjuction with the new instancing feature of shader model 3.0, which according to Microsoft, "Allows many varied objects to be drawn with only a single command." As we've established, more physics means rendering more objects for the graphics card and therefore lower fps. But in some cases such as explosions, when you are dealing with a bunch of similar objects, couldn't instancing be used to draw the extra objects without slowing down performance much? Would this be left to game developers? Or could Ageia implement this in their API?
quote: CrossFire offers gamers a choice of physics configurations rather than being locked into symmetrical setups. This flexible architecture allows asymmetrical configurations as unlike cards can be used for physics processing in both 1+1 and 2+1 setups where one or two graphics cards are used for game rendering, while another card is used for physics. This open architecture accommodates all gamers, whether they want to use a high-end graphics card for physics, or a mainstream card.
quote: Also, as far as I know, Microsoft is working on a API for physics acceleration.. like they've done for 3D.. so PhysX/Havok may be competitors at the moment, but I bet it'll end up the same way as with OpenGL and DirectX
quote: You will be a member of the core engine team who will be primarily responsible for working closely with our Direct3D team, helping to define, develop and map optimized simulation and collision algorithms onto data structures that are optimized for the GPU.
quote: Graphics processors are designed for graphics. Physics is an entirely different environment. Why would you sacrifice graphics performance for questionable physics? You’ll be hard pressed to find game developers who don’t want to use all the graphics power they can get, thus leaving very little for anything else in that chip.
“Boundless Gaming” is actually enabled by AGEIA’s Gaming Power Triangle in which the PhysX processor adds true physics to the mix instead of leaving it to a repurposed graphics processor.
AGEIA further says that developers are announcing more and more games that support its PhysX product, while no one is announcing support for ATI's method. Steele also mentioned that while he's glad that ATI has agreed that physics is important, ATI is delivering a "questionable" solution to physics processing.
Steele also emphasized that PhysX is available now while ATI's solution is not.