Would it make sense to buy one of those fancy physics card or is it better to wait like a year or two until it's settled in and the technology is more tested?
Physics card
- Thread starter victor
- Start date
It would make no sense at all. I predict a spectacular market failure of the "physics cards" and pity a fool who would invest in them.
In the future, physics acceleration will be done on GPU, not on a dedicated chip. Havok realise this, and Havok FX is designed to execute on GPU and utilize Shader Model 3.0. That should be a cue, seeing as Havok develop *the* most popular physics middleware solutions. Even more importantly, Microsoft are working on their own physics middleware, DirectX Physics, and will release it as part of DirectX 10. DirectX Physics will also be designed to employ the GPU and Shader Model 3.0 and is bound to become the leading solution for game physics.
AGEIA PhysX, which I presume you are talking about, does *not* implement Shader Model 3.0, which means it is incompatible with both Havok FX and DirectX Physics, which means it is bound to remain a completely useless piece of hardware. I strongly recommend against investing in it, because you might as well throw your $300 out the window.
In the future, physics acceleration will be done on GPU, not on a dedicated chip. Havok realise this, and Havok FX is designed to execute on GPU and utilize Shader Model 3.0. That should be a cue, seeing as Havok develop *the* most popular physics middleware solutions. Even more importantly, Microsoft are working on their own physics middleware, DirectX Physics, and will release it as part of DirectX 10. DirectX Physics will also be designed to employ the GPU and Shader Model 3.0 and is bound to become the leading solution for game physics.
AGEIA PhysX, which I presume you are talking about, does *not* implement Shader Model 3.0, which means it is incompatible with both Havok FX and DirectX Physics, which means it is bound to remain a completely useless piece of hardware. I strongly recommend against investing in it, because you might as well throw your $300 out the window.
calculon000
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I have to agree with Ratty. Do you think 15 years from now they are going to have a separate card for ever aspect of graphics?
“I've got a physics card, and a shader card, and a main GPU, and a card for transparency…”
“I've got a physics card, and a shader card, and a main GPU, and a card for transparency…”
they did say that too when the 3d/graphics cards came out.[i said:
but yes, i agree. in it's current form it's damn near useless.[i said:
how many games support that thing anyway? and i'm talking about actually enhancing gameplay, not 'compatible with'-crap where you cant see the difference.
whether the physics card shall succeed as a seperate identity, we'll have to see. but buying one now is just a waste of money...
SuAside said:
yes, exactly. It's a neat idea but it's too soon to see an practical use. It would be useless for anything but games and physics simulations basicly, and at this point the technology isn't really nessesary so you won't see it being used for a while if at all (esp. now that dual core processers are catching on)
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
Pajari said:
Exactly. The phsyic effect in GRAW is only a gimmick IMO. I wish you can blow off the enemy's limb with grenade though (like Soldier of Fortune
)The physics effects in GRAW aren't even complete, since (aside from a few select props) nothing is destructible. If we had buildings toppling over and cars being smashed with huge chunks of rebar and concrete, hell yeah we'd need a card for it. And I'd buy it if that was actually in the game.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I just blew someone the fuck up with a frag and they sailed through the air gracefully. I want GORE and BONE CHUNKS GRAAAHHHH
EDIT: Oh yeah, I just blew someone the fuck up with a frag and they sailed through the air gracefully. I want GORE and BONE CHUNKS GRAAAHHHH