• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

AGEIA PhysX Demonstration Video- WOW!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: C6FT7
LOL that is very poor accuracy.

The gravity is way off, bombs hitting the railing (at the end) would definitely cause damage and not be deflected.

Don't even get me started on the fact that the handgun was fired many times yet there was no recoil, the hammer didn't move and it never needed a clip change!

Fakopolis!

Those are parameters you can set you know... You can change the strength of gravity if you like...
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: w00t
I highly doubt a deagle does that to boxes and a plane.

i really wasnt impressed like all the peices would fall apart like a lego is stupid you would see more fire there would be a huge explosion think 9/11 did it look like that nope. than shooting a box with a bullet would nto break a peice like that it would put a hole thru the way bullets are is when they go into an object they expand as they are going out take this for example i shot a cactus with my dad's rifle there was a very small whole in the front but in the back there was a huge whole almost in a funnel shape.

That is all conditional. Yes a deagle aka .50 Desert Eagle can do that to wood, dependig on the type of wood and what kind of fasteners are used to hold it togheter. A .50 Cal "Deagle" can do that to a plane depending on how well the panels are fastened to the fuselodge or if some of the screws have been removed.

And to answer you 9-11 question that would depend on how much fuel is stored in the wings. Not every airplane crash results in a big fireball. But if this was suppost to, I suspect the anamators left it out to visualy demonstrate the destruction of the plane and the surrounding area. If there was a big fireball then that is all you would have seen and no pieces falling to the ground.

I also hypothesize the the anamation of the physics was slowed down for demonstration purposes to allow you to see the intricate movements of each piece being destroied.

Does anyone care to comment on this?
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
The hardware looks great, but if no one uses it or just simply put it as minor detail on their games, then it'll flop. When they release these cards, they better have some super-killer software to warrant the cost. Just like how Quake made people go out and buy a 3D-card, these guys need something truly impressive to convince people to get that hardware.
 

modedepe

Diamond Member
May 11, 2003
3,474
0
0
I'm pretty unimpressed. The airplane crashing into the bombs and stuff at the end was pretty good, but nothing else to get that excited over.

Originally posted by: Pariah
I'm going to guess the fall rate was intentionally slowed down so you could see what was happening, but all that really did was accentuate how unrealistic the modeling was.

Yep, agree totally.
 

Some1ne

Senior member
Apr 21, 2005
862
0
0
I found the localized damage one to be highly unimpressive. Realistic physics or not, a handgun's not going to take a plane apart like that, and besides, aside from the object disintegration, it looks like HL1 being rendered purely in software.

The large scale damage one was interesting, but at the same time not worth $250. Also, realistically, how often are you going to have situations like that in a game? The exception is games with playable vehicles, but it most other cases, that's the sort of thing that would be in a cutscene anyways, and as such it would be possible to just precompute all the physics data and get the same effect.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Originally posted by: Unkno
if nobody buys it, it would soon end up to nearly the same price for a sound card

You mean it may go from $250 to $399? ;)

Rip off! You are paying $150 more to get the same exact thing, creative makes me mad. I might pray that Ageia buys creative and incorporates the Audio DSP and Physics on to one card. That would be awesome. Later I would hope Sound, Physics, and Graphics could be put on one unit. But for the time being I would settle with Graphics and Hardware accelerated sound on the same x16 card.
 

obeseotron

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,910
0
0
Actually, I was wrong, it might even cost $299. It will sell some simply because the enthusiast community is much much larger than it was when the voodoo1 launched, but I haven't been shown anything that leads me to believe it can even handle liquids or clothing well. I don't think it will really be enough to have any impact on gameplay. I really really want good physics to come to games, but I just don't think it's going to happen with this particular product. It seems to me to be little more than aquisition-bait for nVidia and ATI. Even if PhysX is remotely successful, ATI and nVidia and have shown a strong ability to diversify (especially nvidia) and will beat it or buy it. If nVidia can design a faster chipset than Intel I really doubt they can't do a better physx processor than AGEIA. Beyond that including it on a graphics card would save a bunch of money on memory and the transistor cost probably wouldn't be a very big deal considering we're already dealing with 300m transistor+ chips and the amount of overlapping things like a memory controller that wouldn't need to be replicated.
 

Elcs

Diamond Member
Apr 27, 2002
6,278
6
81
I think that most people cant see exactly how the PPU will change how we see and play games now.

Once we get a good game demo, dev show or in-game demo then I think more people will be convinced.

Also, the thing I hate about these threads is everyone whines about "Oh its going to be $250!!! Not worth it, Im not going to buy it". Decide when it comes out rather than burying the hatchet into something NEW.

Im not sure whether I'll actually have the money to buy one when the time comes or actually be that interested in PC games at that time. Not so sure what the PPU will offer non-FPS games at the moment.

I wish people would stay open minded about new technology, even if they dont end up investing in it for one reason or another... at least give it a chance.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
I want a PPU if its the only way to get great physics, but 299 is horsesh it


I have no real idea but I can just see the business meeting:

"What should we charge for the PPU?"


"At least 200. Look what enthusiasts are paying for parts these days. 600 for a vid card, 200 for a sound card, 200 for a mobo."


"Let's make it 299"
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
19,936
7,041
136
Introduced @ $250 going for $200 in Q1'06, is what I suspect. Nobody will buy it until 1-3 PPU supported killer games has been released.
 

Geomagick

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,265
0
76
If it can be offered for a similar price to a good soundcard I think it could do quite well.

However that is very much dependent on whether any games will support it. I would like it to succeed but unless it gets the support it deserves then I don't think it will.
 

linkinpark342

Member
Aug 9, 2005
168
0
0
Meh, looks okay, not sure if i'd shell out $250. The scene where the plane crashes through the pile of stuff looks very nice, if game devs could do stuff like that :).
But does anyone else see a problem with a desert eagle tearing that plane apart? It just seems to throw the whole thing off for me. P.S. Does this look like the source engine to anyone else or is this just me being the hyperactive CS player that I am...

*becomes not lazy, reads second page, and recants the part that i wrote about the deagle being too powerful*
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
I can see how this card can be a wild success if they make a killer flight simulator or racing sim. With well coded sim, you can have incredibly accurate damage models (the part where the hover plane was being shot apart) and changing movement characteristic from the damage.
 

yuchai

Senior member
Aug 24, 2004
980
2
76
I think the technology adds value, but not enough that it can be brought to the end-user as a stand alone product in a cost effective manner. IMO It really should be integrated into the video card as an extra feature.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
$299! Most likely they could sell these for $99-125 and still make a decent profit. What I do not understand is why Ageia is marketing this to the Game community and not trying to sell this to the same group that Uses Wildcat's, Quadro's, and FireGL parts? The Physx processor might be the ideal tool for scientists and engineers. And if marketed to engineers they could get away with charging $1000 for each processor, just like nVIDIA does.
 

Soccerman06

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,830
5
81
They are making different price cards. Aegis rep said on G4 that there will be $100-$300 versions for people to buy, not just one expensive card.

Edit: remember the PPU is not a graphics card, it doesnt make things look better, it calculates how objects move in and interact with each other.
 

Googer

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
12,576
7
81
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
They are making different price cards. Aegis rep said on G4 that there will be $100-$300 versions for people to buy, not just one expensive card.

Thats just great.

I was hoping they would produce just one version of this card and avoid and save us all a ton of headache and confusion. Now that they are taking the Creative Labs Approach to selling, I say: "Die in a Fire Ageia"!
 

rise

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2004
9,116
46
91
i won't spend 250 on this but if it falls where i think it will, 75-125 then i'd bite.

as chadder said, they're already looking at using x1300 in crossfire as a ppu and i'm sure nv will be right behind them if they're not already.

or nv will snatch up the tech and bundle it - mobo, vga and ppu :p