any consideration to PhysiX factor?

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Pantalaimon-

You don't address the catch-22 that MS is in right now, that is what I was interested in. Hamstring the 360 to help the PC side or vice versa? I am not that one dictating the terms of the current situation, but it is the reality they face. Which way do you think they are better off going? Prop up the PC side now, give Sony a chance to reclaim the second spot and lose potential mindshare in the console market hence negating some of the advantages they have, or doing maintaining their current inaction and allowing nV to take control of PC physics until they are in a position to leverage their technologies better(when they launch their next generation of hardware). I'm not saying anything in particular will happen, just looking at the situation for what it is.

Why do you think that MS has to choose only one or the other? The Xbox360 is leading the PS3 in sales of hardware and software no matter that the PS3 might have an edge in technical specs as I understand, and its a large lead enough that some doubt the PS3 would be able to catch up anymore before the it's time for the next gen consoles.

I believe that the Xbox and PC platform for MS does have some inter-dependencies, and I think DirectX with physics added can be it. So if they prop up that, and even if it affects mainly the PC side, it can help the Xbox360 side in a fast enough time as well, if the new physics stuff is compatible to the console as well. Actually that might even give them even more incentive to accelerate the development and implementation of physics into DirectX. I know that there's many ifs, but when it comes to MS, you really can't underestimate the length they will go to to gain an edge when they put their minds to it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well then, it's a good gosh darn thing that faster cards come out quite frequently. Isn't that just darling?

That means absolutely jack in regard to buying a card today.

You don't generally pay for your videocards though, do you Keys?

But you said "going forward".

"And going forward it is likely that newer games will need even faster cards to make PhysX support useful."

This was answered. Then you respond with the above. Dredd just asked you to look at PhysX benchmarks around the net using a 9800GTX and even 8800GT's. They did very well. And that is not even "today", those cards were released a long while ago. You can see 9800GTX benchmarks in the stickied PhysX thread in this very forum.

I looked at the Cryostasis benchmarks and framerates dipping well into the 20's don't look like anything promising to go forward from. What exactly are you expecting me to see?

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
No, I haven't purchased a graphics card since right before the focus group. The last two GPU's I purchased right before the group, was an 8800GTS512 and an 8600GT. But why did you ask? You knew that I didn't, didn't you?

I was fairly sure, but then when I made a previous post suggesting as much, you acted like you didn't understand what I was talking about.

Regardless, I asked because I'm hopping you might come to grips with the fact that not having to pay for the hardware in question alters your perspective on such matters.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Anyway, I'm fairly sure everyone here understands that hardware accelerated physics is here to stay, but none of us can predict whether or not PhysX will end up like Glide.

I honestly think nVidia in their wildest dreams couldn't hope PhysX will turn out as well as Glide did for 3Dfx.

I didn't' say "turn out". Yes Nvidia would be quite fortunate to have PhysX dominate as Glide did, but my point is to how it may wind up coming to an end.

And all is good here, I hope the same for you. Just think, while we have been talking about Glide and such here for years, many of the kids around now don't even know what it even was.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well then, it's a good gosh darn thing that faster cards come out quite frequently. Isn't that just darling?

That means absolutely jack in regard to buying a card today.

You don't generally pay for your videocards though, do you Keys?

But you said "going forward".

"And going forward it is likely that newer games will need even faster cards to make PhysX support useful."

This was answered. Then you respond with the above. Dredd just asked you to look at PhysX benchmarks around the net using a 9800GTX and even 8800GT's. They did very well. And that is not even "today", those cards were released a long while ago. You can see 9800GTX benchmarks in the stickied PhysX thread in this very forum.

I looked at the Cryostasis benchmarks and framerates dipping well into the 20's don't look like anything promising to go forward from. What exactly are you expecting me to see?

In the 20's on a 8800GT right? It's a good thing we have faster cards nowadays. Don't forget, Cryostasis is not only a PhysX title, but it also looks to be pretty graphically intensive as well. Might be hard on video cards even if there weren't any PhysX content. I have a rig here with a 9800GTX+ in it with a C2D 2.13GHz in it. I'll run Cryostasis and tell you what I'm getting. Give me a few on that.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
No, I haven't purchased a graphics card since right before the focus group. The last two GPU's I purchased right before the group, was an 8800GTS512 and an 8600GT. But why did you ask? You knew that I didn't, didn't you?

I was fairly sure, but then when I made a previous post suggesting as much, you acted like you didn't understand what I was talking about.

Regardless, I asked because I'm hopping you might come to grips with the fact that not having to pay for the hardware in question alters your perspective on such matters.

While it is really great that I get the cards for free, it does not change what the cards are or what they are capable of. That is something you need to come to grips with. The cards are not any faster or slower because they are free. Any benchmarks I release are on the money to the cards capabilities. If by altering my perspective, you mean that I am hypnotized into thinking that a minimum framerate of 25 automagically looks like 35, you'd be barking up the wrong tree dude. And I never say that any of these cards are capable of doing something that they can't. And I'll keep reminding you of this as long as you keep harping on the fact that I receive these cards for free. So, feel free. Nothing to hide here.

Ok, so I need to test Cryostasis on the 9800GTX+ . But before I go, I'll need the exact same settings you used. So give them up when you get the chance.




[/quote]

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nRollo

I can't even believe you'd toss that out there. Somehow I don't think Carmack quite had the workstation market in mind when he made GLQuake BFG10K.

I might reconsider if you could use Google and find a quote of any game developer ever saying they coded anything to get in on the workstation market.

Not to mention, IIRC, workstation cards of the time could barely run GLQuake.

None of that matters. The point is he coded the game for OpenGL - the open standard - not Glide, the proprietary (and at the time dominant) standard. Why do you think that is?

It?s actually quite ironic that GLQuake is one of the worst possible examples you could have picked to back your claims.

Here's a partial list of titles existing and upcoming
Here's another

And now narrow down that list to meet the three criteria posted earlier. Thanks.

For me, I'm all for new tech,

Uh-huh, how about them shiny pipes? :roll:

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: nRollo

I can't even believe you'd toss that out there. Somehow I don't think Carmack quite had the workstation market in mind when he made GLQuake BFG10K.

I might reconsider if you could use Google and find a quote of any game developer ever saying they coded anything to get in on the workstation market.

Not to mention, IIRC, workstation cards of the time could barely run GLQuake.

None of that matters. The point is he coded the game for OpenGL - the open standard - not Glide, the proprietary (and at the time dominant) standard. Why do you think that is?

It?s actually quite ironic that GLQuake is one of the worst possible examples you could have picked to back your claims.

Here's a partial list of titles existing and upcoming
Here's another

And now narrow down that list to meet the three criteria posted earlier. Thanks.

For me, I'm all for new tech,

Uh-huh, how about them shiny pipes? :roll:

BFG10K, you may not be able to believe this, but the gaming industry doesn't revolve around your concepts of what is "proper".

So I'm not going to try to meet your arbitrary criteria, because I realize it's pointless to argue with you. (you'll never change an opinion, so why should I try?)

You keep on thinking everyone in the world is still playing Serious Sam1 on their CRT ol' buddy.

I'll keep enjoying the latest tech with the other enthusiasts who want the latest and greatest.

Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes. Happy New Year!

Shoot me your PayPal in a PM if you like, I'll send you $10 USD tonight to buy a shot of the good stuff to ring in 2009.

I have a feeling it's going to start out with a bang for gamers! Good times.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Really? How many PS2.0 games were hitting when the R9700Pro launched? Considering it wasn't a standard for a while after that, I'd say it took some time.

Again PS 2.0 was an open platform standard supported by both Direct3D and later OpenGL, and was supported by multiple vendors. Anything in that position will invariably be adopted That and the likes of ATi?s Smartshader effects could be forced into legacy games to provide the likes of simulated bloom and HDR.

32bit color couldn't be forced on in the overwhelming majority of games back when parts first started taking advantage of it.

Any game that used the desktop color depth (most OpenGL games) could be forced in 32 bit mode. Additionally, since ATi's AA at the time didn't work in 16 bit games, they started forcing some titles into 32 bit mode like System Shock 2. On top of this, many drivers had options to force higher Z buffer depths into 16 bit games.

Even the original GLQuake was designed as a wrapper aimed at Glide.

Not from Carmack's side it wasn?t. From Carmack's side it was developed to require an OpenGL ICD which is why it worked on workstation cards. 3dfx was the one that implemented a mini-GL wrapper tied to Glide because that's all they could manage.

So the question is if nVidia will completely and utterly dominate the gaming market for the next several years before someone else wisens up? That is what you guys are putting forth as the downside to PhysX

No, the question is if PhysX will be supplanted by open standards that work with multiple IHVs.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Uh-huh, how about them shiny pipes? :roll:

That statement applies to AA/AF, high resolutions, advanced textures and shadows, really anything beyond what integrated graphics will give you.

You really wasted your money on buying a video card.

PhysX will add more realism to games than anything that has come out in recent years. Even Havok is better than nothing. Game physics is the next great step in gaming.

I'm just glad I can get in on the ground floor for free. So far what NVIDIA has provided in such a short while has been great. I would be happy if AMD/Intel could put up at least half as much. So far nothing.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok Snowman, I just ran Cryostasis at the highest possible settings I can muster with this LCDTV. 1920x1080, all settings maxxed, DX10, sound on.

Minimum 14.8 (this seems to be due to hard drive hitching. I have a feeling 512MB may be a factor.
Average 25
Maximum 61

I ran this on the Phenom system in my sig except the Phenom is no longer overclocked (couldn't get it stable) and is at the stock 2.2GHz. and a single 9800GTX+.

I went full tilt when I should have been trying 1680x1050 with this level of card and CPU.

I will give 16x10 a go and 14x9. I'll let you know.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
No, the question is if PhysX will be supplanted by open standards that work with multiple IHVs.

Of course it would still be preferable to own a NVIDIA card if that happened, because you'd have use of all the proprietary PhysX content, and the open standard content as well.

Furthermore, you're talking about stuff that won't be happening in 2009.

How come? DX11 won't launch till the end of 2009, we don't know if devs will prefer it's physics to PhysX, we don't know how long it will take them to implement, or what it will offer when they do.

What if devs prefer the assistance of TWIMTBP program to MS DX11 support?

All we have is you saying the one existing hardware physics acceleration in existence, that has the support of the biggest devs and several games launching this year, might at some point in the future be supplanted.

Do you really think people should buy video cards today on a guess BFG? What if it turns out NVIDIA shader design proves more powerful at DX11 physics?

Personally I think it's fairly irrelevant whose shaders run DX11 physics better, because DX features are traditionally slow to take off, and even if they weren't we're talking 2010 anyway for DX11 feature games most likely.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yes Nvidia would be quite fortunate to have PhysX dominate as Glide did, but my point is to how it may wind up coming to an end.

Big difference is nVidia is offering it to other IHVs, if 3Dfx had done the same there is a good chance it would have kept them afloat for several more years. I'm sure Rendition and S3 would have signed up given their alternatives.

And all is good here, I hope the same for you. Just think, while we have been talking about Glide and such here for years, many of the kids around now don't even know what it even was.

All is well here thanks Yeah, I think we may be predating BFG too, thought he was closer to our age, but I guess I am off on that one(either that, or maybe he wasn't into PC games in the mid 90s).

Not from Carmack's side it wasn?t. From Carmack's side it was developed to require an OpenGL ICD which is why it worked on workstation cards.

He patched it that way, the original version of GLQuake would ONLY run on a board that supported Glide. My copy that I have on CD is the original GLQuake- I still get the missing 3dfxgl error until I modify the file structure or patch the game. Carmack very much developed GLQuake from the beginning for Glide based parts and then added in open standard support later(which honestly was the smart thing to do at the time given the realities of the market). I had several *real* OpenGL workstation cards at the time and non of them would run GLQuake by default when it first shipped- my 3Dfx parts did without issue though.

Again PS 2.0 was an open platform standard supported by both Direct3D and later OpenGL, and was supported by multiple vendors.

Interesting viewpoint- when the R9700Pro shipped D3D didn't support anything close to PS 2.0 and OpenGL hasn't had core support for that level of shaders until a few weeks ago(literally). OGL 3.0 is the first version that natively supports that level of shader functionality being exposed to all vendors. Now yes, you could say that vendors were free to use their own proprietary extensions which is very valid- how is PhysX really any different then that?

Any game that used the desktop color depth (most OpenGL games) could be forced in 32 bit mode. Additionally, since ATi's AA at the time didn't work in 16 bit games, they started forcing some titles into 32 bit mode like System Shock 2. On top of this, many drivers had options to force higher Z buffer depths into 16 bit games.

ATi broke a ton of games doing this, I was there, I remember the huge debacle. OpenGL games tended to work without issue as it was a FAR more robust API- most games during that time era were Glide/D3D native, and they regularly broke if you forced them out of their native color depth.

No, the question is if PhysX will be supplanted by open standards that work with multiple IHVs.

I don't the question is 'if' at all, but when. If it is within the next six months, it will simply be another example of nV forcing MS to get on the ball. If it is in three years then we are likely to see PhysX hang around for quite some time.

Pantalaimon-

Why do you think that MS has to choose only one or the other? The Xbox360 is leading the PS3 in sales of hardware and software no matter that the PS3 might have an edge in technical specs as I understand, and its a large lead enough that some doubt the PS3 would be able to catch up anymore before the it's time for the next gen consoles.

I believe that the Xbox and PC platform for MS does have some inter-dependencies, and I think DirectX with physics added can be it. So if they prop up that, and even if it affects mainly the PC side, it can help the Xbox360 side in a fast enough time as well, if the new physics stuff is compatible to the console as well. Actually that might even give them even more incentive to accelerate the development and implementation of physics into DirectX. I know that there's many ifs, but when it comes to MS, you really can't underestimate the length they will go to to gain an edge when they put their minds to it.

A few things- one is that MS on a global basis has less then 8Million unit lead over the PS3 right now. To put that in perspective, Nintendo will sell more Wii's then that in the quarter we are currently in. Their lead isn't in the league of being insurmountable- in fact for time on market the PS3 is still ahead of the 360. MS does very much need to keep in mind where they are at in terms of the overall marketplace.

As far as physics SDK helping out the 360- it lacks the power to handle it. The PS3 doesn't have it in their GPU either- but the CPU that was so heavily bashed in the PS3 handles one thing very well(well, two, but vertex calcs are done by dedicated hardware anyway ) and that is physics. I linked an article previously discussing the technical details- Cell is far closer to a PPU then nV and ATi's GPUs are to each other.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: nRollo



Do you really think people should buy video cards today on a guess BFG? What if it turns out NVIDIA shader design proves more powerful at DX11 physics?

Then you will have time to get a nVidia card that supports DX11?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon

Why do you think that MS has to choose only one or the other? The Xbox360 is leading the PS3 in sales of hardware and software no matter that the PS3 might have an edge in technical specs as I understand, and its a large lead enough that some doubt the PS3 would be able to catch up anymore before the it's time for the next gen consoles.

This is mainly due to an early launch and lower price. The PS3 actually sold as many units in its first year as the 360. So bragging about sales with a year lead is hardly any sort of an accomplishment. Especially with Nintendo so far in first place. Hell the PS2 has been outselling the 360 even in recent quarters.

Not to mention that rush to market cost them dearly with multiple hardware failures.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
In the 20's on a 8800GT right?

And the 9800GTX+.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's a good thing we have faster cards nowadays.

Why? Do you have one you'd like to give away?

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
While it is really great that I get the cards for free, it does not change what the cards are or what they are capable of. That is something you need to come to grips with.

You could stand to get a grip and then try rereading what I've said here as I've never suggested anything of the sort.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

Originally posted by: nRollo



Do you really think people should buy video cards today on a guess BFG? What if it turns out NVIDIA shader design proves more powerful at DX11 physics?

Then you will have time to get a nVidia card that supports DX11?

My point was that all of BFGs points about upcoming physics standards are largely irrelevant because in the year 2009 there likely won't be any other hardware accelerated physics standards.

By the time they might be released in 2010 the current NVIDIA cards might prove the better choice, and either will likely be ready for upgrade.

So the only physics that really need be considered if one cares about physics is PhysX.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Now imagine if it was hardware accelerated and every leaf was calculated for and every droplet of water or flury of snow was calculated for and in real time, dynamically changed depending on your interaction with it. So you could brush a bush and scrape leaves off and watch them flutter in the wind individually modeled, perhaps landing in a pool of water and every ripple and wave reacted realisticly and in real time.

I seriously doubt we'll get that much realism with current hardware and games. If you had to calculate physics for so many particles and objects in the game you might run out of horsepower to do the rendering. That Cryostasis demo is just that...a demo...you don't know for sure what effects will be implemented everywhere. Developers can tout loads of features before launching a game to get the hype rolling (anyone that remembers the prerelease tech videos of Oblivion compared to the released game will know what I'm talking about).

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think with current hardware and games we'll see much more than some eye candy here and there.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
In the 20's on a 8800GT right?

And the 9800GTX+.

Resolutions and settings please? And are you having any hitching in the Cryostasis demo?

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's a good thing we have faster cards nowadays.

Why? Do you have one you'd like to give away?

No, but you could visit newegg or a similar online reseller if you need a better card.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
While it is really great that I get the cards for free, it does not change what the cards are or what they are capable of. That is something you need to come to grips with.

You could stand to get a grip and then try rereading what I've said here as I've never suggested anything of the sort.

Did I misunderstand what you meant then? If so, make it clearer for me. For us all.
What else could you have meant by "altered perspective"? Others on this forum feel as exactly enthusiastic about PhysX as do I. Are their perspectives altered as well? Explain.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Now imagine if it was hardware accelerated and every leaf was calculated for and every droplet of water or flury of snow was calculated for and in real time, dynamically changed depending on your interaction with it. So you could brush a bush and scrape leaves off and watch them flutter in the wind individually modeled, perhaps landing in a pool of water and every ripple and wave reacted realisticly and in real time.

I seriously doubt we'll get that much realism with current hardware and games. If you had to calculate physics for so many particles and objects in the game you might run out of horsepower to do the rendering. That Cryostasis demo is just that...a demo...you don't know for sure what effects will be implemented everywhere. Developers can tout loads of features before launching a game to get the hype rolling (anyone that remembers the prerelease tech videos of Oblivion compared to the released game will know what I'm talking about).

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think with current hardware and games we'll see much more than some eye candy here and there.

What demo have you seen that didn't have it's features implemented in the full version of the game when released?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
What demo have you seen that didn't have it's features implemented in the full version of the game when released?

Read my post I've said it there. They were tech videos that were shown prior to game release. There was a comparison video on youtube showing the Oblivion tech demo and then the release game side by side when it first came out but I can't find it anymore. I think with mods the game looked very good but I remember being very disappointed with it once it came out after watching the tech video....but...it was understandable though...cards of the time wouldn't have been able to run all that tech at decent framerates (heck even the release game didn't perform extremely well IIRC).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Resolutions and settings please?

I was refering to the benchmarks I looked at when Rollo posted a link earlier in this thread. 1600x1200 with max settings I belive, from Firingsquad.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And are you having any hitching in the Cryostasis demo?

Is there a gameplay demo? I've never bothered to get the tech demo. But if I did have hitching, I'd turn back the setings until it went away.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
No, but you could visit newegg or a similar online reseller if you need a better card.

Sure, I can, but not everyone has the funds to, and most certainly don't have the luxury of getting GTX295s for free. That is why I when I point out that 9800gtx+ the OP is considering may not prove fast enough for it's PhxsX support to ever prove useful to him, and you respond with the argument "It's a good thing we have faster cards nowadays", you are failing to grasp perspective of someone who is obviously shopping for a new card now within the price range of the cards he asked about.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Seriously, Physx is the future of gaming whether you like it or not.

You would know this how?

nRollo has put out a nice list of games that you ignored. That's not my fault, you ask for games then complain about the ones he lists off. It's ridiculous.

No, what?s ridiculous is the fact the list was used in the first place when 99% of it isn?t even relevant.

What, you think that list shows all current PC games that show a benefit on nVidia hardware? If you think that then you need to do some serious research on the current state of PhysX.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

That statement applies to AA/AF, high resolutions, advanced textures and shadows, really anything beyond what integrated graphics will give you.

Uh, what? The statement is in reference to the "smack smack smack" shiny pipe comments being made by certain individuals in this forum when the 9700 was destroying the 5800 Ultra in Far Cry when running the SM 2.0 path.

Back then we were being told that SM 2.0 doesn't matter, but now with PhysX we're being told to embrace new technology because it?s great. :roll:

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

He patched it that way, the original version of GLQuake would ONLY run on a board that supported Glide. My copy that I have on CD is the original GLQuake- I still get the missing 3dfxgl error until I modify the file structure or patch the game.

Of course you get the error message ? it?s because the mini-GL driver is not compatible with non-3dfx cards, which is quite obvious since it?s 3dfx?s driver. Delete the library and it'll run on any OpenGL board.

I know this because I?ve used that version of GLQuake on non-3dfx cards and had I left the library there, I would?ve gotten the exact same error message.

Also from the original GLQuake readme:

On a standard OpenGL system, all you should need to do to run glquake is put glquake.exe in your quake directory, and run it from there. DO NOT install the opengl32.dll unless you have a 3dfx! Glquake should change the screen resolution to 640*480*32k colors and run full screen by default.

Theoretically, glquake will run on any compliant OpenGL that supports the texture objects extensions, but unless it is very powerfull hardware that accelerates everything needed, the game play will not be acceptable. If it has to go through any software emulation paths, the performance will likely by well under one frame per second.

Like I said before, this is an OpenGL application and 3dfx simply provided a mini-GL driver for their boards.

Interesting viewpoint- when the R9700Pro shipped D3D didn't support anything close to PS 2.0 and OpenGL hasn't had core support for that level of shaders until a few weeks ago(literally). OGL 3.0 is the first version that natively supports that level of shader functionality being exposed to all vendors. Now yes, you could say that vendors were free to use their own proprietary extensions which is very valid- how is PhysX really any different then that?

The difference is that the R300 was designed for the DX9 standard and there was never any doubt that it wouldn?t get released. This is really no different to the G80 architecture which didn?t actually get DX10 until Vista shipped. Did anyone think DX10 wasn?t coming?

ATi broke a ton of games doing this, I was there, I remember the huge debacle. OpenGL games tended to work without issue as it was a FAR more robust API- most games during that time era were Glide/D3D native, and they regularly broke if you forced them out of their native color depth.

I can?t comment there as I didn?t have any issues. The point is that you admit at least OpenGL games worked and that?s all I need, thereby backing my claim that 32 bit color could be forced into legacy titles. I know this worked because I frequently did it without issue.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Wreckage

That statement applies to AA/AF, high resolutions, advanced textures and shadows, really anything beyond what integrated graphics will give you.

Uh, what? The statement is in reference to the "smack smack smack" shiny pipe comments being made by certain individuals in this forum when the 9700 was destroying the 5800 Ultra in Far Cry when running the SM 2.0 path.

Back then we were being told that SM 2.0 doesn't matter, but now with PhysX we're being told to embrace new technology because it?s great. :roll:

BFG-

1. That was a LOT of years ago, lol, how is it relevant to a PhysX conversation?

2. It was a lot easier not to be impressed by the pipes that were a little shinier. PhysX not only makes a difference in gameplay, but you can't miss the huge differences in image quality.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Resolutions and settings please?

I was refering to the benchmarks I looked at when Rollo posted a link earlier in this thread. 1600x1200 with max settings I belive, from Firingsquad.

Download the Cryostasis demo and try it out then. If you actually do have an 8800GT, you'll be able to run it.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And are you having any hitching in the Cryostasis demo?

Is there a gameplay demo? I've never bothered to get the tech demo. But if I did have hitching, I'd turn back the setings until it went away.

I don't think so, just the demo everyone has been posting about for 2 weeks.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
No, but you could visit newegg or a similar online reseller if you need a better card.

Sure, I can, but not everyone has the funds to, and most certainly don't have the luxury of getting GTX295s for free. That is why I when I point out that 9800gtx+ the OP is considering may not prove fast enough for it's PhxsX support to ever prove useful to him, and you respond with the argument "It's a good thing we have faster cards nowadays", you are failing to grasp perspective of someone who is obviously shopping for a new card now within the price range of the cards he asked about.

So the other 1400 dollars I spent this year on a rig means nothing to me I guess? It's not like I'm a billionaire who can't remember how many houses he owns dude. Jeez, it's only a video card every once in a while. And if I didn't receive the cards, I'd be buying them anyway, just as I have always done since I started gaming.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,, I know what this is. You're trying to detract from any credibility you seem to think I have, otherwise you wouldn't make the effort.
Isn't that a little childish?

Anyway, start a poll and see how many people purchased new graphics cards this holiday season. I think you'll find that maybe one or two people on this forum have, and a far sight more expensive than a 9800GTX. And some less expensive as well. And so far, this 9800GTX+ has been able to run every PhysX demo that we've been able to try out, and run them well. Cryostasis

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K


Theoretically, glquake will run on any compliant OpenGL that supports the texture objects extensions, but unless it is very powerfull hardware that accelerates everything needed, the game play will not be acceptable. If it has to go through any software emulation paths, the performance will likely by well under one frame per second.

Like I said before, this is an OpenGL application and 3dfx simply provided a mini-GL driver for their boards.

[/quote]

Much as I hate to admit it, it appears none of us are entirely correct about the great GLQuake debate:

[L=PI despite being proprietary to 3Dfx cards at the time. Much of Voodoo1's popularity came from the support for the experimental GLQuake. Originally John Carmack had signed a deal with Rendition to have the only 3D accelerated version of Quake1. In hindsight he later said this was a huge mistake. The letter of the contract said iD Software could not write an accelerated version of Quake for another manufacturer's chipset. So, 3Dfx, having some ex-SGI talent, approached Carmack with the solution. He cleaned up and released the experimental OpenGL version and 3Dfx provided a minimum functionality support driver for it. Hence the first OpenGL Miniport and GLQuake. ]http://ve3dboards.ign.com/general_news/b10538/14312544/r14319680/[/quote]

So it looks like we were both wrong on JC's original intent, but that 3DFX may have been the reason he switched to OpenGL.

Ironically, this proves the point I was trying to make: devs do code for non-standard solutions. Rendition was proprietary to their Verite chipset.

PhysX is proprietary to the industry leader.