Futuremark to support PhysX

[Wreckage]

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/15406

That's like the 3rd developer in a week.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/15406

That's like the 3rd developer in a week.

It's has no story or single player content. Another DEMO :laugh:.

 

[Sylvanas]

This is noted in the PhysX thread at the top of the forum....

 

[AmberClad]

Oh dear god. Well here's to hoping it turns out better than AquaNox/AquaMark. Purdy (purdy enough to bring my GeForce 2 or whatever it was I had back then to its knees)...but not exactly an awe-inspiring gameplay experience.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/15406

That's like the 3rd developer in a week.

It's has no story or single player content. Another DEMO :laugh:.

It's a multiplayer game. What's the prob?
And yes there is a story. Why did you say there wasn't?

You can check out a teaser trailer for Shattered Horizon over on this page. The video sheds some light on the game's storyline and shows a chunk of the Moon blowing up.

And where did it say it was a demo? It's a full game dude.
Go troll elsewhere please. Just because you are not excited about this technology, doesn't mean you should try to start flame wars.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

can't say I'm excited for this...

chances are the game will look like crap relative to the performance, and that's not even considering whether or not the game will actually be good...

still waiting on that special something...Cell Factor looked like it could have been it way back when, but that really didn't turn out to be anything other than a glorified tech demo

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
It's a multiplayer game. What's the prob?
And yes there is a story. Why did you say there wasn't?

And where did it say it was a demo? It's a full game dude.
Go troll elsewhere please. Just because you are not excited about this technology, doesn't mean you should try to start flame wars.

There's no SP campagin so how can you have a storyline?

Sound very familiar with the time machine movie, which if that the case it wasn't worth going back to earth, great story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYytKnrfZVs

Why a teaser trailer? Just for Nvidia to shout buy my cards for PhysX titles. It's not like the futuremarks benchmarks looked that great anyway.

sci-fi first-person shooter with no sci-fi weapons.

the guys from Futuremark made it very clear that they have no intention of including lasers, plasma beams, or any of the usual sci-fi requisites in your arsenal

Will there be map editors or mod supports? Things that make most multiplayer games last long after there released. What about vehicles or mechs?

I hope Futuremarks takes this game serious, and makes something better than Cell Factor or Warmonger out of it, but I have my serious doubts.

 

[MarcVenice]

The most important thing is, HOW will it make use of physx, in what way will having an nvidia videocard imrpove my gameplay experience. They say NOTHING about that. This pressrelease is just screaming physx, shallow as all other announced physx titles. That's what pisses me off. Show me something, anything, that makes me go wow, physx are cool and play an important role in this game!

Thing is, I don't want physx to become some kind of useless feature, it has to be something real. And it can be, but for now, it looks like Nvidia is only pushing it, so people buy their videocards, when it should be the other way around.

 

[Keysplayr]

It is the other way around. About 70 million times over. You keep forgetting that PhysX costs nothing but framerates. Quite suddenly, every one of those cards are PPU's. Not quite certain you see this the same way though.

 

[MarcVenice]

There are 70 million 8x00 cards, right? Doubt it's 70 million 8800 gts 320mb or better cards, probably more like 15-30 million, but ok, I can still live with that.

If nvidia isn't pushing videocards, then why don't they give us something concrete? Are you actually suggesting games need the marketing of physx to play a significant role? Very often pressreleases have details in them like, the game will be free-roaming, you can do this and that, etc etc. Why can't they just tell us what kind of physx we can expect. Don't think of me as trolling, although we have our differences regarding physx. But concrete examples isn't to much to ask for, is it?

 

[Keysplayr]

What I am suggesting is simply this: There are now almost 80 million G8xx and greater GPU's out there (70 million as of end of may, Nvidia Editors Day 08) closer to 80 million as of Nvision08 just this week. These GPUs range in flavor from a 8400GS to GTX280. No definitive numbers for how many of which GPU.
Suddenly, each and every one of those GPU owners, whether they know it or not, now have a PhysX Processing Unit. For free.
Something that would cost a consumer about 100 bucks if they wanted to buy an discrete Ageia PPU. But costs 0.00.
Nvidia pushes video cards. ATI pushes video cards. Intel/AMD push CPU's. Naturally. I mention these others besides Nvidia just for example because you don't seem to understand that this is what all of their goals are. To sell more GPUs & CPUs. As many as they can for whatever reasons they can. Nvidia has the PhysX card, so they will tout PhysX. ATI has the DX10.1 card, so they will tout DX10.1. Intel has a RayTracing card, so they will tout RayTracing (speculative right now). But you get the idea.
Each company will play the hand they have. As of right this moment, I believe Nvidia has the higher poker hand with PhysX over ATI with DX10.1 and Intel's Larrabee.

You're a game reviewer, but I see you "playing fortune teller" (somebody else said this prior) about games coming out. So far, you have had absolutely nothing good to say about PhysX other than you hope it will become a great feature, and have been the greatest Cynic regarding any game title announced that supports PhysX. I'm sure you have tried the 3 games now supporting PhysX, but found no joy in it, while others were impressed. Hey, that is fine, and to each his own, but man, look at it for what it really is. A free feature you don't have to pay a dime for. A major feature that could change the way we game. This is only the starting point. The games are coming and they don't have to all be triple A. There are some good titles in there.
As for the type of physX you can expect in Shattered Horizon, well, what kind of PhysX do you think? The moon has almost cracked in half with most of the debris floating in orbit around earth. Use your imagination until the game lands in your hands to bench.

P.S. I didn't think you were trolling at all.

 

[MarcVenice]

Good post Keys. But don't forget, people with a little expertise are often able to make decent predictions about the future. I'm not fortune telling, I'm using past experiences, logic and a little bit of gut feeling, and I end up with physx not doing any of those awesome things they are showing to us in those tech demo's. Here's something to think about, implementing physx, your example of being able to shoot the pillars of a tower, now picture yourself in the developers shoes. If I'm not mistaken, you can't just throw the physx API in your game, and you're done. You have to tell/code objects to behave like real physical objects. Now as a player, you come up across a tower, you think, hey this is a physx accelerated game, I'm going to shoot it's support pillars, and it works. Awesome. But, the next tower, and the next object that you expect to behave like a real physical object, will also have to be coded, or the gamer is going to get dissapointed.

And I do find joy in physx, one of the last shooters I reviewed, and which I compared to CoD4, leading FPS title as of right now judging by salesfigures and many opinions. One of my gripes? Everything was made of solid 50" thick steel. In other words, you couldn't even shoot through a wired fence! If you want to contend for the best FPS, then I think you can't get away with that. So, if physx allows all upcoming UT3 games to have physx like CoD4, where you can shoot through wood, or even brick walls provided you have .50 cal gun, then I think physx is going in the right direction.

I just wish Nvidia would tout their performance in games, not features we barely have any idea of in what way they will be implemented into games. If I buy a gtx260, I'm pretty damn sure I'll be able to run most new and outcoming games at high details levels up to 1920*1200. I don't know what cuda driven physx will do. That's the main difference, and probably the thing that bothers me. Tout what you have, not what you might possibly have in the future.

 

[Keysplayr]

Good post as well, Marc. Fair enough. Hopefully soon, we will have some nice full PhysX titles in our hands to mess with.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

I just wish Nvidia would tout their performance in games, not features we barely have any idea of in what way they will be implemented into games.

They STILL have the fastest GPU on the planet. I think they got the performance aspect covered.

Several ways have already been shown how PhysX will work in games. I think PhysX brings more to games than any other feature in the last 5 years or so. What does AA/AF/HDR etc add to gameplay?

I'm guessing you want it in all games NOW and to work on your card with extra FPS. Which is unrealistic of anything ever. I am to assume no new tech will make you happy until it's been on the market for 5 years or so.

 

[MarcVenice]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice

I just wish Nvidia would tout their performance in games, not features we barely have any idea of in what way they will be implemented into games.

They STILL have the fastest GPU on the planet. I think they got the performance aspect covered.

If they have the fastest GPU ever, then tout it wreckage. Tout it all you want, because it's true. Might not be the cheapest, might not be the fastest solution in a single videocard, it's still the single fastest GPU out there. And the fact I said, I wish they would tout their performance, was because they HAVE performance covered, so not really sure what you are even getting at. But then again, I even doubt you know what your getting at.

Several ways have already been shown how PhysX will work in games. I think PhysX brings more to games than any other feature in the last 5 years or so. What does AA/AF/HDR etc add to gameplay?

HDR adds immersion if you ask me. AF probably does too, and barely costs any performance. AA, meh, opinions differ. Physx can add immersion, probably even more immersion then aforementioned features, depending on what kind though. Throwing 100's of barrels around kind of immersion, no thanks.

I'm guessing you want it in all games NOW and to work on your card with extra FPS. Which is unrealistic of anything ever. I am to assume no new tech will make you happy until it's been on the market for 5 years or so.

You're guessing wrong, as usual, you can't put words in my mouth. In fact, had you read more of my posts, ill gladly take a small FPS hit to get some physx done. All I want is nvidia to stop touting physx, when there's no concrete examples of how it will be used in games, when there is no waying of being certain an nvidia videocard will even be necesary. But since you think everything else but nvidia sucks, that's probably a hard thing for you to understand.

You are nowhere in the same league as keys, who is actually a sensible guy and worth arguing with. So either step it up, and learn to argue as a sensible guy, instead of taking cheap shots, trying to provoke me with half truths and by putting words in my mouth, or don't even bother me with your useless posts.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice


You are nowhere in the same league as keys, who is actually a sensible guy and worth arguing with. So either step it up, and learn to argue as a sensible guy, instead of taking cheap shots, trying to provoke me with half truths and by putting words in my mouth, or don't even bother me with your useless posts.

Well my problem with your statements (and that of a few others) is that the PhysX pack just came out. Instead of being happy about such a major advancement for video cards and a nice free add on. You and others are complaining that it's not in 100s of games and not doing everything it's possible to do as soon as it was released.

It's in several games that you can play right now. Using those games and the tech demos you can see what PhysX is capable of (your barrels line refers to Crysis which is not PhysX).

So if you have an 8 series or later card you can start using high level game physics now. Plus if you keep your card more than a few months (most people keep their cards 2 years or so) you will be able to use it with many new titles that are on the way.

As for your comment about performance, they do tout it. CUDA is just another way to not only tout their GPU power. But to show it in a way that the competition can't even touch (Folding, Physics, Transcoding, Photoshop, etc.).

The benchmarks show that they match or exceed AMD in price and performance. You can get a 9800GTX+ for about the same price as a 4850 and they perform on the same level. You can get a GTX260 for less than a 4870 and get the same kind of performance. You can get a GTX280 for much less than a 4870X2 and it does not suffer from scaling issues. You can get a 8800GT for just over $100 and nothing at that price can touch it.

So while I may not "argue" with the same temperament as Keys, I would also say you are not being a "sensible guy".

 

[MarcVenice]

I'm not complaining that it's not in 100s of games. I'm complaining that nvidia touts it as being incredible and that they claim it can do it all and a little more. They act as if all those new games coming out, with physx, will have similar physx like we've seen in the demo's. Games where every level is like the physx max in UT3, heat ray. But they don't give us anything concrete, and just keep it vague. And YOU expect me to suck up their marketing like a little girl and smile?

Wasn't referring to Crysis with those barrels, was referring to cellfactor.

I've also never said nobody should buy nvidia, they just shouldn't solely based on physx, or let physx be the deciding factor. You can NOT get a 9800gtx+ for the same price as a 4850. On newegg.com it's $150 vs $170. That's a 12-13% price difference, for the same performance. The gtx260 is indeed priced very competetively, with $230 vs $270 on newegg, and that should be the reason to go with a gtx260, it's price, but if prices are equal, i'd prolly take the HD4870 which sometimes outperforms a gtx280. GTX280 and HD4870X2 aren't direct competitors. The HD4870X2 kicks the gtx280's ass at higher resolutions, but below that the gtx280 is arguably a better buy for most.

I can see you're trying, but when you claim things, make sure they are factually correct. I'm a bit done with this. I agree with Keys, lets wait till we have some of those physx titles in our hands. And I'll let you know what I think of it for real, and if you should play it with a nvidia videocard, or that it doesn't matter.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: MarcVenice


You are nowhere in the same league as keys, who is actually a sensible guy and worth arguing with. So either step it up, and learn to argue as a sensible guy, instead of taking cheap shots, trying to provoke me with half truths and by putting words in my mouth, or don't even bother me with your useless posts.

Well my problem with your statements (and that of a few others) is that the PhysX pack just came out. Instead of being happy about such a major advancement for video cards and a nice free add on. You and others are complaining that it's not in 100s of games and not doing everything it's possible to do as soon as it was released.

It's in several games that you can play right now. Using those games and the tech demos you can see what PhysX is capable of (your barrels line refers to Crysis which is not PhysX).

So if you have an 8 series or later card you can start using high level game physics now. Plus if you keep your card more than a few months (most people keep their cards 2 years or so) you will be able to use it with many new titles that are on the way.

As for your comment about performance, they do tout it. CUDA is just another way to not only tout their GPU power. But to show it in a way that the competition can't even touch (Folding, Physics, Transcoding, Photoshop, etc.).

The benchmarks show that they match or exceed AMD in price and performance. You can get a 9800GTX+ for about the same price as a 4850 and they perform on the same level. You can get a GTX260 for less than a 4870 and get the same kind of performance. You can get a GTX280 for much less than a 4870X2 and it does not suffer from scaling issues. You can get a 8800GT for just over $100 and nothing at that price can touch it.

So while I may not "argue" with the same temperament as Keys, I would also say you are not being a "sensible guy".

The GTX260 is actually selling for more or about the same as the HD4870 and that doesn't mean less (before rebate).

Further Anandtech's own article regarding the HD4850 and HD4870 actually show the HD5870 outperforming the GTX260 in everything except Oblivion in a single card configuration. It even outperforms the GTX280 in a few tests as well. SO before you lay a blanket statement over the thread you may want to check the charts. I have linked it below for your convenience.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341



I also agree with Marc that Nvidia is using marketing right now until there is somthing solid out there that actually changes the gameplay. I remember my HD2900xt box had a little note on the back that said "Physics processing support" heh.

 

[apoppin]

it is my understanding that Nvidia hasn't done much with PhysX *other* than a simple port to CUDA. All of the research has been Aegia's, so far, and Nvidia is just NOW getting PhysX into the game [so to speak ;P]. So they are excited that they can really improve on it over an add-in card.

Other than the demos, we don't know what PhysX can do nor do we know the performance impact. It is evidently easy to patch some physics into a game, but Nvidia is most interested in games "build from the ground up" with it. And that has been talking place only for about a year with a few Devs. Nvidia just started to push it with Tesla and they haven't really had Aegia very long. So it will be a few months before we see what PhysX can *really* do

also it appears that we are also waiting for the Big Bang II drivers that will enable more CUDA and more performance.

OF course Nvidia is gonna hype the hell out of it, it is their future and it appears to be a solid way to get PhysX on the GPU .. quickly!
- personally, i don't think anyone who buys a Radeon will really miss out .. but who knows?

i have a GTX280 reference by BFG Tech arriving Wednesday [if it is from the Newegg Cali depot] and i will cover PhysX when i compare GTX280 with 4870/4870x2
- until then, what can i say about it? it ran slowly on a single 8800GTX ,, what will it be like with a 280 and a 8800 as the ppu?
-- i will let you know

 

[taltamir]

well, futuremark, in order to stop the "its just a canned benchmark and means nothing" argument (that I myself used), has decided to start making real games with build in benchmarking tools.
So, sounds good so far.

Also, "its only multi player so it doesn't count". I am a fan of single player myself, but there are many games like UT, counter strike, etc that are extremely popular multi player games.
Oh, and WOW, the most popular game in the world (i dont like it though) is multi player only.