Microsoft Works on Direct Physics Engine for GPUs.

Gamer X

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
769
0
0
X-bit Labs

Microsoft Corp. is planning to develop a universal application programming interface (API) for physics processing on graphics processing units (GPUs). The API will become a part of DirectX and may revolutionize physics effects in computer games by offering game developers a universal technology.

The world?s largest software maker has posted a job proposal for programmers, who will develop Direct Physics technology that will process physics computing on GPUs. The team 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, according to the proposal.

It is interesting to note that Microsoft intends to process physics solely on GPUs, not specially designed physics processing units (PPU) or multi-core central processing units (CPUs). Theoretically, it means that Microsoft shares vision of Havok with its Havok FX engine that allows computing physics effects using GPU power. This may pose some threat to Ageia, who is pushing its own environment for physics processing along with its hardware PhysX approach.

It remains to be seen, when Microsoft unveils its Direct Physics technology, as Havok FX, Havok 4 and Ageia physics engines are already here and are to be utilized by game developers, while it is not certain, whether the first release of the DirectX 10, due to be available in early 2007, will feature any enhancements for physics.

The fact that Microsoft is working on a special API for physics proves that real time, accurate simulation of physics are key parts of the next generation gaming experience.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,501
0
0
Well I'd like to see GPUs do it, assuming that doesn't mean I have to buy a fking second GPU to process physics for crying out loud... I'm going conroe and maybe even Crossfire w/ R600 becuase I love my XTX so much but one thing I don't particularly like is the idea of an add-on card JUST for physics... sound..basic... graphics... basic... physics.. important but not a "5 senses" thing that warrants another freaking expansion card.

Now how about a SPU Smells processing unit :p
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Originally posted by: Frackal
Well I'd like to see GPUs do it, assuming that doesn't mean I have to buy a fking second GPU to process physics for crying out loud... I'm going conroe and maybe even Crossfire w/ R600 becuase I love my XTX so much but one thing I don't particularly like is the idea of an add-on card JUST for physics... sound..basic... graphics... basic... physics.. important but not a "5 senses" thing that warrants another freaking expansion card.

Now how about a SPU Smells processing unit :p

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! OPU "odor-processing-unit". ARU "aroma-processing-unit".

Just being dumb. :D

 

her34

Senior member
Dec 4, 2004
581
1
81
physics and graphics can't be done on one gpu? you have to use a second gpu?
 

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
I think the point is that you'll atleast get some use out of your old GPU, and not have to sell/trade it, throw it away, whatever. So don't buy a second GPU, unless you wanna upgrade your current one.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Too bad for AEGIA. Had their product not actually produced slower frames, it could have gone somewhere. As it is, no one is going to buy their PPU (or CellFactor), and they gave their competition time to catch up. I hope that they still have a fighting chance becasue I'm not incredibly excited about the idea of MS, ATI, and NVIDIA controlling physics as well as graphics.
 

Ichigo

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2005
2,159
0
0
The best solution is to have 2 PCI-E slots. One for the GPU to handle graphics and one for an older generation GPU to do physics. That'd be pretty cost effective.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,958
126
I'm glad Microsoft is involved with this because it creates a standard where competition can exist.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
81
Depends on how much processing resources the GPU got left in certain games, I think that it must be implemented carefully, a game engine that uses a lot of processing power may have to fight for resources if the Physics Engine is also quite demanding too, I think that it would be better if the workload is shared between the GPU and CPU because after all, most of the games that are coming are GPU bound, so how they can expect to put more pressure on an already busy GPU??
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Just making sure you guys get this. It will require Vista/DX10. The current video arch would not support it. Vista adds video memory management and that will be required to get this to work (as with XP, first in, wins - Vista will page as required).
 

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,267
3
81
Originally posted by: beggerking
too bad for AEGIA.. Microsoft involvement usual mean diminishing of competition...

if AGEIA can get its act together and deliver a product that performs revolutionary, then they won't have much of a chance anyway, microsoft or not. ATI and NVidia are already breathing down AGEIA's neck, what with Havok and all.
 

Sable

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2006
1,127
98
91
Originally posted by: beggerking
too bad for AEGIA.. Microsoft involvement usual mean diminishing of competition...

If they can rewrite their drivers to make the cards compatible with the API then they might be okay. And they'll also have their own in game support for certain games which should allow "real" physics rather than just effects physics.

It's still one of those "wait and see" things though.