PPU is the next revolution.

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
The way is see it, PPU is certainly an interesting idea. However, they are going to have to speed this thing up a bit if we are supposed to buy it. If you watch the video, the crates in the beginning look like they are being shot at in outer space because they move so slow that they appear to float. Then, later on, when the plane flies into the hanger and hits a bunch of stuff, you can visually see the whole scene come to a crawl when the plane makes its first contact with an object. The whole point is realism, right? Having every action take place in "bullet time" isn't very realitic to me.

LOL they purposely slow it down so you can see what is occuring its not causing the machine to slow down. The demo would be over in 2 seconds and you wouldnt notice a thing if they didnt do this.

On G4 TV they ran the same demo's but in realtime and it was amazing. No slow down until they turned off the PPU.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: route66

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Didn't say everyone needs it. But you can't honestly expect brand new technology to cost so little. Especially something that is sure to make some pretty significant changes in the gaming industry.

The thing is, why pay NOW for a product that isn't making significant changes NOW. Me, I'm happy to wait until ATi and nVidia provide cheaper products and there are games that actually use. And by actually use it, I mean it provides some kind of unique gameplay element. I've seen crates fall and explode in games before, and my ability to enjoy a game isn't increased because they fall and/or explode more realisticly. I know that's a general statement and it's more complicated than just making crates fall, just making a point.

PC gaming is not an expensive hobby. If you upgrade often and sell off your old stuff, I doubt you'd ever spend more than $2000 a year on hardware.

Or you could buy a console for $400 and have it last 4 years. $400 vs $8000 - a bit expensive, don't you think?

There are definately cheaper hobbies - like reading and painting, and constructive too! (That's what I meant, btw, when I said 'hobby' originally)

That's not an accurate comparison. At the end of those 4 years, the console is outdated by quite a bit. Look at the new games for the PS2 and Xbox... do they compare to F.E.A.R.? Not at all.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan

Originally posted by: nitromullet
The way is see it, PPU is certainly an interesting idea. However, they are going to have to speed this thing up a bit if we are supposed to buy it. If you watch the video, the crates in the beginning look like they are being shot at in outer space because they move so slow that they appear to float. Then, later on, when the plane flies into the hanger and hits a bunch of stuff, you can visually see the whole scene come to a crawl when the plane makes its first contact with an object. The whole point is realism, right? Having every action take place in "bullet time" isn't very realitic to me.

LOL they purposely slow it down so you can see what is occuring its not causing the machine to slow down. The demo would be over in 2 seconds and you wouldnt notice a thing if they didnt do this.

On G4 TV they ran the same demo's but in realtime and it was amazing. No slow down until they turned off the PPU.

Ok, I wasn't aware that they had a full speed version. It would have been nice if they had included that before the slo-mo, so we could see it in real time. Glad to hear that though. I guess you guys can get back to bickering about price now

edit: I'll be nice.

 

[route66]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
That's not an accurate comparison. At the end of those 4 years, the console is outdated by quite a bit. Look at the new games for the PS2 and Xbox... do they compare to F.E.A.R.? Not at all.

I'm just stating the average life time of a console. But you prove my point about how expensive PC gaming is that you need to upgrade every year.

Besides, graphics don't make a game - gameplay does.

 

[nitromullet]

Can we drop the whole pc vs. console debate? It's OT and has been beaten into the ground in numerous threads already.

 

[Dkcode]

I was not impressed with the demo i dont think it shows off this hardware very well, despite having seen this in use with unreal 3 and the new far cry engine (which i was very impressed by). It doesnt give the impression the entire world is dynamic such as the great sphere the plane crashes into is not destroyed. Im not having a dig at the technology which i like very much. Just the crap video

 

[HDTVMan]

You need to see the oil canister crack open and start splling out into the room and how its fluids move the items around. And its entirely random in a way. No 2 cracks/spills would be the same because the items have physical charachteristics. It really opens up locational damage.

In that one they also show items not only break but metal bends and twists giving realistic expectations of ojects in a room.

There is also a boulder scene where hundreds of boulders are bouncing down a hill off of each other. Imagine creating an avalance and the result different each time.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: HDTVMan
You need to see the oil canister crack open and start splling out into the room and how its fluids move the items around. And its entirely random in a way. No 2 cracks/spills would be the same because the items have physical charachteristics. It really opens up locational damage.

In that one they also show items not only break but metal bends and twists giving realistic expectations of ojects in a room.

There is also a boulder scene where hundreds of boulders are bouncing down a hill off of each other. Imagine creating an avalance and the result different each time.

Yeah, I've seen a few of those videos, they're pretty impressive. Much more so than the airplane/hangar one, which didn't seem a whole lot better than the physics already in HL2, for example (except for the crash sequence). I'm just wondering to what extent they'll be used in games; I'd buy one if it made a big difference.

 

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: HDTVMan
You need to see the oil canister crack open and start splling out into the room and how its fluids move the items around. And its entirely random in a way. No 2 cracks/spills would be the same because the items have physical charachteristics. It really opens up locational damage.

In that one they also show items not only break but metal bends and twists giving realistic expectations of ojects in a room.

There is also a boulder scene where hundreds of boulders are bouncing down a hill off of each other. Imagine creating an avalance and the result different each time.

Yeah, I've seen a few of those videos, they're pretty impressive. Much more so than the airplane/hangar one, which didn't seem a whole lot better than the physics already in HL2, for example (except for the crash sequence). I'm just wondering to what extent they'll be used in games; I'd buy one if it made a big difference.

I think were going to have to wait and see but its getting support from all the major engine makers. Unreal, Quake (doom) etc.

I would hope that a few of todays games like BF2, FEAR and few others might get some patches to utilize the new hardware.

 

[gtx4u]

Originally posted by: route66

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: route66
I don't pay more than $150 for a video card.

If the PPU is more than $50 I will NEVER pay for it.

And you will NEVER have the best graphics, just like you NEVER have the best graphics with a $150 video card. Not having a PPU will put you further behind when it becomes a standard for games. If that's ok with you, awesome. But a lot of hobbyists enjoy new and better technology.

Trust me, I know I don't have the best graphics. But not everyone needs 1600x1200 with 4xAA.

Videogaming is an expensive hobby, not counting how non-productive it is. I don't need another expensive part to make a few FPS games better.

Let me guess you don't have a job, do you :roll:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Can we drop the whole pc vs. console debate? It's OT and has been beaten into the ground in numerous threads already.

Half the posts in this forum are off topic...

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Interesting idea, and on the one hand I would like more interaction in games. On the other hand I don't wan't to spend $150-$300 on a separate card.

If programmers are actually able to use the capabilities to explore new types of gameplay, then I'd be much more likely to get a card. But, if the card is simply used to create "higher resolution" physics (and by that I mean simply making the falling over of dead bodies, the flying barrels, etc. more realistic) then I don't see much point.

The problem I see with a card like this is that it will be so rare, that many developers will not take the time to really explore creative uses with the card. Yeah, it's cool to see an avalanche, but does it really matter if it is accurately modeled and falls differently each time or if it is scripted and falls the same way. Either way, the gameplay will be the same, and unless you play that same sequence over and over you'll never really know the difference. Now, if the game had a more advanced version of that GeoMod thing that one of the engine guys were working on (Monolith maybe?) where you could destroy parts of the environment to change things to your advantage, then maybe the physics card would be more useful. However, if the card is an add on that only a few will have, I think the chances of requiring the card for gameplay are slim, and to me that means that it won't really provide anything the CPU can't already do.

It least it will be interesting to see the uses people find for the technology, and maybe something really cool will be released and I'll actually want to get a card.

-D'oh!

 

[jjzelinski]

This will blow the industry open, it will just be gradual in effect. Once the technology matures prices will drop and eventually you'll see it integrated into motherboards aimed at gamers.

The reason it is revolutionary is because it will truly allow for the suspension of disbeleif. I'm not sure if you've read how immersive F.E.A.R. is but imagine being able to TRULY engage your environment; blow legs off at the knee and watch his leg fly back while his body spins forward, path blocked? Open up a wall, or a floor if you feel like it. You like big flashy action movies? Why not play one. Imagine Sim City, or Wave Racer, or a wreck in Need for Speed, or even the driving mechanics. How about a physics accelerated desktop? You want to pimp out your rig, imagine what you could do just navigating around an OS designed to take advantage it. Imagine a Lord of the Rings type clash, no need to replicate the same models over and over; charge through the battle field and take awe as you come to appreciate the sheer UNIQUNESS of each warriors engagement.

I'm obviously excited by the technology and I will strongly consider adopting even it's FIRST iteration at close to $300 and that's saying alot considering my tight budget.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: route66

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
That's not an accurate comparison. At the end of those 4 years, the console is outdated by quite a bit. Look at the new games for the PS2 and Xbox... do they compare to F.E.A.R.? Not at all.

I'm just stating the average life time of a console. But you prove my point about how expensive PC gaming is that you need to upgrade every year.

Besides, graphics don't make a game - gameplay does.

I agree with your thoughts about limiting video cards to $150.. you are completely right IMO.
My current video card was $400 when I bought it, but you are still right.

In the future I'll prob tone it down to about the level you speak of.

But I have to comment on something.. I bought the original Voodoo 1 for $300.. that was so, so so so so so so so worth it.

If they release a PPU that is what the V1 was, I'm in.
But paying $400 for incremental improvements to existing hardware? Not my cup of tea.
I want innovation.


I'm going to be buying a Nintendo Revolution, because its innovative. Not only is it the only console to have a dedicated PPU.. but a new controller. I'll be happy to spend a premium on something that isnt "more of the same".
I bought my LCD because it isnt "more of the same", and I've never regretted taking the leap after discovering the beauty of DVI+Cleartype.

In my mind, and with my logic.. when my screen burnt out and I needed a new one.. I refused to get "more of the same" or a bigger and better CRT than I had.. I wanted something (while not innovative)... that moved into new directions.


You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: route66
I don't pay more than $150 for a video card.

So . . . you don't ever get to see the latest and greatest in all its intended glory? Thats gotta blow.

 

[Busithoth]

There is no way in hell I'm going to be a pioneer in experimenting with one of these cards.
If they catch on, great, I'll pick one up (maybe).

but my kickass shuttle gaming box is probably going to stay as configured for a long while.
I mean, soundcard versus physics engine? hmm...

oh, and the ultimate test is how fun is it to play, isn't it?