Frankly, I think it's a good thing. Standardization in the game market is very important, and with Microsoft on board that means physics are here to stay. I'm glad we don't have a million and one companies trying to roll out their own physics api. On the other hand, that basically means that the Physyx cards you bought will be worthless, because Microsoft's API will be running the show once they get a standard out. Poor early adopters (although there weren't many, since the return on investment isn't that great right now.) Once a universal standard is introduced, developers can embrace the new age of physics whole hog, and then things will really take off.
What do you think about Microsoft's upcoming Physics API?
- Thread starter slash196
- Start date
Yeah, because my ATI card can't run OpenGL and my nVidia card can't run D3D...Oh wait, they both can run either API...
Although I agree that its a good thing. Since Microsoft is working on it, it sort of makes it official that physics processing is going to be real and won't just fizzle out as a failed attempt should AGEIA go down the tubes. It should also help get competition going in the PPU market, if the company only really has to worry about producing the hardware and not the API as well, then the business venture is all the more attractive.
Ah, this kinda ruins the PhysX plans 
The PhysX API is cool, but if MS create their own, itll open up the market to competition, and the prices of the cards will go down
The PhysX API is cool, but if MS create their own, itll open up the market to competition, and the prices of the cards will go down
Im not understanding how this is a good thing, all it would do is give MS even more leverage as an OS.
Its already going to come down to a competing OS maker sueing MS for DirectX source code to get games on others OSs.
Its already going to come down to a competing OS maker sueing MS for DirectX source code to get games on others OSs.
Couldn't the PhysX driver be made to interpret the Directphysics calls into something their hardware can use. Same with Havok FX and whatever ATI come up with.Originally posted by: framerateuk
Ah, this kinda ruins the PhysX plans
The PhysX API is cool, but if MS create their own, itll open up the market to competition, and the prices of the cards will go down
Yes, but the performance wouldnt be nearly as good.
Comparable to a voodoo card running under Glide to Direct 3D.
But the voodoo's weren't programmable, they were fixed function cards designed to do specific rendering tasks so those tasks would all need to be rewritten on the fly. The latest 3d cards and physics card are all programmable and the physics functions are all just fp maths calculations which would be similar to what the microsfot API would be churning out anyway.
Also, with the advent of dual cores any extra load could be taken up by the extra core.
(this is all just random thinking by me, I don't know nearly enough about the way hardware, API's and driver interact)
I dont really know about the programmable aspect of the cards, but from a coder's point of view, anything with the word "interpret" in it is going to slow it down. Its like comparing Java and C++. While there are a lot of similarities between the 2, java is so much slower because of the interpretation layer of the JVM, and id imagine forcing the PhysX drivers to interpret the DirectPhysics calls would slow the card down.
I don't know if this is widely known or not, but the PhysX card is on BB's site for $300. It's backordered for 1-2 weeks though.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,751
- 595
- 126
Agreed. And we've all seen what microsoft on the innovation front once they've destroyed all competition. Nothing. When did directx9 come out? 3-4 years ago? When did developers begin the wholesale abandonement of openGL? When did IE6 come out? When did the browser wars end?
It will help speed the adoption of physics processors and make a standard...but with microsoft at the throne, the industry gets stuck following their 'vision'. And their vision so far seems to be to sit on the throne and get fat.
So you're saying you're not happy with all the features that DX9 brought and DX9 games don't look good or Cyrsis (which is all done on DX9 also)? Or is it just an Anti MS rant?
From a gamer standpoint, this is great. Now the studios will be a bit more confident about spending r&d money on physics coding. In the end, if this means better games for us without extra hardware, I'm all for it.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,431
- 5,973
- 126
It might slow the card down(quite likely), but that still doesn't render the card useless. It would likely still be the fastest hardware physics calculator on the planet(for the PC). What this does though is that standardization of API opens the door for others to develope dedicated physics cards. Wouldn't be too surprised if MS ended up integrating/licensing the PhysX API either, much like they did with A3D.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,751
- 595
- 126
Directx9 is fine...but we should be on Directx11 by now. Microsoft was churning out new versions on a yearly basis for awhile...but as soon as everyone stopped using openGL in tandem, they stopped.
Same story with Internet Explorer. A lot of microsofts products are excellent...but after they leverage their position to push their competition out, they stop competing. Which is no real surprise.
I agree this will get things moving in a more unified direction, I'm just concerned its going to be a short trip. We'd be better off if was a different party doing this is all I'm saying. Microsoft has done little for PC gaming in the last few years besides ignore it, or indirectly undermine it with console ports.
Well, I think timing is more important for them than churning out new products one after another. With DX9, they were able to sway the devs to use their API over Open GL. With Vista and unified shaders they really couldn't release DX10 without a big overhaul of XP and creating a hardware and software compatiability mess. Also, they had to keep in mind their xbox 360. If they did release DX10 a while ago and the xbox 360 debuted much after that, it would be severly underpowered and they'd have to take a much bigger hit per console to keep it appealing. Also, remeber that DX9 has 3 variants. I do agree that they get a bit lazy once they have the lead but it's like racing, you don't have to win by a mile, just cross the finish line ahead of others.
Let's see how this plays out. As long as I benefit, I don't care who is developing what API.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,751
- 595
- 126
More like you pour sugar in your competitors gas tank and then stop at the grocery store before finishing the race.
Your xbox thing kind of hits right what I'm getting at though. Microsofts commitment isn't to PC gaming, its to microsoft profits. If they're holding back tech on the PC, like directX10...just to make their console look better, then they aren't driving us forward like we need them too. They're holding us back.
I don't blame them for working the way they do, its smart business. Why pour resources into a market that you can't lose because you've already snuffed out all the competitors?
This was brought up in the thread in software I believe, regarding microsoft stating that with vista they're going to be commited to PC gaming. Some one stated microsoft had BETTER get more commited to it for its own sake, because the only thing still tying most technically minded people to the windows OS was...games. Me, I found the statement by microsoft kind of disengenius...like a deadbeat father that walked out on his kid showing up a decade later with a stuffed teddy bear and expecting the kid to be excited that he finally came back to grace her with his presence.
I just feel if microsoft wants the market power that all these different overlapping markets provide them, they should do a better job of handling the responsibilities of them as well. Otherwise they should get out of the way and let some one else do that job.
Thats all one can hope for!
This is a really good thing. Now there will be a standard. So now Nvidia can make their physics cards, ATI can make theirs, and Agiea can make theirs. They will all have the same foundation to build on based on Microsofts API.
It's good and bad at the same time. Good because it will create a standard physics API, which should give the devs more incentive to code for it. But it's also bad if it becomes the only physics API, because once all the devs rely on DX for physics, MS will essentially contol that segment too with crap like "you need Vista to use the ppu." I hope we'll eventually get an alternative API, sort of like what OpenGL is to DX9.
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,158
- 2,534
- 136
I agree with Internet Explorer as MS has seriously lagged behind on that front and in general, once MS has weaseled it's way into a competing partners trust and steals their ideas or buys out the competition in a market, they usually let the products stagnate.
However, I disagree on your thoughts that we should be on DX11. What use is there to release a new set of API's if there aren't any tangible benefits to the new API's? What new features are you adding that will improve graphics and game performance? If the jump is merely incremental then you don't need to release an all new API. You can just do what MS has been doing and provide incremental upgrades.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 2,997
- 126
This is a joke, right?
Without standard APIs we would go back to the DOS days when game programmers had to individually program hardware directly from their games.
There are more OpenGL games now than ever.
They never ended. If you don't think so then start a poll in Software and ask who uses what browser. Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from using alt browsers if they so desire.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 2,997
- 126
Glide is an API just like Direct3D or OpenGL and furthermore Glide was limited to 256x256 textures, 16 bit colour and was severely lacking in features compared to the other APIs.
Furthermore the current Ageia PPU has an API as well since direct hardware access from programs is forbidden under modern operating systems.
The context of your comparison is nonsensical.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,751
- 595
- 126
I can certainly understand that position. I've always lagged behind on hardware purchases myself so I didn't mind the opportunity to "catch up". But I disagree. But microsoft is coming out with DX10, so clearly there's something out there they've managed to conjure up thats worth of a new full release in their opinion. And I suspect we'd have seen that and a lot more sooner if they didn't have other objectives in the xbox that they didn't want to undermine.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter