What do you think about Microsoft's upcoming Physics API?

[the Chase]

Yeah if Microsoft was a little more forethcoming with DX10 and put it out for Windows XP instead of making you buy Vista in order to get it I would be a little more excited about this. I think it's good in that it will drive phyx farther/faster and will encourage and enable more competiton on the hardware side of things. But what is Microsoft going to make me buy to have it?

Edit- and yeah I know there are certain things with the coding or whatever of DX10 that "require" Vista in order to function..Blah blah

 

[Keysplayr]

I would certainly want to see what AGEIA spokespersonnel have to say about it. Is it a good thing for AGEIA? Will it render the Physx chip useless or will/is it going to be able to use Microsofts API? Is PhysX D.O.A. because of this news? I dunno.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Edit- and yeah I know there are certain things with the coding or whatever of DX10 that "require" Vista in order to function..Blah blah

I doubt thats actually true myself. I mean, don't tell me microsoft lacks the ability to make their own API work on their own operating systems. There comes a time to cut support on the old ones loose, but directX8, released in 2000 was available for windows 95. And directx9 still works with windows 98 doesn't it? But this one they want no backwards support on.

 

[Genx87]

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

This should actually help their position as it legitimizes the technology. Once Microsofts Physics API is created, developers will have a free standardized API from which to work with. Imagine shader models but in physics.

This is something they need as it will help bring their technology into the gaming world.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: framerateuk

Originally posted by: Sable

Originally posted by: framerateuk

Originally posted by: Sable
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.

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.

What do you think a video driver does? It takes the DX calls and churns out calls the video card can handle.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: RobertR1

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Acanthus
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.

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.

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.

Very possible developers and hardware manufacturers have a say in the time tables of DX. Devs dont want to code for DX9 when DX10 is around the corner, which has DX11 on its heels. This isnt like a GPU where you churn it out every 12 months. These API's take time to be embraced by the dev and hardware community and quite frankly I wouldnt see the point in having a new DX every 12 months anyways.

It takes the GPU manufacturers about 2-3 generations before their hardware is capable of playing the current generation of DX in a decent fashion. Pushing out a new standard every 12 months would probably mean our playing experiences would suck.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

This should actually help their position as it legitimizes the technology. Once Microsofts Physics API is created, developers will have a free standardized API from which to work with. Imagine shader models but in physics.

This is something they need as it will help bring their technology into the gaming world.

It legitimizes the the need to process physics, but doesn't really help the AGEIA physx if it is a totally different and incompatable API. We will have to see as with all else.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

This should actually help their position as it legitimizes the technology. Once Microsofts Physics API is created, developers will have a free standardized API from which to work with. Imagine shader models but in physics.

This is something they need as it will help bring their technology into the gaming world.

It legitimizes the the need to process physics, but doesn't really help the AGEIA physx if it is a totally different and incompatable API. We will have to see as with all else.

I am sure they are working with microsoft like Nvidia and ATI does with DX.
If all else fails I am sure they can write a driver to make it work and plan a new arch that is compatible.