"Why DX11 will save the video card industry and...

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Little comparison.
http://www.pcmech.com/wp-conte...tracedvsrasterized.jpg

LOL! You do realize that we're currently using rasterizing technology, and I'm pretty sure we've all seen much better image quality, shading, lighting, and refection effects on our own PCs than what Intel wants us to believe is possible in this comparison.

Uhhhh...drrr...I dunno notin sir! Yoo so smart!

<_<

Of course we currently use rasterization, that's the point of the comparison. And yes you can create much better rasterized effects. The comparison in that image is just a stock rasterization. It would look like that if you built those models in Maya for example and textured them the same, with a light source coming from the up high behind the camera. Rasterizing cannot create the same accuracy and quality in reflections/transparency as Ray Tracing can. Sure you could change some settings on the rasterized objects such as the spoon to make it shine more realistically, but it's never going to get too the point of realism that ray tracing creates.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Little comparison.
http://www.pcmech.com/wp-conte...tracedvsrasterized.jpg

LOL! You do realize that we're currently using rasterizing technology, and I'm pretty sure we've all seen much better image quality, shading, lighting, and refection effects on our own PCs than what Intel wants us to believe is possible in this comparison.

Uhhhh...drrr...I dunno notin sir! Yoo so smart!

<_<

Of course we currently use rasterization, that's the point of the comparison. And yes you can create much better rasterized effects. The comparison in that image is just a stock rasterization. It would look like that if you built those models in Maya for example and textured them the same, with a light source coming from the up high behind the camera. Rasterizing cannot create the same accuracy and quality in reflections/transparency as Ray Tracing can. Sure you could change some settings on the rasterized objects such as the spoon to make it shine more realistically, but it's never going to get too the point of realism that ray tracing creates.

Agreed, that it probably won't get to the point of realism as ray tracing, mainly due to the fact that ray tracing allows for objects to be reflected onto themselves (the spout of the teapot onto the body of the pot itself). Is it really a fair comparison to show when the rasterized image doesn't show the full capabilities of the technology? That's sort of like comparing Quake 2 to Crysis as evidence that DirectX is better then OpenGL.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Little comparison.
http://www.pcmech.com/wp-conte...tracedvsrasterized.jpg

LOL! You do realize that we're currently using rasterizing technology, and I'm pretty sure we've all seen much better image quality, shading, lighting, and refection effects on our own PCs than what Intel wants us to believe is possible in this comparison.

Uhhhh...drrr...I dunno notin sir! Yoo so smart!

<_<

Of course we currently use rasterization, that's the point of the comparison. And yes you can create much better rasterized effects. The comparison in that image is just a stock rasterization. It would look like that if you built those models in Maya for example and textured them the same, with a light source coming from the up high behind the camera. Rasterizing cannot create the same accuracy and quality in reflections/transparency as Ray Tracing can. Sure you could change some settings on the rasterized objects such as the spoon to make it shine more realistically, but it's never going to get too the point of realism that ray tracing creates.

Agreed, that it probably won't get to the point of realism as ray tracing, mainly due to the fact that ray tracing allows for objects to be reflected onto themselves (the spout of the teapot onto the body of the pot itself). Is it really a fair comparison to show when the rasterized image doesn't show the full capabilities of the technology? That's sort of like comparing Quake 2 to Crysis as evidence that DirectX is better then OpenGL.

You could say it's a bit unfair. But good looking rasterization comes from the ability of the artists/programmers and not the rasterizer itself. While Ray tracing doesn't really take much work to get a good image. So I'd like to think it's a comparison based on stock settings. You can give a person with no artistic talent paint and ask them to paint copy of a picture, and it will turn out like crap [Rasterizer]. But if you give that person a robot that can paint pictures perfectly, it will make a perfect copy for him [Ray tracer].

But yes, they could have done a little more work, they didn't even try with that spoon, it has no reflectivity, yet the pot does? lol.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

You could say it's a bit unfair. But good looking rasterization comes from the ability of the artists/programmers and not the rasterizer itself. While Ray tracing doesn't really take much work to get a good image. So I'd like to think it's a comparison based on stock settings. You can give a person with no artistic talent paint and ask them to paint copy of a picture, and it will turn out like crap [Rasterizer]. But if you give that person a robot that can paint pictures perfectly, it will make a perfect copy for him [Ray tracer].

But yes, they could have done a little more work, they didn't even try with that spoon, it has no reflectivity, yet the pot does? lol.

There aren't any shadows on the rasterized image at all. The pot and cup are just gradients, that's why they almost look like they have shadows, but they don't - nothing does. That has nothing to do with the artist. It's not as if the artist has draw in the shadows...

Plus, you can make stuff much more reflective than they do in that image. rthdribl is old as hell (I used to use it with my GeForce 6800GT), and even it has better reflections on high gloss objects than that image provided by Intel. http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/ This isn't drawn in by the artist either, this is a real time reflection of the object's surroundings on a glossy surface.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

Yeah, there's still 1 frontier for better looking graphics I'm waiting for, and that's Ray Tracing. It's like the icing on the cake for realism since it makes the shading/lighting look really close to real life.

I'll go against the grain and side with rasterization over ray tracing. Ray tracing looks really good, but it takes so much processing power that it limits what you can do. It puts you in a situation where you can either do 800x600 ray traced or 1920x1200 rasterized. At that point, the image quality is no longer restricted by the math used to draw it, but by the display itself. It doesn't matter how good the ray traced image is, it will still look horrible when it needs to be artificially scaled to fit a 1080p monitor.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

Yeah, there's still 1 frontier for better looking graphics I'm waiting for, and that's Ray Tracing. It's like the icing on the cake for realism since it makes the shading/lighting look really close to real life.

I'll go against the grain and side with rasterization over ray tracing. Ray tracing looks really good, but it takes so much processing power that it limits what you can do. It puts you in a situation where you can either do 800x600 ray traced or 1920x1200 rasterized. At that point, the image quality is no longer restricted by the math used to draw it, but by the display itself. It doesn't matter how good the ray traced image is, it will still look horrible when it needs to be artificially scaled to fit a 1080p monitor.

Of course if were taking performance into consideration. I'm talking about just quality wise. One day we probably will have the processing power for full ray tracing. But that could be ages.

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Dribble
It is true graphics is fixed around the consoles much more- that is why everything is still basically DX9c. To say that they are all we need graphically and hence DX11 is pointless is a lie however. I'm sure the next gen consoles supporting DX12 or whatever will blow the last gen away, unfortunately while the PC is just getting ports of 360 games it may well be that the PC market don't see the full capabilities of anything much beyond DX9c until the xbox 720 comes out.

Interestingly enough though, MS seems to be following the "good enough" graphics with a fancy controller approach with project Natal. IIRC, Natal is supposed to work with the current 360, but MS is also supposedly launching a slightly amped up version of the 360 (overclocked/die shrink? no details yet) that comes with Natal included. While this isn't exactly their "next gen" console, it does show that they are adopting Nintendo's approach.

The point is that it doesn't look like consoles will be pushing the graphics envelope any time soon. Unless, NVIDIA decides to leverage its relationship with game developers and experience with CUDA/physics to build a game console centered around GPGPU squarely targeted towards videophile PC gamers (hi rez graphics with KB/mouse support). Of course, there has been no mention or even rumor about this, just food for thought.

I thought it was just a 360 with natal integrated?

It'll still have exactly the same processing power/memory/etc. The only variables are the size of the hd, and the size of the 360 box which I suppose could shrink if they combine the release of the natal 360 with the 45nm cpu/gpu chip.

I agree it'll be a while till the next gen consoles come out.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

Yeah, there's still 1 frontier for better looking graphics I'm waiting for, and that's Ray Tracing. It's like the icing on the cake for realism since it makes the shading/lighting look really close to real life.

I'll go against the grain and side with rasterization over ray tracing. Ray tracing looks really good, but it takes so much processing power that it limits what you can do. It puts you in a situation where you can either do 800x600 ray traced or 1920x1200 rasterized. At that point, the image quality is no longer restricted by the math used to draw it, but by the display itself. It doesn't matter how good the ray traced image is, it will still look horrible when it needs to be artificially scaled to fit a 1080p monitor.

Of course if were taking performance into consideration. I'm talking about just quality wise. One day we probably will have the processing power for full ray tracing. But that could be ages.

I'm not so sure. Graphics cards are exponentially more powerful than they were years ago, but games are just as much more demanding than yesteryear as well. Games will likely continue to get more and more demanding alongside graphics cards increasing in processing power.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Kakkoii

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

Yeah, there's still 1 frontier for better looking graphics I'm waiting for, and that's Ray Tracing. It's like the icing on the cake for realism since it makes the shading/lighting look really close to real life.

I'll go against the grain and side with rasterization over ray tracing. Ray tracing looks really good, but it takes so much processing power that it limits what you can do. It puts you in a situation where you can either do 800x600 ray traced or 1920x1200 rasterized. At that point, the image quality is no longer restricted by the math used to draw it, but by the display itself. It doesn't matter how good the ray traced image is, it will still look horrible when it needs to be artificially scaled to fit a 1080p monitor.

Of course if were taking performance into consideration. I'm talking about just quality wise. One day we probably will have the processing power for full ray tracing. But that could be ages.

I'm not so sure. Graphics cards are exponentially more powerful than they were years ago, but games are just as much more demanding than yesteryear as well. Games will likely continue to get more and more demanding alongside graphics cards increasing in processing power.

The image quality is there in current games, well most of them. I'd like to see more focus on other factors in games. AI, physics, realism. Not photorealism, although that would be great, just not as necessary (I feel) as the attention needed for more immersiveness in games. While better graphic quality does contribute to the immersiveness, I'd like to see more of the other factors pumped up quite a bit. And Raytracing, while it does look very nice (but so does rasterization), has just too much overhead, at least for today's hardware. That may change in a few years though.

 

[Scali]

For the guys discussing raytracing, I suggest you read this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2321247&enterthread=y

The article on Tomshardware is pretty good, and explains that raytracing isn't the be-all-end-all of rendering that some people are led to believe.

In fact, raytracing by itself is actually pretty lousy.
The ideal renderer as we know it today is a combination of a rasterizer, a raytracer and a photonmapper (and perhaps some other techniques for other special effects).

 

[BenSkywalker]

The NES was a high end system at the time. SNES was a lot more powerful than the Sega Genesis. N64 was faster than the PS1. All 3 of these consoles were wildly successful and they had top end hardware. The Wii is the one and only time a shitty console has sold the most units.

While the SNES did sell the most systems in its generation, the NeoGeo was far more powerful and was utterly dwarfed.

The N64 sold ~30Million units, the PS1 sold over 100Million. The PS1 was the least powerful system in its' generation by a long shot and utterly dominated the market(the console that finished in last place, the Saturn, was still more powerful then the PS1 but used a really screwed up graphics chip, the NV1- which didn't support polygons).

The PS2 was the least powerful console in its generation and outsold both its competitors combined by close to 2:1.

Since the mid 90s the only thing out of place with the Wii doing as well as it is is that it isn't even further ahead then what it is currently looking at it from a relative performance perspective. The weakest console hardware wise has been dominating for closing in on 15 years, no matter who makes it. I'm not saying the two are directly related, but the fact remains that the least powerful system has dominated the market since the days of the Voodoo1.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Dribble
I thought it was just a 360 with natal integrated?

It'll still have exactly the same processing power/memory/etc. The only variables are the size of the hd, and the size of the 360 box which I suppose could shrink if they combine the release of the natal 360 with the 45nm cpu/gpu chip.

I agree it'll be a while till the next gen consoles come out.

Rumor has it that it will be a little bit more than just the same 360 with a camera.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE FIRST DETAILS ON MICROSOFT'S NEXT XBOX

06/13/09 1UP recently posted a new article revealing details on Microsoft's plans for their next XBox, we can officially confirm the information found in that particular report was indeed correct. However today FGNOnline would like to reveal Microsoft's planned specifications of their new unit.

As mentioned in the 1UP piece the system shall indeed integrate the motion sensing technology Natal into the actual device, however our separate sources can now reveal the modest upgrade made to the actual architecture of the new system.

GPU

Whereas the original XBox 360 used a Shader Model 3 GPU with on-board 10MB eDRAM for 720p acceleration, the new XBox has a Shader Model 5 capable GPU with 32MB of eDRAM for 1080p output. The GPU again is designed by AMD and runs at a clock rate of 600MHz.

CPU

The IBM developed CPU shall have 6 cores instead of the 3 found in the original model.
Each single core shall have the same processing throughput as each single core from the XCPU. Meaning the chip is literally 200% as strong and shall now be on equal footing with the PS3 CELL CPU in GFLOPS performance.

MEMORY

The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to 1024MB, and from GDDR3 to GDDR5.
The system retains a Unified Memory Architecture.

OTHER

The platform integrates a 2.5" 32GB SSD (Solid State Drive) instead of a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) as found in the original models. The system also uses a standard DVD drive foregoing Blu-ray thus ensuring backwards and forwards compatibility whilst simultaneously keeping the bill of materials low. Internet connectivity is provided via WiFi.

RELEASE & PRICING

Microsoft plans on a Q4 2010 simultaneous worldwide release. The company is targeting a sub $300 price point.


http://fgnonline.webs.com/

Although, this is far from confirmed and should be taken with a grain of salt http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42931/98/

 

[BenSkywalker]

On a realistic basis the updated 360 specs have zero chance of happening. It would make certain that the 360 would fractionalize their market and allow the PS3 to crush it in short order(without having to adjust anything on Sony's end).

That is far too small of an increase to warrant a new gen but enough to make sure any games that utilized its' features would require it over the original 360. I'm not sure who pulled those numbers out of where, but it is certain it wasn't anything MS came up with.

 

[s44]

I call BS on those specs.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: akugami
I think he's arguing that at similar resolutions, and with similar features, DX10 does not make a noticeable improvement in quality vs DX9. I find nothing wrong with that statement. Maybe we just haven't seen a true DX10 game, and I mean built from the ground up for only DX10, but games that support both DX9 and DX10 looks incredibly similar whether you use DX9 or DX10.

I'm not a programmer but from reading the DX10 articles, it seems DX10 was meant to improve efficiency in getting the effects you wanted. This saves time in getting the effects you wanted on screen. The result is you can use the time savings to further improve the graphics or invest it in gameplay or whatever.

DX10 simply allows more stuff in screen that would not be possible with DX9 and some performance improvements if it's made right thanks to it's efficiency and less overhead. Resident Evil 5 in PC runs considerably faster on DX10 than on DX9 ( I downloaded the RE5 benchmark from the nZone), and in DX10 mode, it have sharper textures, considerably better HDR effects and some better anti aliasing, but the difference is less than comparing DX8 against DX9. DX10 also introduces 128-Bit HDR which explains why HDR in games looks a bit more brighter, more realistic than the 64-Bit HDR used on DX9, but in the end, there's still life in DX9 since the hardware is no longer the limiting factor in performance, but the API itself thanks to it's innefficiency doing lots of tasks.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

While I agree with you on every statement the one in bold is just preposterous, will retextured crysis look like the latest CGI movies? Will it look as good as those raytracing demos? Does it look as good as freaking real life?

There's a LOOOOOOOT of space to improve as far as real-time graphics go.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

While I agree with you on every statement the one in bold is just preposterous, will retextured crysis look like the latest CGI movies? Will it look as good as those raytracing demos? Does it look as good as freaking real life?

There's a LOOOOOOOT of space to improve as far as real-time graphics go.

Not as preposterous as you make it out to be. There has to be a huge update in graphics power to get real time graphics (or the next best thing). To a very large degree, Crysis is about as good as it's going to get in the near term.

*EDIT*

The reason why Crysis will be as good as it gets for the next couple of years is that our eyes are highly sensitive to anything that looks false. No matter how well rendered there is a lot of little things that just screams "fake" to our eyes. Take all but the best rendered images. A lot of CG characters look beautiful but all except the very few top renders can be instantly seen as fake.

For instance this guy which is a beautifully rendered human head, we can still tell it is fake. It's a lot of little things that just screams fake to our minds. Is he going to look much different than these soldiers? Especially at the resolution those soldiers are at?

From a realism standpoint, I think Crysis is nearly at what we'll be seeing for the next couple of years. I think there has to be a huge shift in graphical capabilities to get to the next step. I'm not sure doubling what the supposed capabilities of the Radeon 5xx0 series or GT300 series will be enough.

 

[BenSkywalker]

To a very large degree, Crysis is about as good as it's going to get in the near term.

That could be true, but mainly due to devs not pushing things.

Crysis has flat a flat out horrible particle system. It's not that it isn't bleeding edge, it flat out sucks. Yes, certain things generate some particles, but not much and not nearly enough when they do.

Crysis has terrible physics- again, not borderline- bad. Yes, I have seen what the Crytek engine can do- that doesn't display itself in game(the fact that the Crytek engine can do much better without altercation itself shows where improvements could easily be made).

Crysis has mediocre animation- this isn't flat out horrible, but certainly pales in comparsion to some other titles(Heavy Rain springs to mind- cloth modeling would help out a lot getting rid of the 'robot' look).

Crysis has way too much simulated geometry- non deformable foliage is excessive in Crysis.

Way too much disjointed geometric LOD issues popping up in Crysis, makes it look very old school the way it pops in at random distances. It's slap across the face pull you out of suspension of dibelief obvious, really would have been better to stick with lower geometric levels across the board then doing it the way they chose to(not that higher geometry isn't superior, but that it tesselate out more smoothly or from greater distance so it isn't so distracting).

Any one of those elements by themselves may not sound like much, put them together and they add up to what could be a huge difference without changing most of the core graphics. Still think Crysis overall is the best looking game around, but that doesn't mean that we don't already have the hardware to see something easily superior to Crysis in almost every way(the ones mentioned above are just the major shortcomings Crysis has in relation to games that are already released, the core graphics of Crysis are extremely well done for a two year old game but they are just that, 2 year old assets).

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
On a realistic basis the updated 360 specs have zero chance of happening. It would make certain that the 360 would fractionalize their market and allow the PS3 to crush it in short order(without having to adjust anything on Sony's end).

That is far too small of an increase to warrant a new gen but enough to make sure any games that utilized its' features would require it over the original 360. I'm not sure who pulled those numbers out of where, but it is certain it wasn't anything MS came up with.

Originally posted by: s44
I call BS on those specs.

I don't disagree with either of these statements, especially the SSD... wtf?

However, it's possible that MS is trying to push the resolution up on the 360. Maybe make it so it can play supported games at 1080p instead of the usual 720p (or less) of most games. This would basically just make it a higher def version of the same console. I'm pretty sure that most games on the 360 could already be rendered at 1080p with better hardware, so a "patch" for the Natal version of the console could be just as easy as a config file.

Than again, Natal may just be the current 360 with a bigger HD, built in wifi, and a camera...

 

[BenSkywalker]

However, it's possible that MS is trying to push the resolution up on the 360.

If that were the case a moderate bump on the GPU with an increase in eDRAM(although it wouldn't be to 32MB, heh) would be what we would be looking for, not most of the BS they have in those updated specs.

Even with that in hand, it isn't like they could force enable it on legacy titles anyway, console devs use way too many tricks to mess with their resolution and not have it screw some things up royally. I'm sure some of the less optimized titles, particularly those made by devs with PC backgrounds that you could scale the resolution on, but console native devs are very well versed in cheating like hell for fixed hardware and use the techniques heavily.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

However, it's possible that MS is trying to push the resolution up on the 360.

If that were the case a moderate bump on the GPU with an increase in eDRAM(although it wouldn't be to 32MB, heh) would be what we would be looking for, not most of the BS they have in those updated specs.

Even with that in hand, it isn't like they could force enable it on legacy titles anyway, console devs use way too many tricks to mess with their resolution and not have it screw some things up royally. I'm sure some of the less optimized titles, particularly those made by devs with PC backgrounds that you could scale the resolution on, but console native devs are very well versed in cheating like hell for fixed hardware and use the techniques heavily.

Yeah, we'll have to see what they do. The original point with regards to this thread was that MS isn't rushing to put out a whole new powerful console, but is instead focusing on acceptable graphics coupled with a new (supposedly more interesting) controller.

 

[Henrah]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Way too much disjointed geometric LOD issues popping up in Crysis, makes it look very old school the way it pops in at random distances. It's slap across the face pull you out of suspension of dibelief obvious, really would have been better to stick with lower geometric levels across the board then doing it the way they chose to(not that higher geometry isn't superior, but that it tesselate out more smoothly or from greater distance so it isn't so distracting).

Crackdown on the 360 has some of the best LOD implementation I've ever seen. Water tessellates remarkably smoothly. I didn't notice it until I came back to the game after noticing the way-obvious LOD'ing in Crysis.

When you don't notice something, it's done well. Reversing car in a wood scene in Children of Men: entire roof of the car? CG. Did not notice until I had read about it.

(On a related-but-off-topic note: Children Of Men is awesome. Surely it deserves an award for longest shots? Beautifully done.)

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: s44
Silly article. The next frontier isn't better *looking* graphics (how much better can it get than retextured Crysis anyway?), it's leveraging GPGPU and the like into better physics, AI, environmental interaction, etc. DX11's Compute Shader is an important step.

While I agree with you on every statement the one in bold is just preposterous, will retextured crysis look like the latest CGI movies? Will it look as good as those raytracing demos? Does it look as good as freaking real life?

There's a LOOOOOOOT of space to improve as far as real-time graphics go.

huh?? yes i think graphics wise cryisis IS photorealistic. i was shocked to play it on enthusiast level, the graphics and level of detail are phenomenal to the point of saying this is as good as we ever need it to get. I dont know how picky u are my man, but most of us are'nt ultra anal about graphics details. If i look at the tropical jungle in crysis and look at a pic of a real tropical jungle, it looks pretty much the same. In fact they have plenty of "real vs crysis" pics around the web and more often than not i actually thought the crysis shot was the real life shot!


Physics is a different story. While the graphics looked real, u couldnt effect everything in the environment and each individial leaf on a tree didnt react to changes in wind etc. But that's not graphics, that's physics. That's when u realize we have a LOOOOOOOOOT of improvement to do in the physics department.