Physics Processor - AGEIA (Cool Demo)

Now I can't get your ditty out of my head!

 

What makes this a "Physics Processing Unit" as opposed to just a math co-processor in general?

Honestly, as long as you're doing rigid body physics and not soft body or fluid dynamics, the actual physics calculations are cheap. It's the collision detection that tends to kill you. And you can do collision detection on GPUs already, not to mention physics calculations, that's actually pretty simple.

It just seems kind of pointless to have a special unit just for physics when the CPU and GPU can do so much of this stuff already.

 

'Cause math co-processors went out of vogue with the 486.

 

You know, all that Aegis (whatever) PR talk about this being equivalent to 3Dfx's introduction of the VooDoo is not exactly exciting me much. Here're my concerns:

-Like 3Dfx is Aegis going to try and enforce a specific and proprietary API for this (ala GLide?). We need a DirectPhysics and OpenPL I think.
-Is the Novadex (whatever) middleware solution they are "offering" royalty-free? (basically turning PPUs into a commodity and therefor making oodles of cash from their middleware licenses).
-Is there going to be any other companies jumping in and provide competition so the consumers don't have to bend over to Aegis?
-What's the price on the first boards? Because unlike a 3D card which can be used for more than games, a Physics dedicated chip(set) would only be of use for gaming and perhaps civil engineers (talk about niche market).
-Is it passively cooled? I liked that 25W figure but I'm also concerned about noise.

Other than that, looks promising.

 

Doesn't bother me at all. Don't know if it's actually the case...but it doesn't bother me if it is.

Did 3dfx force people to use Glide...or did they have the first mini-gl available and also support Direct3D?

It's expected to have a new API or middleware product concerning they have the first hardware implementation.

Don't know, but doesn't really matter to me.

If no other companies are taking the risk that Aegis is, then what else should consumers expect?

 

What? Is that why I still have to keep my VooDoo 2 whenever I feel like playing EF2000, Diablo 2 with any decent speed, Unreal 1/UT without artefacts, or having to use GLide-wrappers, etc.? Mini-gl is exactly what I don't want to see again: a half-baked api that compromises feature-set to make up for lacking hardware. And the only reason why 3Dfx even did that and provide DX drivers was because of competitors. And then in the event that Aegis goes bust there goes any kind of support for games that rely on them (I can't help but marvel at the irony of Aegis' own comparison with 3Dfx).

No argument there. What I'm asking is if they are open (pun intended) to using an open (or at least independent like DirectX) API instead of forcing their own down developers/consumer's throats. Because if that's so and PPUs take off, you can be sure that soon enough there will be new companies with their own hardware and of course, proprietary APIs and then games that support only one of the two APIs.

 

Jesus...3dfx wars redux...

No, it's because you happen to like playing old games. Would you have played any of those games when they came out with the 3D support they had without 3dfx?

No, it was created to get 3D accelerated quake out to the masses of people with 3dfx cards as quickly as possible. Um, Voodoo Graphics was hardly "lacking hardware" for the time. In fact, "revolutionary" usually comes to most people's minds.

First of all, you're wrong.

The reason why 3dfx did that was because Carmack asked them too. Carmack didn't want to code for any more proprietary APIs after RRedline (Rendition), and he decided to use OpenGL. Creating a full-blown ICD is lots of work, so 3dfx agreed to create "enough" GL support to support Carmack

And, um, what's stopping "competitors" from entering the "Physics Hardware" industry? That's the point. If it becomes a viable industry, there will be more players, and standardization will eventually emerge.

Meanwhile, trying to hammer out "standards" before the first hardware even hits the streed is a bit naieve.

And what if said "open" API does not match up with their own hardware?

 

Wasn't there also something about Carmack/id signing a deal with someone like Matrox, so he had to get 3DFX to do the work rather than doing it himself? I'll see if I can dig up the relevant .plan.

Edit: It seems both Webdog and Blues have taken their .plan systems offline, and it doesn't look like anyone has pre-97 entries from Carmack archived.

 

I'm siding with Joe on this one. I see no Direct Physics, so I envite them to make their own API if they wish. Do you really expect for someone like Microsoft to invest their time and money into coding for something that does not exist???? If and when a standardized API and multiple competitors arrive, then we can start worrying about such currently trivial matters.

 

Quake 2, Ultima IX, Half-life, are old games too and I can play them using current hardware/drivers with no problems.

Yes because they all had non-3dfx support. It was just never developed enough because we all thought that GLide would be the future.

So, it wasn't out of 3Dfx's goodness of their hearts like you imply above? That's my whole point. The only reason they did the little they did non-Glide wise was from external pressure. It seems you're not concerned if there isn't any external pressure on Aegis.

And so in 5 years time people won't be able to play UE3 games because they feature a proprietary API that's no longer around?

So the answer to that is resignation in the fact that will take 2 years to see the light and that whatever hardware/games come out in that period will be obsolete before their speed would actually indicate or their gameplay becomes stale?

That's probably a good indication whether or not the hardware is good enough (assuming this perfect "open" API of course).

Apparently there's already some work in this. http://www.physicstools.org/ It seems Aegis is contributing to it, which is good news in my book.

 

And your problem is?

So then why do you need a 3dfx card then?

Who thought Glide would be the future?!

Glide was the easiest and fastest way to port software 3D render engines to support hardware acceleration.

Where did I say that?

Do you think it was out of 3dfx "greed" that many developers ported to Glide? Or because the alternatives at the time sucked rocks, and 3dfx had a viable alternative?

But you need a viable alternative to have external pressure.

If no other competitors step up to the plate, who cares?

I'm concerned about external pressure where the market isn't driving it, absolutely.

Then play UE5, or keep your old hardware around. Problem?

What if in 1 years time we have no "physics accelerated UE3", because the industry gets bogged down in "standards definition" by companies who don't even have hardware to compete?

My answer is to let the marketplace dictate what the light actually is. Ageia is sticking their neck out and making a very, very, large investment in bringing hardware to market. They deserve to be the market leaders in the software that supports their own hardware.

If the hardware and/or software is CRAP, then it won't get supported.

 

All,

This is just SO cool! When I look at the track demo I think of how cool Total Annihilation II would be if all the units had tracks like that! (would ROCK to blow them up!) hahaha I am way more jazzed about the possibility of a good PPU than dual core CPUs, SLI, or any of the next gen video cards. This could have a huge impact of the suspension of disbelief and the funness(tm) of games. =)

 

What is? Not exposing the hardware? From some points of view perhaps, from the view of a programmer ... what a waste.

 

It seems we're going in circles. My problem is that Diablo 2 runs like molass in anything except GLide mode, that U1/UT has visual artefacts in anything except Glide mode and that EF2000's non-3Dfx mode is verite's. In essence, my problem is that these (and other games) dedication to a proprietary API means I have to a) run them in software mode b) run them a LOT slower/with visual anomalies c) use a GLide wrapper for more slowdown/artefacts d) keep my VooDoo 2 (which of course only got Beta W2k drivers and I have to use custom made XP drivers). As much as I fancy keeping old hardware for nostalgic reasons (I still have my speccy, NES and Gameboy) I would like to be able to play 5 year old games on my current hardware/software without much fuss like all these other even older games that don't use a proprietary API. That's my problem.

You imply that when in reply to my argument that 3Dfx only supported DX and opengl (half) because of competitors. Carmack telling 3Dfx to get their act together was ONLY because there was competitors around.

You've said it yourself, because 3Dfx had the only viable alternative. I don't dispute that. I contend that reality existed because of 3Dfx's API enforcement and nearly monopolistic tactics. Only with such a behaviour did 3Dfx manage to fend off nVidia (and ATi?) which had superior hardware. They did eventually change (and disappear) but how long did that took?

Do you believe there will be competitors? (not a loaded question).

The consumers belong to that market. If we just stand and take it where's the motivation for Aegis to do the right thing?

Just because you don't like to play older games (as implied by your lack of concern) and you like having a computer with many, many generations worth of hardware then sure, no problem. But I like playing old games and my rig to be as streamlined and lightwight as possible.

Aegis (or whoever) doesn't have to wait. That's not what I'm saying. What I'd like is for them to move to those defined standards as quickly as possible and for Tim Sweeny to patch UE3's games that use the current API with the then defined API.

No. If Aegis has the monopoly of hardware (which it deserves) AND the middleware (which is apparently not going to) AND the API (which you are a proponent of) then competitors are going to take longer to appear, not make any money if they have to pay royalties/licensing fees to Aegis, have to make potentially inferiour hardware to support a biased API. Delaying the surfacing of potentially better solutions which in turn makes the support of CRAP hardware and/or software a reality.

But anyway, it seems Aegis _IS_ doing the right thing and contributing to this ODF dealie, so some of my questions have been answered.[/u]

 

I still don't see why this is such a great idea. Physics calculations are all over the gamut, they are not easily parrallized.

Rigid body calculations are the easiest to do in that way, but the second you want to be realistic (eg inelastic collisions) you introduce pathological nonlineararities. I can write a computer program to brute force it, or I can be clever and guess (or copy) the solution for that particular situation. The difference in speed between the two will be many/many orders of magnitude in diffference. Hence there is no general way I can instruct a computer to do this for me and somehow bracket the time frame. Fluid mechanics is notorious for this as well.

So the part seems to me to just end up being general like a CPU, and with probably a lot of software fallbacks where it will be far easier for the developer to just do it themselves.

I mean consider the easiest physical situation in a scene. Lighting! We have graphics cards that have been developed for years by many great minds, but yet not a single one can do it realistically in realtime. We know in principle how to do it, we even know it can be parralelized, but its still prohibitively slow. Every single gfx card on the market uses crude lighting approximations to trick the eye (and the eye is very easily tricked).

Here its not even clear how we can use a set of general approximations to recreate anything that would seem reasonable to our real life situation, they will all have to be specialized per frame by the dev!

 

as long as it is overclockable I do not really care.

 

So, your problem is with that optional rendering modes?

Contrast this "problem" of yours to the problem of not even having accelerated modes for this software when they were released. Which is worse? You having to hold on to old hardware 5 years later, or deal with occaisional anomolies? UT / UT1 runs under practically every API known to man.

Then why don't you "fuss" to the game makers to update support for "your API of choice?"

Why don't you tell Epic and the UE3 gamers "hey, forget about accelerated physics in UE3 games...we know it's possible to do, but there is no open standard API...so we'll wait another generation or 2".

A bit selfish?

Oh, so um, 3dfx is no longer because of this? The reality existed because there was no viable alternative.

When other hardware equally or comparably capable became available, and as standard APIs matured so they didn't suck as much, the industry moved forward. As it should have.

Huh? Riva128 was not superior 3D hardware. (It was a superior OEM part).

TNT was on par with Voodoo architecture 3D wise. Some plusses, some minues. 3dfx made their contributions to the GL ARB and Direct3D like everyone else driving those standards.

As long as it should have. They didn't have the hardware or the OEM presence to compete with nVidia's line-up.

I'm guessing not initially. I'm guessing that potential "competitors" (discrete physics chips) are going to see the waters test with this part. I'm also guessing that the ultimate "competitors" may end up being ATI/Nvidia/Intel/AMD who may be working in similar architectures into future versions of their chips.

Define "stand and take it." If consumers buy products that Aegis builds or that license Aegis technology...then consumers are voting "yes". If consumers don't buy it, THAT's how they "stand up against it."

Just becayse you don't like to play newer games with the latest technology....

I don't understand what you're saying.

Sweeny can patch UE3 with whatever technology he feels fit to do so. If "DirectPhysics" emerges, Sweeney can support that if he wishes. It's not up to Ageia.

 

Dang, I played thru all the demos with my 5 year old daughter and she was just enchanted with them!

If it can add that to games that smoothly, I don't care if it's a bloody monopoly or not for a while!

If this catches on there will be others building 'em, guaranteed.

 

I knew this day would come.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewt...ghlight=physics+processing+unit&start=120

 

lol, good job