Sony @ GDC: Phil Harrison's Keynote
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
How does it looks like in the Xbox 360 version? Anyone?Titanio said:edit - side note, but harping back to the argument of "what can physics do for my game?", but this is a really neat comparison using GRAW on a regular CPU, and on a PhysX-enabled PC:
http://physx.ageia.com/footage.html (<-- footage there)
That's 'just' effects physics.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
expletive said:
pretty much agreed.
the PhysX Processor seems to provide pretty unimpressive results, especially for it's price.
the way forward as I see it, is massively multi-core CPUs that have lots of general purpose units AND specific purpose units that can do many different tasks in hardware at once, helping the next-gen GPUs. this is also a generation beyond the current Cell.
Like what Intel is talking about (though not yet doing) with 'Platform 2015'. and probably other similar efforts that I'm not aware of, as well.
no need for a seperate physics processor at this point. I don't see the value in it, even for PCs.
I'm much more interested in that Cell-like co-processor that AMD is partnering up with Clearspeed for.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well how about the footages, rather than the pics?Tap In said:
http://physx.ageia.com/footage.html
In the PhysX version you see thicker smoke AND spattering, persistent debris while in the other version you see only thin smoke.
Last edited by a moderator:
one said:
wow
How can anyone be against larger explosions!
mckmas8808
Legend
Tap In said:
And that's exactly why I like these new next gen systems.
mckmas8808
Legend
BlueTsunami said:wow
How can anyone be against larger explosions!
*Because they want better storylines and A.I. in games. They would rather have more open-ended places to play than linear type games.
*This is what I've read here. I personally don't believe this.
EPe9686518
Newcomer
Mmmkay said:It was an extreme example of a bunch of things I could think of that could be implemented in fighting games, not a design pitch. But thanks for using it to dismiss the progression of physics entirely.
I wasn't using what you said to dismiss the progression of physics entirely, nore was I using what you said as ammo for my opinnion on the matter. I was going to bring up similar examples when I was set to make my post, you just happened to do it before me so I used yours instead.
As I said in my post, I think the progression of physics is importan and should deffantly continue, something you seem to have missed. I just belive that it should continue on a systems core hardware, IE it's cpu. I think physics are advancing at a fine rate based on the standard hardware and do not need a optimized processor for just physics. Sure there are benafits to this, but I don't think they are great enough to warrent a special peace of hardware for just physics. Again, I think with the powerful CPUs in both 360 and PS3, as well as the powerful CPUs coming out for the PC market, that is plently to make some incredably realistic and convincing physics.
EPe9686518
Newcomer
mckmas8808 said:
I think the CPUs in both PS3 and 360 are more than powerful enough to handle all of the physics and create some very realistic and convincing ones at that. I don't think eather one of those systems needs a special, pricy processor that only does physics like they are trying to sell people on the PC.
Personally I would rather see someone develope a processor that was deacated to doing something like real time ray tracing than physics. I think the level of physics done on just a high end CPU like those in the next gen consoles is more than capable of producing extremely realistic looking physics. I of course, want to see the physics scaled up as new hardware comes out like I said in my other post, but I don't think we need to put money into a processor that just handles physics, at this point I really think it's over kill IMO.
But think of what could be done in games if we had someone develope a processor that was solely optimized for ray tracing. In fact, a german company (i belive) already made the first card just for ray tracing and was able to enable full ray tracing in Quake 3. Now it was at the time still along way off from what would be really useful in todays games, but the company that made the hardware estamated that if Nvidia or ATI spent a few years developing the hardware for this, they could actually produce a chip much like the PhysX chip but for ray tracing that could allow developers to fully use it in real time in games.
Wheather this is true or not is a different story, but something like that is where I would like to see companies focus their time and resources developing, not a processer for physics.
Anywho these are just my thoughts on the matter.
one said:
OK I just checked those out next to GRAW on my HDTV and blew up some cars (not truck) with a GL.
X360 is head and shoulders above the one on the left.
It looks nearly identical to the one on the right *except* there is not as much physical debris on 360. Tires and some small debris fly off but not with all of the detail of the referenced sample.
Edit: Oh.... and the cars sometimes go sky high and flip over and crash upside down... which is nice.
The explosion, lighting and smoke in the right side pic are nearly spot on to the X360 version though.
Single player only BTW, MP is a little less spectacular.
Last edited by a moderator:
EPe9686518
Newcomer
Oh give me a break, don't tell me you actually belive the magical "PhysX" chip is the reason that explosion looks so much better on the right side. Use your head for a second ok? We have seen explosions as good and better then that in games for quite some time that did not use the PhysX chip. Also, that is exactly how the Explosions in that game look on Xbox 360 and I would assume most PCs as well. They clearly and quite cheaply turned the graphics all the way down in the demo on the left to make it look farrrrrrrr less impressive.
In reality you don't need the PhysX chip to make the effects look like that and again thats pretty much exactly how things look when they blow up in the Xbox 360 game by default. That test alone really makes me question the need for this hardware even more.
EPe9686518 said:
Wait, whoa, where, what?! I think I owe an apology and a sign of confusion. I was under the impression that the discussion was relating to Sony's promotion of physics on PS3 in the context of how Aegia is promoting their PhysX PPU (and that CELL is a closer architecture to it than its competitor)? Nothing about the inclusion of PPU's in consoles.
Am I confused, are you confused? Seriously, this is a thread about Sony's keynote at GDC and all anyone wants to talk about is Aegia.
Well I don't know, probably it's what you get on a new PC at a decent fps...Xbot360 said:
So it matchs what I could see in various gameplay movies at gamespot.Tap In said:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysghostrecon3/media.html?mode=all
I could see thicker smoke and some debris, but not with the amount you get with a PhysX card, which scatters many flaming debris ballistically like fireworks. But the thicker smoke already shows what you get with better physics representation, I think hardly anyone wants to go back to that thin smoke.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't look at the gamespot movies (since I have the real thingone said:
) but yes, the firey, flying individual pieces are not present (at least on cars) except for a few small pieces -and lots of tiny tiny particles that look like vaporized stuff- and the tires fly off, on fire. And don't forget the car flipping in the air. And yes the fire and smoke are the best I've ever seen in a game.
Last edited by a moderator:
mckmas8808
Legend
EPe9686518 said:
Than me and you are on the same line of thinking in this quote of yours. Glad to see we actually agree. That's been my point the whole time. Why not use the SPE cycles on physics if it's there.
Similar threads
