Umm, why not physics on console GPU's?

[Neb]

Im not so sure of that. Just take a look at Farcry 2 and Crysis, both seem to be pushing physics quite hard and certainly well beyond the limits of previous generations. And all without Cell or an Ageia PPU!

I remember one of the selling points of the PPU originally was "imagine fields of grass that sways in the wind and gets pressed down as you move over it". Yup Farcry 2 has that.

Yeah great physics yet without the use of Ageia PPU in those 2 games. Although I wonder how it is going with the GPU physics based tech from Nvidia and ATi.

This doesn't make his point any less valid..

In both games you mentioned the vast majority of people care more about the graphics than the physics and both don't utilise physics to any particularly novel and important degree.. Wind and swaying grass is a nice asthetic touch but adds nothing to gameplay..

It is not just that but effects affected by physics (smoke, fire etc), objects around react ot the wind (trees, bushes etc) and pressure waves from explosions etc... I am shure they affect the gameplay in some ways.

 

[pjbliverpool]

This doesn't make his point any less valid..

In both games you mentioned the vast majority of people care more about the graphics than the physics and both don't utilise physics to any particularly novel and important degree.. Wind and swaying grass is a nice asthetic touch but adds nothing to gameplay..

Your right in that graphics still remain king in both of those games so his point about physics still not taking over from graphics is correct. However I was pointing out (without reading Rangers point closely enough) that the levels of physics we were promised do seem to be appearing.

I would disagree with you over the physics not effecting the gameplay in both of those games however. I would argue that the gameplay is significantly effected in Crysis by the physics. i.e. the abiltity to use object and people as weapons. The ability to change you combat field by destroying and moving foliage and structures. The way vehicles react to being shot at in motion etc....

Similarly with Farcry 2, you can be tracked by the paths you leave in grass, and you can use the spread of fire (controled by physics) as a tactial advantage.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

The wii is the bestselling console in America and the world by far.

It's graphics are far below the other contenders.

One would not be "GPU bound" if one did a Wii level graphics game on Xbox360, period. Far from it.

Yes, but a game like that would never sell. The only reason it works for the Wii is because people just accept that graphics will not look that great on the Wii, and additionally that the focus of the Wii as a platform is not on graphics (and of course, it's that much easier to accept that when you're paying far less for the console). If the Wii had a DX10 GPU in it, there would never be an instant that the consumer would accept a title that didn't look like it would anything on 360/PS3 to shame.

On the opposite end, since the Xbox360 and PS3 don't really have any majorly new gameplay toys (barring Sixaxis, which is typically used in such a way that it's a replaceable alternative, and as for the Eye, it's hardly mainstream and there's nothing materialized yet) and are basically all about power, you can bet that the minimum bar for graphics is much higher. You can talk about XBLA/PSN downloadable titles, but again, people have very different expectations for such games. And maybe it's feasible to do a Wii-level graphics title with physics on the GPU in those arenas, but then it just becomes a matter of... why would you bother? What would you gain out of it that would have been impossible on the CPU? Is it enough to say that the associated hassle was worth it?

 

[ADEX]

Physics is a different problem from what GPUs are designed for so they're not that hot at it.
However the computations in physics are a range of different things and some parts of the computation chain should be perfectly feasible on GPUs.

Right now, unless you have a dedicated accelerator you really need the CPU and GPU to be working together for physics. PS3 developers should have no problems with Physics on Cell as it's pretty similar to the PhysX chip.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Right now, unless you have a dedicated accelerator you really need the CPU and GPU to be working together for physics. PS3 developers should have no problems with Physics on Cell as it's pretty similar to the PhysX chip.

Arn't PC games like Crysis doing all the physics on the CPU?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Arn't PC games like Crysis doing all the physics on the CPU?

yup

 

[almighty]

Arn't PC games like Crysis doing all the physics on the CPU?

Yes, but what CPU and HOW much out of the CPU is the question. Crysis physic's performance will vary alot depending on the CPU, Half Life 2 if i remember correctly was limited to 10 objects with full physics at any one time. How many does Crysis handle for a given CPU?

 

[Neb]

Yes, but what CPU and HOW much out of the CPU is the question. Crysis physic's performance will vary alot depending on the CPU, Half Life 2 if i remember correctly was limited to 10 objects with full physics at any one time. How many does Crysis handle for a given CPU?

A Core 2 Duo (dual-core) 2.4Ghz will run Crysis at highest settings at full speed (said in dev interviews). HL2 was not limited to 10 objects with full physis, actually I have 50+ bodies fly away with full physics with my small mod and a A64 3200+ CPU at over 30fps (I was inspired by the resistance body pile up!)! :smile:

Although perhaps you meant a 10 limit for the xbox/xbox360 versions?

 

[pjbliverpool]

Yes, but what CPU and HOW much out of the CPU is the question. Crysis physic's performance will vary alot depending on the CPU, Half Life 2 if i remember correctly was limited to 10 objects with full physics at any one time. How many does Crysis handle for a given CPU?

As Nebula said, a modest dual core should be able to handle it fine (lets say 30fps or more with full physics if we define "fine" in console terms).

So my point was that if the game with some of, if not the best physics out there can run on CPU only, you don't need the CPU and GPU working in combo to produce "next gen" physics. The CPU alone is fine.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

A Core 2 Duo (dual-core) 2.4Ghz will run Crysis at highest settings at full speed (said in dev interviews).

Crap, my new laptop has a 2.2 ghz core 2 duo

 

[ebola]

I agree it's best to keep the GPU's specialized hardware busy creating faster,prettier graphics. Gameplay is all in the mind, and requires the "power of suggestion" .. not always accurate physics simulation (although that helps). There's enough power on a CPU for that.

Infact, maybe the commercial PS3 versus the XBox 360 situation could be taken as measure of consumer "taste" - how they feel the processing power of a modern console should be targetted;
i.e. the PS3 is already over-powered for physics and under-powered for graphics.

(.. although I'm still personally looking forward to games that really justify the cell!)

I get the impression havok FX's main purpose is marketing, to stop ageia selling with the idea that Havok can also supply hardware-accelerated physics. Infact the havok marketter told us Havok FX started as a CPU project. I agree with the idea of something like the Phys-X or the Cell but with it being on an expansion card it's probably more sensible to stick with beefing up the CPU on a PC. Looks like intel's process advantage and market momentum sped past the specialized 'throughput computing' architecture of the Ageia chip...

I suppose some unified design like Larabee could make sharing physics & graphics on the same processing elements more sensible ? Seems more likely that the CPU & GPU will evolve to squeeze out physics hardware...

I suppose Sony could fight that e.g. if they had a custom GPU for PS4 which left "vertex shading" entirely to the Cell... with some custom memory path to stop processed vertices having to go out through main ram. That would be a lot less confused than the mess that you'd have with Cell + GPGPU.

 

[swaaye]

GPU physics is limited to relatively non-interactive effects, I believe, due to its location in the grand scheme and how it basically just receives instead of sends data back to the system. The CPU is in a better position to do meaningful physics, as a result, IMO.

Unless I'm way off here...

And as has been said before, the GPU is already busy doing what it was truly designed for. You won't get physics for free.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

GPU physics is limited to relatively non-interactive effects, I believe, due to its location in the grand scheme and how it basically just receives instead of sends data back to the system.

The GPU is perfectly capable of sending data back into the system in the form of framebuffer info. You just write out vectors of data 'per pixel' in the framebuffer. The shortcomings with GPUs that I know of are limited programmability, and a requirement for data to be supplied in a GPU friendly way, which means wide packets that look to the GPU like textures or pixel quads. Xenos adds to the mix the ability to export data from anywhere in the shader execution, and it doesn't have to be to a framebuffer AFAIK - it's just a raw data output.