Jump to content

PhysiX - Havok


Rikus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nvidia is developing his drivers so 8xxx generation or higher of his card, use cuda and physix.

 

As trackir can move the views with the head, the game must support it or don´t work

 

Will BS support PhysiX or Havok?

 

This will be super super great. the physic will be incredible.

 

Greetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and it will also help us go towards nvidia or ATI because the two use different engines.

i would like to know of these engines will be included in directX and openGL so that every program will use the same kind of function calls or will people receive in each game acceleration only if they have the "correct" gpu each time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

physX cost money. do you want they bought it , and so release an unpolished game ?

 

That was in the past, before nvidia bought PhysiX company.

 

Now PhysiX don´t cost money because the driver run´s physix in 8xxx generation card or higher.

 

You must know something:

 

Havok is software

 

PhysiX is hardware, soy Nvidia cards can run Havok and PhysiX.

 

Ati only Havok.

 

Greetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly, PhysX works for hardware and do not need to buy a physics card. In July, leaving the new Nvidia drivers that add the posibiildad using PhysX in the card series 8000/9000 and beyond. And all Nvidia cards from the new 200 series that has already left incorporate PhysX. And all new Nvidia cards from the new 200 series incorporating PhysX.

 

But if I am not mistaken BS uses Havok, I remember having read in its technical information.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

physX does not alter the graphics of a game. its a physics engine, that means it allows programmers to implement realistic physics rendering into their games. With the new drivers all nVidia cards following the 8800 should be able to accelerate a game using physX, AFAIK. As of now, i dont know what AMD/Ati is brewing.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was in the past, before nvidia bought PhysiX company.

 

Now PhysiX don´t cost money because the driver run´s physix in 8xxx generation card or higher.

 

You must know something:

 

Havok is software

 

PhysiX is hardware, soy Nvidia cards can run Havok and PhysiX.

 

Ati only Havok.

 

You mixed up some things. Both Havok and PhysX are physics engines. Ageia PhysX card was just a piece of hardware to process that engine (also developed by Ageia). Nvidia bought Ageia and modified their drivers to support the processing of the same engine on their cards.

 

Havok, on the other hand, is processed by the CPU.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATI is a subdivision of AMD. AMD 2 years ago was bought by NVidia. Got the point?..

 

 

Eeer nVidia bought AMD? I am sure it didn't. ;]

Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D

ಠ_ಠ



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most PC can run physics intensive tasks (Live for Speed, for example) on just the CPU with no problem. I think a physics card is no more than a consumer trap. Especially today's CPUs, which are quite powerful for very little money.

Helicopters fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATI is a subdivision of AMD. AMD 2 years ago was bought by NVidia. Got the point?..

 

AMD wanted to buy nVidia, nVidia didn't want that. So AMD went ahead and bought ATi...

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Power of Pysics Processing, you could perhaps calculate the airflow around an aerodynamic profile (NACRA ?) in realtime on a consumer PC. This would bring us the next age of Flightsim realism ;-)

 

*only dreaming*

 

S~

Brati

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them." (THX Rich :thumbup: )

 

33rdsignatureimage7klmu6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most PC can run physics intensive tasks (Live for Speed, for example) on just the CPU with no problem. I think a physics card is no more than a consumer trap. Especially today's CPUs, which are quite powerful for very little money.

 

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Even a 2 to 3 year old GPU is probably faster on physics rendering than any modern high end CPU, its just what they were designed for.

With more powerful hardware, developers can concentrate on physics rendering besides improving graphics, so this owes to seeing some pretty amazing stuff in future games, apart from eye candy (which is secondary IMHO).

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Even a 2 to 3 year old GPU is probably faster on physics rendering than any modern high end CPU, its just what they were designed for.

With more powerful hardware, developers can concentrate on physics rendering besides improving graphics, so this owes to seeing some pretty amazing stuff in future games, apart from eye candy (which is secondary IMHO).

 

But it has to be supported by the software, and this is not the case is LFS (last I heard).

Helicopters fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it has to be supported by the software, and this is not the case is LFS (last I heard).

 

Yes of course, but its getting more common to implement a readily available physics engine, even more so now that the gpus are able to render them. IMHO all this GPU-physic stuff will boost realistic physics in games.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO all this GPU-physic stuff will boost realistic physics in games.

 

And the number of cards needed to play the game, possibly ;)

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was in the past, before nvidia bought PhysiX company.

 

Now PhysiX don´t cost money because the driver run´s physix in 8xxx generation card or higher.

 

You must know something:

 

Havok is software

 

PhysiX is hardware, soy Nvidia cards can run Havok and PhysiX.

 

Ati only Havok.

 

Greetings

 

 

Wether physix is hardware or software does'nt matter money wise.

nvidia bought rights. everything about it is nvidia own.

So frankly , i will wait before trust nvidia will freely share a part of they just bought.

in other hand, i agree , in order to spread "standard" physic lib into gaming industry , they must...

 

such physic feature can't be enough precise for model a flight model ?


Edited by gl33k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Havok engine sucks.

I have played most of the HL2-engine games like HL2/CSS/HL2EP, and some other games which uses Havok engine --- in fact, they sucks. Why? An example in CSS, you are a 50kg person, hit a 5kg box or bottle or something else, you will be rejected by that little thing! The same ****ing thing happens in FEAR. It sucks! I hate Havok!

RTX 3070

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Havok engine sucks.

I have played most of the HL2-engine games like HL2/CSS/HL2EP, and some other games which uses Havok engine --- in fact, they sucks. Why? An example in CSS, you are a 50kg person, hit a 5kg box or bottle or something else, you will be rejected by that little thing! The same ****ing thing happens in FEAR. It sucks! I hate Havok!

 

And if you planned on playing Star Craft 2, you might be disappointed as well.:P

Helicopters fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is NVIDIA PhysX Technology?

...PhysX is optimized for hardware acceleration by massively parallel processors.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_faq.html

 

Comparision G280 with PhysX vs CPU

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38046/135


Edited by Legolasindar

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...