Microsoft says no physics API? - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 26th Jul 2006, 02:14

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...o_physics_api/

-EVRE- · 26th Jul 2006, 02:19

Is that pic CG? if so whats if from :b

Darn you MS, had the power to make one physics solution a reality..

BFGunrunner · 26th Jul 2006, 04:12

lol What the hell has Paris Hilton got to do with pysics??

Yumadil · 26th Jul 2006, 04:42

seriously, paris only deals with being a dirty dirty whor*. why does she have to be shown anywhere... especially in the wonder known as bit-tech!

good to see physics is dying, if all a 300 dollar card does is make some extra mail come from mailboxes or a tree explode... well thats just dumb.

anyways, what happened to physics engines like.... oh Quake 4 engine or the doom 3 engine, all with physics engines...

good article, thanks for the place to rant!

Boon · 26th Jul 2006, 08:41

I think Havok FX eventually supporting ATI and nVidia acceleration will be the future of physics in the PC environment. Either than or nVidia will devise a custom solution.

DeX · 26th Jul 2006, 09:20

Noo, this isn't a good thing. DirectPhysics was the best chance gamers and game developers had of introducing lots of physics enabled games. The software is the most important thing when it comes to new technology like this. Havok and Agia have their own software but they are both proprietary and closed. DirectPhysics would be free and open which means you'd see all sorts of support for it on PPUs GPUs and CPUs giving you the best choice possible.

Mad Evil · 26th Jul 2006, 09:27

damn, that wh0r3 needs some meet on her

[USRF]Obiwan · 26th Jul 2006, 09:48

I totaly agree with DeX. MS is completly overlooking this oppertunity. Proberly ending somewhere in the future with buying out a company named Havok

fathom17 · 26th Jul 2006, 09:56

Well i'm not surprised to be honest. I dont see what the point would be anyway. There a middleware physics engines out there which i guess are already on 360 and ps3 so microsoft see themselves as why bother reinventing the wheel.

mmorgue · 26th Jul 2006, 12:35

To be honest I can't see it being much of an issue in the near/upcoming future.

Mainly due to the rate at which cpu's are expected to handle more and more complexity and calculations; dual, quad and even 8 cored chips. Provided the developers actually sort their @rses from their elbows out and implement proper multithreading to handle the cores, each game can implement whatever physics API they want -- dedicated threads or even a whole core could be set aside for it.

Of course you're then presented with the IO throughput of the more objs to simulate "visually" on the GPU side - but even then mobo's and gpu's memry bandwidths and processing capabilities are increasing month by month.

I don;t think we need to really worry about dedicated "chips" or cards for physic APIs -- the cpu's and gpu's of the future will handle it all..

/wonders how to implement Havok on his C64...

Vergil_117 · 26th Jul 2006, 18:16

Most of the time developers rarely even use physics, and if they do its just eye candy and nothing more (ghost recon AW or FEAR for example). The only games I have seen use physics with gameplay is Half-life 2 and Psi-Ops.

26th Jul 2006, 02:14	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	Microsoft says no physics API? http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07...o_physics_api/

26th Jul 2006, 02:19	#2
-EVRE- Supermodder Join Date: May 2004 Location: Idaho U.S.A Posts: 343	Is that pic CG? if so whats if from :b Darn you MS, had the power to make one physics solution a reality.. __________________ (Phenom II 940)(Foxcon A7DA)(8gb OCZ DDR2 800 )(8800gt aka hair dryer)(Big yellow case, CPU, GPU)(Enermax Liberty 500w)(lite-on DVD-RW w/LightScribe)(Seagate 300gb sata)(Seagate 320gb x2)(WD 200gb)(Dell 3007WFP 30"LCD, 19" Samsung, Acer 1280x720 projector)

26th Jul 2006, 04:12	#3
BFGunrunner Multimodder Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: B-Town Posts: 120	lol What the hell has Paris Hilton got to do with pysics?? __________________ My Gaming rig Dell Demsion E531: x2 Althon 64 3800+/ 2 GB DDR2/BFG 7600 GT/ 250 GB HD/ 305 watt PSU/ 19" CTR

26th Jul 2006, 04:42	#4
Yumadil Modder Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: fort mill sc Posts: 64	seriously, paris only deals with being a dirty dirty whor*. why does she have to be shown anywhere... especially in the wonder known as bit-tech! good to see physics is dying, if all a 300 dollar card does is make some extra mail come from mailboxes or a tree explode... well thats just dumb. anyways, what happened to physics engines like.... oh Quake 4 engine or the doom 3 engine, all with physics engines... good article, thanks for the place to rant! __________________ Pentium D 805 @ 4.0ghz, GA-965P-DS3, 1gb corsair pc6400, 7900gs

26th Jul 2006, 09:20	#6
DeX Mube Codder Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 4,103	Noo, this isn't a good thing. DirectPhysics was the best chance gamers and game developers had of introducing lots of physics enabled games. The software is the most important thing when it comes to new technology like this. Havok and Agia have their own software but they are both proprietary and closed. DirectPhysics would be free and open which means you'd see all sorts of support for it on PPUs GPUs and CPUs giving you the best choice possible. __________________ Play my game: Shyguy's Cave of Death! If you dont have the time to check your spelling and grammar, you dont have the time to post! -Liquid K9

26th Jul 2006, 08:41	#5
Boon Supermodder Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 271	I think Havok FX eventually supporting ATI and nVidia acceleration will be the future of physics in the PC environment. Either than or nVidia will devise a custom solution.

26th Jul 2006, 09:27	#7
Mad Evil What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Riga, Latvia Posts: 4	damn, that wh0r3 needs some meet on her

26th Jul 2006, 09:48	#8
[USRF]Obiwan Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,218	I totaly agree with DeX. MS is completly overlooking this oppertunity. Proberly ending somewhere in the future with buying out a company named Havok __________________ Mascleta: "The most accurate simulation of thunder, humans can simulate..." The answer is 42, so... whats the question again? If you know what 'Peek' and 'Poke' represents, then you are probably as old as me.

26th Jul 2006, 09:56	#9
fathom17 Multimodder Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: England Posts: 222	Well i'm not surprised to be honest. I dont see what the point would be anyway. There a middleware physics engines out there which i guess are already on 360 and ps3 so microsoft see themselves as why bother reinventing the wheel.

26th Jul 2006, 12:35	#10
mmorgue Supermodder Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Mos Eisley, in the bar... Posts: 378	To be honest I can't see it being much of an issue in the near/upcoming future. Mainly due to the rate at which cpu's are expected to handle more and more complexity and calculations; dual, quad and even 8 cored chips. Provided the developers actually sort their @rses from their elbows out and implement proper multithreading to handle the cores, each game can implement whatever physics API they want -- dedicated threads or even a whole core could be set aside for it. Of course you're then presented with the IO throughput of the more objs to simulate "visually" on the GPU side - but even then mobo's and gpu's memry bandwidths and processing capabilities are increasing month by month. I don;t think we need to really worry about dedicated "chips" or cards for physic APIs -- the cpu's and gpu's of the future will handle it all.. /wonders how to implement Havok on his C64...

26th Jul 2006, 18:16	#11
Vergil_117 Multimodder Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 71	Most of the time developers rarely even use physics, and if they do its just eye candy and nothing more (ghost recon AW or FEAR for example). The only games I have seen use physics with gameplay is Half-life 2 and Psi-Ops.