Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

CellFactor: Revolution First Impressions

PC First Impressions by Oli Welsh

8 May, 2007

CellFactor: Revolution isn't your everyday deathmatch shooter. For starters, it's free. Today, as it happens. For seconds, it's essentially interactive propaganda, conceived by hardware manufacturer Ageia as an advert for its PhysX PPU (physics processing unit). We'll get to the game in a bit, but to begin with, a little background, because it's arguably much more interesting than CellFactor itself.

You see, Ageia has a rather unusual problem.

The company was formed in 2002 around the notion that the next big thing in gaming processors would be dedicated physics hardware. One day, it dreamed, physics would form such an essential part of the gaming experience that physics cards would sit alongside the ubiquitous graphics cards in gaming PCs - and, who knows, maybe even consoles.

These chipsets would take the strain of heavy physics calculation off CPUs, much as graphics cards stepped in to do in the early days of 3D acceleration. They would also benefit from a fast two-way data exchange with the processor, meaning they could provide gameplay-critical, interactive physics, rather than the purely cosmetic effects that a physics accelerator mounted on a graphics card could. And they would all be manufactured by Ageia, because it had spotted the market opportunity first. Thus, the PhysX card was born.

The thing is, in order to sell hardware, Ageia had to move into software too. It had to create a physics middleware library - a toolkit for developers, so they wouldn't have to do their own complex and time-consuming physics programming, or worry about how to make it compatible with the PhysX chip. This library, also called PhysX, put Ageia in competition with established names in physics middleware, like Havok.

'CellFactor: Revolution' Screenshot 1

Oooh, I could crush a grape. Made out of titanium and the size of my house.

The difference is that Ageia isn't charging for its middleware on PC - it plans to make its money from the cards instead, reasoning that the more PhysX-compatible games are out there, the more chips it can sell. That's sound logic, except that when it comes to consoles, Ageia can't sell cards, so it just licences the middleware in the traditional way instead. And lo and behold it's doing rather well on its own, getting it into games like Gears of War, Red Steel and the latest Tom Clancys. These are much bigger hitters than the PC releases to date - Bongfish's Stoked Rider, anyone? Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon? - although PhysX's foothold in the Unreal and Bioware engines will eventually bring along desktop blockbusters like Dragon Age and Unreal Tournament 3.

So Ageia finds itself fighting a battle on three fronts: with Havok; with graphics card manufacturers NVIDIA and ATI (who, spotting a trend, are now cramming physics processors onto their products); and bizarrely, with itself. Because if the PhysX middleware is so good, do you really need the card to go with it?

To sort this mess out, Ageia needed to make a statement: to get a game out there, on as many PCs as possible, that would clearly demonstrate the performance gap between PhysX with the processor and without it. CellFactor: Revolution, a free download from www.cellfactorrevolution.com, is that game.

Developed for Ageia by Immersion Games and Artifical Studios, it began life as a tech demo for the PhysX card, but after a positive response at last year's E3, was then extended into something approaching a full game. It's a first-person deathmatch shooter with three character classes (two with physics-manipulating psi powers) and five maps. Four maps will run acceptably if not smoothly on a machine with no PhysX card, the fifth being an extremely physics-heavy showcase for Ageia's hardware that grinds down to a frame a second without the PPU. If you have a PhysX card, you can turn it off in the options to see proof of the difference its grunt makes.

'CellFactor: Revolution' Screenshot 2

The Black Ops' psi powers may be less sophisticated than the Bishop's, but they're still powerful.

There's a single-player Campaign mode which sets a number of challenges (e.g. kill ten bots using psi powers only) for each map, plus a fairly standard set of Skirmish options - Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag and bomb-delivering Assault. In skirmishes you can opt for AI opposition (sharp-shooting, if a bit static) or play 8-player matches over LAN. However, the sheer amount of data that CellFactor needs to throw around has made online multiplayer impossible. That, it must be said, severely limits the game's appeal as anything more than a PhysX demo.

Of the three classes, the Guardian is the bread-and-butter, running-and-gunning grunt. The Black Ops combines weapons with the ability to use vehicles, gravity grenades and basic psi powers, including a satisfying force push which can be used to hurl objects at your foes. The Bishop is the physics star, a flying genetic mutant who can't use weapons, but can push, pull, lift, and crush huge numbers of objects (and people) at a time, fire rapid streams of debris and clear swathes of room with psi waves.

The Bishop has the most entertainment value, but we found her control configuration extremely fiddly, and kills initially quite hard to pull off. Black Ops is the most immediately satisfying choice, not least because of the access it gives (on some maps) to the four chunky and well-realised vehicles: the Goliath mech, Death Stalker car, Dusk Hawker aircraft and self-explanatory Hover Mech.

The maps are standard-issue shooter dystopia - rusting, industrial death pits under bloody skies, all lava and steel and big piles of crates. Really, really big piles of crates you can lift and crush together like they were a crisp packet. And neatly stacked rows of literally hundreds of canisters, just asking to be scattered and battered in seconds with the wave of a Bishop's hand. In terms of the PhysX's raw number-crunching power with rigid-body physics, deformation and collision detection, CellFactor is an impressive demonstration, no doubt.

'CellFactor: Revolution' Screenshot 3

I call this one 'Reverting Light: Between Mother and Magnitude III'.

But these bleak, mechanical settings don't really give it a chance to shine in the other areas Ageia is touting: fluids, fabrics (which includes fibres like hair and grass), and joints and springs. The lava and cobwebs, doing fluid and fabric duty respectively, were especially underwhelming, and didn't show us anything we hadn't already seen done better elsewhere, without hardware acceleration. That's not to say that PhysX isn't capable of serious feats in these areas, just that CellFactor isn't where you'll find them.

As a deathmatch shooter, CellFactor doesn't seem especially well-balanced and is crippled by its lack of an online mode. But it's substantial enough for a freebie, undeniably spectacular at times, and well worth a look if you have either a PhysX card or a fairly beefy PC. As a PhysX demo though, it's frankly a little worrying. There's no denying that the card has clout to spare, and can throw a stupendous number of objects around the screen convincingly. But little of what it makes possible is new, it's just that there's a lot more of it. Is sheer quantity where the future of physics realism really lies?

There are software physics packages out there that can do jaw-dropping stuff without needing a dedicated hardware backup, stuff far beyond what you will see in CellFactor - albeit, admittedly, on a smaller scale. Pixelux's amazing Digital Molecular Matter is one, currently under licence to LucasArts and being applied to its next Indiana Jones and Star Wars titles. DMM simulates the properties and behaviours of all kinds of material - cloth, glass, wood, rubber, crystal - with astonishing accuracy. Scattering a thousand boxes may be pretty, but watching one box splinter and crack in minute detail a different way every time you hit it is something else: it's the shock of the new.

You have to ask yourself: is it the power you're packing, or what you do with it that counts?

Advertisement

Are you excited about CellFactor: Revolution on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-26 of 26 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
SeesThroughAll
08/05/07 @ 09:42
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Here's a question many might wonder... Do the SPUs in the PS3's Cell do half as good a job for physics as this new PPU chip?

Edit: Fixed that nasty typo, I meant SPUs all along and know the difference. Thanks zuljin
Edited 2 times, most recently on 08/05/07 @ 13:42
Tyronne
08/05/07 @ 09:50
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I actually thought about getting one of these cards until I saw the price...not touching it until it comes below the £100 quid mark as there are way too few games to make it a must have purchase...its just a novelty at the moment.
zuljin
08/05/07 @ 09:57
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@SeesThroughAll
"Do the PPUs in the PS3's Cell do half as good a job for physics as this new PPU chip?"

Different reference. PPU (or PPE) for PS3 refers to the PowerPc Processing Unit (element), so there is only one. The PPU refered to in the article is a Physics Processing Unit.

Chances are the SPUs (SPEs) aren't as good since they're a bit more general purpose, but then you do have 6 of them available... If physics is important in a PS3 game, you can dedicate a few to that task, if not, you can probably get away with not running it on the SPUs at all.

Edit: Spelling
Edited 1 times, most recently on 08/05/07 @ 11:27
thesombrerokid
08/05/07 @ 10:04
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
DMM isn't a physics middleware, it doesn't do collision detection rigid body, fluid mechanics, it just does material deformation & it's not under licence to lucas arts the company pixelux was bought by them along with all their technology.
Amajiro
08/05/07 @ 10:31
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Agree with Tyronne - if I could get a dedicated PPU for 50 quid or so I might be interested.
karstux
08/05/07 @ 11:24
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Can anyone actually download this? The slightly annoying flash page has a "download" panel which doesn't seem to link any downloads.
lost_soul
08/05/07 @ 11:38
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The physics card was a great idea back when we were all using single core CPUs, but now with dual core processors the norm and quad core becoming the standard over the next couple of years, we have loads of spare processing cycles available that can be used to handle game physics.
kelly's_h
08/05/07 @ 11:39
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I just love how the 360 keeps on giving. I don't keep up with buying PC hardware, so I just wanted to see (in the article) what I was going to miss out on for a couple of years. But as it turns out, I am already using it. Maybe not to the full extent, but still.
zuljin
08/05/07 @ 11:55
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@lost_soul
"we have loads of spare processing cycles available that can be used to handle game physics."

What? So, you're saying your pc can handle any game thrown at it with CPU to spare? I'm playing on a pretty good pc, no slowdown on STALKER whatsoever (pretty maxed out), but Supreme Commander is havin a bit of trouble... Offloading anything intensive onto dedicated hardware is always useful from the games perspective, from the consumers perspective is a different matter.

Not that I'm for dedicated physics hardware or anything...
kangarootoo
08/05/07 @ 12:01
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@lost_soul

"we have loads of spare processing cycles available that can be used to handle game physics."

When it comes to high end game coding, there is no such thing as spare cycles :)
Mentalist(air)
08/05/07 @ 12:03
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Physics cards are a wicked blight on society.

They must not be allowed to succeed at any cost.
Calgon
08/05/07 @ 12:09
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think the Author should have further investigated ATI's physics solution... from what I remember the long and short of it is: with their middleware/software a GPU could be used soley for Physics and early tests(third party/hardware site) show that it gave the PhysX card real a beating. So unless they are selling at price point far enough below ATIs Graphics cards then I beleive the smarter choice would to buy two GPUs for an SLI setup... because it can always be put to full use in games.
bcolter
08/05/07 @ 12:48
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Physics cards are a dud... the CPU and GPU will be able to handle everything the games require... These cards will be thing of the past before we know it.
SeesThroughAll
08/05/07 @ 12:48
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
So unless they are selling at price point far enough below ATIs Graphics cards then I beleive the smarter choice would to buy two GPUs for an SLI setup... because it can always be put to full use in games.

The point of the PPU is precisely that it will be marketed cheaper than most GPUs and CPUs, I expect.

ATI/NVIDIA benchmarks and tests are always skewed to make their own hardware look good, and you know better than basing such an assumption on "independent tests".
zuljin
08/05/07 @ 13:01
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@bcolter
You do realise the exact same thing was said about graphics cards right?

/Stirs his great big pot
Calgon
08/05/07 @ 13:19
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
SeesThroughAll:

ATI/NVIDIA benchmarks and tests are always skewed to make their own hardware look good, and you know better than basing such an assumption on "independent tests".

The first part of that sentence makes sense(and is quite right too) the second part does not, although it's not as good as seeing for yourself there is no better source for a comparison than a respected hardware site short of that(although its better to have multiple sources for reference, so we will see when more hardware sites benchmark if there is an agreement, but for now it appears ATI could be onto something).

My point was in terms of value for money to the average gamer, if they want success they will need more than just the hardcore crowd and even they are skeptical thus far. Already people are commenting on the high price it seems, Im not sure this PPU idea will take off personally, I was quite interested when the concept of this was first unveild.
Edited 4 times, most recently on 08/05/07 @ 14:33
SeesThroughAll
08/05/07 @ 13:27
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Definitely agreed that the best judge of that would be several benchmarks, and over a reasonable amount of time.

Still, to me it seems strange that a GPU, with a very rigid and dedicated design, would be much better suited for general physics calculations than a chip which is supposed to be designed towards this end...

Maybe it the concept of PPU picks up, ATI can design their own PPUs in the future (or add them as a co-processor in future GPUs).
TheSnotGoblin
08/05/07 @ 14:14
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
What with CPU's all going multi-core nowadays though I do wonder if a PPU is needed when they could in theory dump the physics load on one core of the system. Hells, Gabe Newell has been talking up doing away with graphics cards because of multi-core processors.
Iora
08/05/07 @ 16:00
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nice idea unfortunately with the likes of Havoc 4.0 most operations can be run from the graphics card to impressive effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWjSJ0PHqf8

Skip to 8:00 and watch if you are stricken by short attention span syndrome.

Would be invaluable if
a) It was £50
b) More widely utilized in games
TheMoonRat
08/05/07 @ 16:03
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Those who are saying it doesn't matter with CPU's going multicore etc... the problem is that CPU's, the way they are designed and the way they work, just aren't that appropriate for large amounts of complicated physics. Doesn't matter if you have 8 processor cores; 1 of the ageia cards would still easily outperform it. Its the same as how 1 graphics card will always be easily able to outperform any amount of core processors: it has dedicated hardware the works best to the task at hand.

Graphics cards, however, DO work in a way that is appropriate for physics calculations, and the way graphics cards are doing with streaming processors on the Geforce 8x series, with the right SDK things could work (in theory) pretty well on them. But then there is the problem of you having to sacrifice graphical quality for physics; and how would the developer know how much physics processing power it will get? Maybe as graphics cards get more powerful that won't be a problem, but right now a dedicated physics card IS the best solution....

It's just a shame there's not a damn good thing out there that takes advantage of it
dryden555
08/05/07 @ 16:30
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
multi-theads and multi-core CPU's should be able to handle the calculations especially with quad cores coming very very soon. Its all about number-crunching and writing efficient code. I'm not buying the idea we need a dedicated card to process physics.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 08/05/07 @ 17:32
Freek
08/05/07 @ 17:15
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Going by this review, performance doesn't seem to be the main issue, rather that's it being done better by other software.
It's all well and good that you can do lots and lots and lots of crates, but what's the point?
TheMoonRat
08/05/07 @ 19:16
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
dryden555: its not just about "number crunching" thats the whole point. The processor can number crunch for sure, but not in a way that's suited to physics. Just like graphics processing isn't suited to the CPU, so we get graphics cards.
Just because you see CPUs getting faster with more cores does not back it anymore suited to doing the job.

As I said, if anything was to stop a dedicated physics board, it would (and probably will) be graphics cards; since the way they work IS suited to physics. Not 100%, as graphics cards do not talk back to the system (which a plug in card can do) but there could be a way around that.
3william56
09/05/07 @ 10:34
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Brilliant. Just what the world needs - another set of PC gubbins to be out of date and need to be upgraded every six months or so, and another spec to check on the box before you buy the game.

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Pablo2k5
09/05/07 @ 22:09
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ TheMoonRat

Quite right, however, I'd give up talking to this lot. They've obviously 'rejected' such ideas as propaganda because the tight bastards begrudge shelling out some more wonger for another add-on card.
ph101
11/05/07 @ 16:04
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
That havoc video is pretty impressive. From a consumer point of view - i don't want to see physics cards become established. Another thing to buy. And if havok is to be believed similar results can be achieved by using some gpu.

Comments: 1-26 of 26 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Metaboli

X View gallery