Physical Education Review

What went wrong and what next for the beleaguered PhysX card.

Version tested: PC

Testing a theory, I conducted an experiment. Calling up a friend who plays PC games but whose technical knowledge ends at realising that he needs to buy (or beg me to build for him) a faster machine every few years, I enquired as to whether he had a physics card. As predicted, he was frightened and confused by the question. Without one, he asked, was his PC somehow incapable of physics? But he could use the gravity gun in Half-Life 2. That had physics, right? So what was he missing, oh God what was he missing? I might as well have asked him if his rig had a water card, or a skin processor. Attempts to explain the purpose of the physics card didn't help greatly, and only further highlighted one of the factors keeping the nascent tech dead in the water. The Ageia PhysX physics accelerator card is trying to fix a problem that no-one thinks they have.

This week saw the release of Cellfactor: Revolution, a game originally intended to be a full-blooded celebration of PhysX. If you've played it, without or without an add-in physics card, you'll know that, despite some impressive parlour tricks, it's not a game - it's just a fancy tech demo riddled with problems. Given the year old PhysX's failure to set the world on non-framerate-bothering fire, it's all-too-easy to speculate that Cellfactor's original ambition has been brutally castrated. Why spend all that cash and developer brainjuice on a promotional tool for something that seems to have failed already? The card had a disastrous start last year. Its first big game, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, initially ran worse when PhysXed up, while a public beta of Cellfactor was quickly hacked to run almost all its gimmicks without the card. Since then, it's all been a bit quiet, and there's very few outside of its parent company Aegia who currently feel the physics processing unit has a long and prosperous future.

PhysX, of course, isn't dead yet, and even if it does pass away quietly in the night, Ageia will survive for a while offering its software physics engine to developers as a rival to the more established Havok. This offers the same kind of floppy bodies and bouncing crates as is possible using the hardware acceleration of the card, but on a less grand scale and at greater in-game speed cost. At any rate, this piece is not intended to be a burial, but rather a fitness test for what may well turn out to be a final tour of duty.

There are only a handful of games that support PhysX hardware - in any other, it just sits there sucking up electricity and making fan noise. It's not a particularly impressive list of games - G.R.A.W. and City of Heroes are the only two that crawl anywhere near triple-A status. Forgettable FPSes like Bet on Soldier and Infernal bulk up the roster slightly. That latter is not a game I'd hoped to ever play again, but oddly offers the most visceral demonstration of a PhysX card outside of Cellfactor. It's intermittent and inconsequential, though. For instance, shoot an in-game barrel without the card, and a few chunks and splinters of wood spray across the room. Shoot it with the card and, as well as some extra wood bits, the wine inside the barrel also sprays out - as some bizarre purple ectoplasm, which disappears almost instantly.

'Physical Education' Screenshot 1

Infernal - With PhysX above, without below. Certainly looks better, but doesn't make the game any less of a dog.

This highlights two pretty major problems with the PhysX concept, regardless of whether or not games to take advantage of it exist. Firstly, a lack of interactivity - a great deal of the PhysX effects are effects only, not physical objects. Even where the accelerated bits and bobs can be made interactive, it's a headache for developers - their game will then behave differently on systems that do and don't have a PhysX card. This could grant one player an advantage over another; is this a price worth paying to have more barrels rolling down a hill at once? To become a success, PhysX needs games based upon rather than merely aided by its abilities, but, as the smallness and brokenness of Cellfactor demonstrates, such a game won't get made because not enough people have PhysX cards. Catch-22.

The other problem is discretion and believability. Yes, that wine is spraying without bringing the PC's processor to its knees, but it looks weird and unconvincing. Similarly, Cellfactor's an environment full of PhysX effects, but watching a few dozen crates pinball unrealistically across the level like a lunatic charging headfirst at his foam rubber walls robs the game of coolness. There's just not enough discretion in PhysX's use - it's being wielded as a blunt instrument. Whatever its merits as a game, the reason Gears of War (which coincidentally uses the PhysX software engine) looks so much more graphically advanced than its peers is not because it's splattered high-dynamic range lighting and normal mapping absolutely everywhere just because it can. Indeed, its environments are pretty bland and interchangeable, but that doesn't matter because they're not where you're looking. It's carefully focused in on spending its tech and art on depicting its stars, a pack of really big men, in such a way that they look detailed and stylised at once, both real and unreal and, for all the insidiousness of the phrase, 'next-generation'.

By flailing around on as many crude exaggerations as possible, Cellfactor and Infernal don't impress in that respect - they're just a visual mess. If PhysX is to survive, it needs to focus in on a really thoughtful, jawdropping showcase. That showcase is actually already in Cellfactor - the occasional cloth banners that flutter impressively and can be shot to bits. Used as purely an incidental detail, they're totally wasted; a game in which characters wore actual, deformable clothing, rather than their clothing behaving as a part of their bodies, would be a different matter.

'Physical Education' Screenshot 2

Cityofheroes - Again, with PhysX above, though bear in mind the differing angles of the energy beam is also affecting the appearance. Even so, not enough of a difference to justify a £120 card.

There's another way PhysX can be used, and that's best demonstrated in City of Heroes/Villains. It's a game that could really benefit from the pure excess the card is capable of - concrete dust spewing upwards from ruptured skyscraper roofs bearing the brunt of a superheroic landing, walls shattered by thugs' hurled bodies... Unfortunately there's none of that, but rather just an amplification of the game's existing physics, such as particle effects from energy beams and the amount of fragments the limited amount of smashable stuff in the mayhem missions shatters into. All of this is possible without the card, but if there is one in your system, it steps in and bears the processing brunt. As CoH is a game that taxes the CPU quite heavily, PhysX can mean a noticeable framerate boost if you're running the physics/particle settings maxed.

But that's in only one game, and not enough, sadly, to make the £120 and upwards expense of the card even vaguely logical over the rather more universal benefits of buying a dual core processor if you're still toting a single-core Pentium or Athlon. Unless you're so complacent in your evil-vanquishing abilities that counting the number of blue globes that appear around your guy's hand when he shoots is the only way to maintain interest in the game, dropping the settings down a notch or two makes very little noticeable difference, while performance improves significantly.

Which leaves PhysX hardware's fate hung very much on Unreal Tournament 3, due later this year. As the first truly A-list game that supports the tech, if the card really pulls its weight there it could mean a reversal in fortunes. After all, all the glowing energy orbs in the world won't make the ageing City of Heroes look deliciously high-tech, but doing its thing in a game with a cutting edge graphics engine might give PhysX the context it needs. At the very least, a £120 card could, for this game, be an easier and more tempting performance upgrade than a complete system refit, but that hangs on just how much it actually achieves come the day.

'Physical Education' Screenshot 3

Cellfactor - There's a lot of reasons to be disappointed in Cellfactor, not least that it seems to be advocating the inclusion of even more crates in first-person shooters.

That, too, is under fire. 3D giants NVIDIA and ATI-AMD aren't about to let anyone else come and snatch a piece of gaming hardware pie, and are both incorporating physics tech into their new graphics cards. As their ripostes are in the form of jack-of-all-trades 3D cards rather than the dedicated nature of PhysX, these don't have quite the same performance potential for physics, though they remain an unproven force as yet. What they do have, though, is a much larger install base, one that developers can code fundamental rather than inconsequential physics effects for in relatively secure knowledge that there'll be enough people able to use them to make the effort worthwhile. The gradual rise of quad-core and beyond CPUs is another a nail in the coffin PhysX seems to be being buried alive in - again, they won't be dedicated physics processors, but they'll be universally-installed hardware with headroom to spare.

If PhysX dies, it won't be because the hardware has failed; it hasn't. It'll be because it was a small fish in a small pond already filled with sharks. It's Beagle Two up against NASA, and while you have to admire its pluckiness, its homemade, tinfoil and sellotape approach was never going to be able to compete with infinitely rich giants that could turn its ideas into just one tiny mass-produced component amongst thousands.

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (30) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • #1 5 years ago

    "while a public beta of Cellfactor was quickly hacked to run almost all its gimmicks without the card"

    LOL

    Stuff that then.
  • pagedown #2 5 years ago

  • Der_tolle_Emil #3 5 years ago

    Good article. And the fate of the card until now is really no surprise. Physics are often great to look at but never have I played a game that was really dependent on physics. Even if it was there was always the Havok engine which works incredibly well. It may be CPU heavy but at least it works everywhere the same. Nothing worse than having to think about different hardware setups and incorporate them into the game. Especially with such unimportant stuff like physics.
  • Duke_Red #4 5 years ago

    Forgive me for bening an idiot, but isnt the Physx card just a another card like any other except its for physics. Why not have two graphics cards and have one programmed to run physical calcs. or just have better processors and single graphics cards. so they can do the calcuations. at the end of the day its just about power, which frankly makes the Phyx unneccasary(what about the cell processor? quad core processors?)
  • xandoodle #5 5 years ago

    I seen the title of this article in my RSS reader and thought this was going to be a revolutionary game for Wii :(
  • AhrimaaN #6 5 years ago

    That could be a dry crack at the fact no one has them ;) Doubtful... but could be, hehe.

    Quick survey... has anyone actually heard of anyone or know anyone who owns one of these? I imagine there are about 6 ppl with them worldwide. Happily playing cellfactor on their own. ?!?
  • TheMoonRat #7 5 years ago

    Pretty good article: as said, if every computer had one of these in them, I'm sure some pretty impressive stuff could occur. But as it is, a game developer HAS to create the game with the primary audience of someone who doesn't have one installed; and thus any clever stuff added in barely makes much of a difference: it can't do or it would break the game!

    CPU cores aren't good for physics - dedicating a core to it doesn't help either - CPUs can't do many things at once relative to the GPU and PhysX card which can do large scale parallel calculations. 1 core, 2 cores, 4 cores - even if all of them were dedicated to physics, they just don't work in a way thats good for physics of graphics (thus why we wont be throwing our graphics cards away even though we have quad core processors!

    So physics on the GPU will be the future; but again, for the foreseeable future games will have to be made on the presumption that there isn't enough power to do the clever physics even on the graphics card. Which leaves next gen physics many years away even thought potentially we have the hardware to do it now.

    http://ww w.hardforum.com/showthread.php?... has a good talk about it
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/07 @ 14:19
  • PapaSmurf630 #8 5 years ago

    I agree with MoonRat.

    Everyone keeps saying "What about quad core CPU's etc" Well with that sort of mentality, surely we won't need graphics cards anymore since we'll be able to run them on the CPU cores. It's not that simple. The PhysX card can run a massive amount of parallel calculations at the same time thus making it faster then the 'general purpose' CPU.

    I really think it's a shame as this card has so much potential. Just as the article stated, the games that have been released that use PhysX aren't up to scratch and rub the 'physX' in your face (i.e. Cellfactor)

    What it needs is a game similar to BF2, where you can jump in a tank or aircraft or go on foot. Call in an airstrike on a sniper position and watch the whole destructible building (brick by brick) explode as a 1000lb bomb smashes down on its position. Or perhaps grab a tank and drive through the building. Maybe even a third person game where you can see your clothes being shredded by bullets/swords/energy balls/whatever. Even other genres can be included. Imagine a racing game where each panel and door bends and dents realistically ...all these examples ARE POSSIBLE with this card and todays technology, I just think the developers need to think outside the box more instead of just adding more crates and pipes to a level.

    I'm not pro-PhysX nor do I work for them, I just don't see why people put down a card which is trying to do something a bit different and move the industry into a new area (an area which is, IMHO, sorely lacking behind the huge boosts in the graphics department) Too often have I played a game where I've missed an easy kill because they're hiding behind a wooden fence which I've just shot with a grenade launcher!
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/07 @ 15:28
  • jmctavish #9 5 years ago

    I don't see why you would need a peice of hardware just to do the Physics. It seems like another case of creating a buzz to sell hardware.

    If you've played Eledees on the Wii you'll see that impressive physics can be done on a machine that only costs £180. It makes all the hype about the gravity gun in Half Life 2 look silly now that you can do all that stuff by literally pointing and manipulating any object you see.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/07 @ 18:08
  • old_skool #10 5 years ago

    @jmctavish

    No disrespect to the Wii but picking up objects is hardly groundbreaking.What Eledees does isn't heavy in calculations. Physics has always been part of games. Why do people want better physics? The same reason we want better graphics and sound. Todays games cheat alot though, most of the actions are scripted.That said though I wouldn't put any money on a PhysX card, it just doesn't look too promising.
  • smelly #11 5 years ago

    "Why do people want better physics? The same reason we want better graphics and sound. "


    .. And as long as people only demand that, then we'll only keep seeing endless fps and racing games.

    Boo!
  • old_skool #12 5 years ago

    Now smelly, if you were using that little nugget inside your head you would know that every single game, except maybe card games, uses physics. They may apply it in different degrees but it's physics all the same. Imagine Mario's jump being a little bit more like a balloon floating, that wouldn't make for a good game eh ?
  • PapaSmurf630 #13 5 years ago

    I still think people are thinking to much 'inside the box' when it comes to physics.

    It's not about putting more crates on the screen or being able to move a ball around and kick it.

    With this dedicated hardware, the capabilities, if incorporated correctly, could revolutionise games maybe as much as the graphics card did when it was first introduced (admittedly, I don't think this would ever happen)

    Ironically, Smelly proves my point. 'gameplay' physics, which have been used....rarely in games (physics that actually effect gameplay, as opposed to effects physics). I think this new push in this new area of technology should be welcomed otherwise developers will carry on producing 'endless FPS and racing games' and we may possibly see a change from the norm.

    I mean, what about a 'demolition' game. You have a database of different types of buildings ranging from tower blocks, chimnies, stadiums and houses which are all built from individual bricks, planks, girders and plaster and it's your job to demolish them. What would be great is that using powerful physics processors, you'd be able to demolish buildings realistically and it'd be totally different everytime judging by where you put the explosives, how much and the timing you use...

    In my mind that sound brilliant. It just annoys me that people are so quick to put new, brave technology down so quickly. It's almost as if you WANT it to fail. Why not use 2 graphics cards? Why not use a spare core? Why not just use a dedicated peice of hardware which is designed souly for this purpose in mind? The only thing letting it down is poor software.
  • old_skool #14 5 years ago

    PapaSmurf630, while I understand your points I do feel that 'gameplay' is the summary of game mechanics ( under which physics falls into ) + story + music + design. In short you really can't have a game solely based on physics. Games already have physics, it's probably more important than graphics. But increasingly complex physics might add to new forms of gameplay. Postal from Valve immediately comes to mind.


  • Der_tolle_Emil #15 5 years ago

    Destroying buildings brick by brick? The PhysX card may provide the power needed for such calculations but that building and the mechanincs don't come out of nowhere. I believe it's an incredibly hard job to create environments and gameplay to fully use the power.

    I haven't seen the PhysX SDK or the tools available to utilize the card but right now it probably is not such a complete package like the Havok engine. There has to be a balance between what the card can do and what humans can do to use its power. With the Havok engine there seems to be a good ratio between needed manpower and what can be done with it. Processing power comes with a price and there will always be technology available with vast amounts of power but at first there simply is no way of effectivly using the power available with reasonable effort.

    Just look at graphic cards and their shader support. Modern graphic cards could render polygon in amounts noone can count to but who's willing to model a wall with thousands of dents in it? Of course shaders have other advantages too but the point is that physics don't need to be pushed in today's games. There would be a way to do Mercury Meltdown with 100% mercury behaviour, true. We could let buildings explode in thousands of bricks but is it necessary? Who wants to come up with the hours needed to gather relevant data for countless surfaces to accuratly render friction and god knows what. Who cares if a building collapses into thousands of bricks just a tiny bit more accurate because there's the processing power available? Do a little less bricks and add particle effects/smoke/whatever and it will look just as good with less effort.

    Maybe if everyone had such a card there might be support for it. But I don't see it becoming a necessity anytime soon like EAX or DirectX 8/9/10 support and things like that. Physics are a nice to have feature in a game and can definetly add a lot but the biggest gripe will always be that the PhysX simply does not allow developers to do things easily that they haven't been able to do before. It's just more processing power but it does not take work off developers.
  • bumgut #16 5 years ago

    Excellent article. Gave me the knowledge on an aspect of gaming hardware I've barely been paying attention to.
  • PapaSmurf630 #17 5 years ago

    @ Old skool, I agree with your points and looking back on my posts I can see where I've probably made you think games can be based purely on physics. I don't think this one bit. Physics are just another peice of the game puzzle (along with the components you listed) I just think this purticular area isn't 'pushed' along as fast as the others. The final part of your post sums up pretty much what I'm trying to say:

    "increasingly complex physics might add to new forms of gameplay."

    This is exactly what I'm hoping will happen! Without the graphics card, we wouldn't have had the early FPS's etc (perhaps this is a little to general but hopefully you can see where I'm going here)

    @ Der_tolle_Emil, I understand what you mean but I'm sure there will be tools which come along which enable you to 'copy and paste' a wall of bricks (for example) I'm certainly not expecting devs to create already complex environments by building them 'lego style' out of bricks and planks of wood!

    The one part of your post which I find, IMHO, disagreeable is:

    "We could let buildings explode in thousands of bricks but is it necessary? Who wants to come up with the hours needed to gather relevant data for countless surfaces to accuratly render friction and god knows what."

    With that sort of mentality there'd be no progression in games. Why waste thousands of polygons on a human model and then hours creating realistic animations for it when you could just have a cube? See where I'm going here?

    There have been hundreds of times where I've been messing about in a tank and WISHED I could drive through that shed. (I apologise for referring back to the BF2 example but it best illustrates my point) and I think this is the gap that this PhysX company is trying to fill. In a couple of years time we may even be looking back at games without these sort of environments and destructibility and laughing at their 'staticness' :p
    One other point I need to stress is that the whole point of the PhysX SDK is to make implementing advanced physics into a game easier!

    Of course, as you said, it relies on peoples willingness to buy this rather new hardware. Physics is still, IMO, in its infancy when it comes to games development and most are cynical of its future. Another disadvantage is you can't look on the back of a games case and see the distinct advantages having one would give you (as in the case of graphics) I personally think physics is just as important as graphics, sound and story but perhaps I'm just a sad anorak who spends to much time throwing barrels around levels to see how they roll :D

    Edit for spelling.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/07 @ 00:26
  • mkreku #18 5 years ago

    I just wanted to mention that I actually do know a guy who has a PhysX card! :D
  • space_ace #19 5 years ago

  • Der_tolle_Emil #20 5 years ago

    There have been hundreds of times where I've been messing about in a tank and WISHED I could drive through that shed. (I apologise for referring back to the BF2 example but it best illustrates my point) and I think this is the gap that this PhysX company is trying to fill.

    I agree. But the mentality to make environments as destrucible as possible is already there. And even if it was in BF2 it would not dramatically change the game or change the game even at all. It's simply not necessary but a nice to have feature. Maybe my view is a bit limited on how games could use physics to really enhace the gameplay.
  • jellyhead #21 5 years ago

    Surely if the gfx cards are doing physics as well as the gfx then there'll be less memory bandwidth for the gfx themselves? Will this hobble the cards even more?
  • Olemak #22 5 years ago

    Very good article. Poor PhysX, tho.

    I do believe the use of physics in game "is the future", to be a little hyperbolic. But most likely, it will make a lot of sense to let the graphics card handle that, too. The City of Heroes screenshots are a good example: what if the energy beam also gave off dynamic light, making the soldiers cast shadows on the brightly lit walls? Maybe nearby mobs could react to the shadows as well as traditional line of sight aggro radius.

    The light of the energy beam would also, then, shine through the hero's cape, which would move realistically with the energy of the blast, and of the effect of other powers going off in the area. Oh, and hair etc would be affected too.

    I just suppose that it would make sense to allow the gfx-card... eventyally, just an "effects card", I suppose - handle all of this stuff, as otherwise, it will take a whole lot of data flow over the computers main bus. More cards won't alleviate that problem, but putting more functions on a single card will.

    I think the point about clothing that is not just a part of toon's body is good, but still: it's just cosmetics. I think the physics must be made a part of the gameplay somehow to really matter. Perhaps stuff like ricochets, shraplels/splintered obstacles, the use of cover andsoft cover in shooters, and so on, will have to becme more important for physics to really matter.

    The good thing is that even if the PhysX card has little or no practival use, the PhysX software is still very good and will most likely be around for a long time, hopefully even being able to use GFX processors or whaterver nVidia/ATI-AMD will think off on their end.

  • jellyhead #23 5 years ago

    I've been saying we'll have physic and later on AI in hardware for years now, it's a logical follow on. Once the methods are worked out and the routines standardised to an extent then it usually goes to silicon next. It happened with gfx cards and other technologies.
  • `Plant #24 5 years ago

  • PapaSmurf630 #25 5 years ago

    Olemak, I concur!

    "I think the physics must be made a part of the gameplay somehow to really matter. Perhaps stuff like ricochets, shraplels/splintered obstacles, the use of cover andsoft cover in shooters, and so on, will have to becme more important for physics to really matter."

    This is exactly what I'm trying to say and this is the sad thing about the story of this PhysX company. They've tried to sell their cards on games using the cards for 'effects physics' only (GRAW etc) It's not until a game comes along which will use physics as part of the gameplay (much like HL2 did with the grav gun, Psi-Ops did on the Xbox etc) that people will see the benefits this extra processing power can and hopefully will have on games. Your examples like different types of cover, splintering, richochets, ballistics and effects like fluid, cloth etc could all improve games just as much as Shader Model 3 and Dynamic lighting did.

    Der_tolle_Emil I respect your opinion and can see what you mean but IMHO I could see more destructible environments and better environment modelling having a much larger effect on the way we think about playing games then any new graphics card ever could. Perhaps this PhysX card isn't the right way to go about it but atleast it's definately a move in a new direction.
  • MoFo #26 5 years ago

    PapaSmurf had a point. Destructable environements DO affect gameplay. Smash down a wall with a tank and you've altered the layout of the map - now your trooops can pour through the newly made hole in the wall and assault the enemy troops from behind. There are endless examples I could come up with where advanced physics would have a direct impact on gameplay making for a more enjoyable and engrossing experience.

    Image a Stalingrad style game. The city starts off in pristene condition but as the battle rages it becomes a mere shell of its former self. Imagine a sniper hiding in a tall tower. Call in the artillery and watch the sniper and tower get blown to pieces. But then rubble created from the destroyed buildings provides cover for troops on the ground. God it would be amazing!

    I don't think the argument about it being too time intensive for developers holds any weight. It really wouldn't take that much effort to create a 3D modelling package that would do the majority of the nitty gritty hard work for you. One example is letting the 3D modeller specifiy the construction material used on that newly created wall (bricks, plasterboard, cement). The physcis engine then does the hard work of letting it get destroyed in the manner that befits the material.

    I'd bet good odds that physics such as this will be common in games ten years from now. Whether it's done using a dedicated physics card or not I have no idea, but people saying who cares about physics in gameplay should have their heads smashed apart with mallet - let's see the physics in action with that!
  • MoFo #27 5 years ago

    Apologies for any rubbish spelling in above post. Crying baby all night makes for bad grammar in morning,
  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #28 5 years ago

    Cell is even a better approach, instead of using a pack of identical cores, it allows to use specific SPUs for different types of calculations

    Actually, that's the same approach. Cell is totally not special, it's just a PowerPC with some PS2 vector units stuck on it. Indeed, PS3's approach is more akin to the physics card (specific, custom hardware, for a limited set of operations) than it is to the multi-core strategy in desktop PCs and Xbox 360.
  • Duke_Red #29 5 years ago

    The only way I see this technology come into fruition is if either Sony/Nintendo or Microsoft build it in as an integral part of a next gen peice of hardware for a console. But this new gen, Nin has decide to go with motion gaming and Microsoft and Sony just suped up consoles trying to be on par with PCs (as in there is no real ground breaking differentiation in hardware unlike the wii, im not sayin motion is in itself, but it is a new path they are taking).
    Ken supposedly said about the idea of networking, I think the real focus microsoft and Sony are aiming for is interconnectivityk, not at all thinking about specialised physics calculating processing units(im not sure how you would phrase it, Physics cards?)

    I don't think the Physx card is going to get anywhere on PC unless they get the software companies taking the technology seriously. It would only take Valve to bring out Half Life 3 or Microsoft with Halo 3 that has been focused with the technology provided by the Physx card in mind, and people will go out and buy it.

    If they did that they would get the ball rolling, but Unreal tournament... I'm not so sure.

  • PapaSmurf630 #30 5 years ago

    Interesting post Duke_Red and I'm inclined to agree with you (atleast your second paragraph)

    Both the PS3 and Xbox360 have PhysX SDK's (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm pretty sure most Xbox360 title physics are powered by the PhysX SDK.

    The software point is the most important and this is what is going to decide the future for the Hardware. The good thing about the Unreal Tournament Engine and its support will be not just UT2007 but also the multitude of games that are going to come after using its engine. Can you guys imagine a Rainbow 6 game with fully destructible walls, realistic clothing that tears and rips, accurately modelled bullet balistics including penetration, ricochets etc?

    I don't know if it will succeed but I'll certainly be supporting it...the innovations in the way we play games will be huge if this technology is grasped and brought into the mainstream market.
  • Duke_Red #31 5 years ago

    "Both the PS3 and Xbox360 have PhysX SDK's (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm pretty sure most Xbox360 title physics are powered by the PhysX SDK.

    I wasn't aware of that.

    [link url=http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx? NewsId=14842
    ]http://ww w.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Det...[/link]

    [link url=http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/PhysX
    ]http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/PhysX
    [/link]

    It seems that the PS3 uses the software not the hardware (as in a physics engine like havok, middleware) not the "PPU" physics processing unit.