PhysX is ported to run on the X360 through hardware acceleration.
That's incorrect. I think you mean "software emulation." Hardware acceleration specifically refers to GPU acceleration (or, more generally, a dedicated piece of hardware). Software emulation refers to doing a function normally done on a dedicated piece of hardware on the CPU.
The reason I think you mean that is because:
[url]http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143371[/URL]
[url]http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EEkykFulFlXObSDuAo.php[/URL]
Now, in the first article you see Ageia notes that they will be bringing Physx to PCs and the Playstation 3 in the form of software support (specifically mentioning PC CPUs).
In the second, they offer a retraction to the title statement, which is that the Xbox 360 could not run Physx. I just intend to show that my purpose was not related to the topic line.
If the Xbox 360 supports HARDWARE acceleration, i.e. that which is accelerated by the GPU, I want you to provide evidence for that claim.
Its not that the ati pc hardware couldn't run hardware physx nvidia just doesn't want it. And physx is generally kind of horrible on the pc when using a cpu, at least in the udk and ut3 without a physx card your frames start to plummet quite quickly when you destroy an object which makes the object into serveral individual physx applied pieces of rubble.
And yet, notably, however they have managed to do it, the team at Atomic Games have evidently delivered precisely the kind of destructibility that we would like to see in a downloadable game apparently using a software physics solution (proprietary, so not Physx) on the Xbox 360. I'd say it's possible on a CPU.
Frames per second got nothing to do with the ability to replicate data online and the physx on that video aren't actually replicated as the destruction is done on the end users client similar to ragdoll.
Bollocks. All of directly impacts other players, which means it is transmitted to the server and to the receiving client.. The developer demonstrated a structure collapsing on another player. Are you telling me that's done client-side? He also showed a dynamic cover system which is directly impacted by the size and location of destroyed cover, as well as the ability to see through and shoot through the holes in walls. How does one implement this mechanic when it is only client-side? You get killed by an invisible man shooting through an invisible hole?
At any rate, it's good to see you're now on my side as far as third-person machine gun belt physics
Suffice to say I do think that if this is so impossible (with a good clip and a software rendering solution) to have destructible environments, this does strengthen my resolve against machine gun belt physics
All information both people get is that say object X has been shot at position Y, and how it crumbles looks different on every computer.
I'm glad you have seen the algorithm. Can you show us?
With bullets and their path generally the entire physx engine is probably bypassed as it would be possible to use existing simplified math and lookup tables to calculate the end result. Calculations for bullets are pretty complex and would require a lot of work if an iteration process like PhysX were to be used.
This is the reason why hardware acceleration is suggested. There are possibly significant issues with network latency, bandwidth, and processor speeds, considering the breadth of significant calculations already performed by Ost Front's engine.
I will qualify my interest in the technology by saying that if it has significant effects on the net performance, I think that drawback should be considered seriously by the developers. Our ability to do stupid stuff like blow up haystacks and knock down walls with tanks needs to be contrasted with the game's performance and realistic expectations of player hardware (both client and server end).
But anyway, suffice to say I'm enjoying your creative speculation. I don't see any point to it, but it's fun to read. I wonder where you're getting all this information?
