What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
70 Comments
- ZachSka87, on 11/24/2007, -3/+33I'll save you all the time reading it...
PhysX is NOT worth it for this game and ruined the experience for them. - graemee, on 11/24/2007, -0/+20I'm disappointed that there's no CTF-FACE map. I miss the assault maps too. :{
- ArrakisDune, on 11/23/2007, -1/+14If Ageia, the makers of the card can't produce maps that impress, then I can't see myself buying one any time soon.
I wish they had videos of the physics on the site. Screenshots can't really show moving objects off (or not as the case may be) - nytel, on 11/23/2007, -3/+16Why does every character seem to be 2 inches tall in the game?
- Ghoztt, on 11/24/2007, -0/+12This is a game to buy for the mods. Hands down.
- PATSCRU, on 11/24/2007, -0/+11I've been having a grand ol time on UT3 multiplayer all week...i didn't like it at first, but i love the game now.....and the modders haven't even started. Also, I'm loving the scalability of the Unreal Engine 3. I have an x1950pro 512mb, and i couldn't even run crysis at medium at 1280x800....however, i can run UT3 at 1680x1050 on med-high settings, and it's gorgeous. I think highly scalable games like this are what PC gaming needs, trying to get people to buy a $400 card for a $50 game is ludicrous.
- Berrex, on 11/24/2007, -0/+9Yeah, even though BF1942 had vehicles, which was released before UT2K4, which was the first UT to have vehicles. What are you on, man?
- ArrakisDune, on 11/23/2007, -1/+10Battlefield 2 is a clone of Unreal's gameplay? What version of BF2 have you been playing?
They are FPS for crying out loud, there is only so many variations you can do. - inactive, on 11/23/2007, -3/+12Pretty informative, I was a big booster of the idea of physics acceleration but based on this article I may have to rethink that...maybe its just too far ahead of its time.
- getatmedigg, on 11/24/2007, -2/+10I've played the demo and don't like it. It's a console game disguised as an PC game. The gameplay is frantic and jerky and not smooth. It's a shame because I do like the background graphics but this looks like Gears Of War modded to UT.
I think Epic/Midway are concerned with consoles and not PCs. The server browser is horrible. Where's favorites? Get out your notepad as you will be writing down and manually adding your fav severs to this map. The whole GUI and menus are poorly laid out - Scynet, on 11/24/2007, -0/+8I really don't see a point in them, processors already do a fine job at calculating physics as demonstrated by several games by now. Number crunching is what they are all about. Sure you could probably optimize a separate card to do it better, but eventually we'll just end up with a PC that has n+1 powerful processors to calculate slightly different things: Graphics processor, audio processor, network processor.....with ever increasing HD sizes, they'll probably come up with somekind of indexing/search processor for hard drive content too.... Why do we need the actual Intel/AMD again?
- ArrakisDune, on 11/24/2007, -0/+8Everyone is complaining about the GUI. Its nothing short of a joke.
Apparently it will be patched up, but thats not the point. There is no excuse for a high profile game like UT to get something so basic wrong. And that's from a fanboy. - Alucard90, on 11/24/2007, -0/+7One thing about PhysX that bugs me is that you have to install their drivers even if you don't have the card! STOP INSTALLING CRAP I DON'T NEED!
- ArrakisDune, on 11/24/2007, -0/+6I was talking about the actual linked review, not ones hand-picked by the makers :)
- ArrakisDune, on 11/24/2007, -1/+7You're comparing apples to oranges my friend
- sgtpppr, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5Yeah, Epic has it posted right on the site that they know many people hate the UI and they will be addressing it in a future patch. I don't really mind it, but it does look like a overblown console UI.
- greevar, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5Aegia PhysX... don't need it. I played the Warmonger Demo that was based on the same technology. It's not a Physics Accelerator as much as it is a secondary CPU to deal with the excessive poly count in the levels that deal with pre-rendered destructible objects. Let me re-iterate, they pre-rendered the chunks of debris and applied karma physics to them which adds loads of polygons to the level. The Aegia card is just a stopgap to deal with the poor budgeting of polys.
- ArrakisDune, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5The Physx card is just a general purpose RISC based core with some floating point single instruction, multiple data processors bolted on. So yes, they are both made for highly parallel FPU execution, but the power that each system has and the way it uses it is entirely different (In response to your "considering the PhysX processor faster than the Cells spe's (all of them)")
Sony and IBM did not develop the cell that cost millions (billions?) to be outdone by a small company like AGEIA with extremely limited resources in comparison.
The PhysX card is not faster than 8 Cell processors when doing the kind of calculations that the PS3 will do for games. Lets keep it in perspective here. - novask, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5Lighthouse - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRRU80ED6RQ
Tornado - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ys1WGnztQ&feature ...
***** physics with a massive FPS hit, definitely not worth the $150 spent on a physx card. - guestaccount, on 11/24/2007, -2/+7The French love their cheese....
- Snarfy, on 11/24/2007, -3/+7I just can't believe a dual core system + 8800 ultra + physX = 4-7 fps. They HAD to have something mis-configured!
- brundlefly76, on 11/24/2007, -0/+4How is Aegia even still in business??? They have had 3 years of consistently horrible game augmentation...who is feeding them dollars?
- nfollmer, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3That and they are too shiny. Anyone else notice that about almost every "next-gen" game?
- UPSLynx, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3I too was hopeful for PhysX cards. I saw Ageia demo the prototype cards at the ACM Reflections/Projections conference 2 years ago, and I was ready to buy a card immediately I was so impressed. Now 2 years after retail release, there is no support for them, and the games that use it are weak and not worth the cash. There is un-tapped potential in the cards, but sadly I doubt they'll become mainstream enough.
Not to mention Nvidia, AMD, and Intel are all working on their own solutions (which I don't see becoming as powerful as a dedicated card, but I digress). They've got more support and money behind them. They'll best Ageia without problem. - Sabretou, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Relax - that's what all the Bonus Packs are for. ;)
- UPSLynx, on 11/24/2007, -1/+4Yeah, that's terribly disappointing. I love the face maps. You know they'll show up eventually by mods or imports, but I want to see it officially upgraded. And I'm sad they took out assualt (again) as well. Guess we'll see it again in the next iteration.
- tbydal, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Battlefield was years ahead of Unreal with vehicles. The game that evolved into battlefield was Codename Eagle, and was released in 1999. It was also pure awesomeness.
- Evi1d33d, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3Yea, the card will take the physics calculation load off but put a lot of load on the graphics card by having it render tons of debris on screen.
- SonnyW, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3Not to mention the future of the GPU lies in multiple cores as well. In 5+ years time we'll have something like 8 CPU and 4 GPU cores running in our systems. I can't really think of anything a seperate physics card would add in that situation that a spare cpu or gpu core couldn't handle.
- novask, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Physics add destructible walls and other things means the videocard will have more to render, both when the wall is being blown up and the leftover debris. Now imagine that for an entire map.
- xNaquada, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3x850pe will destroy the 8400M. It wont even be close.
- anthonylawrence, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2I always wanted to read more about PhysX....
- ubergeek09, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Physx really just needs to give up on the Physx card, it hasn't done well and it's not going to do well. There is no reason gamer's need a dedicated PPU when quad core processors are becoming cheaper and cheaper.
- Erroneus, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1People who needs a bigger e-penis.
Physx is useless and that some game companies want to spend time on supporting them is a riddle. - fgsfds, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1diggrim: That used to be true, but the shift to GPGPU has eliminated that problem. Graphics chips are now fully capable of running basically anything you want to code for them, and they're beasts at floating point calculations - the kind of math used for rendering and physics processing.
- Tomson74, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2UT3 is a fun game, I like it. Don't have a problem with it or anything, the UI is annoying. But this game isnt a console port for the pc. The pc version was designed for the pc. I mean crap you want to see a port, look at MOH:A.and Jericho. THOSE are bad ports.
I also had a blast iwth Quake Wars.
The SP in UT3, is eh. - capran, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You miss the point. The CPU is a general purpose processing unit. The others you mention are specialists.
The old cliche "jack of all trades, master of none" applies. - skodaman, on 11/23/2007, -2/+3I think they must be playing on a 7" screen...
- Droniac, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1People who want to play Face: there's CTF-OmicronDawn which is fairly similar to Face. Furthermore, UT3 includes remakes of Coret and Hydro16, much better maps than Face ever was. So far gameplay is great, definitely on-par with the original UT (entirely superior to UT2003/UT2004), but the UI, options and server browser leave a lot to be desired. Where'd crosshair selection go? Why can't we pick announcers, I hate the ***** non-UT male voice that plays on Godlike/Double Kill, the female voice for everything else is very good though, fortunately. As for UI and server browser, both got major overhauls in the current beta patch, which will be final in a matter of days. It's got everything from ping in scoreboards to favorite lists for the server browser... looking good. Now if only they were to fix the inordinate amount of bugs plaguing the singleplayer campaign, I want to unlock some goodies but I'm not going to play without sound - so multiplayer with a generic character it is... for now :)
- capran, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1They should re-run the tests with XP. I mean, seriously, are people actually using Vista for gami...errr...anything?
- scabbers, on 11/24/2007, -3/+4PhysX seems to be some kind of unfunny joke. I'm glad to read that UT3 is better than ET:QW, but that's not difficult.
- PixelD, on 11/24/2007, -2/+3I agree. I kept re-reading it thinking they meant a 4-7fps drop. Something had to be screwed up in their setting.
- diggrim, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1a single specialized PhysicsPU (PPU) can easily run 10x faster than a standard CPU core (and GPUs can't do all that a PPU needs)
- diggrim, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1armchair physic computer scientists, ftw
- cardjoe, on 11/24/2007, -0/+123 in February. Why?
- warriorscot, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Just another card to take up space, eat you power and heat up your rig, maybe if they had done it when CPUs were slower and were still single core but now the CPUs are much more powerful and can easily handle physics operations not to mention AMD gfx cards also do physics on the side now.
- skodaman, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Sorry Joe, I appear to have missed the /facetious tag...
I'm surprised its only 19" though. Most of us gamers are on 22" or bigger these days. Shame you didn't ask that chap you interviewed about UT about more dual screen games. Supreme Commander is the only one I play with an actual use for my second panel. - cardjoe, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Nope. 19" on a G8800 Ultra. Actually, twin 19", but the game goes on just one while I screenshot with the other.
- diggrim, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Framerate issues when using PhysX...well they were using Vista...probably a kernel prioritization issue
- nfollmer, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Thanks. Finally someone backs up their claim with ACTUAL facts.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is