Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ageia's PhysX Delaying UT3 For Linux?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So support for completely useless and unessicary hardware is blocking the Linux release of Ut3. Wow.

    I wouldn't be suprised if it's PhysX people blocking it. They probably don't want people to run real analysis tools on their engine and find out that 90% of what they claim their card does is actually software-based optimizations and that their little 'accelerator' card is mostly there for looks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by drag View Post
      So support for completely useless and unessicary hardware is blocking the Linux release of Ut3. Wow.

      I wouldn't be suprised if it's PhysX people blocking it. They probably don't want people to run real analysis tools on their engine and find out that 90% of what they claim their card does is actually software-based optimizations and that their little 'accelerator' card is mostly there for looks.
      I would hardly call it useless. It's a stream processing engine, much like a GPU is, but instead of being dedicated to doing 3D rendering and secondarily being able to do physics calculations, it is dedicated to the task of just doing those sorts of computations. It's not just a physics processor, but that's what they're putting it to. I've seen the stuff in action and it's not snake oil that they're selling- but it is a bit redundant if you pile on a few more shader pipes in a 3D card to do the same thing

      I've seen the difference for real with and without the hardware, whether it is Ageia's card or using shader pipelines for the purpose. It's not there for looks, but it IS extra and redundant in light of the new 3D cards coming down the pike (Which is why Intel bought Havok, I suspect- they can use GPU horsepower to accelerate their physics calculations. And it's part of why AMD's bought ATI...).

      It MIGHT be PhysX that is the problem, but I'm not so sure. I think you should read my responses for the reason as to why I think that.

      It's really a moot point until Ryan gets the fixes in place- and in reality, I think it's a bit over the top for Phoronix to put up articles like this when they haven't any good info to give us. It's one thing to have this stuff in the discussion forums as a speculation thread. It's another to do what was done with this whole situation. TheReg already does a good job of this sort of thing as does the InqWell. Why do we need yet another dodgy source of news?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by gilboa View Post
        OK, the Gears of War part was a bit over the top (Read: I know that it is a Microsoft game, and unless they are official declared as Monopoly in the OS/Games market, you cannot force them to create a Linux version... Oh wait...).
        Anyways, the French have a saying - "Cheche La Femme" (I hope I got the spelling right). I have a saying "Cherche La Microsoft", read: anytime something ugly/semi-legal/etc happens you can always, somehow find Microsoft's greasy hand in it.

        Am I wrong? possibly. But given our past experience I would not bet the farm on it.

        - Gilboa
        Microsoft doesn't haft to declare anything, and that is because of the Consumer activities. I'll start by saying that Developers and educational entities as a general rule of thumb go for where the largest commercial user base, and Windows 2000/XP has the largest user base of them all. After considering that, just look at the educational system, i highly doubt you'll find a lot of Linux or Mac systems in the building... with that said, people will buy what they are used to at work, so thus, that eliminates Linux and Mac almost entirely because huge portions of the workplace desktops run windows and that's it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
          Considering that he's recoding to get it out and we will be getting something, according to him and Epic, I seriously doubt that it's this. That's marketing deals- which Ryan couldn't fix. Nice try, but you're grasping at straws there, my friend.
          You got me

          I was simply implying something I read somewhere else about devs and pubs being forced to not release anything for Linux if they signed the GFW initiative of some thing like that... Utter bull, if you ask me, but I was riding that wave with those statements

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dandel View Post
            Microsoft doesn't haft to declare anything, and that is because of the Consumer activities. I'll start by saying that Developers and educational entities as a general rule of thumb go for where the largest commercial user base, and Windows 2000/XP has the largest user base of them all. After considering that, just look at the educational system, i highly doubt you'll find a lot of Linux or Mac systems in the building... with that said, people will buy what they are used to at work, so thus, that eliminates Linux and Mac almost entirely because huge portions of the workplace desktops run windows and that's it.
            Actually Mac is very big in the educational scene, used to be bigger than Microsoft and seems to be now losing ground to Linux, apparently. However, you're right about the "work" part. At least it used to be the case back in the early days of home computing, and the reason superior solutions such as Amiga were ditched in favor of crappy, buggy, slow, totally-uncool DOS.

            Comment


            • #21
              Linux binaries of PhysX

              The article is mistaken, even given the date it was published. There are binaries for PhysX on the developer site for linux. They are pretty broken, but they do exist. We have license, much to my chagrin, and can release applications on linux that use Ageia. I'm not sure why Epic would be having problems.

              Also, you DO need the physics to run a server. I'm not sure why anyone would think you don't. You still have to simulate the interactions in the world, which requires physics.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LEgregius View Post
                The article is mistaken, even given the date it was published. There are binaries for PhysX on the developer site for linux. They are pretty broken, but they do exist. We have license, much to my chagrin, and can release applications on linux that use Ageia. I'm not sure why Epic would be having problems.
                Heh... I believe that I basically said that. Thanks for confirmation thereof, it's definitely appreciated.

                Also, you DO need the physics to run a server. I'm not sure why anyone would think you don't. You still have to simulate the interactions in the world, which requires physics.
                Depends on your game model- and why would you need it on the client side if it's on the server as the server is doing the bulk of the critical stuff on it's side of things?

                1) The bulk of the physics stuff is special effects, which is where the boost really needs to be- don't need that on the server.

                2) Most of the games that I had the code to didn't manage anything other than a software event processing, model tracking, and rules enforcement bus system for the clients. The real load lifting wasn't ON the server. The server's a simple thing in many of the games that I've seen the code to.
                Last edited by Svartalf; 12-03-2007, 02:54 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by LEgregius View Post
                  We have license, much to my chagrin, and can release applications on linux that use Ageia.
                  So, what studio do you work for and what title would you be doing?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X