Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everyone Check this out! DESTRUCTABLE ENVIROMENTS AND WEATHER!

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

  • replied
    If you want destructible environments, try John Woo Presents Stranglehold. It uses a heavily modified UE 3.0 with Massive D. You can shoot the walls near enemies and they will stop firing at you to protect their face from debris. At the very beginning of the game, there is a massive fountain which you can shoot the sh*t out of and watch it crumble.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    look on ebay, I just bought a 4200+ X2 £55

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    i say that Ageia PhysX card is only a marketing gimmick to make you buy that thing. They could've use Havok as a physics engine too, since Havok is software-only, and it's a great one too!

    you see...Bioshock use Unreal Engine 3 and Havok physics, and now UT3 use Unreal Engine 3 and Ageia PhysX (both software and hardware, using software mode if you don't have the frig'n card).

    i think Ageia is going nowhere with the physics card, you can just have a dual-core CPU or something. the "free game" available for download (forgot the name of it) that fully use the PhysX card is so goddam slow without the card, it's like a huge gimmick that pushes/forces you to buy the 150$(?) "PPU" Card (PPU for Physics Processing Unit). I'm glad UT3 runs fine on my computer even without that card.

    Plus, adding stuff in your computer mean that it disturb your previous airflow, so if you're into silent computing, this PhysX card it not quiet at all and they didn't made the retention holes compatible with 3rd-party heatsink-fans (Zalman, Thermalright, etc...) to make it into a quiet card.

    so i wonder why Epic used Ageia PhysX instead of Havok.

    netplay-speaking, it would be strange to have both "with" and "without" PhysX cards users on the same server. i mean...if the "with" user see walls debris flies in the sky and some of them hit him...the "without" user won't see that special feature? and will think the "with" user's player died of a sudden heart-attack while in combat? so that mean the debris would be "phantom" meaning it would pass thru any players if you "get hit" by them, meaning you won't get any damage.

    Or the other option which Ageia like a lot more: slowing down "without" users and rewarding "with" users.

    i might sound really weird there, but it's kinda nonsense, as i said, i'm glad the demo (at least) runs fine on my computer without that crappy physics card. now if i could find a cheap Athlon64 X2 with 1mb L2 cache for Socket 939...

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Harmatia View Post
    PPUS should be an alternative, something to take some work off of the CPU. PPUs are specifically designed and programmed to perform physics, so while they may be weaker than a CPU, they perform physics faster.
    With multi-core CPUs becoming more popular and cheaper, PPU hardware will have a difficult time becoming mainstream. It will never be like sound cards or video cards. When you aren't gaming, a PPU is wasting electricity, a multi-core processor will improve computing overall even for single-threaded applications which otherwise have to share CPU time with all of the OS threads on a single core system.
    The future for physics will be simulation threads within an application to utilize the cores.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Dangerdog View Post
    Yeah, you’re right but it should be the other way around. Ageia needs Epic to help try to sell their crippleware product; on one hand the hardware integration for additional physics effects is extremely limited in UT3 but on the other there seems to be a severe lack of physics in the game. If you compare the amount of physics in Crysis to UT3 not only does it show that Ageia hardware isn’t needed it also brings home the fact that Epic unnecessarily has to hold back on things like destructible environments because of the insistence that you can only achieve those effects through the use of the add-in card.
    Yeah, because Epic chose not to ruin the game with a ton of destructible environments, physx cards suck. Great logic there. All the physics in game work WITHOUT a physx card-- so the insistence on using one would hardly be reason to hold back the physics.

    Crysis just chooses to have a lot of physics, without a physx card. And that's why the CPU requirements are so high, comparitively. Not that I object to this method. PPUS should be an alternative, something to take some work off of the CPU. PPUs are specifically designed and programmed to perform physics, so while they may be weaker than a CPU, they perform physics faster.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by KriLL3.8™ View Post
    It wouldn't be "fun" online, what would happen if the map was so destroyed you couldn't get around in it?
    LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! that is so true, the whole map destroyed and every 1 would be like.... next map plz

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Dangerdog View Post
    There’s no reason why physics like that couldn’t be done without the need of a hardware add-on card, I wonder how much Epic is getting in kickbacks from Ageia?
    Wrong. They're using the Ageia physics because its cheaper and arguably better than Havok, even without a physx card. All the physics in game are done without a physx card. It's additional stuff created by people that have nothing to do with epic that will require physx. In game, you can merely use your physx card for physics, to take some load off your cpu.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yeah, you’re right but it should be the other way around. Ageia needs Epic to help try to sell their crippleware product; on one hand the hardware integration for additional physics effects is extremely limited in UT3 but on the other there seems to be a severe lack of physics in the game. If you compare the amount of physics in Crysis to UT3 not only does it show that Ageia hardware isn’t needed it also brings home the fact that Epic unnecessarily has to hold back on things like destructible environments because of the insistence that you can only achieve those effects through the use of the add-in card.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Dangerdog View Post
    There’s no reason why physics like that couldn’t be done without the need of a hardware add-on card, I wonder how much Epic is getting in kickbacks from Ageia?
    You don't need the hardware card. And a Quad-Core would most likely outperform the current unit anyway.

    Why would Epic get kickbacks? There are a number of third-party companies integrating their technology into Unreal Engine 3. They don't pay Epic to do so, they charge licensees to use their integration.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    There’s no reason why physics like that couldn’t be done without the need of a hardware add-on card, I wonder how much Epic is getting in kickbacks from Ageia?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    ...I want this map

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
    Alot of people are getting things a little messed up, who in the right mind would allow a map to become completely destroyed to the point of not even being able to get around within a short period of time... someones not going to send a redeemer down the middle and expect the whole place to cave in due to it..... everything will require a specific ammount of damage before it'll crumble. It's not like everything is made of tissue paper and it'd fly appart... yes that would make the game ****ty..

    BTW, for multiplayer, distructable objects aren't going to do all that much.... the extra amount of information is going to throw anyone out anymore, with further increasing high speed connections.... and if done right it won't be nessary to have on a constant up to date bases for each item... it'll be no different then someone triggering a assault similare aciton from taking place.
    There is a very big difference between a proper destructable environment that leaves the rubble on the map versus one where the wall/window/whatever just disappears.
    To have a map leave rubble at the same locations on each client requires a lot of replication if there is a lot going on, that is why you don't see it in online multiplayer.

    Everybody wants more realism, and having a wall turn into dust that fades away isn't real. And using physics to crumble a bunch of chunks and have them all land at the same spot on every client takes a massive amount of replication.

    Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
    ... i'm serprised as hell that no one else had taken the time to try and develope it further.... the idea was sound, now with ageia and multi core cpu's... it can be taken to a whole NEW lvl.

    a well, perhaps UT3.5 or UT4 will get the balls to take it further.
    In single-player they have. In online multiplayer, no. For the reasons that I have already specified. Current FPS games are barely getting over 32 to 64 players online with vehicles, projectiles, etc. Having completely destructable enviroments can easily double the amount of network traffic on top of that.
    Don't you think that games would already be doing it if it were as easy as you think it is?
    And it has nothing to do with UT3 not having any "balls", Epic didn't exclude that feature on the maps just to irritate you or cheat you out of something, if you want to add some destructables to your own maps, the engine is more than capable.
    We are probably at least three to five years away from interactive online maps, before enough people have quad core systems and 5mbit+ connections. I'm sure if you did a wide poll, you'll find a lot of single/HT CPUs, older video, and 1.5mbit connections. Just look at the fps that most people are getting with low player counts in the beta demo.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
    It's not like everything is made of tissue paper and it'd fly apart...
    Except for the Goliath and Hellbender, that is. Lol!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Alot of people are getting things a little messed up, who in the right mind would allow a map to become completely destroyed to the point of not even being able to get around within a short period of time... someones not going to send a redeemer down the middle and expect the whole place to cave in due to it..... everything will require a specific ammount of damage before it'll crumble. It's not like everything is made of tissue paper and it'd fly appart... yes that would make the game ****ty..

    RF was an excellent game, the yes it had basic distructible enviroments, yes it is 6 years old, but i'm serprised as hell that no one else had taken the time to try and develope it further.... the idea was sound, now with ageia and multi core cpu's... it can be taken to a whole NEW lvl.

    a well, perhaps UT3.5 or UT4 will get the balls to take it further.


    BTW, for multiplayer, distructable objects aren't going to do all that much.... the extra amount of information is going to throw anyone out anymore, with further increasing high speed connections.... and if done right it won't be nessary to have on a constant up to date bases for each item... it'll be no different then someone triggering a assault similare aciton from taking place.

    they could even put in super quick game breakers when something massive happens....

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yes- Red Faction 1 did destructible environments very well- albeit basic.
    Like mentioned above- it was fun to create a new path to run the flag.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X