Um, they calculate what you tell them to calculate.
You usually calculate some non-visible things for rendering, but that has no bearing on a discussion about physics. In terms of what's calculated it would be pretty much the same on either a PPU or GPU.
The problem if you make the 2nd core handle physics is that it will only be good for that alone. Which may defeat the purpose of other people wanting dual core.
It's pretty clear by now that GPU do graphics far, far better than CPU: just look at 3D Marks CPU tests. Now if Intel/AMD swap the the 2nd core for one of the X1900XT/7900GTX and do some mass changes to the design, who knows. But that is not their business, their business is to make generic CPU to do some number crunching used by most of your PC.
I suspect this will apply to physic engines too. It may be that early on, you can get the 2nd core to do render some of the physics via some kind of software mode. But it won't be long that won't be good enough [speculating].
As for GPU wasteful, from what I've heard things have improved significantly since the TNT day in that aspect. I asked this question some time ago, and apparently, the latest Hyper-Z (and nVidia's equiv) are getting closer to what PowerVR provided with their tile based rendering tech. No idea how true that statement is though (only got one reply on that thread).
GPUs aren't inherently wasteful, that's just a property of the way you draw overlapping objects. For physics procoessing there should be no overlap, so there would be no wastage.
CPU architecture just isn't geared up for physics processing. Even the dedicated PPU is just working on basic visually noticeable physics effects.. Besides, with physics calculations being offloaded from the CPU the CPU can devote more resources into AI. We have theory to do a lot of neat stuff in games, we're just waiting for the hardware to catch up.Originally Posted by shaithis
.. until someone comes up with an AI engine.
*Patents the idea*
Yea, like wouldn't it be amazing if you could reason and dynamically interact with NPCs, or even enemies?... better still would be doing it vocially.. I would think that would be really cool, in a kinda creepy way lol. AI is really back in the stone age compaired to graphics, for reasons I can't quite understand.
IMHO eyecandy apeal can wear off after awhile (from a few minutes to a day), but with gripping storyline and dynamics you can easily get really hooked into a game, for e.g. Baldur's Gate II is still one of my most favourate games, not the best looking graphically, but the storyline was awesome.
Imagine a storyline and charactors that intelligently evolves!! *getting ahead of himself*
I would think it would have a very powerful effect on players.
Last edited by aidanjt; 25-03-2006 at 07:48 PM.
I don't think I find that surprising.. The concept of AI is incredibly complex, because there is so much more open to interpretation.
Dynamically interacting with NPCs is not just AI, it's linguistic. Another tough area considering how many ways there are to express the same things.. or how a subtle play on words can change the meaning. Plus, there are more languages than just english.
It would be made easier if human input are limited to certain syntax, but then, it would be clear that we are interacting with a machine.
It would certainly be amazing if we can overcome all these road blocks.. It'll be a long time before it is made possible. And I can only imagine how crazy it would be to code them
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote