Microsoft to make a physics API

I seen a webpage at microsoft about 6 months ago, where they were advertising jobs for programmers to be able to code a psyhics API for directx environment, im sure it was linked from this forum. So with that in mind, i hardly think its fake.
 
Sable said:
...the source is the Inq but I can't see em making something like this up.
Click to expand...

rofl.gif


The Inquirer not making something up is like a British tabloid not putting boobs on page 3.
 
Lunar Wolf said:
rofl.gif


The Inquirer not making something up is like a British tabloid not putting boobs on page 3.
Click to expand...


For the last time the Inquirer != the Enquirer. One's a tabloid, one reports on tech remors.
 
I think DX10 and Vista would be the perfect time to launch it, if they are working on it.

A number of questions that will need to be answered:
- Will it support hardware or be a software only solution?
- If it supports hardware then will it support a dedicated solution like Ageia's PPU or will it support NVIDIA's utilization of the GPU?
- Will it be DX10 exclusive?

This could really spell trouble for Ageia. Developers will likely support whatever MS throws out there. However, it's unlikely that the current PPU will be compliant with the MS physics API standard - rendering it potentially useless or gimped in future games.
 
dotK said:
I think DX10 and Vista would be the perfect time to launch it, if they are working on it.

A number of questions that will need to be answered:
- Will it support hardware or be a software only solution?
- If it supports hardware then will it support a dedicated solution like Ageia's PPU or will it support NVIDIA's utilization of the GPU?
- Will it be DX10 exclusive?

This could really spell trouble for Ageia. Developers will likely support whatever MS throws out there. However, it's unlikely that the current PPU will be compliant with the MS physics API standard - rendering it potentially useless or gimped in future games.
Click to expand...
I'd hope ageia would work Microsoft to gain some sort of compatability. Or Agiea could do something to the driver to translate DirectPhysics calls into something their card can understand. (not sure if this possible, I don't really know how it works)
 
dotK said:
I think DX10 and Vista would be the perfect time to launch it, if they are working on it.

A number of questions that will need to be answered:
- Will it support hardware or be a software only solution?
- If it supports hardware then will it support a dedicated solution like Ageia's PPU or will it support NVIDIA's utilization of the GPU?
- Will it be DX10 exclusive?

This could really spell trouble for Ageia. Developers will likely support whatever MS throws out there. However, it's unlikely that the current PPU will be compliant with the MS physics API standard - rendering it potentially useless or gimped in future games.
Click to expand...


this would be just hte opposite of Trouble for Ageia, this would mean a standard with which to provide a common physics API to all games. More games == more ppu sales..

to make the ageia compatible with a DX physics solution would be pretty easy, considering the physics calculations are goign to be similar. and it should all be handled in the Ageia drivers. And any DX physics calculation not handled via hardware would be done in software (similar to how DX8.1 GPUs can run DX9 games)..

Physics in DX can only help ageia, especially considering they already have a hardware solution to market (and should be considered in the lead as far as PPU's go)...

and love or hate it, if MS is going to add Physics to DX.. that is a good sign that the PPU will be around for a while..
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
For the last time the Inquirer != the Enquirer. One's a tabloid, one reports on tech remors.
Click to expand...
What he said. Need I remind you of R520? G70/G71? Conroe? AM2? The Inq has repeatedly shown themselves the be a reliable rumor mill (albeit still a rumor mill). Why is it that people will trust a rumor from a big-name site, but laugh if it comes from the Inq?

I love the idea. M$ puts the code in the DX10 API. Programmers write to the API, and DX10 takes over from there. If it detects no compatible hardware, it runs in crappy software mode. If it detects a second video card or SLI/CF, it runs in eye-candy mode. If it detects a PhysX, it runs in full-blown mode. It makes for across-the-board compatibility, and in the end we all benefit. I'm sure Ageia jumped in on this with M$ a long time ago, and it's been in the making for months. In fact, that would also explain why nVidia and ATI suddenly announced the same technology on the same day as well. It all makes sense.
 
InorganicMatter said:
What he said. Need I remind you of R520? G70/G71? Conroe? AM2? The Inq has repeatedly shown themselves the be a reliable rumor mill (albeit still a rumor mill). Why is it that people will trust a rumor from a big-name site, but laugh if it comes from the Inq?

I love the idea. M$ puts the code in the DX10 API. Programmers write to the API, and DX10 takes over from there. If it detects no compatible hardware, it runs in crappy software mode. If it detects a second video card or SLI/CF, it runs in eye-candy mode. If it detects a PhysX, it runs in full-blown mode. It makes for across-the-board compatibility, and in the end we all benefit. I'm sure Ageia jumped in on this with M$ a long time ago, and it's been in the making for months. In fact, that would also explain why nVidia and ATI suddenly announced the same technology on the same day as well. It all makes sense.
Click to expand...
That would be superb, I hope it's close to the truth. :)
 
H-street said:
this would be just hte opposite of Trouble for Ageia, this would mean a standard with which to provide a common physics API to all games. More games == more ppu sales..

to make the ageia compatible with a DX physics solution would be pretty easy, considering the physics calculations are goign to be similar. and it should all be handled in the Ageia drivers. And any DX physics calculation not handled via hardware would be done in software (similar to how DX8.1 GPUs can run DX9 games)..

Physics in DX can only help ageia, especially considering they already have a hardware solution to market (and should be considered in the lead as far as PPU's go)...

and love or hate it, if MS is going to add Physics to DX.. that is a good sign that the PPU will be around for a while..
Click to expand...
This is like saying that DX 8.1 GPUs support all the features that DX 9 GPUs do. They don't. When DX 8.1 GPUs play a game they use different code. And those calculations and features not supported by the PPU will resort to the CPU to perform the calculations, which sort of defeats the point of having a PPU. If it were as easy as you say, you would see Intel integrated graphics able to do the latest and greatest in HDR simply by updating the drivers.
 
If your going to run pyhsics in DX10 the API has to support it. DX9L does't require the microsoft API to support pyhsics . The DX 10 API is a differant kind of animal. NV is not happy about DX10 api as they will no longer beable to optimize for individual games.
DX10 API for vista changes all the rules. Thats why I am betting on ATI pyhsics. Cheat codes are not suppose to work in DX10 either unless their easter eggs.

ATI and MS are very chummie.
 
InorganicMatter said:
What he said. Need I remind you of R520? G70/G71? Conroe? AM2? The Inq has repeatedly shown themselves the be a reliable rumor mill (albeit still a rumor mill). Why is it that people will trust a rumor from a big-name site, but laugh if it comes from the Inq?

I love the idea. M$ puts the code in the DX10 API. Programmers write to the API, and DX10 takes over from there. If it detects no compatible hardware, it runs in crappy software mode. If it detects a second video card or SLI/CF, it runs in eye-candy mode. If it detects a PhysX, it runs in full-blown mode. It makes for across-the-board compatibility, and in the end we all benefit. I'm sure Ageia jumped in on this with M$ a long time ago, and it's been in the making for months. In fact, that would also explain why nVidia and ATI suddenly announced the same technology on the same day as well. It all makes sense.
Click to expand...

ATI announced PPU way before NV . It was ATI working with xbox 360 not nv. fact is ATI was given priority information way before NV because the law allows for it when working together on new products= xbox360
 
This is old news. Check out the job description.
Do you want to work on the next generation Direct Physics API and make Windows the best platform for realism in games and high end workstation applications? Are you interested in looking at ways of distributing algorithms across multiple CPU cores and mapping these algorithms to modern GPU’s and dedicated hardware?.........

.........Nice to have:
DirectX experience
Game development and shipping experience
Physical simulation experience
Havok, Ageia, MathEngine, Meqon or ODE knowledge.
Click to expand...
Ageia bought Meqon, and works with XNA. Many 360 games will use Ageia's software engine.

From everything I've seen, MS and Ageia seem to be working together at this point. I doubt MS will get involved with the physics PPU vs. GPU battle until the dust has settled a little more.
 
InorganicMatter said:
What he said. Need I remind you of R520? G70/G71? Conroe? AM2? The Inq has repeatedly shown themselves the be a reliable rumor mill (albeit still a rumor mill). Why is it that people will trust a rumor from a big-name site, but laugh if it comes from the Inq?

.
Click to expand...
they said something different every week until they finally got it right. by then everybody already knew the real specs on R520 G71 and everything else. only about 20% of what they say turns out to actually be true. they just keep changing their story until they finally get it right. then some people are like "wow The Inquirer is right".
 
trek554 said:
they said something different every week until they finally got it right. by then everybody already knew the real specs on R520 G71 and everything else. only about 20% of what they say turns out to actually be true. they just keep changing their story until they finally get it right. then some people are like "wow The Inquirer is right".
Click to expand...


The inquirer was way off on the R520 true that. But the NV 7900 I can't blame inquirer for the as the NV sites kept claiming 32 when infact it was 24 pipes. NV sites were responsiable for that FUD not the inquirer.
 
Lunar Wolf said:
rofl.gif


The Inquirer not making something up is like a British tabloid not putting boobs on page 3.
Click to expand...

lol...we all know what newspaper you read now
 
$BangforThe$ said:
The inquirer was way off on the R520 true that. But the NV 7900 I can't blame inquirer for the as the NV sites kept claiming 32 when infact it was 24 pipes. NV sites were responsiable for that FUD not the inquirer.
Click to expand...
that proves my point. they just put whatever they "hear" or an educated guess until they get it right. when they do get it right we usually already know its right from other sources. ;)
 
trek554 said:
that proves my point. they just put whatever they "hear" or an educated guess until they get it right. when they do get it right we usually already know its right from other sources. ;)
Click to expand...

Its true that but they still hit more than they mis
 
trek554 said:
no they dont. you just remember the ones that are right.
Click to expand...

QFT!!
And most of their "hits" are facts from other sites...
Hell they scan forum threads for "news"...

Like when they less than a week ago quoted an Xbox forum(a post made by a lying rabid fannyboi) for that RSX was slower than the 7800GTX...
Untill NVIDIA contaced the Xbox site, and set things straight...

Terra - Fuck "The Inq" :mad:
 
... You remember *bad* things first, not *good* things. So you make no sense.
 
Lo Pan said:
... You remember *bad* things first, not *good* things. So you make no sense.
Click to expand...

That is so not true.
You are making no sense now.

Terra - Anyone taking "The Inq" seriously -->> :rolleyes:
 
Toytown said:
I seen a webpage at microsoft about 6 months ago, where they were advertising jobs for programmers to be able to code a psyhics API for directx environment, im sure it was linked from this forum. So with that in mind, i hardly think its fake.
Click to expand...

Yup, saw that here. Altho, at the time i thought it was for a feasability study (rigged/modded directx for tech demos). Are they actually going full bore at it now?

dotK said:
I think DX10 and Vista would be the perfect time to launch it, if they are working on it.

A number of questions that will need to be answered:
- Will it support hardware or be a software only solution?
- If it supports hardware then will it support a dedicated solution like Ageia's PPU or will it support NVIDIA's utilization of the GPU?
- Will it be DX10 exclusive?

This could really spell trouble for Ageia. Developers will likely support whatever MS throws out there. However, it's unlikely that the current PPU will be compliant with the MS physics API standard - rendering it potentially useless or gimped in future games.
Click to expand...

In the other thread, i asked about how much of a penalty it would be if they were to make a wrapper to make one physics system work with another. The reply compared it to the one used by Unreal Engine to make it run in both OpenGL and DirectX. Gotta admit, there wasn't much of a penalty there.
 
Sly said:
In the other thread, i asked about how much of a penalty it would be if they were to make a wrapper to make one physics system work with another. The reply compared it to the one used by Unreal Engine to make it run in both OpenGL and DirectX. Gotta admit, there wasn't much of a penalty there.
Click to expand...
Well that's potentially good news for Ageia. We will just have to wait until we get more information (any information at all) to see exactly how it will pan out.
 
After reading a bunch about gpu sharing with directx10 it got me to thinking about multiple ppu setups. Single player games with tweakable constants in the option menu could make for some interesting displays of overkill. ;o)
 
Great idea for Microsoft to do this. With a standard, like DirectX, to follow, we avoid the problem of one company's PPU technology not working with another's. Right now it's only AGEIA vs NVIDIA/ATI, but no doubt there will be some direct competition once this becomes popular.

Besides, if Microsoft endorses it, programmers will know it will be real, and more will take advantage of it.
 
pulled from the [H] frontpage article:

BrentJustice said:
One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing.
Click to expand...

according to Brent, Physics will in fact be written into DX10. whether or not it will work with the PhysX card remains to be seen, but it's apparent that GPU's are going to get a lot more useful, including doing gameplay physics instead of just effects physics like gfx manu's are doing today. DX10 will be capable of AI, i don't see why it couldn't do gameplay physics.
 
Of course this will API will support hardware accleration, right?
 
Json23 said:
Of course this will API will support hardware accleration, right?
Click to expand...

Well, from a programming perspective, as long as the calls remain the same you can keep upgrading the algorithms working under it without affecting the main program. I don't see how simply rerouting those calls to a hardware function wouldn't be possible. Also, if the hardware doesn't support a function, it's likely that DirectX will simply do it in software, atleast that's how it worked when D3D was just starting.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
For the last time the Inquirer != the Enquirer. One's a tabloid, one reports on tech remors.
Click to expand...

Don't worry... It won't be the last time the Inquirer is wrong and comes up short... Yet again...

The Inquirer has been right ~10% of the time. Maybe. For the most part, they do report rumors, but so does the Enquirer. I hear that Microsoft is releasing a DX11 video card, marketted by Apple. That may make the front page, it's a rumor! :)

Just realize that the Inquirer isn't even close to ~50% correct.

MS Making a physics API as part of DirectX would be great. A standard in the industry always is good. Keep away from the "Glide" syndrome. I want a PPU that I can play with ANY game, not just the ones that support my PPU. ;)

Amanda ;)
 
Maybe microsoft can merge the APIs into something where the videocard can use unused processes to accelerate eye candy physics, while the ppu can be used for gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top