kid cabelgo
08-07-2006, 11:20 PM
Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com) has a very informative article about gaming physics from a scientific perspective. They have some very interesting things to say about the PhysX card in particular:
Kenny Erleben, assistant professor at the Datalogical Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, is working on physics-based animation and simulation modeling. He says that from a researcher's theoretical viewpoint, and from what he's heard so far, the PhysX card doesn't look promising, for two main reasons. First, the physics algorithms are locked into the hardware, which prevents programmers from changing the algorithms if they find better ones. Second, as we mentioned earlier, the factors that influence physics cannot be simplified into an equation in a satisfying way. This basically means that you're stuck with what you have and cannot go forward.
You can read the full article here (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/03/the_scientists_opinions_on_gaming_physics/index.html).
I thought this might be an interesting counterpoint to the PhysX PR article posted earlier today.
Kenny Erleben, assistant professor at the Datalogical Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, is working on physics-based animation and simulation modeling. He says that from a researcher's theoretical viewpoint, and from what he's heard so far, the PhysX card doesn't look promising, for two main reasons. First, the physics algorithms are locked into the hardware, which prevents programmers from changing the algorithms if they find better ones. Second, as we mentioned earlier, the factors that influence physics cannot be simplified into an equation in a satisfying way. This basically means that you're stuck with what you have and cannot go forward.
You can read the full article here (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/03/the_scientists_opinions_on_gaming_physics/index.html).
I thought this might be an interesting counterpoint to the PhysX PR article posted earlier today.