INFERNAL Revealed

One of the press releases accompanying the announcement of the launch of the AGEIA PhysX physics processor (story) spills the beans on INFERNAL, a previously unannounced third-person fantasy shooter in the works at Metropolis Software slated for release this fall:
MOUNTAIN VIEW and SAN JOSE, Calif. – March 22, 2006 –AGEIA™ Technologies, Inc., the pioneer in hardware-accelerated physics for games, today announced at the Game Developers Conference that Poland-based Metropolis Software is supporting the AGEIA PhysX™ processor in its upcoming fantasy shooter INFERNAL. The third-person action game will be published by Playlogic, and delivers stunning graphics and immersive physics action.

Metropolis developers are designing the game to resemble an action movie, complete with car chases, shootouts and high-tech gadgetry. The action takes place in a variety of settings, from Alpine villages and medieval castles to power plants and industrial sites. Leveraging AGEIA’s PhysX technology, Metropolis developers let the protagonist and opponents use the environment in unique ways, with the environment in turn influencing the way the game is played. For instance, enemy units can hide behind objects, locate the best positions to shoot from, and analyze the environment in order to be most combat-effective. Enemy units can jump, roll or duck for cover.

“The physics acceleration of the AGEIA PhysX processor is ideal for the shootouts, hand-to-hand battles and magic attacks of this new action title,” said Grzegorz Miechowski, CEO of Metropolis Software. “We expect to deliver many never-seen-before effects with the help of the AGEIA PhysX processor.”

“Metropolis Software demonstrates how graphics, gameplay and physics go hand-in-hand to create a captivating experience for gamers,” said Kathy Schoback, vice president of content acquisition at AGEIA. “The immersive action of this exciting new title should be a great testament to the action acceleration of the AGEIA PhysX processor.”

The new game from Metropolis will be published by Playlogic, which already has high hopes for the game, according to Stefan Layer, COO/VP of Playlogic.

“Metropolis has created a unique storyline that gives the player the impression of having been part of a movie. The game is already of such high quality that we believe it will be one of our key titles in the fall of 2006,” Layer said.
View : : :
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
24.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 23, 2006, 07:54
24.
Re: No subject Mar 23, 2006, 07:54
Mar 23, 2006, 07:54
 
You don't need an SLI system to get GPU enhanced Havoc physics. It will work with a single SM3.0 card.

But if you're inclined to by some more hardware for faster gaming, you may as well spend that $200 on a second video card, which can also be utilized by games that don't take advantage of hardware physics processing.

23.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 23, 2006, 03:59
Rilcon
 
23.
Re: No subject Mar 23, 2006, 03:59
Mar 23, 2006, 03:59
 Rilcon
 
You know you need a SLI system to get that GPU enhanced Havok physiscs, right? And that that GPU is going to be doing enough physiscs as to not notice much of an increment in graphics, as you would expect from a SLI system, right?

Soo, you'd rather pay $350 for a GPU that does physics, instead of $200 for a PPU that does physics?

22.
 
No subject
Mar 23, 2006, 02:44
22.
No subject Mar 23, 2006, 02:44
Mar 23, 2006, 02:44
 
Since when did this site become a pessimist spitbox? Jesus, one would think enthusiast gamers would be welcoming any potentially revolutionary innovations with open arms and high hopes. Or have your minds and tastes been irreversibly poisoned by World of Warcraft? What do you have to gain by being a detractor of this idea? You'd prefer this fail just so you can save a few hundred bucks? Pffft.

No, we prefer Havok.

http://havok.com/

Feel free to play with Ageia's $200 paperweight if you want to. Maybe load some Starforce on it so it blows up. That would be an interesting physics demonstration.

No way in hell should ANYONE have to pay $200 for a god-damned co-processor that could be simulated by a dual-core CPU, or by GPU as Nvidia has done with Havok. The only thing it is good for is consoles--too bad it costs about as much as one!
This comment was edited on Mar 23, 02:51.
21.
 
WTF
Mar 22, 2006, 21:52
Com
21.
WTF Mar 22, 2006, 21:52
Mar 22, 2006, 21:52
Com
 
Since when did this site become a pessimist spitbox? Jesus, one would think enthusiast gamers would be welcoming any potentially revolutionary innovations with open arms and high hopes. Or have your minds and tastes been irreversibly poisoned by World of Warcraft? What do you have to gain by being a detractor of this idea? You'd prefer this fail just so you can save a few hundred bucks? Pffft.

20.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 20:51
War
20.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 20:51
Mar 22, 2006, 20:51
War
 
>just hope/pray/bitch/whine it doesn't have STARFORCE

The last few Metropolis games (Aurora Watching, Archangel) did.

19.
 
No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 20:25
Rilcon
 
19.
No subject Mar 22, 2006, 20:25
Mar 22, 2006, 20:25
 Rilcon
 
The video of Cell Factor on their vido site seemed rather nice.

http://physx.ageia.com/footage.html

I'll probably get one of the things whenever UT2007 or some really outstanding title comes out. Been a sucker for physics in games since a Space Wars clone on my C64.

18.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 19:50
18.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 19:50
Mar 22, 2006, 19:50
 
I just hope/pray/bitch/whine it doesn't have STARFORCE

*runs for cover*

Avatar 12670
17.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 19:21
17.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 19:21
Mar 22, 2006, 19:21
 
In the long run it really seems much smarter to just increase the general processing power of the CPU.

CPUs are pretty bad at physics. It mainly uses a lot of floating point arithmetic, which is not a cpu's forte. On the other hand, shaders are quite good at floating point calculations, so they may be a viable alternative. Assuming, of course, that you are willing to take the hit to graphics processing.

16.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 18:49
16.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 18:49
Mar 22, 2006, 18:49
 
Until I see some kind of powerful demonstration otherwise, I will dismiss this stuff as pure hype.

Their site seems to be mostly down right now which is a shame, as they have a few videos of one scene, broken into sections to show what it can do, basically this plane flies into a warehouse, knocking stuff down and then knocking over this water tower, which breaks open and water goes every where, looks crazy good and probably not something that a cpu on its own could handle.

------
$1 tax for the national debt?
------
Diablo & Diablo 2 for the DS, it makes sense Blizzard!
15.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 18:45
15.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 18:45
Mar 22, 2006, 18:45
 
MindTrigger,

I was responding to someone who was suggesting that separate, dedicated physics processing logic should be added to GPUs.

So do us a favor and shut your pie hole. lol.

14.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 18:39
14.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 18:39
Mar 22, 2006, 18:39
 
This 'physics processor' crap looks very gimmicky. I don't see how game physics really requires the use of a dedicated processor. In the long run it really seems much smarter to just increase the general processing power of the CPU. Until I see some kind of powerful demonstration otherwise, I will dismiss this stuff as pure hype.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 18:39.
13.
 
No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 18:23
War
13.
No subject Mar 22, 2006, 18:23
Mar 22, 2006, 18:23
War
 
I take it this game was previously known as Diabolique: License to Sin.

12.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 17:04
12.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 17:04
Mar 22, 2006, 17:04
 

Fartacus,

There was just an announcment like yesterday or the day before that nVidia is going to have their GPU's handle physics using Havok FX engine.

Do us a favor and stop making predictions. You aren't allowed to make predictions after the fact has already been established. lol.

article: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20060321130932.html

-----
http://www.frappr.com/bluesnewsmembers
BF2 Player Name: "MindTrigger"
"Don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold." -Bob Marley
--
He cut the possum's face off then cut around the eye socket. In the center of the belt buckle, where the possum's eye would be, he has placed a small piece of wood from his old '52 Ford's home made railroad tie bumper. Damn, he misses that truck.
11.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 17:01
11.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 17:01
Mar 22, 2006, 17:01
 
Do people actually play "3rd person Fantasy shooters"??

I can't stand 3rd person games in the first place, let alone "fantasy shooter" ones.


-----
http://www.frappr.com/bluesnewsmembers
BF2 Player Name: "MindTrigger"
"Don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold." -Bob Marley
This comment was edited on Mar 22, 17:01.
--
He cut the possum's face off then cut around the eye socket. In the center of the belt buckle, where the possum's eye would be, he has placed a small piece of wood from his old '52 Ford's home made railroad tie bumper. Damn, he misses that truck.
10.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 16:29
10.
Re: No subject Mar 22, 2006, 16:29
Mar 22, 2006, 16:29
 
I think the way it will go is that Nvidia and ATI are going to add independant physics processors to their future video cards, it's the only way something like this would become standard in video gaming.

I'm predicting that independant physics processors won't be added to GPUs. GPU's will continue to grow in processing power exponentially, and the same hardware used for shading pixels and geometry will be used for physics processing. GPUs are already very well suited to physics.

9.
 
Re: unique ways
Mar 22, 2006, 15:39
9.
Re: unique ways Mar 22, 2006, 15:39
Mar 22, 2006, 15:39
 
Another core on my CPU is infinitely more useful to me than a physics board that sits and does nothing except for the few games that make use of it

Why the "or"? Why imply that you can't have both a second core and the physics board?

Even assuming the dedicated hardware could blow the socks off a dedicated 'physics core' it's much more useful, and no developer in their right mind is going to make such important gameplay features dependent on hardware accelerated physics to totally screw those people without the hardware, so at most it's going to be helping out some eye candy, which might as well be done by the GPU anyways, or a physics CPU thread.

The exact same thing could have been said about early 3d graphics cards - and probably was.

Plus there would have to be very heavy bus bandwidth going on between at least the video card and physics board, and worse between the video, physics, and cpu. It's just complicating the matter to have a seperate hardware physics board, for what I percieve as little to no gain over multiple cpu cores or programmable shaders.

There is plenty of bandwidth to spare with PCI-E. Heck, they never even got to the point where they were using the full bandwidth of AGP 8x. It doesn't really "complicate" matters at all. If you have the card, great, the game takes advantage of it. If you don't, well, the game falls back on the less efficient code, so you get a slightly poorer quality game. Again, pretty much like early 3d graphics cards.

You are right that programmable shaders can probably do most of the physics to a sufficient quality. As long as the companies do so in a timely fashion, this card may become obsolete quickly. Or it may not. But a "second core" isn't sufficient to deal with physics needs (especially when it could be put to better use with AI issues).

8.
 
Thats not a physics processor..
Mar 22, 2006, 14:43
8.
Thats not a physics processor.. Mar 22, 2006, 14:43
Mar 22, 2006, 14:43
 
.. This is a physics processor..

http://uits.iu.edu/scripts/ose.cgi?anaf.def.help


What about "programmable" processors that can be programmed by any game engine? Wouldnt that be the way to go?


I think all computers should have a "spare" programmable processor for any offloading any app wants to do.


Implementing physics isnt difficult on any hardware, after all its newtonian physics and so on, those equations have not changed for eons. What will make or break this is the API.

What is physics like on the Cell architectures? PS3 anybody?

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 14:47.
7.
 
No subject
Mar 22, 2006, 14:38
7.
No subject Mar 22, 2006, 14:38
Mar 22, 2006, 14:38
 
I think the way it will go is that Nvidia and ATI are going to add independant physics processors to their future video cards, it's the only way something like this would become standard in video gaming.

Then again, with a dedicated physics processor, you could do really neat stuff like smoke curls and plumes, flowing water, air, and much more advanced physics rendering than is available with something like HL2

6.
 
Re: unique ways
Mar 22, 2006, 14:29
6.
Re: unique ways Mar 22, 2006, 14:29
Mar 22, 2006, 14:29
 
I don't see how a seperate physics board would ever be a worthy component in a system.

All signs are pointing to multiple core CPUs in the future, with duel core now, likely more later. It's not so easy to push GHz anymore. Another core on my CPU is infinitely more useful to me than a physics board that sits and does nothing except for the few games that make use of it. Even assuming the dedicated hardware could blow the socks off a dedicated 'physics core' it's much more useful, and no developer in their right mind is going to make such important gameplay features dependent on hardware accelerated physics to totally screw those people without the hardware, so at most it's going to be helping out some eye candy, which might as well be done by the GPU anyways, or a physics CPU thread.

Edit: Plus there would have to be very heavy bus bandwidth going on between at least the video card and physics board, and worse between the video, physics, and cpu. It's just complicating the matter to have a seperate hardware physics board, for what I percieve as little to no gain over multiple cpu cores or programmable shaders.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 14:36.
5.
 
Re: unique ways
Mar 22, 2006, 14:17
5.
Re: unique ways Mar 22, 2006, 14:17
Mar 22, 2006, 14:17
 
They keep advertising games they are partnered with. Games that in NO WAY show us anything revolutionary or really even interesting about their product.

The fact that ATI and nvidia are going to be adding physics on to graphics cards just makes me think this is going nowhere for them, especially if games have to be programmed to use their addon card.

24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older