@\NightandtheShape/@

Not Bragging... Just stating I have a job, for my work placement year, in the industry. Sadly not with OE!

BINGO! What do I get? Fat money cake? LMFAO

Although DX 10 is supposed to use slack bandwidth on GFX cards to do physic calculation though I know very little about DX 10 at the moment.

It certainly too easy to tell... I will say this, I do think physics is going to become as important as GFX cards are currently to the gaming industry, I'm currently wondering how viable it would be to use the Aegis technology for simulating a space game. I'm right in thinking that the SDK supports software, aswell as hardware results.

Nope. PPUs are different hardware. GPUs do a gazillion burst instructions on a texture (read-only, loads of bandwidth), whereas the PPU is a self-updating set of nested calculations (read/write, loads of bandwidth). Just because the GPU has loads more bandwidth (even several orders of magnitude more: the new ATi X1950 has DDR4 RAM, for example), it still isn't capable of completing the basic calculations PROPERLY. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The way in which a GPU and PPU operate is naturally different, but it deals with similar data sure? I will agree with you that a GPU alone cannot properly complete the required calculations (In some cases it can for example fluid dynamics) but it can aid the CPU in doing so quickly, thus in my eyes making a PPU pretty worthless(except for ease), and the addition of hardware to a GPU, a kinda GPU+PPU much more viable than an extra physics card. Particle Physics and Collision Detection are very viable, but perhaps not better than on a physics card. I was indicating that I am more inclined to think that added functinality to GFX cards is a better solution, that is all. As for the bottleneck, I genuinely felt and still feel that data transfer rate via the PCI slot the PPU is held in is causing a hold up and it is not the GFX card to blame, that is my first though and has no assumption of truth.

It's a great idea... Look how excited Hades is.

True, and I think so aswell.

Could it be culling that takes most of CPU time? Wouldn't be surprising given the number of objects. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thought that was part of the GFX pipeline and took place on the card, although it could very well depend upon the code.... Come to think of it Physics wouldn't have the option of culling what you can't see, like that of the GFX Card.

Bok, are you sure it's the PhysX itself that is getting saturated? Couldn't it be that your GeForce is getting overloaded with all the polygons the PhysX is churning out? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point, I don't know <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I seriously doubt that is the case.

The problem with physics cards is that they're simply in alot of respects toned down GPU's, working through a PCI port, so naturally they're more on par in terms of power due to memory bandwidth as old PCI GFX cards surely! (Don't quote me on that) It's more likely we'll see GPU cards having PPU's on there aswell. I've certainly read my fair share on hijacking GPU's to do collision detection information, a seperate PCI PPU seems fairly pointless to me.

Yes yes it is.

You switch the 2nd to being your primary display... From what I recall. It's been a while since I did it. Basically a Dual monitor setup, you just switch the monitor to it's output. But I recall a few years ago using a projector when demoing a game, this allowed for displaying the same image as was on the laptop. In that case I'm fairly certain there is no performance loss akin to dual monitor setup where each output is seperate, in which case it sends out the same signal to both. Oh and totally unrelated - some games have issues with Dual Core processors, you have to set the affinity of the CPU's to using one core, this is the case with Thief series, and a few other games (Same goes for GPU's, that are either SLI'd or Quad SLI'd). Developers who complain about Dual Core computing also deserve a slap! That may or may not have been known to folk, far as I am aware there aren't too many people using Dual Cores at the moment.

It would be a matter of diabling the notebook monitor and using the external one, the performance hit would be mostly dependant upon the resolution you run the game in. If the GFX card has very little RAM you're screwed in terms of resolution while it MAY be possible that it'll render at a higher res, you'll get a performance hit due to the resolution.

I'm pretty sure the GFX card has to work harder, it's not sending the same signal after all. My Geforce 7950 GX2 requires that I dedicate a card to each monitor in Dual Screen mode, which is great! I'm not 100% certain, but I will state that from my knowledge of the hardware it does work harder, but how much harder I am unsure.

Nothing Special really that I can see, perhaps the actual artwork is somewhat better but the technology looks to be almost identical. To say it's being released after oblivion it looks no better to my eye, the functionality appears the same, so really in the respect it's what, along the same lines but released afterwards.... right.

what bothers me is how catchy the lyrical melody is... DAMNIT!

There's some dodgy truth to that Hades.....

An Artist and a Coder could certainly kick something very very nice out, it wouldn't need to be sloppy at all. Unless the Artist or the Coder is already sloppy. I always fancied coding on that arm-9 chip, or the arm-7, I ain't fussy, if only because it's the last place where writing in asm is a good idea, although GBA C++ compilers exist out there currently, GBA, DS, and MIDP(Mobile Phones) have a very old skool development vibe.

Oh I agree wholehearted with what your saying, there indeed is more to D&D than ruleset implementation. NWN's has everything else for sure in comparison.

Generally speaking I see ToEE as being a game. I haven't made a single claim in regards to gfx, stability, story, etc... All I said was the rules were implemented very well and in that it was king. It is in that respect closest to PnP. I have made no other claims, and Vol your comment about identify is noted and I agree. If one compares the implemetaion of the ruleset in NWN to ToEE one can see that ToEE, in terms of rules is the better of the two. Is that a claim that either is better or more fun than the other, nope. I focused upon one aspect, and while my experience with ToEE was a rather nice and clean experience, I'm also aware that the same experience hasn't been shared. what irks me the most is the assertsion and claims made in posts that I have in some way claimed ToEE as the better game on the whole.

Never mentioned story. Never mentioned support. Only ever mentioned engine technology in terms of implementing the D&D ruleset. Personal experiences with buggy software are that of personal experiences, and in no way influence my opinion of a game, only it's stability.

Except that NWN is only kinda 3.0e, I like the DM client, NWN's has some very nice features in terms gameplay. My thinking was purely aimed at rule implementation and in my opinion, which most of such threads are full of, opinions, ToEE is king. Also, for the millionth time NWN on release made ToEE look stable, in my experience, while in your experience that may indeed be totally different, that neither changes or disputes any experience of my own. It depends what a person enjoies, and NWN is to me an average game no matter how one plays it, especially when considering D&D simulation upon a computer ToEE is a more convincing effort for myself than NWN, Multiplayer and DM's doesn't change the fact that playing NWN never felt anything remotely close in my experience to playing ToEE.

First Person RPG with DMM&M Combat and Oblivion's open world, set in scandinavia during the viking expansion(With obvious mythological creatures), with a multiplayer componants(coop) and naturally ships. Focus on exploration & combat with non linear story. Briefly speaking anyways.

Oh graphically it's just IE++, but as far as D&D engines go, it blows NWN outta the water.

Great arguement Volourn.