Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[Flyby]

Originally Posted by proton45

I don't know a lot about the physics cards, but don't they calculate collisions (gravity effects & inertia) and things bouncing around? I'm not sure what kind of calculations a physics card would be useful for in a flight sim? It seems to me that the bottle necks in processing power are in visual calculations and damage calculations...

Well, the damage calculations, and other special effects like drifting smoke, bomb blasts and the sort might all benefit from PhysX implementation. NVidia now makes PhysX a software implementation on it's GPUs. This link sort of explains it, and does so much better than I.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2340015,00.asp
As I recall, AMD/ATi have their own version, so once again here we go with the Crossfire vs SLi thing. No common standard except maybe OpenCL. I bet sim developers are way behind the curve on this stuff.

Oh, Flyingbullseye, I agree with you. Too many cpu-cycle-sucking ground objects may have a negative effect on smooth gameplay. I know some guys are building their core i7 systems in preparation of the release of SoW, among other sims. I'd hate to read of how SoW just brings the latest and the greatest to it's knees. But I guess they won't have to turn down quite so many settings as less-than-topnotch gaming rigs might. Good thing Oleg is making it scalable. I'd much rather spend my cpu cycles on complex weather, and clouds and stuff. A good sim is hard on a good cpu. Ain't it?
Well. can't worry about every thing.
Flyby out

[flyingbullseye]

The thing about physX so far is that it kills frame rates unless you have either a high end gpu or running sli. For the time being I like ATI's direction and planning on using Havok, which is cpu bound but in the future either one may prove to be superior or someone else can come out with something better. We'll see.

Glad you agree with me flyby. i7 or not, for me at least, the vehicle detail is getting turned down to say medium though I'd be willing to bet a good 775 quad should run this mostly fine. I do have hope and faith in Oleg that he won't produce a flight sim crysis, but get the code in order for better game play.

Since I am on the topic of the sim scaleablity (sp?) I do want to ask Oleg something for the next update whenever that is. Sorry if they are asked before.

1. How many options in the option menu are we going to get in order to make it not only playable but have at least some kind of improved graphics? ex: aircraft detail, cloud detail, terrain, vehicle, wind, so on and so on.

2. How many levels are there going to be for each specific option? ie...low, middle, high, ultra (PC killing)

3. Can the next round of pics show level of detail when choosing low, medium and high option?

Flyingbullseye

[proton45]

Originally Posted by flyingbullseye

The thing about physX so far is that it kills frame rates unless you have either a high end gpu or running sli. For the time being I like ATI's direction and planning on using Havok, which is cpu bound but in the future either one may prove to be superior or someone else can come out with something better. We'll see.

Glad you agree with me flyby. i7 or not, for me at least, the vehicle detail is getting turned down to say medium though I'd be willing to bet a good 775 quad should run this mostly fine. I do have hope and faith in Oleg that he won't produce a flight sim crysis, but get the code in order for better game play.

Since I am on the topic of the sim scaleablity (sp?) I do want to ask Oleg something for the next update whenever that is. Sorry if they are asked before.

1. How many options in the option menu are we going to get in order to make it not only playable but have at least some kind of improved graphics? ex: aircraft detail, cloud detail, terrain, vehicle, wind, so on and so on.

2. How many levels are there going to be for each specific option? ie...low, middle, high, ultra (PC killing)

3. Can the next round of pics show level of detail when choosing low, medium and high option?

Flyingbullseye

+1...ya, was about to mirror your comments. SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....

[flyingbullseye]

Originally Posted by proton45

+1...ya, was about to mirror your comments. SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....

I'm not so sure SOW would be so gpu dependent. Traditionally flight sims are cpu bound but this could change things. Mum seems to be the word on this. Though reading all the details that Oleg plans on putting in this sim I go between figuring we may need a govt super computer just to get playable frame rates to figuring certain aspects like the radar grid could be implimented on a simple basic way. But alas, frickin mum!

Flyingbullseye

[|ZUTI|]

Did someone else already asked for this but it would be great to be able to "duck" while performing head-on attack

[Bobb4]

The time between updates is getting longer. a promised (that can be debated) website fails to arrive two months after slated.
Now while working on a Sim may be time consuming, delegating someone to post an odd update cannot be that hard surely? Even the silence from Project Gaba is worrying.
That last time we had any real movement on this forum was over the confusion about Birds of Prey.
Now in an economic depress, wobbly or shacky feedback is one of the first signs of trouble.
Now it has been reported that SOW has slipped because of incompatablities with directX 11 and the OpenGL 3? Is this true?

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

The time between updates is getting longer. a promised (that can be debated) website fails to arrive two months after slated.
Now while working on a Sim may be time consuming, delegating someone to post an odd update cannot be that hard surely? Even the silence from Project Gaba is worrying.
That last time we had any real movement on this forum was over the confusion about Birds of Prey.
Now in an economic depress, wobbly or shacky feedback is one of the first signs of trouble.
Now it has been reported that SOW has slipped because of incompatablities with directX 11 and the OpenGL 3? Is this true?

Gossip.

DX and OGL are always incompatible, as they are different rendering techniques, one provided by Microsoft, the other at least based upon open-source. There have been rumours about Vista and issues with OGL, though, but apparently they turned out to be gossip, too.

To the website thing:
It is not the question if Oleg has the time or balls to command somebody from his staff to produce a website. The question is: Does the distributor (UBISOFT) allow Oleg to announce the titel to the public before UBISOFT does itself. Oleg's team is not responsible, most likely not even allowed to present a website of their product, as it is in terms of legal contracts, not his project alone. Ubisoft gives the money, so they say what is done and what not. People tend to forget, how business works - maybe it's the forum color...

Same is for Project Galba. The news is posted there for such a long time, but nobody seems to read what is posted there: "As the project has not yet been officially announced, we cannot provide regular updates."

So, if you guys don't get that new car you are wanting so much or preordered, you go to the factory and demand a statement from the production-line-supervisor? I honestly doubt that.

That Oleg gives you news via this forum is a bonus for his community, not a natural thing or something to demand. Go to the UBI-forums, ask their hotlines or write emails to their support-crew, if you want to change the publicity-campaign for the game!

[Bobb4]

[QUOTE=Feuerfalke;66435]Gossip.

DX and OGL are always incompatible, as they are different rendering techniques, one provided by Microsoft, the other at least based upon open-source. There have been rumours about Vista and issues with OGL, though, but apparently they turned out to be gossip, too.
QUOTE]

You are back, I missed you
Was just showing the little ones how to stir-up controversy on the thread and get a response
And yes i know Oleg will respond when he is ready, ps he announced the dedicated website not ubizoo so i am guessing it is either a 1c or Maddox games site?
I thing ubizoo are just publishers

[Flyby]

Originally Posted by proton45

SOW is likely to be so GPU dependent that most people will not be able to spare the "HP" to run the physics program....

Actually, I'd bet granny's drawers SoW will be more cpu-dependent rather so than the GPU. PhysX actually works by taking some of that computational work off the cpu and sending it to the GPU. In an SLi format, once card could actually take on that extra bit of workload. Articles on PhysX claim that's oow it works, and does so because the GPU supposedly has more computational power
http://www.blachford.info/computer/articles/PhysX1.html

A nice OCP forum discussion here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1336975

I'm hopeful that a powerful GPU with over 512mb of memory will be sufficient for SoW; something like a 4870-1gb card, or even a GTX 260-12 should nearly dominate SoW. But the cpu...well that's another matter, especially with all those ground objects milling about. I'm only hopeful we can turn them down or off.
Flyby out

[|ZUTI|]

If the code will be what it should be any 4core cpu will have to be sufficient. If not, well, back to raw power race.