I was wondering if FSX would use the capabilities of the new PPU's or is the look up table architecture of the FS flight models incapable of using these new cards?Could the cards be used in the weather/environment engine or perhaps the runway/taxyway surface interaction with the aircraft model?...The reason for the question is that I am planning for a new PC for Vista/FSX and am wondeing if there is any value in adding one of these cards to the shopping basket... for FSX that is.My local PC shop tech head says that flight sims would in no way benefit from one of these cards.BTW, this is what I am on about...http://www.ageia.com/physx/Cheers and thanks in advance for any info.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

I think Tdragger (mike) or Pixelpoke (Jason) has said that these cards won't be supported. If those cards have more support in the future with games etc then maybe FS11 might have support for those cards though. Normally on the ageia site it will give you a list of what games the cards will support. I know Unreal Tournament2007 is one of them and if FSX was going to support it, then that would have been mentioned as well.Might as well save your money for the time being or maybe buy something like Track IR instead once FSX compatible drivers come out for it.Craig

The simple answer is no. FSX is not written to use a physics processor.In my mind I am not certain that a physics processor would offer many adavantages for FS. The amount of physics involved in simulating an aircraft at this level is quite small. The website you reference says that its is:"a specialized accelerator dedicated solely to delivering rich immersive physical gaming environments with features such as:- Explosions that cause dust and collateral debris - Characters with complex, jointed geometries for more life-like motion and interaction -Spectacular new weapons with unpredictable effects - Cloth that drapes and tears the way you expect it to - Lush foliage that sways naturally when brushed against - Dense smoke & fog that billow around objects in motion"Although interesting, those features are aimed at gaming and aren't fundamentally necessary for FS.Also, in practical terms, a quick Google suggests that AGEIA seems to be the only physics processor currently available. I can't see Microsoft committing itself to a single source, which costs $299. Also, it's an emerging technology and I suspect won't become widely accepted until there are recognised and accepted standards for the programing interface. At present an application using the AGEIA processor would have to be written to match it. If another, better version is developed by another manufactuer then the relevant interface would have to be rewritten with no assurance that all the feature of one would be available in another. What would be needed is an equivalent to DX so that suppliers could work from a common set of requirements in deveping their drivers.This will only happen if enough demand is forseen to make developing the standard worthwhile. Your guess is as good as mine as to when that might be.

Hi,I would think the PPU's could be taken advantage of for a number of things we have in FS, as well as things I probably can't even think of but others people could probably think up.The physics of the aircraft of course, including more realistic tubulence, reaction to the wind on the ground and in the air and wingflex. Wet and snowy runways, icing. Lush foliage at airports while on the ground might be nice! Dense fog and smoke that billow around objects? We get dense fog with the weather we have in FS at a times, and smoke and fire around a failing engine would be pretty cool. ;) More realistic crashes for sure. Cloth that drapes and tears the way you expect it to? Hey, I used to get carted around in an old cloth winged Cessna when I was a kid, and I was told you had to be careful about the waether, you needed to aviod all weather. Imagine some cloth wings in FS that wear and tear over time, or very quickly if you decided to ignore the weather. Etc, ect...However, a game must be written to such a device starting at an early stage of it's developement. FSX development started a very long time ago, I believe almost three years ago, when the Ageia was probably just a glimmer in someones eye. And yep, developers(and potential customers) have to be convinced that such a device is worth writing code for and taking advantage of. It is of course possible for the Ageia to become the darling of the industry, similar to the 3dfx in it's heyday. But that depends upon a lot of different factors and only time will tell. But right now, it's new and was not available in nearly enough time for FS devs(aces team) to have even considered writing to it.

Thanks folks for your replies. I guess I will hold off on that item and maybe spend it on a faster processor or RAM than I was originally intending to get.It will indeed be interesting to see what these type of cards can be used for in the future of FS.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

I did say that a physics processor isn't fundamentally necessary for FDS. It could no doubt be used to provide some of the visual effects you mention - though would MS even consider there was a need to model tearing canvas?I'd like to comment though on the point you raise about turbulence. Turbulence has been extensively studied in the real world and it's been shown that it can be modelled (certainly to greater realism than needed for FS) by filtering the output of a random number generator. The filter only requires a couple of parameters or so to be able to create realistic turbulence. I would argue that using a physics processor to do this would be using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.This point applies to a wide range of aspects in simulation. There are generally two ways to develop a simulation. One is to try to model in detail how the system responds from first principles. The other is to treat the system (and its component parts) as black boxes and study the relationship between input and the output. The latter can be much simpler and can still give acceptably realistic results.Consider, for example lift on a wing. The first approach would involve detailed (and processor intensive) three-dimensional compuational fluid dynamics calculations to determine the lift. The second would simply make use of a lift curve slope with a simple equation like:L = 0.5 * rho*V^2 * WingArea * Cl(alpha)One of the arts of simulation is to make the second approach work, particularly when the simulation has to run in real time.

While I personally wouldn't mind there being support for a physics card in FS, I can sure already hear the screams of anguish from the legions of people who would be upset by Microsoft's decision to "force them to buy another piece of hardware". Heck, we already have a thread in here complaining about the need to upgrade to Service Pack 2, much less a $300 physics card. Not to mention, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that the physics card really adds all that much to a system...software developers aren't exactly running out to embrace these things.If the card proves to have some legs to it, and the technology manages to advance, I'm sure that the FS series will eventually take advantage of it...especially if nVidia and ATI start building physics cards (as they are rumored to be looking into). But this is not a technology that FS seems to want to adopt early...and it's still very early for physics cards.