@Raven
"I'd suggest you morons actually do a registered company search before you start."
Now I know I have you beat when you call me names, Raven. You're such a sore loser.
"I swear you people are just so mind numblingly stupid. You think the Site's information is correct...
blah, blah, blah
... argued that you are trading illegally."
Empty has dealt with these vapid arguments well enough so I'll just cut to the chase.
"and Neo... developer.nvidia.com/forum ... if you can get in there freely then make a post. It is obvious who I am in there.
Happen to be the guy labeled
"Raven Lettan"
"ADMINISTRATOR""
Administrator? That little imagination of yours is getting quite carried away isn't it? But I can see why you choose that though. Its hard to disprove you're an Administrator for a forum that doesn't exist. As empty said, 404 page not found.
"Really this is pointless, if either of you have actually bothered to do any serious homework you'd know that
Middleware Ltd (not Middle ware who occupy www.middleware.com) is the trading name that Ipion was released under, "
Ipion was nevered released under MiddleWare. As empty said, it was acquired by Telekinesys which is the other trading name for Havok. But since you aren't too clever when it comes to research, I think I'll be nice and do it for you.
Quote: "Press Box
Latest Press Release:
12th June, 2000
Havok buy Ipion in consolidation of major physics players
Havok today announced the acquisition of Ipion of Munich, a leading physics provider. The move signifies a major consolidation of the physics market. The new company trading under the Havok brand will be based in Palo Alto, Munich and Dublin.
"
http://oldsite.havok.com/news/releases/12-06-00.html
Also from the above link:
Quote: "With offices in Palo Alto, California, Munich, Germany and Dublin Ireland, Havok is the game technology wing of Telekinesys Research Limited. Havok develop, market and license a comprehensive suite of software products that enable game developers to add real-time dynamism to their game titles."
According to what you said, this would mean that Havok would have bought out a piece of
itself if both Ipion and Havok started out under Middleware.
"Havok2 has been released under a new trading name (which IS NOT HAVOK, do your legal checks you idiots!)."
Another one of your fantasies Raven. You weren't even creative enough to come up with a new name this time either. Tsk, tsk. But taken into account the fact that you are being made to look like a fool with your original name creation spree, it probably is best if you lay low on this one.
"Telekinesys come from the university professor who joined Middleware back in 1993, and it was a partnership. So both parties continued trading under the original names."
Yet further proof that you skim over the stuff you read on the net without looking at things in detail.
http://www.telekinesys.com/corporate/history.html
Quote: "Telekinesys Research, founded in 1998 by Hugh Reynolds and Steven Collins, has its origins in the computer science department of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Telekinesys established the 'Havok' brand late in 1999. This wing of the company addresses the entertainment industry. "
Telekinesys was founded by professor
s in
1998. No mention of a partnership with "MiddleWare" anywhere.
"And you wanted to know WHY they don't go by the name Middleware now? Well FGS you've answered your own bloody question."
Quote: "Raven : Because I'm special - and what the hell do you mean the earth goes round the moon?!?
Someone : I never said that!!
Raven : Yes you did. Right here - "the earth goes round the moon"
Someone : That quote's from you!?"
So F'ing priceless its hysterical.
"And just so you know nvidia cards DO have 1.0-1.4 VS specifications on them which are accessable via the nv_vp_1_x under OpenGL 1.5;"
You're still defending that crap? I thought you gave up when after you had said that the DX help files contained mention of them I linked you to them quoting the a very glaring ommition of them. I guess you are a slow learner.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nvidia_opengl_specs.html
Quote: "NVIDIA OpenGL Extension Specifications
Last Updated: June 12, 2003
All the NVIDIA OpenGL extension specifications in one place. "
Quote: "NV_vertex_program
NV vertex program1_1
NV_vertex_program2""
No mention of Vp 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 here. You lose again Raven.
I also see that you didn't bother defending that little Cg claim that you made either. Good move on your part, cause if you did I would have very easily proved you wrong(again) and that would have made you look like a major prat what with you telling me to "realise just exactly what the Cg Toolkit and Cg does;".
"This is also why the FX cards have 3.0 & 3.x varations in them which are again ONLY accessable via OpenGL by the Microsoft ones aren't and why the specification is being dropped so we will only have, 1.x 2.x & 4.x come DirectX10."
There would have to be cards capable of 3.0 for there to be extensions for it and there are none. Not suprisingly there are no 3.0 extensions either. Or 3.x for that matter because there was never a specification for 3.x to being with either.
Oh, and don't bother claiming that there is a 3.x either. You know I'll just prove you wrong like I did with all of the others.
As for DX 10, I won't even get into that. There is simply no way that you could know what is in DX 10 becuase even Microsoft doesn't know. The are still in the proposal phase of the specification so its still all up in the air as to what is going to be in and what is going to be left out of the final spec.
"And why would you put a Physics engine for Shader use?
PERHAPS BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIRECT LEVEL INTERACTION"
You have a "direct level of interaction"(or whatever the hell you mean by that) with the CPU. No shaders necessary. The only reason you would use a shader, and I must have said this three or four times so listen closely, is to speed up the calcs of the physics and if your GPU wasn't being taxed too much(if you are running a very shader intensive app, it would probably be faster and more economical to just do some or all of the physics on the CPU and let the GPU concentrate on the visual side of things. Loading your shaders with physics equations would only be straining your instruction count and might prevent you from doing some visual effects).
"You can do physics based on any state of the vertex and polygons available "
You can do that with the CPU as well. Or did that slip by you?
"as well as the shader etended effects suchas Per-Pixel-Lighting giving you greater Physics and Dynamics control."
Per-pixel lighting is not a physics thing. It isn't handled by any of the major physics packages and it shouldn't be either. It is totally unrelated to what physics packages are designed to do. So why are you mentioning it? Are you trying to sound smart? You know that crap won't work with me.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with what you said earlier with the physics being hardwired into the GPU. Don't try this bait and switch crap with me. It just won't work and it gets annoying.
But back to the subject at hand, I take it you've given up on claiming that Karma is owned by Havok? I see you haven't tried spinning any new lies about it, which is a good move on your part because I've pretty much proven that it is owned by Criterion and not Havok/"MiddleWare".
So, any other baseless claims or are you done for the day?
