[Podunk]

I think we will start seeing this kind of modularization of computers' common programming tasks more and more common as they become more advanced.

There are TONS of algorithms duplicated across games, if each function could be standardized and etched on a board to make something faster, or someone money, etc.

[TheNewt]

Eh, that kind of technology would have to wait, cause functions aren't 'duplicated' really, they may be similar but never perfectly alike.
sin((playerRotation.Z-offSet.Z) *3.141592/180) * distance
cos((playerRotation.Z-offSet.Z) *3.141592/180) * distance
That for example, would be a very common calculation but can be rewritten in different ways to be more optimized for different things. The functions could eventually exist as hardware on boards, but they would be (as I suspect) rewritten for the purpose that the developer wants.

[Rolnaaba]

I think the discussion was over when the question was asked by MysticDeath earlier "Why do you buy a graphics card?" the answer was that "I buy it because the game I want to play requires it." When games start requiring the PPU eventually it will become more and more common, becoming standard as the GPU and/or CPU.

[Twilight Suzuka]

Unless they don't require a PPU due to the advent of stream processing making them useless. Oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to rain on your parade.

A graphics card doesn't go out of date very fast because it is far more flexible. A PPU become out of date as soon as a new or better way to render physics comes around. The PPU's that first came out can't even be used in newer games, because they only support the NEW ones. Its a viscious cycle.

[pRED*]

Originally Posted by Twilight Suzuka Its a viscious cycle.

Are you suggesting the cycle resists flow? Because that would be vicious.

Sorry couldn't help myself.

[Twilight Suzuka]

LOL YOU FAIL

Vicious (your spelling) = ruthless

What you were trying to say is Viscous!

You made a mistake in spelling while trying to make fun of me making a mistake in spelling, therefore, failure.

Q.E.D. GTFO my internets

[pRED*]

No double fail there. Maybe even triple.

I was suggesting that your spelling 'viscious' was possbily closer to 'viscous' than it was to 'vicious'. And then I said that would be 'vicous' (yes like ruthless) for you to have suggested that the cycle was 'viscous'. (Doesn't make a great lot of sense but I wanted to through the correct spelling in, in an unrelated way)

[Twilight Suzuka]

Originally Posted by pRED* | NZ No double fail there. Maybe even triple. I was suggesting that your spelling 'viscious' was possbily closer to 'viscous' than it was to 'vicious'. And then I said that would be 'vicous' (yes like ruthless) for you to have suggested that the cycle was 'viscous'. (Doesn't make a great lot of sense but I wanted to through the correct spelling in, in an unrelated way)

Incorrect. You were implying that the cycle was thick, and therefore viscous, but you spelled it how I wanted to, vicious, therefore epic failure.

covering your ass just makes it worst.

[pRED*]

I do admit it could be interpreted either way. However you are still wrong.

You don't really think I'd spot your spelling mistake and replace it with another one of even more newbieness.

Admit your failure (privately if you must) and move on.

[Twilight Suzuka]

Originally Posted by pRED* | NZ I do admit it could be interpreted either way. However you are still wrong. You don't really think I'd spot your spelling mistake and replace it with another one of even more newbieness. Admit your failure (privately if you must) and move on.

I think in your rush to point out my mistake, you made one of your own, which was particularly lulzy.

Admit your mistake, and move on. You failure.