Batman Arkham Origins PhysX Demo

PhysX makes me so angry these days. I was a huge proponent of the system when it was a drop in card you could get from BFGtech. Now it is no longer open and has not been converted over to a more standardized system, like OpenCL or MS DirectCompute. Also why can't I buy an nVidia card to dedicate to PhysX without having to swap out my main GPU for a green one???
 
JosiahBradley said:
PhysX makes me so angry these days. I was a huge proponent of the system when it was a drop in card you could get from BFGtech. Now it is no longer open and has not been converted over to a more standardized system, like OpenCL or MS DirectCompute. Also why can't I buy an nVidia card to dedicate to PhysX without having to swap out my main GPU for a green one???
Click to expand...

You could be my twin. I used to have an Ageia card as well and now hate PhysX ever since Nvidia got their grubby paws on it
 
Wow, impressive display of PhysX. While I'm not a fan of third person views, I'm tempted to get the game just for the combat and eye candy alone.
 
Wow guys look at all that fog... in winter time no less. Every building is like a cheesy 80's horror movie with thousands of pounds of dry ice melting in water just about every 10 feet.

What a great display of Physx. I'm so glad that was such a hyped feature .. for it has changed the gaming landscape....
 
Nothing much new here. Most of the PhysX tech shown was on display in BMAA.

PhysX has not really progressed in games that much at all and is mostly implemented as simply aesthetic eye candy.

Give us a game that implements PhysX destruction to the gameplay the same vein as Red Faction and perhaps it will be worthy of attention.

As it stands, all recent implementations of PhysX have simply been gimmicky marketing.
 
Same way in Hawken, just upgraded my old card to a 660 ti, now I have swirly sparks instead of boring old regular sparks.

Destructible terrain? hell with that, I'll take swirly sparks any day!
 
"I'm ordering a PhysX card right now on Amazon as we speak..." Said nobody in 2013.
 
Considering things like the particles (snow) and fog don't use thousands of individual parts...why, exactly, could a CPU not do this? I mean, I don't see anything here Physx wise that couldn't be done on a CPU if Physx was, ya know, properly coded for CPU's.

Plus, looks like crap anyways, fog all over the place doesn't = Batman feel in my mind. Dark city streets and dirt and grime = Batman. Not fog.

Meh what ever...just getting tired of this proprietary crap. Now Nvidia is sticking their dirty hands in next-gen games now and games like The Witcher 3 will have Physx effects. Thanks devs! Let Nvidia pay you off instead of, ya know, innovating and creating some nice GPU-compute physics that everyone can use.

Fuck Nvidia and their Physx bullshit and fuck any developers that lets Nvidia pay them off to use their closet off bullshit physics engine.
 
This crap sickens me. As if an ATI Video card couldn't do the exact same calculations. Furthermore, your video card shouldn't be doing it anyway. I would have preferred the 35 dollar add in card that anyone could enjoy.

Every time they show one of these videos, they make me hate them even more.
 
caddys83 said:
lol @ the cry babies of AMD fanboys :p
Click to expand...

It isn't AMD fanboy crying, ass, it's the fact that people are sick of proprietary software. You didn't see AMD make TressFX AMD only did you?

Take YOUR Nvidia fanboism elsewhere and quit trying to start shit.
 
I'm an nVidia card owner and am sick of this shit too. Every game that releases with PhysX support is purely cosmetic and really adds nothing to games aside from a few bells and whistles.

The true potential of PhysX hasn't been realized purely because of the proprietary nature of the technology. Developers would be committing sales suicide creating a title that implemented PhysX at a fundamental part of game play level since anyone without a PhysX capable card would instantly be ruled out.

Unfortunately, PhysX has reached its apex and cannot progress any further due to it's own platform limitations.
 
the PhysX were used very well in Arkham City...this looks exactly the same...the way the cape moves, especially when gliding through the air, was very impressive...is it me or does this game look like a major step down in the graphics department...everything looks so dull and flat
 
Project Cars is using PhysX 3.2.4.1 and it runs just fine on my AMD FX-8120. Those particles / fog you're seeing in the Batman demo is a joke. In Project Cars so far they haven't implemented any Nvidia only tweaks. That's what really infuriates me. Why are these games still tossing up swirls and fog off the GPU, when there is another alternative from Nvidia that runs just fine on the CPU?

Here's an example of real PhysX.
 
I hope I'm not the only one that thinks the use of Physx here sucks... Least in that demo it feels like Fog throw in everywhere for the hell of it.
 
polonyc2 said:
the PhysX were used very well in Arkham City...this looks exactly the same...the way the cape moves, especially when gliding through the air, was very impressive...is it me or does this game look like a major step down in the graphics department...everything looks so dull and flat
Click to expand...

It IS a different developer this time.
 
JoeUser said:
It isn't AMD fanboy crying, ass, it's the fact that people are sick of proprietary software. You didn't see AMD make TressFX AMD only did you?

Take YOUR Nvidia fanboism elsewhere and quit trying to start shit.
Click to expand...

Well they tried :D:D
 
caddys83 said:
lol @ the cry babies of AMD fanboys :p
Click to expand...

PhysX is almost as bad for Nvidia customers.

PhysX is a very slow physics engine, the only reason it is used is because Nvidia pays companies to use it, no developer would use it other wise.

PhysX hurts every gamer, Nvidia, AMD or Intel users alike, the only people it benefits is the developers wallets and Nvidia shareholders.
 
Are there still driver hack/patches that will still let you throw in a cheap Nvidia in for the PhysX while the AMD card does the bulk of the work?
 
Spazturtle said:
PhysX is almost as bad for Nvidia customers.

PhysX is a very slow physics engine, the only reason it is used is because Nvidia pays companies to use it, no developer would use it other wise.

PhysX hurts every gamer, Nvidia, AMD or Intel users alike, the only people it benefits is the developers wallets and Nvidia shareholders.
Click to expand...


Do you have a source other than your ass on that claim? Developers use what works and physx pretty much works "out of the box" and is integrated into the unreal engine.

I'm tired of all the AMD fan boys butthurt because they can't enable the effects.
 
So I take it PhysX is still not worth having? I bought my first Nvidia card in a long time back in the summer and was thinking about trying PhysX but judging from everybody's comments, it aint worth spending the cash on a dedicated PhysX card.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Do you have a source other than your ass on that claim? Developers use what works and physx pretty much works "out of the box" and is integrated into the unreal engine.

I'm tired of all the AMD fan boys butthurt because they can't enable the effects.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to call someone out for making baseless claims, but it's a whole new level to do it and repeat it same "pull out of ass" action yourself...


"It just works" though would explain the lame use of if Physx here... "We throw fog everywhere cause it just works..."
 
I'll let the large majority of devs decisions to use Intel's Havok system over Nvidia's Physx speak for itself... Only Nvidia partners use Physx, and even then not all of their partners use it either...
 
Spazturtle said:
PhysX hurts every gamer, Nvidia, AMD or Intel users alike, the only people it benefits is the developers wallets and Nvidia shareholders.
Click to expand...

It hurts "every" gamer? LOL. Sorry but I have an absolute blast playing Borderlands 2 with all the extra eye candy.

Peanut butter for your jelly?
 
DPI said:
It hurts "every" gamer? LOL. Sorry but I have an absolute blast playing Borderlands 2 with all the extra eye candy.

Peanut butter for your jelly?
Click to expand...

And Intel Havok could do all that and more whilst using less resources.
 
While it's cool, I wish they'd make a game that required PhysX and actually do something like deformable environments, have those cool shadows actually play a role in the game, and maybe make snowballs or something. Just something that makes it a tangible asset to the game rather than just exclusive eyecandy.
 
With 4-8 core cpus why do you have to have a gpu for physics effects?
I'm a pc gamer, but I REALLY can't wait for the Xbox One and PS4 because it means OUR GAMES will finally be written to take advantage of multiple cores and we all get a better gaming experience regardless of AMD, Intel for your cpu and Nvidia or AMD for your gpu.
 
Things like fog effects must be impossible to do on amd cards :rolleyes:. Just remove the pointless physics on it and let us use those effects as well. Not offering any effects as a replacement is just lazy.
 
Demo's, if they really wanted to show it off then make a game from the ground up with it. it's been how long since Nvidia acquired Physx...6 years?
 
boss99 said:
While it's cool, I wish they'd make a game that required PhysX and actually do something like deformable environments, have those cool shadows actually play a role in the game, and maybe make snowballs or something. Just something that makes it a tangible asset to the game rather than just exclusive eyecandy.
Click to expand...

They can't really. If Physx was NEEDED for a game for it to run that means it would end up being Nvidia ONLY and it wouldn't work on AMD or Intel GPU's. This is why many people, including myself, don't like Physx. If dev's used something like Havok or OpenCL then games COULD use physics for game play (e.g. Red Faction Guerrilla which uses CPU based Havok). However, as I said, a game using only hardware accelerated Physx would limit it's consumer base dramatically...because remember, while Nvidia has a large market share how many of those Nvidia GPU's do you think are powerful enough to do graphics AND advanced Physx at the same time? Not that many. So even if a game was Nvidia only you can't even count all the people that own Nvidia GPU's.

yourgrandma said:
Things like fog effects must be impossible to do on amd cards :rolleyes:. Just remove the pointless physics on it and let us use those effects as well. Not offering any effects as a replacement is just lazy.
Click to expand...

This is something that had me thinking too...as the guy said, "The fog really adds depth and makes it feel like a Batman world" etc...so if fog makes it feel better then they could still, ya know, add static fog at the very least for all non-Physx users. I mean, to skip out on effects like fog for anyone not using Physx just doesn't really make sense. Games have had fog for decades...don't see why they can't do it now, dynamic or not.
 
Physix only seems to add fogs and papers/debris on ground.
A bit disappointed that they couldn't come up with other uses for it (yes, the cape... but it doesn't look all that different from non-physix version).

Sure, it's just "bells and whistles", but that's why people by nice graphic cards. I'm not going to cry foul over Physix being used just for that. But it's just so poorly executed.
 
Parmenides said:
Are there still driver hack/patches that will still let you throw in a cheap Nvidia in for the PhysX while the AMD card does the bulk of the work?
Click to expand...

Yep, my brother runs a gt640 with his 7970 for physx. It's not very hard to do.
Really Nvidia and AMD should both support hybrid physx, but that will never happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top