Developers don't care if it's proprietary or not if it's being done on the CPU. If it's cheap or free and does what they need, they'll go for it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
DX11 = PhysX killer?
- Thread starter eric_bazile
- Start date
so far only 1 well known game that actually use fluid water...which is Cryostasis..
which the whole game is pretty much a joke and physX in game just not impressive, and too unrealistic.. there is no eye candy to begin with....
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
So is your post...just empty words with no meaning.
Why?
It would just be "nothing but a link with words"
When is too stupid too stupid?
Right now, you are more stupid than stupid.
Back in 2006 it was clear to everyone that the PPU was WAY faster than a CPU for physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7hIuytdRKw
Guess you ar more behind than I thought.
Show me...you have a nag of dismming links and posting nothing but FUD...surprise me.
I can show you Havok CPU water:
www.havokCPUwater.com
Next time, bring something to table...besides your ignorance
2 things:
Test your links, and stop cherrypicking.
You love ignoring arguements, and picking apart words.
yeah... you can wordplay. No, you have not shown any good game that needs Physx.
Once Batman AA reaches 1 million sales [EDIT: it has 2.5 mil...]... then we can talk. For it will be 1/8th of a (not so best-selling) of the sales of a decent Havok based game. (Halo 2... not even including Halo 3...)
For that matter, lets not note Company of Heros (Havok), Dead Space (Havok), or FEAR 2 Project Origion (Havok), or Fable 2 (havok), or Fallout 3 (Havok), Guitar Hero 3, Orange Box, Killzone 2 (Sony PS3 on nVidia GPU... by the way), World in Conflict, and anything else I am too tired to list (all Havok, by the way).
Now tell me, "Physx is needed."
because... it ain't. Games don't sell because Physx is present. It seems, so far, they sell less because that is all they have to show.
Cool... I can now push physics faster on a gpu... unfortunately... the market data can care less (or more, as nVidia Physx doesn't do so well in the real world).
Last edited:
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
I'm not a fanboy but I do like to have a reasonable discussion.
I find the PhysX visual effects to be very worthwhile.
Not all of them but Batman AA looks great!
As hardware Physx support came free with my video card I am very happy.
I'm sorry for the background shenanigans going on with mixed vendor support being dropped but it doesnt change my opinion of how I like the effects.
Complaining about how you think they arent worth anything is your point of view and fair enough.
Maybe a different thread topic is more suitable?
As for cheering one side, if NVidia hadnt bought AGEIA and taken over PhysX, Physics hardware processing for games wouldnt be going anywhere.
Be thankful that there will soon be decent hardware Physics competition cos without NVidias push, that wouldnt be happening.
Many new technologies started off one sided, whats new...
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
I disagree with the viewpoint that physics hardware processing for games wouldn't be going anywhere. AGEIA PhysX-based games, maybe.
Havok, on the other hand, was working on Havok FX, which would have allowed for GPU-based physics on both ATI and nVidia-based GPUs. I think you would have seen developers flock to using Havok FX, as they could provide dual support out of the box.
Of course, Intel had to go and purchase Havok, thus killing off Havok FX
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
I disagree with the viewpoint that physics hardware processing for games wouldn't be going anywhere. AGEIA PhysX-based games, maybe.
Havok, on the other hand, was working on Havok FX, which would have allowed for GPU-based physics on both ATI and nVidia-based GPUs. I think you would have seen developers flock to using Havok FX, as they could provide dual support out of the box.
Of course, Intel had to go and purchase Havok, thus killing off Havok FX
Its sad that HavokFX was killed by Intel.
As said in my last post, its a good job someone else brought another solution to keep the ball rolling.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
I disagree with the viewpoint that physics hardware processing for games wouldn't be going anywhere. AGEIA PhysX-based games, maybe.
Havok, on the other hand, was working on Havok FX, which would have allowed for GPU-based physics on both ATI and nVidia-based GPUs. I think you would have seen developers flock to using Havok FX, as they could provide dual support out of the box.
Of course, Intel had to go and purchase Havok, thus killing off Havok FX
well... I don't think Havok needed nVidia/ATi to do well, as even on consoles/portables, they have sold well to developers.
I'm really just hoping something, nice, open source (so I don't have to pay liscensing/make my own physics base) comes along... DC might, might just help this along, but maybe not...
Batman has sold 2.5 million so far in it's first month.
btw there are a ton of games that have physx. While true they don't benefit from nvidia's solution right now, it's there.
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_all.html
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
That's across all releases though: PC, Xbox 360, and PS3.
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
So Havok, software-implementation wise, doesn't still count as a solution?
If anything, the best thing about PhysX is that it brings attention to the implementation of game-based physics.
I simply hate that nVidia owns it.
Well, I hate that Intel owns Havok. So there
Also, Havok is bloody expensive for developers as pointed out before, so everyone should be happy that PhysX competes with Havok, thus creating an incentive to reduce costs for developers and thus make games (possibly) cheaper.
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
Well, I hate that Intel owns Havok. So there
Also, Havok is bloody expensive for developers as pointed out before, so everyone should be happy that PhysX competes with Havok, thus creating an incentive to reduce costs for developers and thus make games (possibly) cheaper.
I hate that Intel owns Havok too
. I want a Physics API that is truly open and universal. Currently, that basically applies to none of the majors.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
I can't help but see GPU physics as anything other than a gimmick... unless you just so happen to have an extra card to offload it to. That lucid hydra though may even invalidate this since you may be able to use your extra to render whatever it can in the future.
Havok is threaded and has optimizations in place by both AMD and Intel.
Oh man fuckin sweet with GPU physx enabled the number of sparks in batman doubled...!! since when have we been so pathetically bound by computations? Yeah I probably saw more particles onscreen in Quake 2 over a decade ago. I can't help but think of this article:
http://consumer.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxNyw0LCww
Has Physx in games actually done anything that could not be done purely in software yet? Hell, even Red Faction seems to be render bound.
My GPU should be rendering, not crunching physics calculations. The number of CPU cores is going up and it's only going to get easier for physics to run effectively there.
Havok is threaded and has optimizations in place by both AMD and Intel.
Oh man fuckin sweet with GPU physx enabled the number of sparks in batman doubled...!! since when have we been so pathetically bound by computations? Yeah I probably saw more particles onscreen in Quake 2 over a decade ago. I can't help but think of this article:
http://consumer.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxNyw0LCww
Has Physx in games actually done anything that could not be done purely in software yet? Hell, even Red Faction seems to be render bound.
My GPU should be rendering, not crunching physics calculations. The number of CPU cores is going up and it's only going to get easier for physics to run effectively there.
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
So, the argument is concerning a PhysX-based Batman: AA, which is limited essentially to the PC version. Thus, you can't quote the total sales number as a means of supporting just how "popular" Batman: AA is when discussing PhysX, as the number is being *greatly* inflated by console sales.
Before the PC version had even shipped, it was at 2 million sales console-wise. It was at 2.5 million as of September 21st or so. It's probably shipped/sold quite a few copies PC-side (the voucher program being offered awhile back for it guarantees that alone), but I would highly doubt it's passed 1 million yet.
Thus, jeremyshaw's original comment still holds.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
Well, some sheep are so unable to believe CPU physics can out do GPU physics.
They are the same people who cannot believe that simply making better code (hint hint) can actually make games run faster.
Probably the same people who saw (in 2004) how the P4 had 3+ ghz, while the 'lowly' Athlon 64 only had 2+ Ghz, and bashed AMD users over how hey didn't have the GHz to compete
They just cannot belive anything as lowly
as an i7 or a Phenom II can do any sort of physics at all.Hint to people: it's GPU optimised... just like how a 32bit app just cannot compete with a equally well written 64 bit app. Just like how a single core processor, of the same architecture, cannot outdo a dual core in multithreaded apps.
A GPU cannot outdo a CPU in real tasks... like Office (Open, MS, Star, etc).
Well here's to them: once you get your GPU to run the entirety of (Windows Vista/7 or Linux) OS in it... then tell the world how 'GPU accelerated' is so much better.
Otherwise, shaddap, because they have their own tasks, and if nVidia chooses to just have Physx run better on GPU, and Intel wants Havok to run better on CPU, while AMD/ATi want Bullet to run better on a combined CPU/GPU, then so be it.
A well ported Linux app can run just as well on windows. A horriblely ported (Physx) GPU app, isn't going to run well, even on the best of systems.
Oh quite, the dozens of SIMD/vector units in a GPU are absolutely no match for the 2-4 SIMD units in an average CPU. I bow to your wisdom
(More seriously, current GPUs have some limitations in terms of processing, but Fermi completely removes those, making it the perfect PPU)
Because else you'll be watching a slideshow when playing Generic FPS Game 12 on your new game system in 2012 as the CPU can't keep up with the number of physics objects on screen?
Heck, you might as well ask why you'd want to buy a GPU at all since a CPU is perfectly suitable for making 'pretty video surfaces' appear on your monitor
So it's ok to quote best havok selling game "Halo 2/3" but no ok to mention multiplatform, physx enabled game (granted PCs version is the only version of Batman with it, but we'll never know D2D or steam numbers too) I see what you're going for, but the game sold great regardless. And I'm sure if Crysis, an advertised "punish your system" game sold over a million, then Batman which is critically acclaimed and selling well should have no problems.
But fine, list (unreal engine based game here)
Last edited:
Everything is fair in fanboi wars
Also, this thread still is ridiculous.
*waits for "chickens = PhysX killer?" thread*
Because else you'll be watching a slideshow when playing Generic FPS Game 12 on your new game system in 2012 as the CPU can't keep up with the number of physics objects on screen?
Heck, you might as well ask why you'd want to buy a GPU at all since a CPU is perfectly suitable for making 'pretty video surfaces' appear on your monitor
It's too bad that this will never happen outside of the bizarro world which you live in
Do you think that physics calculations can magically be avoided if you are looking away from them? No kidding if there's 1293821821 billion objects on screen it's going to lag, because guess what's shitting itself trying to render them?
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
No, the problem with using the sales number for Batman: AA in relation to PhysX, is that the PC version is the only version of Batman: AA that has PhysX implemented.
PhysX isn't in the Xbox 360 or PS3 versions. Just the PC version.
If PhysX had been used in all three versions, you could use the total sales number.
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
Except I'm not a "fanboi". My current system uses 2x GeForce 8800 GTS'. The system before that used a 7800 GT.Everything is fair in fanboi wars
The system I'm building now will use either a Radeon 5870 or 5850, haven't fully decided whether I want to spend the extra $120 at the moment. Either way, I simply buy the fastest card available when I build a system, with no regards to auxiliary features (Eyefinity, PhysX, etc.) that I'll get relatively little use from.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
because it's all they got
Also, the numbers correlates, as it proves whether or not consumers (not the 10 nvidia fanbois - cause there aren't any girls) care about how Physx even matters.
@ ^^^^ [EDIT, I'm late, again...]
Thanks for clearing that up! And I blindly believed the 2.5mil number...
ToastyBread
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 368
I didn't get my ninja edit in
I think it'd have been awesome if console gamers could have had PhysX implementation. Batman: AA with PhysX on the ATI-based Xbox 360 would have been quite funny to see Soggy_Popcorn
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 233
Personally, I absolutely HATE those proprietary PhysX drivers that get installed with a game like UT3 even if you have ATI and aren't using any of those fancy schmancy physics gameplay "enhanced" maps. I would love to see it die a swift and horrible death. But there will always be little competing standards in the physics world, Havok just started the trend, and DX11 is the latest contender. Which probably won't fare so well since it isn't a comprehensive tool built exclusively for the purpose.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
Would of been better if DirectX has a physics API, too.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
http://nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_all.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX#Games
http://personal.inet.fi/atk/kjh2348fs/physx.html
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1141844
as far as superiority of gpu physics over cpu physics (that should go without saying based on mathematics alone), but i will just point to amd. if they felt that cpu physics was on par or more capable than gpu physics, why would they waste their time trying to bring about a competitive solution to put up against physx? they wouldn't even bother with this "useless" gpu physics implementation and stick with their cpus as a superior physics solution. but lo and behold they were showing off havok on their gpus (an attempt at reborn havok fx?), and now they are pushing opencl bullet. so yeah, gpu accelerated physics is a waste of time apparently.
otherwise, ut3 physx mod or graw2 ageia island mod.
good questions. that remains to be seen, and what direction nvidia ultimately takes with it one can only speculate. as far as developers, i already posted earlier in the thread that support has been growing exponentially over the past few years. but dx11 in and of itself has no relation to physx, nor havok. as far as cutting edge physics, i won't say physx will strictly be necessary. it may or may not eventually be the best solution, or other solutions will be available as well to supplant it or co-exist with it. so the ball is in nvidia's court depending on how amd responds with their plans. if something better comes along that offers more support - great, then i would go with it. physx will only die if and/or when there is a better solution that is also more cost effective to implement assuming hardware accelerated physics gains more ground. even if it was the norm, it will still be awhile before a large portion of the market has capable hardware to make it common use. cue the console factor.
like I said, rolling potato style fluid.... I rather have static with realistic looking than this ugly potato
it can look nice with smaller particle, but none of the GPU in current market can render it smoothly during the gaming experience...
well then give it to a non indie developer with a nicer looking graphics engine and you might have the best of both worlds - realistic fluid simulation and nicer looking water at the same time.
i already agreed with this point a long time ago. even if all major hardware devices supported one common api, you would still have to wait for consoles to support it before it goes beyond "worthless" eye candy (same could be argued with dx10/11 eye candy) before you get widespread use of physics beyond eye candy. multiplatform titles and console ports still rule the roost.
division may not be good but having options are. besides, console exclusives (xbox360 vs ps3) and pc exclusives exist, which "divide" gamers, and i don't see anyone jumping off of cliffs as a result (though fanboy wars are the norm). option A is unlikely, while B is what will probably happen. yep, last statement is right on the mark.
seeing as how gpu physx has only been around for a year or so in order to take advantage of advanced fluid simulations, and compound this with the fact that games take time in order to develop (2-3 years on avg.), i don't see how you would expect more than 1 game to be out at this point in time. well if it doesn't impress you, it doesn't impress you. just a matter of opinion. can't say the same for everyone else. it's still nascent technology in the infancy stages and from your perspective, you seem to expect a "home run" right out of the gate, particularly with an indie developer. that doesn't seem quite that reasonable of a demand to me.
i would like to buy some of this potato water. does it taste good? lol.
well no good game needs physx, havok, or any decent physics engine to be considered good. it can stand on it's own merits. but apparently my previous post is being ignored. again, comparing a 1 month old game's sales to a 5 year old game or even a 2 year old game is ridiculous. okay, let's note some physx games then while we're at it: batman aa, mirror's edge, (pc) graw1&2, ut3, age of empires 3, army of two, brothers in arms hh, city of heroes/ villians, empire total war, gears of war 1&2, mass effect, need for speed shift, rainbow six vegas 1&2, trine, valkyria chronicles, (pc) xmen origins wolverine, etc (not even including upcoming physx based games in the next six months). all this and physx has only been around a third as long as havok. so killzone2 runs a ps3 with nvidia hardware that can't accelerate physics, so it has to use cpu physics - what is the point exactly? if you want to talk about gpu physx - well since there is no gpu havok or anything else, there is nothing to realistically compare. well duh, like i said in my obviously ignored post from earlier, games don't sell because physx is present, nor havok, nor any other engine. it sells because the game is <gasp> fun, what a revelation! yeah, a physx based game like gears of war sells several million copies, so it must be chump change in comparison, no doubt. cool, i can push 3d acceleration faster on a gpu, too.
indeed. completely optional physics effects merely included as a bonus for capable hardware. who woulda thunk? doubt another thread would help since it always devolves into the same "discussion". my thoughts exactly. one can hate on physx all you want, but it was the impetus for hardware processing for physics, in which havok and bullet will more than likely participate in eventually. reasonable post all around.
I disagree with the viewpoint that physics hardware processing for games wouldn't be going anywhere. AGEIA PhysX-based games, maybe.
Havok, on the other hand, was working on Havok FX, which would have allowed for GPU-based physics on both ATI and nVidia-based GPUs. I think you would have seen developers flock to using Havok FX, as they could provide dual support out of the box.
Of course, Intel had to go and purchase Havok, thus killing off Havok FX
havok fx wasn't announced until 2006, while ageia announced the ppu a year ago in 2005 prior to that. so if anything, havok fx was a response by nvidia/ ati to hardware accelerated physx. so yeah, physx could still be considered the pioneer.
agreed.
well... I don't think Havok needed nVidia/ATi to do well, as even on consoles/portables, they have sold well to developers.
I'm really just hoping something, nice, open source (so I don't have to pay liscensing/make my own physics base) comes along... DC might, might just help this along, but maybe not...
as has physx (works on xbox360, ps3, wii, iphone, etc).
i would agree.
true dat.
of course, it's a multiplaform game.
havok in software is a solution just like physx in software is a solution, just like physx on the gpu or ppu is a solution. which one is better i'll let you decide.
agreed. my thought exactly.
hate on
Well, I hate that Intel owns Havok. So there
Also, Havok is bloody expensive for developers as pointed out before, so everyone should be happy that PhysX competes with Havok, thus creating an incentive to reduce costs for developers and thus make games (possibly) cheaper.
lol.
yep.
I hate that Intel owns Havok too
agreed.
Not when discussing hardware Physics
yep.
double so?
yep.
well right now all we are gonna get is a "gimmick" since there isn't alot of hardware support yet. extra card would just be for additional offloading/ processing. lucid hydra sounds like a great idea, assuming nvidia/ ati won't do everything in their power to make it impotent.
nope, can all be done on the cpu too, just don't expect to be able to play it.
same thing was said back in the hey day of early 3d acceleration and the better solution won out. yeah and there will still be cpu physics around while gpu physics improves even more. it's just that the gpu has the power to handle both, especially as hardware continues to get better. so yeah with the cpu, go tell nvidia and amd to stop pushing gpu solutions. here is an example. if i was in a running contest with someone, and i could beat that someone by jump roping at the same time as i was moving, while they are just moving - that still makes me more effective, wouldn't it?
the argument is valid since it is a multiplaform game.
Well, some sheep are so unable to believe CPU physics can out do GPU physics.
They are the same people who cannot believe that simply making better code (hint hint) can actually make games run faster.
Probably the same people who saw (in 2004) how the P4 had 3+ ghz, while the 'lowly' Athlon 64 only had 2+ Ghz, and bashed AMD users over how hey didn't have the GHz to compete
They just cannot belive anything as lowly
[]
[]
A well ported Linux app can run just as well on windows. A horriblely ported (Physx) GPU app, isn't going to run well, even on the best of systems.
indeed. yes i am advocating to throw out the cpu completely. sigh, lol.
so when encoding, even though a gpu can handle it faster than a quad core, i guess i should just stick to the cpu right?
of course optimizations should be available for whatever hardware. a horribly ported game that isn't optimized for pc works the same way. same as with physics - if you can optimize a quad core cpu to power the graphics so i can play crysis, well more power to you.
because it can handle both, and physics is a bonus.
Because else you'll be watching a slideshow when playing Generic FPS Game 12 on your new game system in 2012 as the CPU can't keep up with the number of physics objects on screen?
Heck, you might as well ask why you'd want to buy a GPU at all since a CPU is perfectly suitable for making 'pretty video surfaces' appear on your monitor
lol.
double standards ftl eh?
just like with anything else - balance is the key, taking hardware limitations into consideration.
uh physx is the engine being used in all versions. batman uses ue3 which in turn has physx already integrated into it. easy to port from consoles to pc. consoles only get software based physx on the cpu though.
for photographic evidence though, click on the picture to see the back of the box with the physx logo:
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=72507#ExpandedInfo
because it's all they got
Also, the numbers correlates, as it proves whether or not consumers (not the 10 nvidia fanbois - cause there aren't any girls) care about how Physx even matters.
@ ^^^^ [EDIT, I'm late, again...]
Thanks for clearing that up! And I blindly believed the 2.5mil number...
the only thing this proves is that people buy a game based on how good it is, not what physics engine it runs. it could be powered by havok and still sell the exact same amount. freakin tetris has sold bajillions w/o using physx or havok, so there you go.
but go ahead and carry on. no one hears me anyways, lol. (20,000 characters long
)
Last edited:
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
well... I'll ignore that
j.k.
But you do have the life of this thread.
In the end, I'm just hoping for DirectX to come out with a Physics API...
j.k.
But you do have the life of this thread.
In the end, I'm just hoping for DirectX to come out with a Physics API...
eric_bazile
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 73
This thread got a few hits.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
console gamers do get physx games. but only software based physx. batman uses ue3, which in turn uses physx. see my post above, but here it is again - click on the see back cover link of the photo to see the physx logo on the 360 version gamebox:
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=72507#ExpandedInfo
additional links:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1237287245570.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10198809-64.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1237459794715.html
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/physx_good_company.html
uh, physx is the physics engine powering the unreal engine 3 for a game like ut3. the drivers won't affect you in any way shape or form, so what's the problem? as for a swift death, don't hold your breath (rhyming not intended lol).
maybe. it's fun to speculate though.
Last edited:
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
of course it is...
otherwise the title of this thread should of made this far more obvious
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
well... I'll ignore that
j.k.
But you do have the life of this thread.
In the end, I'm just hoping for DirectX to come out with a Physics API...
lol, nah, i know you mean well. everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. so yep, we'll just have to see what the future holds on this front.
of course it is...
otherwise the title of this thread should of made this far more obvious
lol, indeed. seeing as how dx11 offers a physics engine, the thread was aptly named.
kumquatsrus
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,326
wow...just wow. that is so wrong, lol.