Exclusive: PhysX In Batman: Arkham City- A First Look

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
25,859
Today, we’re releasing the first footage from the PC version of Arkham City, showing the level of graphical fidelity you can expect when running the game using the recommended graphics card, the GeForce GTX 560, with all settings and PhysX enabled...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9_UNRp7Wrog

As you will have seen we also show the game running on the GeForce 8800 GT, which recently celebrated its fourth birthday and continues to be the most popular graphics card amongst Steam’s 35 million gamers (the 9800 and 8800 are one in the same, and combined account for 9.69% of all graphics cards used on Valve’s service). While the overall graphical fidelity is close to that of the GTX 560, the 8800 GT cannot maintain an adequate frame rate with PhysX enabled, nor will it be able to cope with some of the more demanding scenes in the game without suffering from frame rate hiccups

**[H] doesn't allow linking to the GeForce website but the full article is available over there and worth reading for anyone interested in the game
 
So fucking annoying that I have an expensive ass graphics card, that will run anything, and I can't do Physx.
 
the PhysX do look more impressive in this game compared to to the last...but overall it's still mostly flying papers and fog effects...the Mr. Freeze ice particles bouncing off the walls did look a lot better with PhysX though

the DX11 features should add even more impressive graphics to the game
 
2011 and they still haven't figured out how not to do paper laying on the ground with PhysX.
 
physx will never fully be utilized and therefore appreciated until a AAA game is built from the ground up using it, not added in last minute at the request of nvidia for a hefty sum of money
 
Pretty cool stuff. First title that I think would be worth mentioning physics with.
 
I cant wait for this game.
My gtx570 came with a free steam copy of Arkham city.
The smoke, and paper is the most impressive thing I see, the sparks, eh seen better on other non physx games.
 
Having forgot all about PhysX, can I slap an 8800GT in my X48 board now and make this shit work yet?

SLi 8800GT's weren't enough to run PhysX properly with Arkham Asylum, but with this 6950 and an 8800GT I think things would work out.

Shame if it's still a 'hack' at best. I'm thinking it's impossible, yeah?
 
Now I have a second game that'll finally put that spare GTS250 in my system to use.
Looks pretty much just like the usage in the first game. Paper, fog, and sparks.
It certainly seems like no big deal to me.
I went through the first game for the first time on ATI hardware and the difference PhysX adds is miniscule at best.
 
I don't even see Catwoman's whip working with PhysX disabled in that video...

"we start by seeing PhysX-powered bank notes (0:33) reacting realistically to the movement of Catwoman’s whip and the movement of the air around the whip as she attacks enemies; Catwoman herself; the enemies; and the other bank notes. Each note’s movement is calculated and updated every frame by the PhysX engine and the GPU's CUDA Cores, and each remains within the scene after falling to the floor, rather than vanishing to reduce the load on the CPU or GPU as in other games"
 
I have no idea why they should invest in a proprietary physics API that only roughly half of your users will be able to make use of on a hardware level? Thus far it doesn't seem to provide very many real benefits - it seems yet another way that Nvidia is trying to lockdown rather than innovate and that never sits well with me. Either open it up to be usable on other cards at the hardware level or be done with it. I much prefer open API that are hardware and ideally OS agnostic (OpenGL, OpenAL, OpenCL etc...).
 
I'm annoyed as well. I have an HD6970.

Why couldn't they have developed these effects using DX11, can't you make a puff a smoke with DX11? why does it have to be PhysX?

I agree, Nvidia is trying corner the marker on this, and it's not good for us gamers. I'm not basing my video card purchases based on how a particular game utilizes the hardware, weather it's AMD or Nvidia.
 
the GeForce article also has a pic of Catwoman demonstrating tessellation...

 
Very much looking forward to this game, the first is AWESOME with 3D Surround, this one looks even better.
 
Motley said:
I'm annoyed as well. I have an HD6970.

Why couldn't they have developed these effects using DX11, can't you make a puff a smoke with DX11? why does it have to be PhysX?

I agree, Nvidia is trying corner the marker on this, and it's not good for us gamers. I'm not basing my video card purchases based on how a particular game utilizes the hardware, weather it's AMD or Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Cornering the market with a vendor locked solution which frankly is only in games due to marketing dollars, and really doesn't affect anything isn't much of a threat imo.
 
Don't give a flying shit about tessellation and PhysX, but after playing it on the consoles and seeing just how valuable looking around can be in an open world so chock full of content, I am looking forward to mouselook. Also, having about 10 different two-button combinations for actions because of the lack of buttons on a controller is fucking annoying.
 
I can't wait to see if they're still scamming gamers with PhysX

I'll be testing with my Quad core again to see if they actually manage to use more than about 50% CPU usage, from what I've read supposedly the CPU performance for PhysX has increased with the newer versions so we'll have to see.

I'll also be testing to see if they're making some of the effects traditionally done on the CPU locked to the GPU only configs, like they did with the original.
 
I was pissed to the point of trying to shoe horn a lower geforce into my rig to get it but over the last few days and especially after that video I'm just not that bothered anymore. The paper thing is ridiculous for a start. Sparks and fog look nice but it's hardly a deal breaker.
 
Looks cool, but I am still certain that my next graphics card purchase will be an AMD.
 
officer921 said:
So fucking annoying that I have an expensive ass graphics card, that will run anything, and I can't do Physx.
Click to expand...

That's why there's a GeForce GTX 260 living directly below my Radeon HD 6970.

Best of both worlds, full PhysX and AMD Eyefinity. :D
 
Was very easy.

1. Install the AMD driver.
2. Install the Nvidia driver.
3. Install the "Hybrid PhysX Patch"

And...you're done! Some games also have their own built-in check to disable PhysX if an AMD card is present, but that can be removed very simply as well.

I believe the fix for all games is the same, delete PhysXcore.dll and PhysXDevice.dll from the game folder. This causes them to default to the patched PhysX DLL's on your system and allows PhysX to work.
 
Although I am not fond of it being limited to Nvidia cards, I like PhysX. In my opinion it gives the worlds a more living and believable aspect which brings for more immersion.
 
It's not officially supported by Nvidia so just watch out on that one, if Nvidia decide to make it harder to run PhysX with an AMD card as primary it may become a lot more awkward or even impossible to get all of your PhysX games working.

Thank god this is not an industry standard, all AMD users would be boned, I commend AMD for taking the tougher (but better) route of not officially supporting this crap.
 
Sold my 8800GT that was used as a PhysX card, PhysX IMHO is a big waste of time
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Thank god this is not an industry standard, all AMD users would be boned, I commend AMD for taking the tougher (but better) route of not officially supporting this crap.
Click to expand...

This is just my opinion, but I think they should have; we would see more development of PhysX effects in games that would be more significant than what many consider to be just "flying paper". It is my belief that PhysX being partial to Nvidia is also what's holding the engine back and is why we don't see anything game changing...
 
I thought PhysX was dying and on its way out but apprently not...this is the first AAA title in awhile that has supported PhysX...maybe more games are on its way...PhysX reborn?
 
I wish PhysX would die, I like the effects and unlike many people here aren't just shrugging them off because I think they look cool... but the fact they're limited to nvidia in no way helps PC gamers or PC gaming in general.
 
What's needed is an opensource physics engine or a true physics implementation into DX11... Proprietary APIs that are limited to specific hardware are the bane to true progression.
 
_PixelNinja said:
This is just my opinion, but I think they should have; we would see more development of PhysX effects in games that would be more significant than what many consider to be just "flying paper". It is my belief that PhysX being partial to Nvidia is also what's holding the engine back and is why we don't see anything game changing...
Click to expand...

But you do realise that the moment PhysX becomes popular that Nvidia would basically bone everyone over?

They would either remove support for other video cards altogether or tweak the system to give non-Nvidia cards much lower (unusable) performance.

I mean if loads of games are using PhysX by that point then gamers would be in trouble, AMD simply cannot let Nvidia start defining industry standards because it will let them control the market and that's bad for AMD and ultimately it's bad for the gamers.
 
While I understand your concern, if PhysX was licensed the right way I don't see why Nvidia would try to screw everybody; I don't think that would be in their best interest. That being said, don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a physics engine that would benefit Nvidia and AMD owners alike. I think at this point in time what we need to make for better immersion, amongst other things, are better physics in games. I find such details really bring worlds to life.
 
Last edited:
Tudz said:
I wish PhysX would die
Click to expand...
I've been one of the most vocal opponents of PhysX on this board. It has about 40% to do with what they are using the technology for and 60% that Nvidia is keeping it a proprietary technology just so the marketing department has something to work with.

I have no idea if PhysX could ever be properly accelerated by AMD GPU's, but I have read that the CPU implementations of PhysX can be drastically improved so that they are similar to the GPU accelerated visuals. Nvidia needs to get serious about it and rather than using it to sell more GPU's. I think they could license it out and have it properly coded to work on all hardware, GPU or not, and make as much money or more. Look at what happened when people found out you didn't need Nvidia chipset motherboard to use SLI anymore? Nvidia needs to do something like their SLI licensing and apply it to PhysX, then open it up to everyone.

PhysX shouldn't die, but Nvidia's proprietary use of it should.
 
bigdogchris said:
I've been one of the most vocal opponents of PhysX on this board. It has about 40% to do with what they are using the technology for and 60% that Nvidia is keeping it a proprietary technology just so the marketing department has something to work with.

I have no idea if PhysX could ever be properly accelerated by AMD GPU's, but I have read that the CPU implementations of PhysX can be drastically improved so that they are similar to the GPU accelerated visuals. Nvidia needs to get serious about it and rather than using it to sell more GPU's. I think they could license it out and have it properly coded to work on all hardware, GPU or not, and make as much money or more. Look at what happened when people found out you didn't need Nvidia chipset motherboard to use SLI anymore? Nvidia needs to do something like their SLI licensing and apply it to PhysX, then open it up to everyone.

PhysX shouldn't die, but Nvidia's proprietary use of it should.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the SLI thing still benefited nvidia because they were selling more GPUs. Them letting other people use PhysX doesn't really benefit them except for licensing costs and I really dont imagine anyone would want to pay a hell of a lot to use it, least of all AMD while nVidia still holds all the cards.

I dont think GPU accelerated physics should die... just PhysX. Physics in games are cool, I want to actually see them used in games for something significant.
 
_PixelNinja said:
While I understand your concern, if PhysX was licensed the right way I don't see why Nvidia would try to screw everybody; I don't think that would be in their best interest. That being said, don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a physics engine that would benefit Nvidia and AMD owners alike. I think at this point in time what we need to make for better immersion, amongst other things, are better physics in games. I find such details really bring worlds to life.
Click to expand...

Because Nvidia can corner the market, make their product the only reasonable solution for playing PhysX games and then sell a crap load more GPUs.

Nvidia sell GPUs remember, it's in their best interest to sell as many as possible, that's why PhysX runs really well on the GPU but runs like total shite on the CPU, Nvidia don't sell CPUs ;)
 
Sometimes I wonder if people on here understand how business works.
Nvidia is doing what's best for their own interests. I'm not saying it's a good situation for ATI owners, but please tell me you understand why they're doing it.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
I can't wait to see if they're still scamming gamers with PhysX

I'll be testing with my Quad core again to see if they actually manage to use more than about 50% CPU usage, from what I've read supposedly the CPU performance for PhysX has increased with the newer versions so we'll have to see.

I'll also be testing to see if they're making some of the effects traditionally done on the CPU locked to the GPU only configs, like they did with the original.
Click to expand...

+1

Got plenty of CPU cycles to spare. Have an old gtx 240 in the closet I can throw in if needed, but rather not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top