Hawken PhysX Trailer

Looks like its a case of "ooooohhh look we've come up with a nifty particle effect, lets use it everywhere we can! That won't get boring quick!"
 
A bunch of clutter that will be turned off by anyone that wants to be competitive at the game.
 
The shield effect looks pretty awesome!! :)

Hopefully my old GTX260 can handle that physx!
 
I have an AMD rig so I'll bite. Is there any reason why this feature couldn't be included for those with AMD video cards? I like hawken, and I'll keep playing it regardless. It just seems to me like they may alienate some of there customers with this.
 
Beowulf said:
I have an AMD rig so I'll bite. Is there any reason why this feature couldn't be included for those with AMD video cards? I like hawken, and I'll keep playing it regardless. It just seems to me like they may alienate some of there customers with this.
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't want to pay the licensing fee.
 
ocellaris said:
AMD doesn't want to pay the licensing fee.
Click to expand...

That couldn't be all... Oh well

I have an AMD 7970 and a nVidia GTX260 with driver patch only for Physx games :cool:
Too bad nvidia didn't allow the use of physx with a AMD card as the primary vid card :mad:
 
leSLIe said:
That couldn't be all... Oh well

I have an AMD 7970 and a nVidia GTX260 with driver patch only for Physx games :cool:
Too bad nvidia didn't allow the use of physx with a AMD card as the primary vid card :mad:
Click to expand...

That's AMD's choice, not nvidia's
 
Stoly said:
Which is $0.00
Click to expand...

Well damn, I thought it was free for software however AMD would have to pay to implement it on a GPU. Looks like AMD is just sour grapes about this...

It also doesn’t help that Nvidia has openly offered to share its PhysX technology with AMD, but AMD hasn’t taken up the offer.
Click to expand...

http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-game-devs-only-use-physx-for-the-cash/

So basically AMD just doesn't want to use it because Nvidia is behind it :D
 
Supposedly AMD has been pushing for Open physics for years. Still waiting.
 
AMD pride or what?
I love physics but sometimes it become over rated e.g like 3D.
when you play you play
 
Game devs are just lazy, they'd rather take the paycheck to implement fancy crap like this. And to those against the open standard idea, the fact that PhysX is proprietary is why it is still in the realm of the afterthought additions like these. If we ever see advanced physics as a major gameplay element in a AAA game, it will be with something other than a vendor-proprietary API.

Oh, and this whole 'argument' is pointless because if nVidia compiled the CPU PhysX like any other modern executable, you wouldn't need GPU acceleration 99% of the time anyways. Even more so with the new AVX instructions.
 
ocellaris said:
Better result for the end user > pissing contest over standards
Click to expand...

Except an open standard is better for the end user, lol.

Anyway, as for the tech demo, not massively impressed. I don't feel like they've used it to good effect.
 
PC vs Mac. You can run windows on either but only os x on the mac. The way it is sometimes..if you want it you buy nvidia, they made money by locking it down. Fair to the consumer, no but you have choice with your money. Remember the days of the old physX cards...least we dont have those around anymore.
 
Tudz said:
Except an open standard is better for the end user, lol.
Click to expand...

Because OpenGL is waaaay ahead of Direct X and more advanced and what everyone uses...oh wait! :p

Open standards are a nice idea, but in reality usually don't work. If there isn't a company with something to "gain" from it, usually no one really bothers or spends money and nothing gets done (especially quickly). :D
 
This physX effect looks way overdone....

I honestly would rather turn it off....

So I have tons of random particles that are flying around from nowhere rather than actually breaking apart from something..... find that to be quite weird......
 
shansoft said:
This physX effect looks way overdone....

I honestly would rather turn it off....

So I have tons of random particles that are flying around from nowhere rather than actually breaking apart from something..... find that to be quite weird......
Click to expand...

exactly, my first thought was unnecessary, my second was if the particle physics from the explosion was a was one of three randomly chosen precalculated animations who would actually notice the difference?
 
When is this coming out? Does it support the GTX 580? Really confused here...Hawken website says "Play the Physx enhanced version" and shit yet I see none of the turbulence effects or anything...sooo what's up?
 
I look forward to this in a single player game. Something with a really good story that can use effects like this to immerse the player during an in-game cut scene explosion or to enhance an end game boss fight (Dr. Breen in HL2; his bubble was cool looking).

For the multiplayer side, ick. Even in SCII, which requires no horsepower, I turn everything off in order to reduce distraction from the core gameplay. In a game like Hawken with so much going on and precision aiming such a necessary element I can't imagine anyone wanting to be competitive will keep this on.
 
leSLIe said:
So AMD doesn't want it, and nvidia put that lock in their drivers?
Click to expand...

And, that's the problem: Nvidia locked out non-Nvidia users from PhysX. If that's not anti-competitive practice, then I don't know what is.

It does allow Nvidia to sell more video cards, but it's also limiting physics-based effects in computer games to only those with those cards. It'd be great to see game developers to use APIs like OpenCL or other physics-engines that are not PhysX. And, there are quite a lot out there.

Should AMD do more to push OpenCL-based physics effects or create their own physics engine? Maybe.

But, Nvidia probably has more money and marketing muscle that PhysX is probably the "industry standard" but PURPOSELY cripples it for non-Nvidia users, and locks out users from using Nvidia cards alongside AMD cards in the drivers.

Maybe AMD should license PhysX/CUDA after AMD has already spent money for HSA and OpenCL development? Maybe, maybe not.

That'd be the equivalent of Microsoft (rumored) of using a Bluray-based media for their next console but not enabling Bluray movie playback (rumored) because it means paying their competitor (Sony) a licensing fee. Both Nvidia and AMD are, honestly, flawed in their approach. One went the proprietary approach-- Nvidia with CUDA and PhysX, and the other is letting developers do this themselves by providing the resources for it-- AMD with OpenCL and HSA. Neither are working together and neither are cooperating for an industry standard.

What would I rather prefer as a gamer?

I'd rather prefer the open-source approach using OpenCL, since that can be used freely between Windows, OSX, Linux, Android (most of the mobile GPUs are OpenCL compatible), and iOS (their Ax units can process OpenCL, right?)
 
haz_mat said:
Game devs are just lazy, they'd rather take the paycheck to implement fancy crap like this. And to those against the open standard idea, the fact that PhysX is proprietary is why it is still in the realm of the afterthought additions like these. If we ever see advanced physics as a major gameplay element in a AAA game, it will be with something other than a vendor-proprietary API.

Oh, and this whole 'argument' is pointless because if nVidia compiled the CPU PhysX like any other modern executable, you wouldn't need GPU acceleration 99% of the time anyways. Even more so with the new AVX instructions.
Click to expand...

TL;DR "NVIDIA should let everyone copy their homework"
 
Havok isn't AMD/ATI exclusive. It's a software API that is licensed out to game developers.
 
Is this already implemented in the game, or is it a future thing? I may re-install it just to check it out.
 
I'd like to see OPENCL physics solution. I'm personally just tired of the proprietary stuff that is included in games. I don't see the purpose in it and to tell you the truth I've started to skip games that are like that. If I'm on the fence about a game and I see PhysX, I skip it as the developer obviously wasn't thinking of me.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Because OpenGL is waaaay ahead of Direct X and more advanced and what everyone uses...oh wait! :p

Open standards are a nice idea, but in reality usually don't work. If there isn't a company with something to "gain" from it, usually no one really bothers or spends money and nothing gets done (especially quickly). :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then on the other hand PhysX is the perfect example of tech being held back because it's only in nvidia's hot little hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top