• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Real stupid question..

B

Boostage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
327
But since Physx is not an AMD technology, does that mean you just wont see any kind of physics processing on an AMD card? like for example, Arkham Assylum, will all the papers on the floor just not move? will his will objects not get affected by knocking someone into it?
 
no, most implementations will still have physics effects, just not as much. physx can be used to show how windows/walls shatter in multiple particles. non-physx may define a wall as a bunch of "parts" and then have the parts collapse. not sure what was done in AA with physx.
 
Sorry, but after looking at that list I'm still only really seeing like 3.
Kinda surprised I didn't see farmville in that list.
 
re: real stupid question

It doesn't serve anyone to display self-depreciation in the subject line of your thread. If the question is indeed stupid you will be ridiculed no matter what. That you put a "disclaimer" in the subject will not save you.

Having said that, it's a lot more informative if you put an actual subject into the subject line (who knew!) since that gives folks an idea what your post is about without to have the preconceived notion that you are a retard even before they open your post.
Furthermore, "real stupid question" implies that the question is real (as opposed to imaginary) but that it is stupid, the more likely application of such off-subject subject line would be "really stupid question" confirming that you have a question which is indeed really stupid.
 
Thuleman said:
re: real stupid question

It doesn't serve anyone to display self-depreciation in the subject line of your thread. If the question is indeed stupid you will be ridiculed no matter what. That you put a "disclaimer" in the subject will not save you.

Having said that, it's a lot more informative if you put an actual subject into the subject line (who knew!) since that gives folks an idea what your post is about without to have the preconceived notion that you are a retard even before they open your post.
Furthermore, "real stupid question" implies that the question is real (as opposed to imaginary) but that it is stupid, the more likely application of such off-subject subject line would be "really stupid question" confirming that you have a question which is indeed really stupid.
Click to expand...

TLDR :rolleyes:

Base subject on the content of the thread.
 
Thuleman said:
re: real stupid question

It doesn't serve anyone to display self-depreciation in the subject line of your thread. If the question is indeed stupid you will be ridiculed no matter what. That you put a "disclaimer" in the subject will not save you.

Having said that, it's a lot more informative if you put an actual subject into the subject line (who knew!) since that gives folks an idea what your post is about without to have the preconceived notion that you are a retard even before they open your post.
Furthermore, "real stupid question" implies that the question is real (as opposed to imaginary) but that it is stupid, the more likely application of such off-subject subject line would be "really stupid question" confirming that you have a question which is indeed really stupid.
Click to expand...

Your retarded high horse brought you here a little too late.because I got an answer on the first reply. and secondly no one had anything negative to say but you. your e-penis isn't any bigger :rolleyes:

For everyone else thanks for the reply.:)
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
You must have selective vision or trollitis.
Click to expand...

I looked at the list and am surprised that PhysiX has been around so long. I do agree with the other poster though. Maybe not 3 games, but there are not many games on the list I find appealing.

It does make me wonder what I've been "missing" since I tend to go with ATi.

Boostage said:
Your retarded high horse brought you here a little too late.because I got an answer on the first reply. and secondly no one had anything negative to say but you. your e-penis isn't any bigger :rolleyes:

For everyone else thanks for the reply.:)
Click to expand...

You should get off yours first. He's trying to keep the forum semi-respectable and semi-intelligent, as well as help you improve in the future. He wasn't slandering you, despite the sarcasm. Also, your question wasn't "stupid" as I also was interested in the answer after I read it.
 
Senryo said:
You should get off yours first. He's trying to keep the forum semi-respectable and semi-intelligent, as well as help you improve in the future. He wasn't slandering you, despite the sarcasm. Also, your question wasn't "stupid" as I also was interested in the answer after I read it.
Click to expand...

In trying to keep the forum "semi-respectable and semi-intelligent", he was neither in his very sarcastic response. A much simple, less asshole-ish response would be much better received by all. ;)
 
LuminaryJanitor said:
But that's hardly a fair GPU vs CPU comparison. Technical limitations have nothing to do with the absence of CPU effects. And everything in that video can be done nearly as well on a CPU.
Click to expand...

Yes and you can do CPU physx processing if you set it on the control panel, as you soon will be able to for cuda too. But they did ask what would it look like without the physx effects i.e. on ATI cards. Which is what the video shows.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There is not a single PhysX feature in Batman or any other game that can not be done on the CPU and has not been done for years. PhysX sounds 'neat', but is absolutely a marketing scam and every one of you are falling for it. There's a reason the adoption rate is almost non-existent.

How are tiles breaking, different than ricochet damage from bullets on walls in games?
Fog? Please ... :rolleyes:
An obtuse and excessive amount of paper laying around everywhere - I suppose that's the kind of stuff you like if you thinking having a 'PhysX' meter up in the corner is 'great gameplay and atmosphere' because that's basically what it is.
 
bigdogchris said:
There is not a single PhysX feature in Batman or any other game that can not be done on the CPU and has not been done for years.
Click to expand...
Sort of. CPUs can do most of it, but GPUs can do it better. I've never seen a CPU do in-game cloth physics as good as those in Batman or Mirror's Edge. I've never seen volumetric smoke outside of Clear Sky, and Batman's is certainly better than that. And I've never seen a game do fluid simulation on a CPU.
 
Boostage said:
But since Physx is not an AMD technology, does that mean you just wont see any kind of physics processing on an AMD card? like for example, Arkham Assylum, will all the papers on the floor just not move? will his will objects not get affected by knocking someone into it?
Click to expand...

To answer exactly. You can't use Physx on AMD cards right now, not because it's an Nvidia technology, it's an open platform that AMD have simply chosen not to participate in.

However Physx does allow other types of hardware to run the Physx including the CPU, you can run all the same effects on your CPU the only problem is that PhysX is so inefficient on the CPU that it's unplayable.

If you have a good quad core you can get about 25fps out of the Batman AA demo as I tested on release with my Q9450, with about 30-40% CPU usage at peak this means that actually the game would be very smooth and playable using CPU for Physx if the developers and Nvidia had bothered to optimise it.
 
I don't really get it because the GhostBusters engine had great physx implementation and didnt require an nvidia card.
 
Yeah I literally just finished Ghostbusters and the very next game I start playing is Red Faction Geurrilla and both games have really very impressive physics engines which are both perfectly capable on the CPU.

Ghostbusters had loads of effects, you'd be punting around furniture smashing it to pieces and burning up stuff with your proton pack and it was very smooth, it was quite impressive. They even had really good path finding so that the AI could work its way through the rubble without getting stuck.

That level of intergration with the world doesn't seem to exist with PhysX, it's just used for pretty effects, nothing in the game seems to really be able to interact with state of the PhysX all that well. Gabe (owner of Valve) talks about the problems with the PhysX API being slow to return information about the state of the world back to the CPU where you can make actual decisions based on that, for example AI reacting to getting out the way of a moving object etc...

I hate Nvidia for their dirty tactics with games like Batman AA, I love that game so much but the PhysX stuff is bullshit, I love the way that loads of effects like tiles breaking, walls breaking and other "lite" physics effects are missing when you turn off GPU acceleration, all perfectly capable of running on the average CPU yet Nvidia stomp in with their large PhysX boots on and we end up with an all or nothing approach...which I'm sure they had nothing to do with :rolleyes:

Sorry to rant about Nvidia/PhysX again but their dirty tactics are so transparent.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Yeah I literally just finished Ghostbusters and the very next game I start playing is Red Faction Geurrilla and both games have really very impressive physics engines which are both perfectly capable on the CPU.

Ghostbusters had loads of effects, you'd be punting around furniture smashing it to pieces and burning up stuff with your proton pack and it was very smooth, it was quite impressive. They even had really good path finding so that the AI could work its way through the rubble without getting stuck.

That level of intergration with the world doesn't seem to exist with PhysX, it's just used for pretty effects, nothing in the game seems to really be able to interact with state of the PhysX all that well. Gabe (owner of Valve) talks about the problems with the PhysX API being slow to return information about the state of the world back to the CPU where you can make actual decisions based on that, for example AI reacting to getting out the way of a moving object etc...

I hate Nvidia for their dirty tactics with games like Batman AA, I love that game so much but the PhysX stuff is bullshit, I love the way that loads of effects like tiles breaking, walls breaking and other "lite" physics effects are missing when you turn off GPU acceleration, all perfectly capable of running on the average CPU yet Nvidia stomp in with their large PhysX boots on and we end up with an all or nothing approach...which I'm sure they had nothing to do with :rolleyes:

Sorry to rant about Nvidia/PhysX again but their dirty tactics are so transparent.
Click to expand...

Is there another definition for Physx that is built into the engine such as Ghostbusters Infernal Engine? Just call it advanced physics? I just don't see the purpose of physx if it's just cheap decoration that can be recreated or even better implemented in the engine itself without Nvidias assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top