Your Opinion on BFBC2 physics

[KaptainKhaos]

Dropping houses on peeps in BF BC2 for the win !

Batman AA with phsyx card i lost pretty much 50% of my fps as opposed to zero physx, so framerate loss was substantial. BF BC2 runs well and the destructible landscape and buildings work pretty well for a large multiplayer game, most destruction i've seen since red faction really.

 

[BlueStorm]

blah

Sigh.. -10 for not bothering to read my explanation of how PhysX works with multi-core CPUs.

You don't get it, I'm sorry but don't assume that anything is a limitation of PhysX, or evil on NVIDIAs part when you simply don't know how the technology works.

Read my previous post. For multi-core CPU PhysX, the responsibility is *completely* on the developers shoulders. They need to break their PhysX work into "scenes" which can then be spread across cores. If the devs don't do it, the PhysX library can't magically assume things and make it scale across cores without introducing tons of synchronization issues.

However, if a game runs PhysX calculations (stuff that doesn't run well on the CPU) on the GPU and it runs very playable, then why would they bother optimizing the CPU path to get to the upper part of the single digit FPS range? What kind of benefit is that, really?

Summary: Multi-core PhysX doesn't just happen, its dependant on the devs. But Devs often don't bother because they know 65% of users have an NVIDIA GPU and can run it way faster already with their hardware. Plus the time isn't usually worth the potential gain, because you're trying to make a horse sing an opera... sure the horse is a great thing for some stuff, but it will only ever get so good at singing. Same goes for the CPU with certain classes of physics calculations.

Stop these bogus claims of "things that would run just fine on the CPU" because you really don't know. Multiply your 2FPS with fluids on screen by 4 (cores) and get 8FPS. It's simple math really.

 

[BlueStorm]

Dropping houses on peeps in BF BC2 for the win !

Batman AA with phsyx card i lost pretty much 50% of my fps as opposed to zero physx, so framerate loss was substantial. BF BC2 runs well and the destructible landscape and buildings work pretty well for a large multiplayer game, most destruction i've seen since red faction really.

Ermm.. you don't know what the physics in BC2 is costing you because you can't even turn it off. It's not free.

It's also not like it's super innovative physics. It's basic destruction, where when you shoot an object (tiled objects) the object just disappears and is replaced by some cheesy pre-canned emitted rubble which always falls the same way. It's not at all taking into account the way in which the force hit the wall, how hard it hit, where it should've broken, etc. It's pretty hacky. I think the only real reason it's getting positive feedback is because where once there was a wall, you can make it so there isn't. But the implementation doesn't look so hot IMO.

Also as others have said they need to cut major corners to keep performance up. Really all that's happening is there is a metal frame that keeps a building from truly collapsing, and the chippable exterior panels disappear as you shoot them. Look closely. The parts of the walls or doors aren't really falling away.

 

[koopaGG]

It's also not like it's super innovative physics. It's basic destruction, where when you shoot an object (tiled objects) the object just disappears and is replaced by some cheesy pre-canned emitted rubble which always falls the same way. It's not at all taking into account the way in which the force hit the wall, how hard it hit, where it should've broken, etc. It's pretty hacky. I think the only real reason it's getting positive feedback is because where once there was a wall, you can make it so there isn't. But the implementation doesn't look so hot IMO.

It doesn't have to be innovative. The reason everyone loves the physics in BC2 is because it positively effects gameplay. There isn't a whole lot of good games where you can drop a building on someones head via c4.

 

[WBurchnall]

Ermm.. you don't know what the physics in BC2 is costing you because you can't even turn it off. It's not free.

Sure I do, I know its not costing me real-world dollars to have to buy a second video card. Instead, it runs fine on any overlocked dual-core cpu or stock quad-core cpu. If the same effects were done with PhysX, I would literately need to buy a second video card as Frame Rates tend to drop in half when you turn PhysX onto high.

Here I am getting a nice combination of good CPU physics and my video card is producing a nice high quality image. Best of all, I don't need to go dual GPU and deal with the related driver issues. From a developer standpoint, they are not alienating gamers by A. requiring them to buy a card from one camp one side to get the best gameplay experiences and B. not requiring them to buy two cards.

If you compare the number of games with a gpu from any brand versus two gpus from nVidia in the 2xx range, it's a much smaller number. BF: BC2 has a potential for many more sales than BF: BC2 /w PhysX edition would and tons of gamers appreciate having good Phyics effects rendered on the GPU and not having to shell out tons of money.

 

[Brackle]

Sure I do, I know its not costing me real-world dollars to have to buy a second video card. Instead, it runs fine on any overlocked dual-core cpu or stock quad-core cpu. If the same effects were done with PhysX, I would literately need to buy a second video card as Frame Rates tend to drop in half when you turn PhysX onto high.

Here I am getting a nice combination of good CPU physics and my video card is producing a nice high quality image. Best of all, I don't need to go dual GPU and deal with the related driver issues. From a developer standpoint, they are not alienating gamers by A. requiring them to buy a card from one camp one side to get the best gameplay experiences and B. not requiring them to buy two cards.

If you compare the number of games with a gpu from any brand versus two gpus from nVidia in the 2xx range, it's a much smaller number. BF: BC2 has a potential for many more sales than BF: BC2 /w PhysX edition would and tons of gamers appreciate having good Phyics effects rendered on the GPU and not having to shell out tons of money.

This is the best explination i have seen.

 

[BlueStorm]

Sure I do, I know its not costing me real-world dollars to have to buy a second video card. Instead, it runs fine on any overlocked dual-core cpu or stock quad-core cpu. If the same effects were done with PhysX, I would literately need to buy a second video card as Frame Rates tend to drop in half when you turn PhysX onto high.

Here I am getting a nice combination of good CPU physics and my video card is producing a nice high quality image. Best of all, I don't need to go dual GPU and deal with the related driver issues. From a developer standpoint, they are not alienating gamers by A. requiring them to buy a card from one camp one side to get the best gameplay experiences and B. not requiring them to buy two cards.

If you compare the number of games with a gpu from any brand versus two gpus from nVidia in the 2xx range, it's a much smaller number. BF: BC2 has a potential for many more sales than BF: BC2 /w PhysX edition would and tons of gamers appreciate having good Phyics effects rendered on the GPU and not having to shell out tons of money.

That's a pretty bogus argument. You can run PhysX on any reasonable GPU along with your graphics. Even if you want a dedicated solution, you can get an NVIDIA board that's now $50 and it will do the job. That's the same $50 that you paid extra to get your quadcore.

Another point I think you're completely wrong on is this whole bogus anti-"alienation" crusade.... you *do* realize that regardless of the fact that both AMD and Intel offer quadcores, there are still only roughly 20% of gamer PCs with a quadcore processor, right? So does it make sense to bank on someone having a quadcore, with only 20% of the market meeting that requirement (though it's cross-vendor so by your logic it *must* be good, right??), or someone having a DX10 class NVIDIA GPU, with 65% of the GPU market?

Do the math... according to steam survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Almost 70% of systems have DX10 (meaning relatively recent and PhysX capable) cards, across XP, Vista, and Win7. Of that 70%, NVIDIA has 65% marketshare. So basically 45% of all steam survey systems are capable of running GPU PhysX. Meanwhile, only 23% of systems can run quad-core basic destruction PhysX. It's clear to me which addresses a larger market.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

That's a pretty bogus argument. You can run PhysX on any reasonable GPU along with your graphics. Even if you want a dedicated solution, you can get an NVIDIA board that's now $50 and it will do the job. That's the same $50 that you paid extra to get your quadcore.

A power hungry $50 card that takes up a PCI-E slot and make more heat? No thank you, maybe if it was rendering graphics instead of rendering tacked on effects in B-grade games.

 

[BlueStorm]

A power hungry $50 card that takes up a PCI-E slot and make more heat? No thank you, maybe if it was rendering graphics instead of rendering tacked on effects in B-grade games.

Or maybe you can just run it on your single GPU, which works just fine. But way to completely skip that point since you had no way to address it

Call the effects what you will, but the point is the destruction in BC2 is cheesy-looking to anyone who knows what they're looking at and has seen better. Also, these "tacked on PhysX effects" are not something you will see a CPU doing to add to immersion anytime soon. Even if they don't affect gameplay (let's be honest... the only thing that really could is a wall breaking up.. wow I'm impressed!), they add some value, some immersion, however small you believe the amount to be. I'm just saying I don't see BC2's "gameplay physics" as offering much more than PhysX effects do currently. Walls breaking is shit that has been figured out, done over and over and over again. Let's do something new and interesting, shall we?

 

[XMAN245]

Since BFBC2 uses havok. To me this shows us that you dont need Nvidia physx.

So my question is, IF you played BFBC2 do you now think its still a marketing gimmick using Nvidia Physx?

And please keep this on topic and no swearing (shuttleluv).

The thing I like about PhysX over the other physics apis for games is PhysX is programmed to be reactionairy where as all the others are all pre programmed scripted on rail physics events. In other words, with PhysX, you CAN make it do different things based on how your character interacts with the stuff where as others, no matter what you do, it will be the same preprogrammed event over and over and over again no matter how or where you interact with thte object from.

 

[XMAN245]

A power hungry $50 card that takes up a PCI-E slot and make more heat? No thank you, maybe if it was rendering graphics instead of rendering tacked on effects in B-grade games.

There are more B-Grade game with out PhysX than with. And I've not seen a $50 power hungry card, care to show us all one?

 

[kadozer]

I thought this topic was about BFBC2 phsyics not pissx. Batman 2 is not out yet is it? It was a good thread till then. Sounds like an awesome game can't wait.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

Or maybe you can just run it on your single GPU, which works just fine. But way to completely skip that point since you had no way to address it

Call the effects what you will, but the point is the destruction in BC2 is cheesy-looking to anyone who knows what they're looking at and has seen better. Also, these "tacked on PhysX effects" are not something you will see a CPU doing to add to immersion anytime soon. Even if they don't affect gameplay (let's be honest... the only thing that really could is a wall breaking up.. wow I'm impressed!), they add some value, some immersion, however small you believe the amount to be. I'm just saying I don't see BC2's "gameplay physics" as offering much more than PhysX effects do currently. Walls breaking is shit that has been figured out, done over and over and over again. Let's do something new and interesting, shall we?

Running PhysX on a single card kills framerates and if games like Crysis or BC2 used GPU PhysX there would be no way to do it on a single card. Bad Company 2's destructible environments have added way more to gameplay than any GPU PhysX title so far, end of story.

There are more B-Grade game with out PhysX than with. And I've not seen a $50 power hungry card, care to show us all one?

Something like a used 8800GT or 9800GTX. An additional GPU for PhysX is just not worth it with the amount of titles supported. Plus why would I want tear my computer apart, throw in an 8800GT, use more power, and hack the drivers to work with my ATI card just so I can play Mirror's Edge and Batman? Hell I played both of those games with my ATI card and they were still fun, they just didn't have all the cheap Physx effects that were tacked on after the games were actually completed.

tl;dr Bad Company 2's destructible environments actually add something to gameplay where PhysX titles with tacked on effects that are basically just random shit flying everywhere add nothing to gameplay.

 

[MrLonghair]

BC2's Havok physics implementation provides more than eyecandy, and at an extremely kind cost to performance, as stated by a certain DICE developer. It runs on every single CPU and GPU capable of running the game, too, and runs well for what little it does in practicality.

Seeing bodies do the typical Havok ragdoll as they get blasted up in the air from an explosion is still absolutely hilarious.



( WBurchnall and SixtyWattMan, thank you for your good posts. Prepare for the incoming hatorade from PhysX apologistzealots )

 

[necrophile]

You know reading this thread I am reminded of company of heroes. It is an old game now and although a rts there is no difference between it and an fps as you can zoom in just like one.

It already has destructable environment which use the havoc engine. Is this game really such a big deal when being able to destry building or wall or just about anything you want has the same effect and has obviously been done for years.

Am I missing anything here?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

You don't get it, I'm sorry but don't assume that anything is a limitation of PhysX, or evil on NVIDIAs part when you simply don't know how the technology works.

Stop these bogus claims of "things that would run just fine on the CPU" because you really don't know. Multiply your 2FPS with fluids on screen by 4 (cores) and get 8FPS. It's simple math really.

To be quite honest I couldn't give a shit how the technology works, all I know is that games like Ghostbusters can do CPU physics with close to 100% core usage, and games like BC2 can do similar, yet games that use PhysX time and time again have poor performance on the CPU but fantastic performance on the GPU. It's no coincidence that this is the case, Nvidia primarily sells GPUs not CPUs so it's in their interest to twist gamers arms into buying more GPUs. If you think it's just a coincidence then you're massively naive.

I've made no bogus claims, i clearly stated that on my CPU that Batman AA ran at 25-30fps with less than 50% CPU usage, if PhysX was optimised to use 100% of the CPU i'd have a very playable game. The tests for frame rate are reporduceable with the Batman AA demo and any decent CPU.

Sure I do, I know its not costing me real-world dollars to have to buy a second video card. Instead, it runs fine on any overlocked dual-core cpu or stock quad-core cpu. If the same effects were done with PhysX, I would literately need to buy a second video card as Frame Rates tend to drop in half when you turn PhysX onto high.

Here I am getting a nice combination of good CPU physics and my video card is producing a nice high quality image.

Exactly, while a lot of PhysX fanboys will have you believe that physics is easy for a video card to do along side graphics, that's not the case in the real world we see performance drops in our frame rate when we enable PhysX because the GPU has to split its time between multiple things when it should just be rendering.

Call the effects what you will, but the point is the destruction in BC2 is cheesy-looking to anyone who knows what they're looking at and has seen better. Also, these "tacked on PhysX effects" are not something you will see a CPU doing to add to immersion anytime soon. Even if they don't affect gameplay (let's be honest... the only thing that really could is a wall breaking up.. wow I'm impressed!), they add some value, some immersion, however small you believe the amount to be. I'm just saying I don't see BC2's "gameplay physics" as offering much more than PhysX effects do currently. Walls breaking is shit that has been figured out, done over and over and over again. Let's do something new and interesting, shall we?

PhysX effects do not offer anything more than additional eyecandy in almost every implimentation we've seen to date. The reason that people like BC2 is because the physics are actually important to gameplay, I don't care if you think the physics looks tacky in the game, what matters is that the battlefield is dynamic and so become part of the tactics used to defeat the enemy team, a team can only hide in a house so long before it's gutted, and most cover is only temporary until the nade/rockets/mortars start flying.

It adds depth to the gameplay, like the next few quotes clearly demonstrate.

It doesn't have to be innovative. The reason everyone loves the physics in BC2 is because it positively effects gameplay. There isn't a whole lot of good games where you can drop a building on someones head via c4.

Bad Company 2's destructible environments have added way more to gameplay than any GPU PhysX title so far, end of story.

tl;dr Bad Company 2's destructible environments actually add something to gameplay where PhysX titles with tacked on effects that are basically just random shit flying everywhere add nothing to gameplay.

I expect that PhysX could be run on the CPU and provide a BC2 like experience but so far every game I've seen that supports PhysX has at very best a poor implimentation on the CPU, I call that a trend, a trend suggests it's a problem with the API, you call it lazy development...whatever the case maybe, we see bad PhysX titles which are clearly aimed at trying to sell Nvidia GPUs with tacked on effects which don't add anything to gameplay they just make the scene a little more pretty.

We've also seen highly respected developers like Gabe at Valve (who i've quoted already) who dislike PhysX because when running on the GPU/PPU it becomes a PITA to make phsyics that are important to gameplay like in BC2. The game logic runs on the CPU has to wait while all the PhysX information is passed back, so the engine is left waiting, which is why I doubt PhysXs ability to do physics which is important to the gameplay (like in BC2) when running on the GPU/PPU.

 

[Surly73]

I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a position where PhysX equals bloatware and the need for another 200W GPU.

PhysX is an API. It *CAN* be GPU accelerated, hardware accelerated (physics PPU) or calculated on a CPU. Before the NV thing, the only option most of us had was PhysX on CPU. How anyone can draw the conclusion that PhysX=slow and Havoc=fast I don't understand. Nor do I understand how so many berate an API and release the devs from all responsibility in the matters of performance and realism.

Havoc has no acceleration options. How are options a bad thing? If Eidos "spent" their available physics cycles in Batman making smoke swirl and papers rustle instead of making a destructable environment or cover, that's Eidos' problem, not PhysX or nVidia's.

You don't get something for nothing. Arguing that BC2 is somehow better because its physics isn't PhysX and therefore it will be faster for the same effects is simply incorrect.

If you don't want to use your GPU cycles to process physics, go disable GPU acceleration instead of ranting in a forum. Does the game title no longer let you select physics without using GPU acceleration? Go complain to the game devs - the API supports CPU physics too and always has.

 

[mafa]

Since BFBC2 uses havok. To me this shows us that you dont need Nvidia physx.

So my question is, IF you played BFBC2 do you now think its still a marketing gimmick using Nvidia Physx?

And please keep this on topic and no swearing (shuttleluv).

Unless there are some games that show software(CPU) solution can do exactly what the crappy hardware solution can do, the loyal fanboys in denial would keep bitching it is not "interactive" enough.

And yes, Physx is a marketing gimmick, it is also an IQ test.

 

[Tudz]

The advantage of what BFBC2 uses is the fact everyone can use it, not just nVidia users. This is the biggest problem with PhysX, how is it supposed to be implemented in multiplayer games, or even without compromising single player when its nVidia only and only around half of gamers can use it.

 

[XMAN245]

Running PhysX on a single card kills framerates and if games like Crysis or BC2 used GPU PhysX there would be no way to do it on a single card. Bad Company 2's destructible environments have added way more to gameplay than any GPU PhysX title so far, end of story.



Something like a used 8800GT or 9800GTX. An additional GPU for PhysX is just not worth it with the amount of titles supported. Plus why would I want tear my computer apart, throw in an 8800GT, use more power, and hack the drivers to work with my ATI card just so I can play Mirror's Edge and Batman? Hell I played both of those games with my ATI card and they were still fun, they just didn't have all the cheap Physx effects that were tacked on after the games were actually completed.

tl;dr Bad Company 2's destructible environments actually add something to gameplay where PhysX titles with tacked on effects that are basically just random shit flying everywhere add nothing to gameplay.

1. The 8800GT is not a power hungry card, neither are the more current versions of the 9800GTX cards(some have no power connector at all) a 400W PSU will power them, can't think of a single ATI card from that time frame that can say the same thing with the same performance level.
2. I've seen BC2 and it is all rail based, preprogrammed render crap, it is not reactionary. Hell HL2 had better reactionary physics before physics was even a thing.
3. Never said youhad to take apart your machine to do anything, simply asked for a $50 power hungry card and I'm still waiting.

 

[XMAN245]

Unless there are some games that show software(CPU) solution can do exactly what the crappy hardware solution can do, the loyal fanboys in denial would keep bitching it is not "interactive" enough.

And yes, Physx is a marketing gimmick, it is also an IQ test.

Sorry, but every physics solution out cept for PhysX is preprogrammed rail rendered crap. Atleast PhysX is reactionary to the fullest. Hit something from a different angle and get a different reaction. BC2, yuo only wish you could say that.

 

[alg7_munif]

Wow, when I play my games, I always stare at the effects to see whether it will be the same or not when it was hit at a different angle. Too bad that without a dedicated hardware, the effects are missing instead of being there. I'll take a preprogrammed crap over any gimped crap at anytime. For me there is a much bigger difference between no effects and preprogrammed effects than preprogrammed effects and highly computed effects.

 

[Tudz]

Wow, when I play my games, I always stare at the effects to see whether it will be the same or not when it was hit at a different angle. Too bad that without a dedicated hardware, the effects are missing instead of being there. I'll take a preprogrammed crap over any gimped crap at anytime. For me there is a much bigger difference between no effects and preprogrammed effects than preprogrammed effects and highly computed effects.

The future is obviously to have that awesome interactive physics that can tell where explosions are coming from and smoke whips into vorticies as an aircraft flies through it, but the hardware and/or the software just aren't at that stage yet.

I for one think most fluids done in PhysX look like arse and a good "fake" water looks better, but I'm sure when the hardware is there the fluids will look awesome (remembering that to solve a "real life" fluids problem can take several days on a regular desktop PC to solve just a few seconds worth of fluid flow, even in simple cases).

But when we have that physics level in games which doesn't cost us heaps of performance, we'll be looking down at games which have sub par physics. I believe eventually the physics will hit a level where it'll add a lot to immersion, instead of just looking like blocks being knocked around, cloths which flutter nicely but clip into themselves retardedly and fluids which look like they have their viscosity and surface tension totally fucked up.

That's the future, but some games need to be pushing the tech so we actually get there eventually.

 

[XMAN245]

Wow, when I play my games, I always stare at the effects to see whether it will be the same or not when it was hit at a different angle. Too bad that without a dedicated hardware, the effects are missing instead of being there. I'll take a preprogrammed crap over any gimped crap at anytime. For me there is a much bigger difference between no effects and preprogrammed effects than preprogrammed effects and highly computed effects.

And you'll always settle for crap. I dont have that problem. Havok, bullet and all the others versions of Physics just lack in comparison to PhysX in terms of actual realism. I side with all gamers in that Nvidia should open up its PhysX SDK to AMD at no cost as well as not lock out Nvidia+ATI rendering for PhysX enabled games. but because they dont doesn't mean I'm gonna denounce them and stop buying their products.

 

[Sikkyu]

physics are great in BC2. best ive seen in a fps.
physX is crap because well, i have an ati card and it runs like crap on it.

ati develops open source physics engine... yay, nvidia buys a physx company, cuts down the code so it runs like crap (used to work just fine on a multithreaded CPU) and cuts out ati...

boooooo


also bc2 beta need another map....

 

[TomGreen321]

I'm not quite sure how this thread turned into a position where PhysX equals bloatware and the need for another 200W GPU.

PhysX is an API. It *CAN* be GPU accelerated, hardware accelerated (physics PPU) or calculated on a CPU. Before the NV thing, the only option most of us had was PhysX on CPU. How anyone can draw the conclusion that PhysX=slow and Havoc=fast I don't understand. Nor do I understand how so many berate an API and release the devs from all responsibility in the matters of performance and realism.

Havoc has no acceleration options. How are options a bad thing? If Eidos "spent" their available physics cycles in Batman making smoke swirl and papers rustle instead of making a destructable environment or cover, that's Eidos' problem, not PhysX or nVidia's.

You don't get something for nothing. Arguing that BC2 is somehow better because its physics isn't PhysX and therefore it will be faster for the same effects is simply incorrect.

If you don't want to use your GPU cycles to process physics, go disable GPU acceleration instead of ranting in a forum. Does the game title no longer let you select physics without using GPU acceleration? Go complain to the game devs - the API supports CPU physics too and always has.

I would buy your argument if nVidia gave out a decent CPU solution, instead of gimping it and only allowing their own GPUs to do it half decently. Realize developers can't do what they want with PhysX, it's up to nVidia.

OpenCL and/or Directcompute physics options can't come soon enough.

I'd love to try out GPU assisted physics, but not enough that I'll support the stupid way one company handles it.

 

[XMAN245]

physics are great in BC2. best ive seen in a fps.
physX is crap because well, i have an ati card and it runs like crap on it.

ati develops open source physics engine... yay, nvidia buys a physx company, cuts down the code so it runs like crap (used to work just fine on a multithreaded CPU) and cuts out ati...

boooooo


also bc2 beta need another map....

Best for preprogrammed rail induced nausiam. no excelleration, no true realism and not even remotely close to truely reactionary. But cmopared to other games that have tried physics which were preprogrammed, yeah, its the best since HL2. PhysX still owns in terms of realism

 

[alg7_munif]

Physics effects are just like a cutscene. When you watch a cutscene, you expect it to tell you the story and when you blow up something you expect to see an explosion.

A cutscene can be a pre-rendered video or it can be rendered in real time. A pre-rendered video can be better looking and can tell the story as well as as real time rendering. With real time rendering, you could move around, change the angle and etc.

When there is an explosion you expect that there will be debris flying around. With pre-programmed effects, you will still see this debris but cannot interact with it. With PhysX you can only have this debris when you have a dedicated hardware and you can interact with it but without the hardware the effects are purposely gimped. Afterall hardware PhysX and pre-programmed effects brings the same thing to the table.

The fact that the effects are gimped that much when hardware PhysX is turned off shows that even the creator themselves are not confident that hardware PhysX will make a huge difference in the immersion compared to a good pre-programmed effect.

 

[Surly73]

The advantage of what BFBC2 uses is the fact everyone can use it, not just nVidia users. This is the biggest problem with PhysX, how is it supposed to be implemented in multiplayer games, or even without compromising single player when its nVidia only and only around half of gamers can use it.

PhysX was around long before nVidia accelerated it and it can/could run on CPUs too.

If game developers structure their menu options such that PhysX can only be enabled if GPU acceleration is available then blame the devs. Or has nVidia actually completely removed the ability to run on CPU?

 

[XMAN245]

PhysX was around long before nVidia accelerated it and it can/could run on CPUs too.

If game developers structure their menu options such that PhysX can only be enabled if GPU acceleration is available then blame the devs. Or has nVidia actually completely removed the ability to run on CPU?

No, it can run on the CPU, only it isn't making use of multi-core CPUs. Nvidia says they haven't done anything different although the evidence points to the fact they have or are pointing devs into not programming the PhysX API they use in games to make use of more than 1 CPU. What would be cool is if someone could figure out how to hack the code to enable the other CPUs to see if in fact they made a difference or not and how much.

 

[Brackle]

No, it can run on the CPU, only it isn't making use of multi-core CPUs. Nvidia says they haven't done anything different although the evidence points to the fact they have or are pointing devs into not programming the PhysX API they use in games to make use of more than 1 CPU. What would be cool is if someone could figure out how to hack the code to enable the other CPUs to see if in fact they made a difference or not and how much.

Exactly my point.

There is no way to measure to see if the CPU can do what a GPU could do for physx.

Just a bunch of people who say that i wont with no real-time proof.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

1. The 8800GT is not a power hungry card, neither are the more current versions of the 9800GTX cards(some have no power connector at all) a 400W PSU will power them, can't think of a single ATI card from that time frame that can say the same thing with the same performance level.
2. I've seen BC2 and it is all rail based, preprogrammed render crap, it is not reactionary. Hell HL2 had better reactionary physics before physics was even a thing.
3. Never said youhad to take apart your machine to do anything, simply asked for a $50 power hungry card and I'm still waiting.

You think an 8800GT can handle rendering and hardware PhysX at the same time? Good luck with that. I'm talking about needed a secondary card for PhysX which you completely ignored because I was right and you obviously didn't see my post about BC2 Physics where I said they were nothing great but actually added to gameplay unlike every game that utilizes hardware Physx. An 8800GT is not power hungry compared to what? A GTX295, a 5970, or a fluorescent light bulb? Sorry but having an add in card that takes so much power for 3-4 games is downright stupid, count me out.

 

[XMAN245]

Exactly my point.

There is no way to measure to see if the CPU can do what a GPU could do for physx.

Just a bunch of people who say that i wont with no real-time proof.

Well, one problem you are going to have is that even the best C2Q can muster is roughly 96GFlops of computational power. 9500GTs are capable of about that depending on the clock, they can range anywhere from 100 to 160 GFlops in SP performance. So while, even if all 4 cores were to be utilized, it is almost for sure not even going to touch what an entry lvl gpu can do by itself with the PhysX API.

9600Gts, which is the sweet spot for performance for PhysX addin cards, can do 300+ GFlops.

 

[XMAN245]

You think an 8800GT can handle rendering and hardware PhysX at the same time? Good luck with that. I'm talking about needed a secondary card for PhysX which you completely ignored because I was right and you obviously didn't see my post about BC2 Physics where I said they were nothing great but actually added to gameplay unlike every game that utilizes hardware Physx. An 8800GT is not power hungry compared to what? A GTX295, a 5970, or a fluorescent light bulb? Sorry but having an add in card that takes so much power for 3-4 games is downright stupid, count me out.

Still waiting for that $50 power hungry card. Like most fanATIcs, you can't come up with anything so you attack. As an add in card, all one really needs is a 9600GT or 9600GSO are the best bets. Hell, GT240s, which require nothing more than PCIe slot for power makes for good PhysX driving aswell.

And B:AA with PhysX looks mounds better than BC2 does with its crap physics and game play is much better aswell.. GRAW2 also had much game play with the added PhysX to the game.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

Still waiting for that $50 power hungry card. Like most fanATIcs, you can't come up with anything so you attack. As an add in card, all one really needs is a 9600GT or 9600GSO are the best bets. Hell, GT240s, which require nothing more than PCIe slot for power makes for good PhysX driving aswell.

And B:AA with PhysX looks mounds better than BC2 does with its crap physics and game play is much better aswell.. GRAW2 also had much game play with the added PhysX to the game.

Oh please I prove you wrong then you ask me to find a high powered card in the low power price bracket just so you can be right about something. 9600s and GT240s will hold back your framerate if you pair it with higher end nvidia cards because they are not powerful enough, or PhysX implementation is just shit end of story. I'm also not too concerned with fancy effects when Crysis beats the shit off of GRAW and Batman without PhysX and all 3 games have meh gameplay, I actually thought Crysis was the best out of all of those.

 

[koopaGG]

And B:AA with PhysX looks mounds better than BC2 does with its crap physics and game play is much better aswell.. GRAW2 also had much game play with the added PhysX to the game.

Thanks for stating your opinion as fact.

GRAW2 (imo) didn't have very good physics and the gameplay was mediocre at best. If it was as good as you think it is it would of had more than 100 people playing it.

Batman is a single player game, difficult to compare that to BC2 so why bother? BC2's physics alter the gameplay online for everyone, not just people that have good rigs compared to Batman. It's a silly comparison.

Also, if people cared about physics as much as you do (which seems to matter to you more than gameplay) people would of played games like Cellfactor.

 

[schenks]

I don't know where you guys are getting your information, but a lot of you on both sides are very wrong.

• PhysX is perfectly capable of running multithreaded. Game scenes can break PhysX objects into multiple groups that then get calculated using different threads which are dealt with by the OS's load balancing. There is no conspiracy here. It is up to the developers to use these capabilities properly.
• Havok, Bullet, etc. are perfectly capable of doing everything PhysX does in terms of their use as a physics engine. Whether or not the developers use these capabilities is not the fault of the physics engine and its creators, but is based on whether or not there is a need or performance headroom in the project for it.
• PhysX running on the GPU has the capability to improve framerates of the project. However, this is not a guarantee and is completely based on what load of the GPU is without the physics calculations going on. That being said, I have worked on a project that does show increased framerates using hardware physics, even on the hardware that I've used (dedicated PPU, Nvidia 9600 GSO, 9600 GT, 8800 GT, GTX 260M).
• CPUs are perfectly capable of doing everything a graphics card can do in terms of physics calculations. That being said, physics calculations are heavily floating-point based, which is not the forte of CPUs. However, graphics cards are EXTREMELY good at floating point calculations, so the theoretical performance of GPUs is extremely good vs. CPUs. That being said, this reverts to the point above where the end performance is based on pre-existing loads of the GPU

 

[Mr. K6]

Oh please I prove you wrong then you ask me to find a high powered card in the low power price bracket just so you can be right about something. 9600s and GT240s will hold back your framerate if you pair it with higher end nvidia cards because they are not powerful enough, or PhysX implementation is just shit end of story. I'm also not too concerned with fancy effects when Crysis beats the shit off of GRAW and Batman without PhysX and all 3 games have meh gameplay, I actually thought Crysis was the best out of all of those.

Or you could just throw in the fact that they could be giving out 9600GT's for free and it wouldn't matter because PhysX has been disabled in all buy NVIDIA-based GPU systems. Between the power consumption, inadequate performance, drivers, and other headaches, running another graphics card purely for PhysX, which really is the only way it doesn't suck, is a joke at best.

As it stands, BC2 has one of the best implementations of game-changing physics yet. The only thing that comes close is the Infernal Engine for Ghostbusters. No other recent implementations of a physics engine has produced results like these have.

 

[jaredpace]

games that are saving specific effects for video cards are doing it purely as an artificial limitation, likely in order to gain monetary support from the companies backing the engine.

Every "Phys-X" game does this. All the physics related effects from the newest titles showcasing the latest technology (ie BC2) are possible on the cpu or via compute on the gpu. It's nothing more than a gimmick in its current state.

If you don't believe this, just watch the youtube demos "high Phys-X" in Batman Archam Asylum on Ati + cpu using hacks.

 

[Unknown-One]

If you don't believe this, just watch the youtube demos "high Phys-X" in Batman Archam Asylum on Ati + cpu using hacks.

Don't try and pull that one, I've looked over the hack carefully. They achieve playable speeds by running PhysX on the CPU by running only 1/3 the number of steps. This reduces precision and can cause all sorts of weird physics bugs because there's more gusswork between each calculated step.

You're basically setting up the CPU to perform only 1/3rd the number of calculations, then pointing at the results and going "oh look, it's just as fast as a GPU at this!"

You can do the same tweak to PhysX while it's running on a GPU, and see an even larger gain in performance...but you probably wouldn't want to, because of the issues that lower precision causes with things like cloth.