AMD's Roy Taylor: PhysX/Cuda doomed?

[cmdrdredd]

I like big Physics effects like when a building comes crashing down in BFBC2. Some extra smoke, cloth and particle effects that bog down the framerate and are a hinderance to gameplay is just annoying to me.

Right back to talking about scripted effects that are predefined.

GPU-PhysX is only about visuals, that's no secret. Like TressFX, DoF, area lights, per pixel displacement mapping, reflections...you see where I'm going with this. Visual is completely okay. Just because you slap the sticker "physics" on it, doesn't mean it has to be game changing. Game changing GPU-accelerated physics will eventually come, no doubt. Until then I'll take anything I'll get.

Besides:
I'm very doubtful that with the limitations of the old consoles any significant number of games would have sported an open solution like Havok@GPU or Bullet@GPU (or PhysX@OpenCL). Consoles could not have handled it, and to program these things only for the PC is costly and makes no sense financially. I guess Nvidia pays the devs to include GPU-PhysX. Otherwise, it would also not be used.

They don't pay devs but they offer hands on support for getting it running and trying to optimize it for their game as best they can at the driver level.

 

[Mr Expert]

Right back to talking about scripted effects that are predefined.

Physics - is the natural science that involves the study of matter[6] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

PhysX - Some quasi linguistic marketing speak lingo that select end users hold as some badge of honor otherwise known as fanboism.

I like Physics not PhysX in my games. LOL

 

[cmdrdredd]

Physics - is the natural science that involves the study of matter[6] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

PhysX - Some quasi linguistic marketing speak lingo that select end users hold as some badge of honor otherwise known as fanboism.

I like Physics not PhysX in my games. LOL

You really copy and pasted that? I don't even know where to begin with this crap. I think this discussion (if you can call it that) is over for good. There is no hope.

 

[Mr Expert]

You really copy and pasted that? I don't even know where to begin with this crap. I think this discussion (if you can call it that) is over for good. There is no hope.

Well now that we got the defintion of just what Physics really is then we can agree that weather or not Physics is scripted it's the outcome of how well objects move through time and space in game that really matters. Physx are axullery effects that generally don't have an effect on actual Physics simulations in game. I think for an example that the way the buildings fall in say BFBC2 is a far better and more emmersive Physics simulation that say the trench coat in Mafia 2 or the goo in BL2. Relly when it all boils down I would say it's the marketing behind Physx that I have a problem with well that and the fact that it runs like ass.

 

[sontin]

What? The outcome is never the same. A scripted animation has nothing to do with real physic. It's like saying that the same pathfinding from A to B is real KI because a figure can go without interaction.

 

[NIGELG]

They don't pay devs but they offer hands on support for getting it running and trying to optimize it for their game as best they can at the driver level.

....And you know know this how?

Wouldn't every developer scramble over it if it was that good and Nvidia gives them 'free' assistance??

 

[Mr Expert]

What? The outcome is never the same. A scripted animation has nothing to do with real physic. It's like saying that the same pathfinding from A to B is real KI because a figure can go without interaction.

A scripted simulation of real Physics is far more emersive imo than non scripted goo in BL2 and some extra sparks etc.

 

[Lonbjerg]

A scripted simulation of real Physics is far more emersive imo than non scripted goo in BL2 and some extra sparks etc.

Do you keep ignoring my questions?

And please DO provide a video of your claims...as you seem to only be able to speak FUD...

 

[SirPauly]

I dislike....

Also you are jumping to consoles now....lol

Actually consistent on advanced physics over-all:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1337170379&postcount=1774

 

[cmdrdredd]

....And you know know this how?

Wouldn't every developer scramble over it if it was that good and Nvidia gives them 'free' assistance??

Do a search, its not that hard to find this out. Some devs don't really want nvidia meddling with the game either. Its a choice the dev makes. Nvidia does have programs to assist developers with taking advantage of physx and other technologies offered by nvidia GPUs with twimtbp. AMD does similar things with gaming evolved.

 

[bystander36]

Actually consistent on advanced physics over-all:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1337170379&postcount=1774

I assume, much like the PC counterparts (namely PhysX), that in practice, GPU physics will be used minimally, as stealing a lot of GPU resources can have an adverse effect on rendering frames quickly.

The technology is great, but I don't think it'll every be used a lot until they put a dedicated GPU in systems for it.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

What? The outcome is never the same. A scripted animation has nothing to do with real physic. It's like saying that the same pathfinding from A to B is real KI because a figure can go without interaction.

I brought this up earlier.

In many cases a scripted animation can be built off a recorded physics simulation which is simply turned into a set of pre-baked key frames.

It looks identical every time you play it but as long as the rest of environment is static it can be perfectly accurate, or at least as accurate as the initial physics simulation it was calculated from.

The main issue is that it looks the same every time, but if it's a one off effect like a unique building collapse in a singleplayer story, or something that happens infrequently then this isn't really an issue.

It gives you all the eye candy of an apparently real time simulation with a fraction of the overhead, more over it allows people without the hardware acceleration needed a chance to see these things, so you don't need to support PhysX or any kind of equivalent.

Now, if PhysX was actually integrated into game play such that the real time physics of the objects involved were somehow important to the game logic, for example chunks of debris coming out of an explosion could do damage to a player or kill them, then PhysX would have a benefit over a pre-baked animation.

HOWEVER, this isn't how PhysX is implemented, it's tricky to get that information to the CPU in real time, and doing so would create a dependency on PhysX support would make the game unplayable on a large number of computers. So developers don't do this, they just make pretty effects with it.

 

[Mr Expert]

I brought this up earlier.

In many cases a scripted animation can be built off a recorded physics simulation which is simply turned into a set of pre-baked key frames.

It looks identical every time you play it but as long as the rest of environment is static it can be perfectly accurate, or at least as accurate as the initial physics simulation it was calculated from.

The main issue is that it looks the same every time, but if it's a one off effect like a unique building collapse in a singleplayer story, or something that happens infrequently then this isn't really an issue.

It gives you all the eye candy of an apparently real time simulation with a fraction of the overhead, more over it allows people without the hardware acceleration needed a chance to see these things, so you don't need to support PhysX or any kind of equivalent.

Now, if PhysX was actually integrated into game play such that the real time physics of the objects involved were somehow important to the game logic, for example chunks of debris coming out of an explosion could do damage to a player or kill them, then PhysX would have a benefit over a pre-baked animation.

HOWEVER, this isn't how PhysX is implemented, it's tricky to get that information to the CPU in real time, and doing so would create a dependency on PhysX support would make the game unplayable on a large number of computers. So developers don't do this, they just make pretty effects with it.

Well said mate. +1^

 

[Lonbjerg]

Actually consistent on advanced physics over-all:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1337170379&postcount=1774

The sad part is that when AMD finally delivers OpenCL PGU physics...it will not be the end of PhysX.

All NVIDIA needs to do...is to port PhysX to OpenCL.

My bet is that they already have done that.

But no reason to let AMD get a freeride on the physics wagon via PhysX until then.

I suspect a lot of AMD fans will get foot-in-mouth syndrome a very short time after AMD finnally get som OpenCL physics API going...when NVIDIA drop the other shoes

 

[SirPauly]

I think the difference between meaningful and menial is that GPU PhysX is rarely (aka never, because it's optional) used for any "game changing" effects eg. destruction or collision. If PhysX wasn't a closed standard, they could apply the excellent power of GPGPU to "important" effects like that. Instead, it's proprietary, and left doing stuff that is absolutely auxiliary and not really very meaningful like cloth and smoke (while it's very well done, in comparison to a destruction engine it's more or less useless).

PhysX would have so much potential if it was an open standard. We could have excellent destruction engines and particle effects on EVERY game, for EVERY user, instead of optional effects on a few games for half of the users (and even less which actually own strong enough hardware to support the effects).

Developers and nVidia are trying at least:


APEX will help Hawken to redefine Destructible Environment

http://physxinfo.com/news/10914/apex-will-help-hawken-to-redefine-destructible-environment/

APEX Destruction – APEX Destruction provides both the tools and runtime libraries needed to integrate fully destructible environments into games. Using the tools the artists were able to quickly create fractured versions of the buildings and barriers for use in Hawken. APEX runtime handles all of the complexities of rocket blasts and impacts destructing the walls, as well as providing the ability to network the destruction in a multiplayer setting.

Destructible Environments – Destructible buildings, barriers, and roads. Mechs can shoot, run, and stomp through objects on a scale never witnessed before. No two gameplays will be alike as players rip through the environment. When a rocket hits a wall it won’t leave a decal, it will leave a hole.

Emerging Cover – Cover is created by the wall fragments left behind after destruction. Punch a hole through a wall and use it to snipe other players. Watch your cover disappear in shower of debris as rockets from enemy mechs slam into it.

Networking – Destructible environments present some unique challenges when it comes to keeping clients in sync. The level of complexity becomes even greater when you consider the scalability of destruction across clients. APEX Destruction handles this by ensuring that the static portions of the destructible objects stay in sync across all clients (regardless of compute HW), thus providing matching cover for everyone in the game.

Scalability and GPU Rigid Bodies – APEX Destruction allows us to scale the amount of rigid body simulation to meet the capability of client machines. This means that players will see appropriate amounts of rigid body simulation based on what their hardware can handle. High-end users with CUDA capable hardware can enable GPU Rigid Body Simulation (GRB) and enjoy an unprecedented amount of destruction simulation as thousands of pieces from walls tumble to the ground and interact with the mechs.

Hawken PhysX Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kwi8DvsmPrE#at=57

HAWKEN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rVsr0KtyLOU

Time-table December 2013!

 

[Tempered81]

Since "GPU PhysX" is not possible on any console, game studios aren't going to be rolling it out en masse any time soon. However, the effects are really cool and it's a neat added bonus to any PC gamer with an Nvidia card to use GPU PhysX on. Props to Nvidia for adding cool exclusive features that way (or an AMD card and an edited ini ) The amount of effects taken out of Borderlands 2 for 'PhysX' is huge, but with some quick editing, I have them all working on my 7950.

The sad part is the lack of optimizations make the performance pretty bad. The CPU having to do all the calculations makes my PhysX Rendering Capability about 10-20 times worse by my guess than what it could be with say a GTX 560Ti for example. I had to resort to reducing the Particle & Apex count and editing a lot of the game code myself. Now when i shoot the ground with an automatic rilfle, each bullet pops up 10 rocks/debris particles instead of 125, and they fade away sooner, and there is a max total particle count for entire scene. This keeps my min FPS from 20 (default) and puts it around 45-50 (after edits) If the game detects no Nvidia card present it will completely disable the 'PhysX' option from the options menu. This option itself removes well over 50% of the cool special effects from explosions, water, waving flags, particles, debris, goo, and environment stuff.

Nvidia worked with Epic early on to get it into Unreal Engine 3 SDK, so it's pretty easy for any UE3 game to add, but kinda sad that Gearbox made the decision to remove so much cool stuff that they created.

Gearbox definitely has a close relationship with Nvidia. I like Borderlands 2 so much, it makes me want to buy an Nvidia card just for the PhysX stuff. Pitchford even did a promo for the Nvidia SHIELD in a MTV cribs style episode of his own house & tour of Gearbox Software.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Well said mate. +1^

GRAW had what he talked about.
Shrapnell that did damge...not present without PhysX.

That was in 2006.

How can you post so much about PhysX..and still be so ignorant?

that devs dosn't uses these features is not fault of PhysX.

I swear...I have never seen so many UNINFORMED people post so much about a topic they don't care about...:hmm:

 

[sushiwarrior]

The sad part is that when AMD finally delivers OpenCL PGU physics...it will not be the end of PhysX.

All NVIDIA needs to do...is to port PhysX to OpenCL.

My bet is that they already have done that.

But no reason to let AMD get a freeride on the physics wagon via PhysX until then.

I suspect a lot of AMD fans will get foot-in-mouth syndrome a very short time after AMD finnally get som OpenCL physics API going...when NVIDIA drop the other shoes

PhysX will never be "meaningful" if it is a proprietary technology. It has so much potential but it is all wasted because it will always be optional, and only optional. It's not because it's CUDA only, it's because it's Nvidia only. All Nvidia needs to do... is to allow PhysX to anyone, on any platform.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Since "GPU PhysX" is not possible on any console, game studios aren't going to be rolling it out en masse any time soon. However, the effects are really cool and it's a neat added bonus to any PC gamer with an Nvidia card to use GPU PhysX on. Props to Nvidia for adding cool exclusive features that way (or an AMD card and an edited ini ) The amount of effects taken out of Borderlands 2 for 'PhysX' is huge, but with some quick editing, I have them all working on my 7950.

The sad part is the lack of optimizations make the performance pretty bad. The CPU having to do all the calculations makes my PhysX Rendering Capability about 10-20 times worse by my guess than what it could be with say a GTX 560Ti for example. I had to resort to reducing the Particle & Apex count and editing a lot of the game code myself. Now when i shoot the ground with an automatic rilfle, each bullet pops up 10 rocks/debris particles instead of 125, and they fade away sooner, and there is a max total particle count for entire scene. This keeps my min FPS from 20 (default) and puts it around 45-50 (after edits) If the game detects no Nvidia card present it will completely disable the 'PhysX' option from the options menu. This option itself removes well over 50% of the cool special effects from explosions, water, waving flags, particles, debris, goo, and environment stuff.

Nvidia worked with Epic early on to get it into Unreal Engine 3 SDK, so it's pretty easy for any UE3 game to add, but kinda sad that Gearbox made the decision to remove so much cool stuff that they created.

Gearbox definitely has a close relationship with Nvidia. I like Borderlands 2 so much, it makes me want to buy an Nvidia card just for the PhysX stuff. Pitchford even did a promo for the Nvidia SHIELD in a MTV cribs style episode of his own house & tour of Gearbox Software.

Why would GPU-PhysX via OpenCL not be possible on a console?

 

[bystander36]

Why would GPU-PhysX via OpenCL not be possible on a console?

I believe that he is saying in the current state of the code, it is not possible.

If Nvidia makes CUDA work on OpenCl, the PhysX will then be able to be run on consoles.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I believe that he is saying in the current state of the code, it is not possible.

If Nvidia makes CUDA work on OpenCl, the PhysX will then be able to be run on consoles.

LOL...read what you wrote again...

 

[SirPauly]

PhysX will never be "meaningful" if it is a proprietary technology. It has so much potential but it is all wasted because it will always be optional, and only optional. It's not because it's CUDA only, it's because it's Nvidia only. All Nvidia needs to do... is to allow PhysX to anyone, on any platform.

imho,

It's nVidia only because the GPU component utilizes the Cuda API --- and AMD refuses to license Cuda!

 

[bystander36]

LOL...read what you wrote again...

I'm not sure which you are LOLing at, the more accurate part, where CUDA is what needs to be rewritten, not PhysX, my lack of specifying GPU PhysX, or my poor grammer.

PhysX uses CUDA instructions to do all its work, so it is CUDA that has to be rewritten, not PhysX.

 

[SirPauly]

PhysX may need to be ported or coded to the OpenCL API!

 

[NIGELG]

Actually consistent on advanced physics over-all:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1337170379&postcount=1774

That thread just like PhysX is almost dead.It is a sticky thread and was last commented on nine days ago.You almost post alone in that thread....lol.


Game physics has a lot of potential but nobody is doing much to advance it...