- Status
You can adjust the amount of debris by lowering the setting, or even by turning it off..
CPU physics does not do the same because the CPU would get bogged down. As for realism, how can you complain about the debris generated by PhysX, while giving the "debris free" software physics a pass?
Shooting a stone column in real life with a machine gun is going to generate millions of bits of debris, visible and invisible to the naked eye. PhysX at least tries to replicate this, while software physics does not.
That's true I suppose.. Heck, probably the reason why the Frostbite 3 engine is 64 bit is because they have so many destruction animations which have to be loaded into memory..
I disagree. Look at Batman Arkham City or Mafia 2. Those games have a ton of cloth physics running at the same time. What software physics engine do you know of that can run that many instances of cloth physics on the screen at the same time?
There are none believe me..
PhysX on high in BL2 is buggy on SLI setups. You'd get better performance by getting a dedicated card, or by removing one of your Titans and playing the game on a single card.
Merely disabling SLI won't do the job properly, as SLI will still be active at the driver level..
Like I said before, the authenticity of the simulations is proportional to the amount of compute power available. 2 years from now when Volta is available, GPUs will be able to run games with that kind of visual fidelity because they'll be so powerful..
Come on, do you honestly expect BL2 to have realistic looking water, when water isn't even a central, or even secondary theme in the game?
Also, considering the animated and over the top art style of BL2, I would never have expected them to put a great amount of effort into making sure water behaved and looked realistically..
A game like Cryostasis which was released in 2009 had better water effects, because water was a major theme in the game so developers put more effort into it
The fact that hardware accelerated PhysX only runs on NVidia GPUs is definitely hindering adoption no doubt, but considering that, PhysX has scored some big titles:
1) Metro 2033
2) Metro Last Light
3) Mafia 2
4) Alice the Madness Returns
5) Batman Arkham Asylum
6) Batman Arkham City
7) Batman Arkham Origins
8) The Witcher 3
9) Borderlands 2
10) Planetside 2
11) Everquest Next
That's a very weak linup. Nobody will adopt Physx in the future even more because all the new consoles will be AMD powerd. This means nvidias polished turd (GPU accerated Physx) will finally be gone forever in due time. I say good riddence as Physx is all marketing and show and no go.
That video was beta, so it's not finalized..
Here are some other examples of PhysX destruction or gameplay affecting physics:
EQ Next gameplay and destruction effects
LOL you do understand that there is a big difference between Hardware Accelerated Physx and CPU Physx right. If there is not a big difference between hardware accelerated and CPU Physx then nvidia are trully scum bag marketers looking to rip off those uniformed and unwilling.
Both the PS4 and Xbox One will be capable of using PhysX :awe:
GPU PhysX will never go away, because it's merely an evolution of the software PhysX and as long as software PhysX is around (Unreal Engine 4 has it integrated into the engine), hardware accelerated PhysX will be here to stay :hmm:
Hardware accelerated PhysX and software PhysX converged a long time ago. You can run "hardware accelerated" physics on a CPU, it will just run much slower..
So they're basically the same thing, except they run different code paths. It will be interesting to see how PhysX 3.0 (which has extensive multithreading and SIMD optimizations) perform in heavy PhysX titles..
Theres no difference. "Hardware accelerated physics" A CPU is considered hardware. They made their own physics API and made it to run only on their gpgpu. "physics" have been around since before Nvidia & Apex were companies. They used gpgpu to harness the GPUs higher capabilities to relieve the CPU from traditionally calculating game physics, except its poorly done, usually over done and results in a lower framerate when the whole goal was to relieve the CPU for better performance. The effect potential is there and is like 100 times greater than whats possible on a CPU, but they waste it.... Like making 1 billion particles go on screen for a silly overdone effect and remain there.
They failed by crippling it for AMD and not allowing it on AMD cards. It's there as an API just like Havok, but it's purposefully optimized for NV hardware, and purposefully crippled for AMD hardware. They took it a step further to create on-die logic dedicated to it. The reason it isn't getting huge success is because it isnt a standard... not like it's not free, they pay you out the ass to use it. Then they want you to make it an "Nvidia only Exclusive feature" to your game. AAA titles like Batman & Borderlands remove 50% of their special effects & features and make them Nvidia only.
The other 95% of the industry recognizes this as splitting the community and crippling potential players and customers, and refuses to add their proprietary tech to their products. AMD having all the console hardware for the next decade should make it obvious to you. Its been a blunder from the start. It has awesome potential but they're going about it all wrong developing a physics API that uses GPGPU and wont work on any console or 50% of PCs...
They failed by crippling it for AMD and not allowing it on AMD cards. It's there as an API just like Havok, but it's purposefully optimized for NV hardware, and purposefully crippled for AMD hardware. They took it a step further to create on-die logic dedicated to it. The reason it isn't getting huge success is because it isnt a standard... not like it's not free, they pay you out the ass to use it. Then they want you to make it an "Nvidia only Exclusive feature" to your game. AAA titles like Batman & Borderlands remove 50% of their special effects & features and make them Nvidia only.
The other 95% of the industry recognizes this as splitting the community and crippling potential players and customers, and refuses to add their proprietary tech to their products. AMD having all the console hardware for the next decade should make it obvious to you. Its been a blunder from the start. It has awesome potential but they're going about it all wrong developing a physics API that uses GPGPU and wont work on any console or 50% of PCs...
As do the PS3 and 360 already.
Unless Nvidia allows PhysX to be GPU accelerated on the PS4 and Xbox One, it won't be anymore widespread than it is today.
How am I misinformed? You can run the highest PhysX setting on your CPU if you want, so obviously, there isn't a big different between hardware and software physics other than the performance..
Unless the plan to coax developers into adding "PC ONLY Nvidia exclusive GPU PhysX features" until 2020.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
Imho,
Havok and PhysX are middlewares -- Cuda and OpenCL are API's and this is where the battle is for AMD!
NIGELG
Senior member
- Nov 4, 2009
- 852
- 31
- 91
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
That may depend if their competitors can do something about it instead of talking, attacking and losing share!
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
It's the point that nvidia was using shady marketing all these years even though Physx on the CPU is what everyone wants and is in fact better.How am I misinformed? You can run the highest PhysX setting on your CPU if you want, so obviously, there isn't a big different between hardware and software physics other than the performance..
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/07/nvidia-purposefully-hobbles-physx-cpu/
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
The effects I'm mentioning are from this Youtube video.
There was a previous thread, forgot which part of the Anandtech forums, that pointed out different games that had similar/comparable particle effects WITHOUT needing PhysX. And yes, that was a thread discussing Hawken. Too lazy to search for it right now.
nVidia said:
Now, it's been a while since I've seen that quote from nVidia. But it gets funny when you consider that nVidia is telling people that it can't be bothered to support its own paying customers. Yeah. Really. nVidia can't be bothered to support nVidia video cards as PhysX co-processors.
nVidia is also took the time and resources to disable nVidia PhysX cards from working with AMD GPU's. Apparently nVidia cards as PhysX processors with AMD GPU's work pretty good (once you hack it to work), and that's with nVidia putting sabotaging support. nVidia could have easily just left the ability to use an nVidia card with AMD for PhysX. This would have greatly expanded PhysX support with nVidia selling much more low to mid range cards for use as PhysX processors.
True, but it doesn't change the fact that from a business standpoint, it would be stupid to think AMD refused to support PhysX if it was free with no strings attached.
You might want to look up what the original vision for PhysX was before Ageia was gobbled up by nVidia. A shame considering that PhysX now is for the most part used for nothing more than a few more shiny particles or flapping cloth. PhysX under nVidia's stewardship has been a mess.
While no one will argue with Intel wanting physics to remain on the CPU, Havok is not and never was moving towards becoming a CPU only physics solution. Havok can be accelerated by the GPU using OpenCL. Havok hasn't exactly been on the forefront of physics processing but look up Havok and GPU acceleration on the Playstation 4 as well which of course uses AMD CPU & GPU.
From a business standpoint, it made sense for nVidia to loosen control in order to make more money in the long run. nVidia has made puzzling decisions over the years like half-assing CPU PhysX that seem to limit adoption of PhysX.
As it now stands, I think PhysX support will start to wane. Most PhysX support was due to the fact that nVidia was practically footing the bill for developers to implement PhysX. What happens when it makes more financial sense to build game engines using something like Havok which will run on AMD GPU's and nVidia GPU's. Not to mention the same game engine will run on game consoles.
Good article there. This is something everyone should check out, and his source is D. Kanter - a guy who is well informed and unbiased and one of the few folks with a web presence who is more technically inclined than Anand. Reciting his article makes Charlie look smart. X87, Multithreaded for NV gpus & gaming console cpus, but not desktop CPUs... Prohibited on AMD gpus.... Jokes?
Just like the shield is a vehicle to move unsold Tegra4 chips, PhysX is an edge to corner the market. It has great potential (NV says 4x more power than a CPU - which I believe but why make it proprietary?) But since they're up against Intel, MS, AMD, x86, x64, multicore CPUs, OpenCL, 360, PS3, Wii, WiiU, Xbone, & PS4 how in the heck do they think they can win? Lol get real. They're taking a sky's-the-limit approach with "GPU PhysX" & "Hardware Accelerated Physics" and any other cliche hollow marketing terminology they can drum up for a proprietary tech. What a mess. That AMD guys right when he says CUDA & PhysX are 'doomed'. On the bright side, NV has a lot of success with Quadro & Tesla & HPC
nvidia took a big risk when they bought out the Physx tech from Ageia but the fact is they don't need it to prosper cause as we can see it's not even being used in any tangible way in recent times. I just can't understand why all the fanboys and nvidia themselves keep trying to paint a sinking ship.
I think that they are simulating the ocean in BF4 server side so everyone sees the same waves. Pretty cool if you ask me.
Whatever you say, current situation with lack of open standard for good enough GPU physics engine does hurt games in general.
Imagine what could happen if GPU physX was open standard, working on GPU from all vendors.
I do understand Nvidia, that it want to use competetive advantage to it's own benefit, after all Nvidia fuction is to bring money to it's shareholders and not to please people, but noone can deny that current situation is bad for us as consumers.
Imagine what could happen if GPU physX was open standard, working on GPU from all vendors.
I do understand Nvidia, that it want to use competetive advantage to it's own benefit, after all Nvidia fuction is to bring money to it's shareholders and not to please people, but noone can deny that current situation is bad for us as consumers.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter