Answer to post in PhysX FAQ thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
Hi Keys!
Thanks for the late welcome.
To be honest, I feel that the whole summary above is made through some ATI/Nvidia googles. In my answer you'll see why.
There's a whole lot of us consumers who is interested in what GFX cards and technology can give us in games. We buy ATI and we buy Nvidia. We are not brand loyal and we are part of the community. Then there is people who wants everyone to be loyal to either ATI or Nvidia. In the post above, you are trying to assosiate with such and discredit me with it. I'm not an ATI or a Nvidia "focus group member" and don't get anything for free. I'm a community member. I'll get on with the posts you were reading through ATI/Nvidia googles:
Post 1:
I am declaring that I am uncertain of the purpouse of a "driver ATI vs. Nvidia thread" made by a Nvidia focus member. Its natural to be sceptic and have reservations of the purpose. FUD is a widely used marketing tool. Was this thread made to spread FUD about ATI or a genuine thread made for community benifit regardless of brand? I hoped for the last and joined the thread with reservations. What is "Nvidia focus group"? Something like this?:
http://consumerist.com/consume...den-program-153378.php
Can you be trusted as objective, non-fud spreading members, or are you just PR advocates for Nvidia who gets hardware for free? Can you blame people for being sceptical as you did above?
Post 2:
Any findings where personal experience is presented as a general fact doesn't count as evidence in my book. Its not a belitteling of DW's findings, since he himself doesn't state it as a general fact the way "Nvidia focus group" members present it. I don't even know if DW approves of the usage of Nvidia FG members. The irony in this, is that the same people who takes his word as a general fact at the same time denied the Nvidia issues of Vista in 2007 even though DW mentioned it in the same text. I don't want to necro that thread which is closed, but its ironic how statistics where tried to be dismissed. The only statistics that exists when it comes to drivers. Nvidia had 30% of Vista crashes in 2007 and they topped the statistics with crashes even when accounting market share:
http://www.jonpeddie.com/about...2008-gpu-shipments.php
Still, it was dismissed as evidence by Nvidia FG members, while at the same time, a single persons personal experience is touted as a general fact.
Post 3:
I wasn't introducing Havok into a PhysX faq thread, but showing the facts with links of why ATI would refuse to help HGOHQ. Something that you debated in the same thread. What I offered was the facts as mentioned by ATI themselves regarding PhysX, what you offer, is a negative remark that ATI refuses to help NGOHQ. If you would have any kind of objectivity in that thread and if it was anything but a Nvidia advertisment, you would have updated the FAQ with "why doesn't ATI support PhysX". You have the facts, but refuses to use them. Because it might not help hyping up PhysX? Doesn't help the community a bit refusing to put into the FAQ why ATI doesn't support PhysX and what their choices are instead. You are purpously leaving out information for Nvidia PR sake, isn't that true?
Post 4:
That post wasn't about DX10.1 at all, but rather about your post from that guy that talkes about Havok only being about decals on walls. Sounded very much like "Dx10.1 doesn't bring anything of significance" crap that was spread and reality was 30% increase with AA in AC (all reviews tests GFX cards with AA). Thats like saying that: Nvidia's next generation of GFX cards doesn't bring anything of significance (since they only bring performance increase). That you actually chose to quote that guy suprised me, since he shows no knowledge when it comes to physics engines at all.
Post 5:
Thats what you interpete. You tried to make Havok about decals and are hyping up PhysX to the unrecogisable in that thread. Havok is MUCH bigger and more widespread then PhysX. You are the one that continued discussing Havok after my first post which was an answer to the NGOHQ and why ATI doesn't support PhysX at all. You even tried to make PhysX seem big with some links to a few developers supporting PhysX. I just showed you that the same developers and 100 more are already supporting Havok. Havok for me isn't about ATI. All I've read about it, is about getting a physics engine for EVERYONE. Not a propritary one that PhysX is. I don't give a crap about your ATI/Nvidia PR in general, I only care about the info spread being correct and not some FUD spreading PR or hyping of something thats not so big. I think PhysX will die, given the competing solution and the massive support. I have given a good set of evidence to support my belief.
Post 6&7:
Is nothing more then genuine interest in Ambient Occlusion. All my post there has been about seeing what it can bring us. The OP only showed pictures from 2007. I like interesting features that can have potensial and this is definetly one.
The PhysX FAQ in general:
The idea is good. Its "new" in a way and many people have questions. But, its lacking in many ways:
1. It gives no good introduction to PhysX at all.
2. Its constructed more to hype up PhysX and Nvidia then to give general information. This is because the lack of general information in it. The purpose of FAQ's are usually that they give information to frequent asked questions. Meaning, it should contain what people would like to know when reading up about PhysX. This thread contains whatever you can find that would be good advertisment for PhysX and some that might give bad light to ATI if written so (about the NGOHQ). The thread was created in August 2008 and the progress is so little that its not worthy to be sticky anymore IMHO unless its filled out with a little more info.
3. Get information a bit more correct and objective. You know why ATI doesn't support PhysX, I have showed you why from ATI's own mouth in the PhysX thread. ATI supports competing Havok. If you take off Nvidia/ATI googles, its not Nvidia vs. ATI here. Its Havok vs. PhysX. If you want an objective thread about PhysX to benifit consumers and AT members, you should include Havok in it as well and measure them up against each other. Unless you want the FAQ only to be an advertisment for PhysX.
An example of incorrect information is Unreal Tournament 3. The game itself doesn't support PhysX. There is a UT3 PhysX MOD where you can get PhysX on 3 new maps (no support in the original game). Originally this was made by Aegia:
http://www.fileplanet.com/1826...X-Extreme-UT3-Mod-Pack . As it stands now, its misleading.
On second thought, perhaps I should make a Havok Physics FAQ thread that can be stickied under the PhysX thread to give members a bit broader perspective? As the PhysX thread stands now, its only a free advertisment for Nvidia which only hypes the PhysX without putting it into perspective... Probably good for Nvidia and its focus group members, but not for community which is more about choices then anything else.
Oh come on now... Don't create a new thread just to reply to someone's post in another thread. If you want to create a new thread for people to discuss Havok vs PhysX, etc, feel free, but this thread is just a point-by-point response to the quoted post.
- AmberClad (Video Mod)
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Hmmmm.
You have 7 posts as of this moment. Mind you, it's not the quantity of your posts that send up warning flags, but what all 7 posts are about.
Post Cliff Notes: Two out of the 3 threads you posted in were started by FG members.
-------------
Post 1: Uses FG member as a way to reduce credibility
------------
Post 2: Belittles the significance of Derek Wilsons findings.
-------------
Post 3: Introduces Havok into a PhysX F.A.Q. thread after putting a PR spin on why ATI refused to help NGOHQ.
-------------
Post 4: Introduces a DX10.1 argument into a PhysX F.A.Q. thread and continues with the superiority of Havok
-------------
Post 5: PhysX is nothing. Useless. Havok is everything good and superior.
--------------
Post 6&7: Seems you are now making your way to the Nvidia 185.20 Ambient Occlusion drivers thread.
--------------
"Hi all!
Long time reader, first time poster.
are concerned about how your first post would be received, especially it's context or motivations.
All this aside, I appreciate your arguments. But would you mind starting another thread with your stance on Havok vs. PhysX, Nvidia Drivers, and so on and so forth? This is basically a PhysX F.A.Q.
I'm not really thrilled about it becoming a PhysX vs. Havok war zone. A dedicated thread for this would be great.
Much appreciated.
Oh, and welcome to AT forums (belated I know)
Keys
Hi Keys!
Thanks for the late welcome.
To be honest, I feel that the whole summary above is made through some ATI/Nvidia googles. In my answer you'll see why.
There's a whole lot of us consumers who is interested in what GFX cards and technology can give us in games. We buy ATI and we buy Nvidia. We are not brand loyal and we are part of the community. Then there is people who wants everyone to be loyal to either ATI or Nvidia. In the post above, you are trying to assosiate with such and discredit me with it. I'm not an ATI or a Nvidia "focus group member" and don't get anything for free. I'm a community member. I'll get on with the posts you were reading through ATI/Nvidia googles:
Post 1:
I am declaring that I am uncertain of the purpouse of a "driver ATI vs. Nvidia thread" made by a Nvidia focus member. Its natural to be sceptic and have reservations of the purpose. FUD is a widely used marketing tool. Was this thread made to spread FUD about ATI or a genuine thread made for community benifit regardless of brand? I hoped for the last and joined the thread with reservations. What is "Nvidia focus group"? Something like this?:
http://consumerist.com/consume...den-program-153378.php
Can you be trusted as objective, non-fud spreading members, or are you just PR advocates for Nvidia who gets hardware for free? Can you blame people for being sceptical as you did above?
Post 2:
Any findings where personal experience is presented as a general fact doesn't count as evidence in my book. Its not a belitteling of DW's findings, since he himself doesn't state it as a general fact the way "Nvidia focus group" members present it. I don't even know if DW approves of the usage of Nvidia FG members. The irony in this, is that the same people who takes his word as a general fact at the same time denied the Nvidia issues of Vista in 2007 even though DW mentioned it in the same text. I don't want to necro that thread which is closed, but its ironic how statistics where tried to be dismissed. The only statistics that exists when it comes to drivers. Nvidia had 30% of Vista crashes in 2007 and they topped the statistics with crashes even when accounting market share:
http://www.jonpeddie.com/about...2008-gpu-shipments.php
Still, it was dismissed as evidence by Nvidia FG members, while at the same time, a single persons personal experience is touted as a general fact.
Post 3:
I wasn't introducing Havok into a PhysX faq thread, but showing the facts with links of why ATI would refuse to help HGOHQ. Something that you debated in the same thread. What I offered was the facts as mentioned by ATI themselves regarding PhysX, what you offer, is a negative remark that ATI refuses to help NGOHQ. If you would have any kind of objectivity in that thread and if it was anything but a Nvidia advertisment, you would have updated the FAQ with "why doesn't ATI support PhysX". You have the facts, but refuses to use them. Because it might not help hyping up PhysX? Doesn't help the community a bit refusing to put into the FAQ why ATI doesn't support PhysX and what their choices are instead. You are purpously leaving out information for Nvidia PR sake, isn't that true?
Post 4:
That post wasn't about DX10.1 at all, but rather about your post from that guy that talkes about Havok only being about decals on walls. Sounded very much like "Dx10.1 doesn't bring anything of significance" crap that was spread and reality was 30% increase with AA in AC (all reviews tests GFX cards with AA). Thats like saying that: Nvidia's next generation of GFX cards doesn't bring anything of significance (since they only bring performance increase). That you actually chose to quote that guy suprised me, since he shows no knowledge when it comes to physics engines at all.
Post 5:
Thats what you interpete. You tried to make Havok about decals and are hyping up PhysX to the unrecogisable in that thread. Havok is MUCH bigger and more widespread then PhysX. You are the one that continued discussing Havok after my first post which was an answer to the NGOHQ and why ATI doesn't support PhysX at all. You even tried to make PhysX seem big with some links to a few developers supporting PhysX. I just showed you that the same developers and 100 more are already supporting Havok. Havok for me isn't about ATI. All I've read about it, is about getting a physics engine for EVERYONE. Not a propritary one that PhysX is. I don't give a crap about your ATI/Nvidia PR in general, I only care about the info spread being correct and not some FUD spreading PR or hyping of something thats not so big. I think PhysX will die, given the competing solution and the massive support. I have given a good set of evidence to support my belief.
Post 6&7:
Is nothing more then genuine interest in Ambient Occlusion. All my post there has been about seeing what it can bring us. The OP only showed pictures from 2007. I like interesting features that can have potensial and this is definetly one.
The PhysX FAQ in general:
The idea is good. Its "new" in a way and many people have questions. But, its lacking in many ways:
1. It gives no good introduction to PhysX at all.
2. Its constructed more to hype up PhysX and Nvidia then to give general information. This is because the lack of general information in it. The purpose of FAQ's are usually that they give information to frequent asked questions. Meaning, it should contain what people would like to know when reading up about PhysX. This thread contains whatever you can find that would be good advertisment for PhysX and some that might give bad light to ATI if written so (about the NGOHQ). The thread was created in August 2008 and the progress is so little that its not worthy to be sticky anymore IMHO unless its filled out with a little more info.
3. Get information a bit more correct and objective. You know why ATI doesn't support PhysX, I have showed you why from ATI's own mouth in the PhysX thread. ATI supports competing Havok. If you take off Nvidia/ATI googles, its not Nvidia vs. ATI here. Its Havok vs. PhysX. If you want an objective thread about PhysX to benifit consumers and AT members, you should include Havok in it as well and measure them up against each other. Unless you want the FAQ only to be an advertisment for PhysX.
An example of incorrect information is Unreal Tournament 3. The game itself doesn't support PhysX. There is a UT3 PhysX MOD where you can get PhysX on 3 new maps (no support in the original game). Originally this was made by Aegia:
http://www.fileplanet.com/1826...X-Extreme-UT3-Mod-Pack . As it stands now, its misleading.
On second thought, perhaps I should make a Havok Physics FAQ thread that can be stickied under the PhysX thread to give members a bit broader perspective? As the PhysX thread stands now, its only a free advertisment for Nvidia which only hypes the PhysX without putting it into perspective...
Probably good for Nvidia and its focus group members, but not for community which is more about choices then anything else.Oh come on now... Don't create a new thread just to reply to someone's post in another thread. If you want to create a new thread for people to discuss Havok vs PhysX, etc, feel free, but this thread is just a point-by-point response to the quoted post.
- AmberClad (Video Mod)
Facebook
Twitter