Everybody Loves PhysX!

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
AMD lacks Havok support ? In what way ?
You do know that Havok has been able to use GPU acceleration since 2006 ? It was used for about 6 months then it was determined that the GPU of the time were too slow compared to the cpu so they closed that department and focused on the cpu.

You mean Havok FX? As far as I know it never left the Havok lab, and certainly was never used in any game.
Besides, as the name itself says, it was for effects only, mainly some particles and things.
PhysX can't be compared to that, because it's a complete physics solution for the PPU/GPU, not just some eyecandy.
Cellfactor was an excellent example of that... it used tons of rigidbody collisions that a CPU (and as such Havok FX) could never handle.

Read what I said. It was never pursued because there was no benefit at the time. The main strength of physx is particles anyway, so in that way it and havok fx are a lot alike. Phys X is not a complete solution, despite what Nvidia wants to advertise. Have you ever tried to tie your animation rigging into the Physx api ? Its a bitch. You have to use translator programs to pass the data back and forth. Why do you think Nvidia is developing Apex ? It is because none of the people that had to do the animations like me wanted to use Physx because it just wasn't fun. I can load up Havok that has full plugins inside the actual applications, tie that in with the Havok behavior system, add the Havok AI, and apply the cloth simulations and I'm done. No tweaking it for hours on end because the different api from the game engine couldn't agree on a format to pass the data.

Cellfactor had tons of rigid body collisions ? They are nothing special. Now if they did lots and lots of ragdoll physics that would be more interesting.

Anyway , the point is developers don't spend lots of time on anything unless it is going to pay them back. Right now physics isn't that something.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
I don't think that CPU's are anywhere near powerful enough to handle advanced physics by themselves. Have you tried playing Mirror's Edge or the Cryostasis tech demo WITHOUT some sort of Physx accelerating hardware? Single number FPS...

Well they are and they aren't. It really depends on what is trying to be done. Remember these are API targeted at gaming. And while you can make a game level with tons of physics, curtains that blow in the wind, floor boards the bend when walked on , lighting that bounces around accurately, the question is always going to be how much work does it take to add those effects and is it going to be worth it in the end ? If I spent weeks to tweak the physics on a hallway that the player spent about 30 seconds running down, it wouldn't make sense.

I have yet to see a game where the physics actually made a difference in the game. So far it has just been an add on feature and to make the physics to the point that it does seriously change game play you have to have a reward for the work. Until people buy into the dedicated physics idea it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Read what I said.

I read what you said:
"You do know that Havok has been able to use GPU acceleration since 2006"
I found that rather misleading considering it was never actually used in an actual product.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Phys X is not a complete solution, despite what Nvidia wants to advertise. Have you ever tried to tie your animation rigging into the Physx api ? Its a bitch. You have to use translator programs to pass the data back and forth.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make though.
With PhysX you can do all kinds of effects, including interactive ones. Havok FX was specifically non-interactive.
Yes, Havok has a nice toolset, but you get to pay for that bigtime.
If nVidia can give you the same through Apex, but free, that'd be great.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Cellfactor had tons of rigid body collisions ? They are nothing special.

No, the point was that the rigidbody collisions were all interactive. As in: they were actual gameplay physics. Havok FX could never do that kind of GPU acceleration. It'd have to do it on the CPU, in which case you couldn't use anywhere near as many objects as Cellfactor did.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Read what I said.

I read what you said:
"You do know that Havok has been able to use GPU acceleration since 2006"
I found that rather misleading considering it was never actually used in an actual product.

I mentioned it because you are acting like physx is something revolutionary and it isn't. The reason they didn't and right now aren't killing themselves to make it work on a gpu is because the demand for it is just not there yet.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Phys X is not a complete solution, despite what Nvidia wants to advertise. Have you ever tried to tie your animation rigging into the Physx api ? Its a bitch. You have to use translator programs to pass the data back and forth.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make though.
With PhysX you can do all kinds of effects, including interactive ones. Havok FX was specifically non-interactive.
Yes, Havok has a nice toolset, but you get to pay for that bigtime.
If nVidia can give you the same through Apex, but free, that'd be great.

Havok SDK is free to download just like Physx. Both sell the source code. And APEX will not be free. These companies are not doing all this work for fun.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Cellfactor had tons of rigid body collisions ? They are nothing special.

No, the point was that the rigidbody collisions were all interactive. As in: they were actual gameplay physics. Havok FX could never do that kind of GPU acceleration. It'd have to do it on the CPU, in which case you couldn't use anywhere near as many objects as Cellfactor did.

Yep and we did it on the cpu years ago with games like Gun that used a api that was neither havok or physx and on a 1.8ghz p4 that also ran the engine and sound. Right now physics in games is like EAX was for sound. Everyone saying how people will pay big money to have that feature, when in reality those people that spend that kind of money on hardware are very small.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I mentioned it because you are acting like physx is something revolutionary and it isn't.

Well, I think it is, I've already gone over why I think Havok FX is not comparable.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The reason they didn't and right now aren't killing themselves to make it work on a gpu is because the demand for it is just not there yet.

And the fact that Intel owns Havok and doesn't have a GPU on the market yet wouldn't have any influence on it?

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Havok SDK is free to download just like Physx.

But is it free to use in a commercial product? I know PhysX is, last time I looked, I didn't think Havok was.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Yep and we did it on the cpu years ago with games like Gun that used a api that was neither havok or physx and on a 1.8ghz p4 that also ran the engine and sound.

Physics isn't new, but accelerating it on a PPU or GPU allows you to get WAY more detailed physics, and that's what makes the difference. You can get to a new level of realism.
CPU-based physics haven't really changed since Half-Life 2. It just doesn't scale well on CPUs.

 

[Skunkwourk]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: Azn
I miss nRollo.

If you miss him so much you can find him HERE or at rage3d forum, doing his usual thing...

From the forum

Can u PLEASE for the LOVE of GOD...just leave the ATI Subforum! PLEASE!

LOL!

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Physix? Oh lookit, the crate collapses exactly like a crate would in real life if I smacked it with a crowbar a few times, yay!

Cryostasis is currently the neatest implementation of Physix, it uses it to model individual flakes of snow that blow across the screen. Looks cool, but does it add anything? Nah. And until physix actually ADDS to the gameplay (IE: if you turn off the physics effects you lose something substantially important to the game) it's not going to be THAT important.

I keep seeing stuff like this, and while I'm pretty apathetic about PhysX in general, I think this is a poor logical argument. It's up to developers to utilize PhysX, and at this point they'd really be shooting themselves in the foot if they made a critical feature depend on it because they'd be drastically limiting the customer base capable of running the game. That kind of usage won't be plausible until a vast number of users have hardware that can support these features. Until then, a few people will just have to settle for some impressively-rendered curtains and snowflakes.

 

[Spike]

I'm not so sure about everyone loving physX but I doubt anyone would say they don't love physics, at least those represented in games. I can't wait for real physics effects (physX or otherwise) in a game that actually beats those in HL2 and really adds to the gameplay. At that point I'll have to decide if it's worth upgrading/changing cards if my current vid card (which happens to be an ATi) can't support it. As it is every example of PhysX I've seen has been pretty paltry and none where on games I actually wanted to play.

Here's to technological progress!

 

[n7]

Yup, everyone really loves it.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3558

That about sum up how much people care about it :roll:

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: n7
Yup, everyone really loves it.

82% Seems pretty damn good to me.
http://www.driverheaven.net/polls/poll-1198-a.html

Also check out this video of PhysX in Sacred 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTrEnFCoYNE

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7
Yup, everyone really loves it.

82% Seems pretty damn good to me.
http://www.driverheaven.net/polls/poll-1198-a.html

Also check out this video of PhysX in Sacred 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTrEnFCoYNE

Great, more eye candy (semi-sarcastic). It adds fluff, that's it. From this article:

To get all features at best quality one should have a GTX 280.

Since Sacred 2 has to stay playable without Physx effects and since it is not easy to synchronize Physx features via a Close Net Server structure, the GPU physics are restricted to optional effects. As our comparative pictures show this means: Particles, or mini objects like stones or leaves which are affected by the weather or spells. Those enhancements only affect the visualization and the atmosphere, but not the gameplay

Though neiter an Intel Quad nor Radeons can run PhysX effciently (or at all), hence:

Regardless of multiple optimizations on low graphics settings more than 4 fps were not possible with a Quad Crossfire setup on an Intel quad-core system

Hence you need a GTX280 for some extra leaves and particles that react to weather and good performance (they mention 25-60FPS) - woo-fcking-hoo.

That is so not worth it, unless you already own a card of similar power. I guess all the 8800GT/9800GT/9800GTX/GTX260 need to turn down the details (sic!) to get more details.

Not to mention the 8600GT/8800GS/9600GSO/9600GT - they probably won't be able to run PhysX at all. And the 8800/8600 series cards are most common, according to the Steam Hardware Survey. Great

As for the poll I could play Scali's card - "the mass usually doesn't know what's best for them" But I will say the forum was succesfully invigilated by nVidia PR folks. Not to mention the question is pretty vague - does it impress me (in general, the possibilities)? Yes. Does it impress me with its current implementation? Hell no.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Qbah

To get all features at best quality one should have a GTX 280.

How is this different from any game? I guarantee your card is not going to run Crysis at the best quality and highest resolution.

Either way...

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261/5

It's hard to dislike what Nvidia has done with PhysX. The company has taken an expensive niche product and given it to the masses for free, while at the same time giving game developers a replacement for the apparently defunct Havok FX API. Our brush with the ForceWare 177.79 driver release has shown that a sub-$150 graphics card can handle PhysX effects quite well

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: n7
Yup, everyone really loves it.

82% Seems pretty damn good to me.
http://www.driverheaven.net/polls/poll-1198-a.html

Also check out this video of PhysX in Sacred 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTrEnFCoYNE

The poll is a forum poll where people vote on anything they think will be cool regardless of its actual benefit. Do a poll on would you like flying cars ? you will get the same results


The youtube video you linked shows particle effects, and trees with bones. Nothing that requires physx.


If you really want to see something that will be changing games, then look at natural motions site. Endorphin is going to be huge and use neither physx or havok.

http://www.naturalmotion.com/downloads.htm

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
How is this different from any game? I guarantee your card is not going to run Crysis at the best quality and highest resolution.

Either way...

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15261/5

It's hard to dislike what Nvidia has done with PhysX. The company has taken an expensive niche product and given it to the masses for free, while at the same time giving game developers a replacement for the apparently defunct Havok FX API. Our brush with the ForceWare 177.79 driver release has shown that a sub-$150 graphics card can handle PhysX effects quite well

That conclusion is based on running UT3's PhysX enabled maps. UT3 isn't a demanding game in itself in the first place. Hence yes, a 150$ nVidia GPU can run those UT3 maps at an acceptable FPS - 9800GTX ran it fine last time I heard - I think it was keysplayr that tested it aswell. More demanding engines won't allow you to run PhysX together with regular effects if you don't have a high-end machine. So all those 8/9-series people are left in the cold.

As for Sacred 2, it means that most of the people won't be able to see those extra items from PhysX anyway, cause they don't have a GTX280. Most people run 8800/8600 class cards (that's from 8800GSO to 8800Ultra - according to the Steam Survey) meaning none of those cards will give you PhysX fluff and good framerates.

Ohh and I game on my Xbox360.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Qbah


Ohh and I game on my Xbox360.

So really none of this concerns you.

Like I said your card won't run a lot of games maxed out.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Qbah


Ohh and I game on my Xbox360.

So really none of this concerns you.

Like I said your card won't run a lot of games maxed out.

Me playing on a console means I am impartial. Unlike your blind, fanatical following everything that has nVidia on it. And my card won't run any game right now, since it's perma underclocked to 160/225 clocks - since I am not gaming on my PC anyway.

 

[Modelworks]

LOL, they updated the euphoria site with a new endorphin powered video.
This is the type of stuff I want to see in games.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Qbah


Ohh and I game on my Xbox360.

So really none of this concerns you.

Like I said your card won't run a lot of games maxed out.

Me playing on a console means I am impartial. Unlike your blind, fanatical following everything that has nVidia on it. And my card won't run any game right now, since it's perma underclocked to 160/225 clocks - since I am not gaming on my PC anyway.

I game on PCs, consoles and portables. What's your point? Why did you waste your money on a gaming card?

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
I game on PCs, consoles and portables. What's your point?

You're fanatically following nVidia, without proper reason promoting PhysX in its current underwhelming, inefficient and lackluster implementation. I get the occasional chance to play on GeForce cards, until recently I was also playing on my PC (that has a HD4870) - now I'm enjoying consoles. GPU-PhysX is a PC nVidia exclusive technology - and since your PC god is all green, your view is totaly biased and your information inaccurate most of the time.

Why did you waste your money on a gaming card?

That is something irrelevant in this thread.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
LOL, they updated the euphoria site with a new endorphin powered video.
This is the type of stuff I want to see in games.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

That's pretty cool. Do you know how much CPU power it takes in real world scenarios?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Modelworks
LOL, they updated the euphoria site with a new endorphin powered video.
This is the type of stuff I want to see in games.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

That's pretty cool. Do you know how much CPU power it takes in real world scenarios?

It is really low. I can do about 8 figures on screen at one time and use about 12% of cpu power on a 2.4ghz cpu , single core.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Modelworks
LOL, they updated the euphoria site with a new endorphin powered video.
This is the type of stuff I want to see in games.
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

That's pretty cool. Do you know how much CPU power it takes in real world scenarios?

It is really low. I can do about 8 figures on screen at one time and use about 12% of cpu power on a 2.4ghz cpu , single core.

That's impressive :^)

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Qbah


Ohh and I game on my Xbox360.

So really none of this concerns you.

Like I said your card won't run a lot of games maxed out.

? What does that have to do with anything? Your paltry GTX 260 won't either, so what? If it plays the games you want at the res/detail you want then great. I believe his point was that to experience physX effects in some games you need higher end hardware, hence his GTX 280 comment. So while my 8600GTS can handle some gaming it can't game + PhysX in pretty much anything. My 8800GTS 512 can handle both to a certain extent but most likely not in Sacred 2, even UT3 physX maps bog it down to the point I don't bother playing them.

That being said I don't think it takes away from the potential of good physics in games. If it requires stronger hardware it's just like most other graphical improvements such as shadows and AA. This is why we often pay alot for graphics cards, just so we can see all the latest bells and whistles in our games. While the price of admission has dropped recently (great cards at sub $300) it does not change the fact that we are enthusiasts and want the most from our games.

What I don't like is when these changes are not globally adapted, all we end up with is either half-baked implementation because the developers don't want to alienate a huge chunk of their potential customers or full on implementation and one competitor fades to dust. None of us, not even those of the green crowd, want that to happen. I remember paying $340 for my 8800GTS 512 not that long ago and it was not even a top card then. Getting cards for sub $175 now that can play just about anything maxed out at 1680x1050 is what I like and what I want to continue. A one company environment hurts everyone.

 

[Fenixgoon]

until physx proves to be useful and not completely rape framerates, i won't care about it in the least.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I keep seeing stuff like this, and while I'm pretty apathetic about PhysX in general, I think this is a poor logical argument. It's up to developers to utilize PhysX, and at this point they'd really be shooting themselves in the foot if they made a critical feature depend on it because they'd be drastically limiting the customer base capable of running the game. That kind of usage won't be plausible until a vast number of users have hardware that can support these features. Until then, a few people will just have to settle for some impressively-rendered curtains and snowflakes.

That's part of the problem, too. Until developers start to step-up and do hardcore physics integrated into the gameplay, AND make it a "must-have" triple-A title, Physx isn't going to go anywhere. Until somebody steps up to the plate, nobody else is willing to have a turn at bat.

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta

I own a Crossfire rig but I'll be damned if you don't find a Physx PPU inside...got it for only $20 too.

That's a "worth it" price. If I could find a PPU for $20, I'd have one too.