Hawken, holy gpu physx!

[ICDP]

No, I'll stand by my original statement and say it's high time AMD paid Nvidia for their PhysX coding. Nvidia didn't get it for free, and developing it hasn't been free either.

HD4000 and below, you can't be serious...

I would say it's 50% Nvidia's fault for buying proprietary code, 100% AMD's fault for expecting everyone else to do the leg work for them, and 1000% Intels fault for laughing in AMD's face when they bought Havok and shut Havok FX down.

There are only two players in the GPU arena. If AMD licensed PhysX what is stopping Nvidia from charging extortionate prices once it was adopted as the defacto standard? After all, as you aptly demonstrated, AMD have been sucked in like this before. Can you blame them for not trusting Nvidia? Once bitten and so forth.

 

[3DVagabond]

It would be pointless asking to be honest, they are hardly going to say "we think OpenCL is amazing". Like I said above Nvidia are way too committed to PhysX to willingly adopt a different standard.

If more devs use it though they'll have to address their performance deficiency. This is why open standards are good. You get competition with them. With PhysX they can actually use it to drop performance to entice you to buy newer/faster hardware. As well as dangle it like a carrot for those who don't own nVidia hardware.

 

[Pia]

So can you turn these effects on and off individually?

Hawken looks like a total crapshoot, the equivalent of the first 3D movies that just had to throw a flying object in your face every five minutes. You can tell the Hawken crew just can't resist pushing these effects whenever they can, and they always overdo it.

Spinning generator floaty particles: looks great! I unquestionably like this one.
Impact debris: looks good and enhances the scene, but looks fake mainly due to overdoing the particle count. It would look more convincing if they cut the particles by half. If there's horsepower to spare, maybe change the particles' type based on impact surface, vary their size to produce a more convincing effect, etc.
Mech death embers: atrocious, what's with the random floatiness? I'd definitely turn this thing off, the death animation looks better without it. Shame. I'd love to see a nice PhysX fire and smoke effect here, but what they did is just copy-paste some APEX Turbulence in there and forget about it.
Walking debris: again too pronounced effect, again too much floatiness, overdoing it. Not horrible, but I think I'd like to turn this off too. If they made it subtler by giving the debris twice as much mass so the bounce/float is lessened, it would look much nicer and really give weight to the visuals. Maybe replace some "debris" particles with very subtle "dust cloud" particles which can float like the debris particles currently do.
Magnetic shield effect: no, no, no. Make the particles fade really fast, and travel around the shield in slightly random circular orbit around the shield bubble... or something like that. The looong and floaty animation totally robs visual impact from the hits and looks bad. Would turn this off for sure.
Health orb embers: looks too much like all the other floaty particles in the game. Maybe constrain the particles in a smaller volume, use transparency and larger particles or something to make it look like a living semi-solid ball instead of a bunch of floaty particles around the regular effect. As is, it doesn't look terrible but not good either.

Borderlands 2 PhysX demo looks great. BL2 appears to use a huge amount of particles like Hawken (maybe more), but they do not look out of place in BL2's abstract visual design. Also, PhysX demo of Planetside 2 has floating shiny particles much like Hawken's, but they are far more refined, seem to be used more sparingly, and make the game look better. Of earlier games I remember Mirror's Edge making good use of PhysX. It never threw effects at you and screamed "here's some physics! see that? see that?"; instead it just looked more alive in many places.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Why would AMD pay NV in order to be at the whim of NV, when it doesn't really benefit them at all except by having a tiny bit of added stuff in about a dozen games over 6 years?

You can't have it both ways. AMD is already at the whim of the industry, what's the difference?

You say we need both companies to have more integrated PhysX, and as such more titles that support it since everyone will have access to it. Thus it wouldn't be a dozen games over the next six years given a basic understanding of why people want it opened up in the first place.

Tiny bit 🙄 Why is it that this and every other PhysX thread turns into a super massive 10+ page thread? It's so bad, yet anytime it's brought up people come out of the woodwork to bash it.

And no, I didn't say HD4000 and below, I said in the future, as in, HD4000 is slow... but Intel integrated GPUs will get faster. Or did you not work that out when I said Intel was partly to blame and talked about FUTURE Intel GPUs?

Almost every modern PC comes with a free GPU which supports OpenCL, for example.

I see future all over that sentence, future denial, cap locking, and insults imminent.

NV bought PhysX in order to sell GPU. The indications of the fact they are only doing software support in the PS4 means that they only want to use it to sell GPUs, not to advance gaming. So they are doing just as much as Intel did shutting down HavokFX.

lol... what other kind of support is there? Isn't it all just software? Don't you mean accelerated PhysX? The kind that is currently coded in CUDA? They advance the gaming of anyone using their products :thumbsup:

Nvidia, like AMD is a cooperation, with R&D costs, share holders, and an overall agenda to make money. We're not discussing charities, which is what you're asking for. You want someone else to do the leg work, then give AMD access to it for nothing. Welcome to the real world I guess, things don't work that way in competitive cooperate America.

They are also contradicting half the people here. Apparently (based on the investigation in what I linked above), you can use PhysX for game changing and immersive stuff using a CPU! Doesn't need a GPU at all, which is why they aren't supporting GPU PhysX on the PS4.

Most of the code uses the CPU, this isn't news at all. They even have settings to enable some PhysX effects for people not using Nvidia cards :thumbsup:

Hopefully developers will decide to use a more AMD friendly physics engine that actually allows them to push various aspects of the consoles processors, rather than the restrictive PhysX which apparently will be CPU only in the PS4 at least.

Hopefully it does more than a ponytail for 40% performance hits.

Blame AMD because NV don't want to make PhysX work on AMD GPUs, even when AMD GPUs are in both major consoles? Yeah, sure.
Blame NV when PhysX fails because developers use physics engines that support AMD GPUs that are used in both major next gen consoles? OK.

I'm sure Nvidia is aware of the stakes, so far nobody can touch it, nobody else as a GPU accelerated physics system for PCs. I'm sure they've all ready run the gambit of hashing this out internally, most likely PhysX has already paid for itself.

There are only two players in the GPU arena. If AMD licensed PhysX what is stopping Nvidia from charging extortionate prices once it was adopted as the defacto standard? After all, as you aptly demonstrated, AMD have been sucked in like this before. Can you blame them for not trusting Nvidia? Once bitten and so forth.

A contract...

 

[SirPauly]

GPU PhysX in Hawken If AMD licensed PhysX what is stopping Nvidia from charging extortionate prices once it was adopted as the defacto standard?

I don't think the license is the problem and try to explain:

Remember AMD contacted Intel so they could port Havok to OpenCL?

I think AMD contacted nVidia so they could port PhysX to OpenCL. AMD had quiet PhysX talks with nVidia.

PhysX middleware is not the problem to AMD but Cuda is but why? They could license it -- no problem!

But, there is, because how can AMD work with improving Cuda if they don't have any say so and controlled strictly by nVidia? What stops nVidia for changing things and going in another direction? It may not be wise for AMD to invest heavily into Cuda development and place their precious resources on more open standards.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

~

Is there any proof GCN or any other AMD gpu can run CUDA?

Isn't that like asking a 1090T to run AVX?

 

[parvadomus]

I think they could, its just the licence what matters. CUDA is nothing more than a software layer, or API.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD might as well hold a gun to their corporate heads and pull the trigger as license nVidia IP.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Why not, licensing x86 worked out, well um, okish?

 

[DaveSimmons]

I have a GTX 680.

I liked some of the effects and not others -- the twisty fire ribbons looked weird. The walking debris looked odd because the pavement magically reformed a step behind. Dust puffs would have made more sense.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Why not, licensing x86 worked out, well um, okish?

Well, they basicly stole a permanent x86 lincense due to clever legal shenaningans...so it worked like a charm for AMD...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Well, they basicly stole a permanent x86 lincense due to clever legal shenaningans...so it worked like a charm for AMD...

By "clever legal shenanigans" you mean Intel getting busted for abusing their monopoly power? After which they did it again, and had to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle?

 

[Lonbjerg]

By "clever legal shenanigans" you mean Intel getting busted for abusing their monopoly power? After which they did it again, and had to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle?

Nope, but nice try.
You need to go futher back.

 

[Will Robinson]

Yes,that's what he means....except he meant to spell it "license":whiste:

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks the announcement of physx and apex on the ps4 means GPU physx on the ps4. All it will be are the same implementations of CPU physx for collision detection and maybe cloth simulation on one character in games already. Gpu physx will be dead as soon as nvidias current deals are released unless they port to direct compute or open cl.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Nope, but nice try.
You need to go futher back.

The 1991 license grant was because of Intel's first monopoly abuse attempt. The $1.5 bn in settlements was from monopoly abuse this century. What non monopoly shenanigans are you talking about then?

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD has an x86 license because of IBM.

 

[Final8ty]

So can you turn these effects on and off individually?

Hawken looks like a total crapshoot, the equivalent of the first 3D movies that just had to throw a flying object in your face every five minutes. You can tell the Hawken crew just can't resist pushing these effects whenever they can, and they always overdo it.

Spinning generator floaty particles: looks great! I unquestionably like this one.
Impact debris: looks good and enhances the scene, but looks fake mainly due to overdoing the particle count. It would look more convincing if they cut the particles by half. If there's horsepower to spare, maybe change the particles' type based on impact surface, vary their size to produce a more convincing effect, etc.
Mech death embers: atrocious, what's with the random floatiness? I'd definitely turn this thing off, the death animation looks better without it. Shame. I'd love to see a nice PhysX fire and smoke effect here, but what they did is just copy-paste some APEX Turbulence in there and forget about it.
Walking debris: again too pronounced effect, again too much floatiness, overdoing it. Not horrible, but I think I'd like to turn this off too. If they made it subtler by giving the debris twice as much mass so the bounce/float is lessened, it would look much nicer and really give weight to the visuals. Maybe replace some "debris" particles with very subtle "dust cloud" particles which can float like the debris particles currently do.
Magnetic shield effect: no, no, no. Make the particles fade really fast, and travel around the shield in slightly random circular orbit around the shield bubble... or something like that. The looong and floaty animation totally robs visual impact from the hits and looks bad. Would turn this off for sure.
Health orb embers: looks too much like all the other floaty particles in the game. Maybe constrain the particles in a smaller volume, use transparency and larger particles or something to make it look like a living semi-solid ball instead of a bunch of floaty particles around the regular effect. As is, it doesn't look terrible but not good either.

+1

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

That is a good point though considering how vast individuals subjective tastes and tolerances are; as PhysX matures and evolves, will there be flexibility on how much physx effect an individual likes or is this more the artistic vision of the developer and may be left alone?

I like the death embers based on energy embers left the mech and are effected -- swirling around.

I like the debris particles when it is moving based it gives the mech scale based on its size and weight --and the different debris particles are effected by other forces.

 

[Lonyo]

Nope, but nice try.
You need to go futher back.

So far back it's irrelevant, because anyone can use base x86 these days, because it's >20 years old.

 

[Lonyo]

You can't have it both ways. AMD is already at the whim of the industry, what's the difference?

You say we need both companies to have more integrated PhysX, and as such more titles that support it since everyone will have access to it. Thus it wouldn't be a dozen games over the next six years given a basic understanding of why people want it opened up in the first place.

Tiny bit 🙄 Why is it that this and every other PhysX thread turns into a super massive 10+ page thread? It's so bad, yet anytime it's brought up people come out of the woodwork to bash it.


I see future all over that sentence, future denial, cap locking, and insults imminent.



lol... what other kind of support is there? Isn't it all just software? Don't you mean accelerated PhysX? The kind that is currently coded in CUDA? They advance the gaming of anyone using their products :thumbsup:

Nvidia, like AMD is a cooperation, with R&D costs, share holders, and an overall agenda to make money. We're not discussing charities, which is what you're asking for. You want someone else to do the leg work, then give AMD access to it for nothing. Welcome to the real world I guess, things don't work that way in competitive cooperate America.

Most of the code uses the CPU, this isn't news at all. They even have settings to enable some PhysX effects for people not using Nvidia cards :thumbsup:

Hopefully it does more than a ponytail for 40% performance hits.

I'm sure Nvidia is aware of the stakes, so far nobody can touch it, nobody else as a GPU accelerated physics system for PCs. I'm sure they've all ready run the gambit of hashing this out internally, most likely PhysX has already paid for itself.

A contract...

AMD is at the whim of the industry.NV isn't the industry, it's their competitor. pretty big difference, anyone can understand that.

Yes, games give an understanding of why people want it opened up, so do long threads.
But NV is the one who needs to do the opening up, or soon PhysX will become irrelevant because someone else WILL make something that works on AMD GPUs because then they can sell it to all the PS4 and Xbox 720 developers and say "hey, our physics is awesome".

Pretty sure you're the one doing a personal attack. I clearly indicated I wasn't talking about Intel's current GPUs in my original post.

and were looking at the future, they would see a time when Intel GPUs can somewhat capably perform OpenCL and DirectCompute calculations

Not the use of the world future, and a discussion of a time when Intel IGP can run OpenCL and DC. Pretty clear from that, surely, that I am not talking about current Intel hardware. And then you say I will resort to personal attacks because you didn't read what I wrote?

Playing semantics about hardware vs software is irrelevant and doesn't help the discussion.
If you really want, most graphics engines are software too, they require the CPU in order to do lots of things, so hey, they are just like PhysX so lets say all graphics engines are software.
Going back to the old "PhysX runs on everything" is getting stale. Clearly in these threads the discussion is about GPU accelerated PhysX, so why bother talking about the CPU element which people know exists, and is only comparable to other offerings on the market, and doesn't offer anything extra?

I already said, various times, that NV is in it to make money, including in the post you quoted, so I'm not sure why you're telling me what I already said, but that's another reason these threads go to 10 pages. People tell each other what they have already said, or people have to say things over and over because others don't read, like the future part.

I've also already said the TressFX hit is ridiculous, bu they, it will probably run on PS4 and Xbox 720, as well as an AMD PC GPU or an NV PC GPU! So that's +1 point over PhysX.

As far as the stakes and what people can touch, the next gen consoles use AMD GPUs. NV seem to be going CPU only with PhysX for the PS4 at least. Let's see what can touch what in 3 more years (after another 4 PhysX games have been released).

 

[Lonbjerg]

So far back it's irrelevant, because anyone can use base x86 these days, because it's >20 years old.

So because it happend a long time ago...I should just forget it? LOL

And I should be gratefull that instead of moving on from X86, AMD's AMD64 made us stuck on x86?

I don't see AMD as a "positive"....quite the opposite.

 

[Reticula]

SirPauly

Zogrim offering his comparison video with Hawken:
GPU PhysX in Hawken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=pC6nIW1ji9s
Really enjoy his artistic flair with these videos!

Sorry, was forced to take that down since YouTube has messed it up a little.

Here is the right one 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAlC3VSN4Ks

--------------
Sorry, Lonbjerg, I can't send private messages until I'll get 25 posts =)
I haven't experienced any audio sync issues so far. However, I never uploaded RAW fraps footage. I currently rendering videos with WMV V9 6Bps profile (Audio: 192 Kbps, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, WMA9).

 

[omeds]

SirPauly
Sorry, was forced to take that down since YouTube has messed it up a little.

Here is the right one 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAlC3VSN4Ks

--------------
Sorry, Lonbjerg, I can't send private messages until I'll get 25 posts =)
I haven't experienced any audio sync issues so far. However, I never uploaded RAW fraps footage. I currently rendering videos with WMV V9 6Bps profile (Audio: 192 Kbps, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, WMA9).

Thanks. I don't like the rubble coming from under the mechs feet when walking, but apart from that it all looks very good imo.

 

[NTMBK]

Is there any proof GCN or any other AMD gpu can run CUDA?

Isn't that like asking a 1090T to run AVX?

The majority of CUDA should work fine. Some of the newer features might not, but these are already limited in which NVidia cards they work on so it's not a stretch.