hypothetical: nvidia in a console -> more physX titles?

[Lonbjerg]

I expected this kind of nonsense response from you...I specifically said GPU pHYSx in it's less than 5 games a year 'popularity' is crap.

The CPU PhysX is fine in my view and very useful.

Are you one of the people that errornousonly label only GPU-PhysX games a "physX-games"?

 

[toyota]

How do you define a game as an "physX" game?
I think you are a bit confused...perhaps delusional?

You don't think these qualify as PhysX games?
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=cpu

You only think these are PhysX games?
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

That would explain you^r error...the other "explanation" isn't so...well...flattering ^^

we all know physx is a physics engine and even you know damn well this thread is about gpu aka hardware level physx effects.

 

[Lonbjerg]

For the love of all that's pretty...It LOOKS like crap whether there is a competing solution or not it just looks awful and tacked on.

Better to have nothing than something that distracts and ruins the immersion.

Subjective fuzzy warm feelings make poor arguments...we are to obey your views as facts now? :whiste:

 

[boxleitnerb]

For the love of all that's pretty...It LOOKS like crap whether there is a competing solution or not it just looks awful and tacked on.

Better to have nothing than something that distracts and ruins the immersion.

That is your opinion, not an objective fact. PhysX increases immersion for me in Batman AA, Batman AC, Borderlands 2 and Cryostasis. I've also seen videos from Sacred 2 which look really cool. I cannot find any distraction in the games I play. The only bad example I could think of is Mafia 2 which is a bit overdone.

I would like to see 10x as many games with those effects, even if those are only available to Nvidia customers. Because that would accelerate the drive for innovation and finally force an open solution when devs see that people like it and what can be done with it.

 

[NIGELG]

Are you one of the people that errornousonly label only GPU-PhysX games a "physX-games"?

Is it possible for you to grasp that we are talking about GPU hardware accelerated physX here and not the ones done on the CPU?

 

[Lonbjerg]

we all know physx is a physics engine and even you know damn well this thread is about gpu aka hardware level physx effects.

You cannot seperate the two.
Well...if you are uninformed, never used a PshyX SDK and not very TI competent...perhaps.

But, again, there is no CPU-physx and GPU-PhysX.

There is only PhysX.
The code is the same...only diffrence between running it on CPU vs a GPU is...TA-DAAA: performance


It's like the creationists fallacy of micro- and macro-evolution.

It's all evolution...but facts seldom goes well with people posting from emotions...not facts.

 

[Silverforce11]

In which games can I find these effects based on OpenCL? Surely you can name some
Of course PhysX effects are just visual. That is self-evident and was never contested. PhysX is about visual fidelity, nothing more, nothing less.

Why do we need GPU based physics? Because hundreds/thousands of threads vs. 6-8 threads. If you have many particles (we're talking 100k+ here for fluids and gases), the CPU most likely will not cut it.

OpenCL, not yet. But DC and Tessellation to improve visual fidelity.. there's plenty.

You could do thousands of particles and lightning sources that reflect of each other, look at BF3's implementation of smoke particles (Video on AnandTech here). Looks better than anything PhysX has done in games. As for lighting sources, DC and Forward+ can handle thousands of dynamic lights.

So if PhysX is just to improve visuals, there's already standard APIs in directx11 that offer these features. Hence, this is why PhysX is doing poorly with a few games a year.

 

[Lonbjerg]

OpenCL, not yet. But DC and Tessellation to improve visual fidelity.. there's plenty.

You could do thousands of particles and lightning sources that reflect of each other, look at BF3's implementation of smoke particles (Video on AnandTech here). Looks better than anything PhysX has done in games. As for lighting sources, DC and Forward+ can handle thousands of dynamic lights.

So if PhysX is just to improve visuals, there's already standard APIs in directx11 that offer these features. Hence, this is why PhysX is doing poorly with a few games a year.

Care to show me a video of said "best smoke ever"?

And gain, do you only count GPU PhysX games as PhysX games...you are being intellectual dishonest...

 

[toyota]

You cannot seperate the two.
Well...if you are uninformed, never used a PshyX SDK and not very TI competent...perhaps.

But, again, there is no CPU-physx and GPU-PhysX.

There is only PhysX.
The code is the same...only diffrence between running it on CPU vs a GPU is...TA-DAAA: performance


It's like the creationists fallacy of micro- and macro-evolution.

It's all evolution...but facts seldom goes well with people posting from emotions...not facts.

you are making a fool of yourself at this point. of course you can separate the two. physx is a physics engine like any other that can sometimes incorporate optional hardware level of effects.

 

[boxleitnerb]

OpenCL, not yet. But DC and Tessellation to improve visual fidelity.. there's plenty.

You could do thousands of particles and lightning sources that reflect of each other, look at BF3's implementation of smoke particles (Video on AnandTech here). Looks better than anything PhysX has done in games. As for lighting sources, DC and Forward+ can handle thousands of dynamic lights.

So if PhysX is just to improve visuals, there's already standard APIs in directx11 that offer these features. Hence, this is why PhysX is doing poorly with a few games a year.

But it's not being used. BF3's smoke - is it interactive and dynamic? DC and Tessellation, what have they to do with interactive dynamic physics effects?

"Already?" We have almost 2013. GPU-PhysX has been around for years. DC and DX11 are there, but they are not being used for physics, just "normal" graphic effects.

Let me give you examples of what I envision:

A game like Skyrim, morning fog. An explosion/spell that pushes the fog away or ground fog being pushed away by running through it (like seen in Lord of the Rings before they find the Army of the Dead) and then closing again behind them.

It's raining. Rain drops are falling onto objects in the world, coalescing, obeying gravity and forming streams that run down gradients. Every time it rains the water behaves different.

 

[NIGELG]

You cannot seperate the two.

Now I've heard everything.

 

[Silverforce11]

Care to show me a video of said "best smoke ever"?

And gain, do you only count GPU PhysX games as PhysX games...you are being intellectual dishonest...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5011/nvidiaea-posts-battlefield-3-graphics-tech-talk

Effects video, 3:00 onwards.

We are talking about GPU accelerated visual fidelity PhysX in here, if you don't want to talk about it, make another thread.

 

[Lonbjerg]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5011/nvidiaea-posts-battlefield-3-graphics-tech-talk

Effects video, 3:00 onwards.

We are talking about GPU accelerated visual fidelity PhysX in here, if you don't want to talk about it, make another thread.

I see nothing but a tech talk.
You got a gameplay of this high fidelity, interactive smoke?

Because your words don't carry any weight in this regard...to many factual false claims from your side, sorry.

 

[Lonbjerg]

you are making a fool of yourself at this point. of course you can separate the two. physx is a physics engine like any other that can sometimes incorporate optional hardware level of effects.

That is false.
I take it you have never used PhysX yourself and thus are speaking form general ignorance....but you are mistaken, but I'll bite:

Name the effects only capable of running via GPU-physX (and not CPU-physX?

 

[Silverforce11]

It's actual gameplay. The tech talk is to explain whats going on behind gameplay. You haven't played BF3??

In BF3, dx11 is used to give thousands and hundreds of thousands of particles their own ability to receive light, radiate light, and cast shadows.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Now I've heard everything.

And yet, you still havn't learned anything ^_^

 

[Lonbjerg]

It's actual gameplay. The tech talk is to explain whats going on behind gameplay. You haven't played BF3??

Kiddie-shooters are not me...I play the ARMA series....like many real life veterans, I find the BF series to "hollywood"...if you want (and I want that) something closer to real life combat...ARMA is where it is.

But I am still waiting for you to show me this high-fidelity, interactive smoke?

 

[Silverforce11]

But it's not being used. BF3's smoke - is it interactive and dynamic? DC and Tessellation, what have they to do with interactive dynamic physics effects?

"Already?" We have almost 2013. GPU-PhysX has been around for years. DC and DX11 are there, but they are not being used for physics, just "normal" graphic effects.

BF3's particles are not interactive but they are dynamic in the sense that they interact with lighting and shadows in the gameworld. On the contrary, PhysX particles from games i've seen are interactive but they are not dynamic in that the lighting is static. Which ones look better? To me, BF3 still has the best particle engine, and RPGing a tank causing it to blow up in a dark tunnel still out-do any fluff physx i've seen in games.

A good combination for the future would be combining both feature, let's hope DX12 brings us something like that. I also envision what you say, and we will get there, but it will be on an industry wide API, since developers would feel more confident in spending time and $$ to develop such features. PhysX has been fluff fx, is fluff fx and will be fluff fx until its not proprietary.

 

[NIGELG]

And yet, you still havn't learned anything ^_^

I learn from people who know what they are talking about and that certainly is not you.

You are being difficult and semantic.The tech might be the same as you say but you know there is a distinction in terms of 'GPU accelerated' and CPU accelerated PhysX in these discussions.

 

[boxleitnerb]

BF3's particles are not interactive but they are dynamic in the sense that they interact with lighting and shadows in the gameworld. On the contrary, PhysX particles from games i've seen are interactive but they are not dynamic in that the lighting is static. Which ones look better? To me, BF3 still has the best particle engine, and RPGing a tank causing it to blow up in a dark tunnel still out-do any fluff physx i've seen in games.

A good combination for the future would be combining both feature, let's hope DX12 brings us something like that.

I hope so, too.
But honestly, effects are nice and all, but interactivity is the thing that is missing the most - that is why I like PhysX. If I cannot influence effects, it feels static, it feels like I as the player am not part of the world. If I want to watch great graphics, I can go outside or watch a movie. But I want to experience the world, want to influence it and see what consequences my actions have. Because that is gaming, imo of course.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So it's none-interactive smoke...ZZZzZZZzZZZZzZZZZ...
And I still cannot get the names of the effects that ONLY can run on the GPU, and not a CPU...ZZZZzzZZZZzZZZ...


Guess facts are dead in this thread...and fuzzy-warm-feelings is the "word"?

LOL

 

[Lonbjerg]

I hope so, too.
But honestly, effects are nice and all, but interactivity is the thing that is missing the most - that is why I like PhysX. If I cannot influence effects, it feels static, it feels like I as the player am not part of the world. If I want to watch great graphics, I can go outside or watch a movie. But I want to experience the world, want to influence it and see what consequences my actions have. Because that is gaming, imo of course.

Didn't you get the memo?
Interactive is bad...because...well...it's INTERACTIVE!!!

Gamers want dead, pretty worlds...were nothing interacts!!!

Or something...LOL

 

[Lonbjerg]

I learn from people who know what they are talking about and that certainly is not you.

You are being difficult and semantic.The tech might be the same as you say but you know there is a distinction in terms of 'GPU accelerated' and CPU accelerated PhysX in these discussions.

The only reason why people try and uses thethis "distinctions"...is due to ignorance.
I have now made it clear for you that there is NO such distinction".

Will you accept the facts...or should the false FUD be allowed to live (even if it is invalid, flawed and false)...or should we only use facts...not fazzy warm FUD in debates?

You can now either:

Accept the facts
Deny the facts (really?)
Disprove my statements.

Which door do you choose?

 

[Silverforce11]

I hope so, too.
But honestly, effects are nice and all, but interactivity is the thing that is missing the most - that is why I like PhysX. If I cannot influence effects, it feels static, it feels like I as the player am not part of the world. If I want to watch great graphics, I can go outside or watch a movie. But I want to experience the world, want to influence it and see what consequences my actions have. Because that is gaming, imo of course.

I like interactivity, hence, destructive environments and global dynamic lights are the features I'm impressed with in Frostbite 2.

Lighting plays as much a part in interaction as physical. You cause an explosion, you want to see that reflected in the scene, if it does not, it feels static.

The best would be both combined, and this is why i hope moving onwards, later directX will support GPU accelerated physics so devs will feel confident in coding for it since its an industry wide API. Physx as it is will never give you this combination, of full destructive environments, interactive particles and global dynamic lighting. Because its propriety and again, devs will not waste $$ and time coding for it that their entire game is based on it. And it shows, because with all NV's might in pushing it, its hardly used in games and when it does gets used, the effects are fluff.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I like interactivity, hence, destructive environments and global dynamic lights are the features I'm impressed with in Frostbite 2.

Lighting plays as much a part in interaction as physical. You cause an explosion, you want to see that reflected in the scene, if it does not, it feels static.

The best would be both combined, and this is why i hope moving onwards, later directX will support GPU accelerated physics so devs will feel confident in coding for it since its an industry wide API. Physx as it is will never give you this combination, of full destructive environments, interactive particles and global dynamic lighting. Because its propriety and again, devs will not waste $$ and time coding for it that their entire game is based on it. And it shows, because with all NV's might in pushing it, its hardly used in games and when it does gets used, the effects are fluff.

And here is came...the pipedream of DirectX physics...:whiste: