"Inevitable Bleak Outcome for nVidia's Cuda + Physx Strategy"

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
If that was stated prior, then i would have understood your position. Most of the text speaks otherwise and so I (honestly) came up to said conclusion.

I don't think I have to state anything.
Why don't you give people the benefit of the doubt?
I think it's an insult to be called a fanboy. That means that you think I don't put any thought into my decisions and just mindlessly follow whatever my 'brand of choice' does.
I think it should be clear from my posts in this discussion that I do put a lot of thought into what I do. I know the background of the technologies and I stated my reasons why I think nVidia's current technology is good. And those reasons certainly weren't "Vidia r00lz and ATi si teh ev0l!".
You could give me a bit more credit than that.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
If you were so concerned about respect, you wouldn't have publicly attacked Scali's character. You should give as much respect as you would expect for yourself, No?

I really did not want to say this, but two wrongs don't make a right.

As a MOD you should have already known that. If you call me out in disrespect (same thing I allegedly did by the words of your last post) and I get reprimanded for it, shouldn't you as well?

Tossing out threats (or action) is downright silly to post in a public forum. Keep that inside of a PM.

Some things need to be stated publicly to set expectation of other poster's behavior as well as to dissuade some who are inclined to post like that (i.e. the "piling on" effect) when they see another poster go unchallenged for such behavior.

I applaud keys for standing up for the integrity of a fellow poster (and not as a mod but simply as another fellow poster) and for wanting to see a more civilized and respectful forum engagement for all involved.

I see zero harm or disrespect in that.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm not trying to attack your character. Instead I'm pointing out that you are making comments that are not in line with the industry.

Yes you are attacking my character. Instead of giving normal arguments, you are trying to make it look like you're the industry expert and I'm not even a developer in the first place.
I most certainly am a developer, and what I said is most certainly in line with the industry.
You were just trying to make an unreasonable argument and I caught you out. Now you try to go down this line of defense.

You literally said this to me:
"This is the reason that developers hate to talk with gamers about things like this. They play games and suddenly they know all about how to develop them. Go spend some time developing with game engines, then come back . I'm betting your views will change."

I find that DEEPLY insulting and disrespectful.
Especially since I probably have more years under my belt as a developer than you do. I don't have anything to prove to you. Your contributions to this thread weren't as insightful and experienced as you now try to make yourself look.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You like PhysX , I think most people who have read the thread understand that.

Incorrect, I like accelerated physics.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
What you do for a living does have an impact on whether what you say is correct or not.

No it doesn't. Even someone like Tim Sweeney is only human. Not everything he says is always correct. Conversely, even people who don't work with something like UnrealEngine themselves, may still have a good understanding of its workings, and make valid points.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You are making claims that things like PhysX are the only physics used in things like UE3, when that is not true. Game engines that are not modular never succeed. Epic knows this. That is why UE has all along been very modular. I can customize it to fit my needs.

YOU can customize it. That's not what you said earlier. That's my problem with you. You've now changed your line of argument, and try to cover it up with insults. I'm not impressed.
I've never argued that game engines aren't modular or that licensees can't make modifications themselves. That subject didn't even come up in the discussion. Now you try to put words in my mouth because YOU made a false claim. That is pathetic, to be honest.

What's next? You're going to argue that people who have a source license for Havok can also add GPU acceleration themselves, or conversely, people who have a source license for PhysX can remove the GPU acceleration?
Both are true, but only in an academic sense. Not worth the time to debate.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Scali

In fact, AMD mainly demonstrated OpenCL on their CPUs(!).

Please provide evidence of this claim; everything I've seen indicates the physic demos were running under hardware acceleration.

 

[SirPauly]

It's been entertaining to see what logic and details does to threads -- and when combined, formidable and refreshing!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm not trying to attack your character. Instead I'm pointing out that you are making comments that are not in line with the industry.

Yes you are attacking my character. Instead of giving normal arguments, you are trying to make it look like you're the industry expert and I'm not even a developer in the first place.
I most certainly am a developer, and what I said is most certainly in line with the industry.
You were just trying to make an unreasonable argument and I caught you out. Now you try to go down this line of defense.

You literally said this to me:
"This is the reason that developers hate to talk with gamers about things like this. They play games and suddenly they know all about how to develop them. Go spend some time developing with game engines, then come back . I'm betting your views will change."

And I stand by that statement.
Until you have worked with teams of people and how that process works to get a game out the door, then you do not understand the work involved.

I find that DEEPLY insulting and disrespectful.
Especially since I probably have more years under my belt as a developer than you do. I don't have anything to prove to you. Your contributions to this thread weren't as insightful and experienced as you now try to make yourself look.

You said for yourself that you don't use licensed engines so your comments about how developers use licensed engines have to be taken with that in mind.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
What you do for a living does have an impact on whether what you say is correct or not.

No it doesn't. Even someone like Tim Sweeney is only human. Not everything he says is always correct. Conversely, even people who don't work with something like UnrealEngine themselves, may still have a good understanding of its workings, and make valid points.

[/quote]



It has a huge impact when the subject you are discussing is about a field of work. A person can go to law school and get a degree but that does not mean they know how the courtroom works. That takes life experience.

I've never argued that game engines aren't modular or that licensees can't make modifications themselves. That subject didn't even come up in the discussion. Now you try to put words in my mouth because YOU made a false claim. That is pathetic, to be honest.

If you had experience in the field you would have known that the page from epic that you quoted did not mean that it was the only physics engine used with UE3 but was an option.

What's next? You're going to argue that people who have a source license for Havok can also add GPU acceleration themselves, or conversely, people who have a source license for PhysX can remove the GPU acceleration?
Both are true, but only in an academic sense. Not worth the time to debate.

You do not understand the development side of things. These last comments clearly show that.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
If you were so concerned about respect, you wouldn't have publicly attacked Scali's character. You should give as much respect as you would expect for yourself, No?

I really did not want to say this, but two wrongs don't make a right.

As a MOD you should have already known that. If you call me out in disrespect (same thing I allegedly did by the words of your last post) and I get reprimanded for it, shouldn't you as well?

Tossing out threats (or action) is downright silly to post in a public forum. Keep that inside of a PM.

Some things need to be stated publicly to set expectation of other poster's behavior as well as to dissuade some who are inclined to post like that (i.e. the "piling on" effect) when they see another poster go unchallenged for such behavior.

I applaud keys for standing up for the integrity of a fellow poster (and not as a mod but simply as another fellow poster) and for wanting to see a more civilized and respectful forum engagement for all involved.

I see zero harm or disrespect in that.

I find it laughable that you think what has been said by Keysplayr in any way dissuades anyone from posting like that. In fact, in doing so encourages the "piling on effect". Would this conversation we are having be inside of a PM or this thread if he had said it directly to me in a PM? No. Would you have ever known the exchange of words ever existed had he sent me a PM? No. By your (and his) reply in this thread, it just piles on.

If you want to discuss this more, PM me.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Scali

In fact, AMD mainly demonstrated OpenCL on their CPUs(!).

Please provide evidence of this claim; everything I've seen indicates the physic demos were running under hardware acceleration.

There was ONE physics demo, with cloth, on the GPU.
AMD also did other OpenCL demos on multicore CPUs.

My question is: if they have a complete OpenCL implementation, why don't they run all their demos on the GPU aswell? Would be an excellent way to demonstrate how OpenCL works on both CPU and GPU platforms.

I think the obvious answer is that the GPU implementation isn't as far along as the CPU one yet, and the cloth demo is the only thing they have working so far.
In fact, we don't even know if the cloth demo actually used OpenCL. It was meant to demo Havok. They could have used a custom Stream solution instead.

But I've already gone over that many times. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself.
Do your own research and do your own thinking.
How can you even speak of "physics demos" (plural), when there was only one?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
And I stand by that statement.
Until you have worked with teams of people and how that process works to get a game out the door, then you do not understand the work involved.

Aside from the fact that I think this is a pretty short-sighted perspective... You are simply going from your own ASSUMPTIONS, just because they suit your agenda.
That's character assassination right there.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You said for yourself that you don't use licensed engines so your comments about how developers use licensed engines have to be taken with that in mind.

Tim Sweeney and John Carmack don't use licensed engines either.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It has a huge impact when the subject you are discussing is about a field of work. A person can go to law school and get a degree but that does not mean they know how the courtroom works. That takes life experience.

So because I write my own engines instead of licensing them, I am somehow completely ignorant about anything that goes on outside my own engine? I'd be a pretty poor developer if I were completely out of touch with the competition like that.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you had experience in the field you would have known that the page from epic that you quoted did not mean that it was the only physics engine used with UE3 but was an option.

There we go again. I've already refuted that, you've already lost this argument.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You do not understand the development side of things. These last comments clearly show that.

Ah, yet more insults. The problem here is that YOU haven't actually proved your own knowledge and experience in this thread. I certainly don't see you as some industry professional. To me you sound like someone who is just trying to bluff and insult his way out of a discussion he's lost.
I'm through with your insults. I hope the moderators take action against your character assassination attempts.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali


Tim Sweeney and John Carmack don't use licensed engines either.

They do know what it is like to work in a production environment since they have had to do that for many years.

So because I write my own engines instead of licensing them, I am somehow completely ignorant about anything that goes on outside my own engine? I'd be a pretty poor developer if I were completely out of touch with the competition like that.

Yes you are ignorant to how things work in the production environment. That requires experience. How can you be in touch with the competition when you said that you never used the unreal engine ?

Ah, yet more insults. The problem here is that YOU haven't actually proved your own knowledge and experience in this thread. I certainly don't see you as some industry professional. To me you sound like someone who is just trying to bluff and insult his way out of a discussion he's lost.
I'm through with your insults. I hope the moderators take action against your character assassination attempts.

I don't need to prove anything here. Nor do I see it as a discussion that is win/lose. As for insults you have done more than your fair share I just refuse to acknowledge them.

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

Originally posted by: Scali

BioShock uses PhysX.

I'd like to point out that Bioshock does in fact use Havok.

http://www.havok.com/content/blogcategory/29/73/

As a gamer, I do find GPU accelerated PhysX (and physics) to be somewhat interesting. Unfortunately I'm getting the impression that it's going to be relegated to relatively subpar titles, at least for the next year or so (due to games that are actually genuinely enjoyable for more than an hour or two generally taking several years to make).

Also, why do you post so many times in a row, Scali? A couple pages ago you had eleven sequential posts. I'm not sure what people here think of that, but on every other forum I've ever been to that is considered bad etiquette.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
They do know what it is like to work in a production environment since they have had to do that for many years.

As do I.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Yes you are ignorant to how things work in the production environment. That requires experience. How can you be in touch with the competition when you said that you never used the unreal engine ?

Ah yes, because I disagree with you, I'm ignorant.
This is all an ego-thing for you, isn't it?
The whole thing is irrelevant anyway.
I simply responded to someone who was under the impression that PhysX couldn't be used on a CPU, or that it couldn't be used for first-order physics.
For that I only need ONE title which uses PhysX for first-order physics, and Unreal Tournament 3 is such a title. Many other UnrealEngine titles also use PhysX, and some may even use another library... I only need one, and I have that. Point proven.

Then you go out of your way with far-fetched arguments about how UnrealEngine is modular (which I never denied anyway), and throw gratuitous insults around.
Yes, you are right that UE is modular. That doesn't make me ignorant, it doesn't even go against anything I said. And it isn't relevant to this thread.
It's just that you HAD to win. Which you didn't, because your premise was false to begin with. Bye now.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: TheMeanestGuest

Originally posted by: Scali

BioShock uses PhysX.

I'd like to point out that Bioshock does in fact use Havok.

You are right, I stand corrected.

Originally posted by: TheMeanestGuest
Also, why do you post so many times in a row, Scali? A couple pages ago you had eleven sequential posts. I'm not sure what people here think of that, but on every other forum I've ever been to that is considered bad etiquette.

Depends on the forum perhaps. I like to reply to each post individually, because I think it makes the discussion easier to follow.
I happen to post 11 times in a row because I'm European, and I think most people here are American, or at least in a way different timezone. There were many new posts during the night, when I got to the thread this morning.
So I responded to the posts that I found relevant.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

I will be the first to admit my post contributes nothing to the thread so spare me the comments, but I want to point out that I had the exact same thing on my mind as Scholzpdx, and this is not the first time

I actually started wondering about SirPauly back in the other PhysX thread, also some random poster who shows up out of nowhere with standard avatar and starts going on about how useful/innovative/etc Nvidia features are, and its just fishy no matter how you look at it

HOWEVER, I will also admit both users make good points and back them with solid arguments, something other posters fail to do (you all know who Im talking about), so its just a minor thing to consider, before you take their info for granted

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Scali
It offers the advantage that it can accelerate physics on systems with a GPU or PPU, while not having any disadvantages when running only on a CPU. Get it?
With PhysX you can have your cake and eat it too. That's why we currently see games using PhysX which can run fine on a CPU, and allow people with a PPU or nVidia GPU to enable extra effects. That's the advantage.

Only a handful of games gain anything from gpu physx. The majority of games using the physx API will see no benefit or extra effects from having a dedicated physx HW, because they're not designed to have those extra effects in the first place.

You can't fault PhysX for not being able to run the NV effects on CPU. x86 processors simply aren't capable of them. Not with Havok or any other API either. They're just too computationally expensive. Get it?

And you can't parade the cross platform abilities of physx if only one of those platforms offers anything worthwhile.

It's the same as complaining that you can't run the latest games with all the DX10 eyecandy on if you only have a simple non-accelerated videocard. Why can't it "run" on the CPU? Get it?

Except that the people touting DX10 don't go around saying "look, it runs on the cpu too! It's cross-paltform!"

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: munky
Only a handful of games gain anything from gpu physx. The majority of games using the physx API will see no benefit or extra effects from having a dedicated physx HW, because they're not designed to have those extra effects in the first place.

So? Does that somehow make those games any less than games built with a different API that runs on the CPU alone?
I don't see what your point is here.

Originally posted by: munky
And you can't parade the cross platform abilities of physx if only one of those platforms offers anything worthwhile.

Again, I don't see your point.
Is using PhysX on a console somehow less worthwhile than using Havok?

Originally posted by: munky
Except that the people touting DX10 don't go around saying "look, it runs on the cpu too! It's cross-paltform!"

You still don't get it, do you? I give up.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
I will be the first to admit my post contributes nothing to the thread so spare me the comments, but I want to point out that I had the exact same thing on my mind as Scholzpdx, and this is not the first time

I actually started wondering about SirPauly back in the other PhysX thread, also some random poster who shows up out of nowhere with standard avatar and starts going on about how useful/innovative/etc Nvidia features are, and its just fishy no matter how you look at it

HOWEVER, I will also admit both users make good points and back them with solid arguments, something other posters fail to do (you all know who Im talking about), so its just a minor thing to consider, before you take their info for granted

Hehe, this is so entertaining! My alias isn't random and have been using this for over a decade!

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: SirPauly
Hehe, this is so entertaining! My alias isn't random and have been using this for over a decade!

Same with me, I've used this nickname for more than 10 years now.
People from the demoscene might know me, or my group Bohemiq. But I don't think Americans know what the demoscene is anyway, seems to be mostly a European thing.
Quite a few game studios were actually started by demosceners and/or employ demosceners. For example, Lionhead Studios, DICE (Mirror's Edge), Nixxes Software. And also Futuremark, which in turn is closely related to Remedy (Max Payne, Alan Wake).

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Scali
You still don't get it, do you? I give up.

FINALLY! :roll:

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
There is no harm, and no shame stating that you think PhysX is a very cool thing.

PhysX is cool (not must have form the games that have come out so far but that could change)...but HAVING to buy an nVidia card to be able to run it is NOT cool (I want to have a choice). Imagine if you could only run something like AA on either ATI or nV cards? That would not be cool.

Agreed!! ATI should have jumped on board. They probably still could. AFAIK, the door has always been open. Never closed.

I'm sure they happily will, if Nvidia decides to port PhysX to OpenCL.

Ironically, if Nvidia happened to port PhysX to OpenCL... it would have an interesting drop-on effect. Thing is, Nvidia would have to do absolutely no work to ensure accelerated PhysX worked on any platform that provided a compliant OpenCL stack. Nvidia could just ship PhysX and be done with it.

Funny... wasn't that the original point of the thread? Oh yeah... it was.

 

[WelshBloke]

nm

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Ironically, if Nvidia happened to port PhysX to OpenCL... it would have an interesting drop-on effect. Thing is, Nvidia would have to do absolutely no work to ensure accelerated PhysX worked on any platform that provided a compliant OpenCL stack. Nvidia could just ship PhysX and be done with it.

Funny... wasn't that the original point of the thread? Oh yeah... it was.

Yea, the thing was the misconception that this would mean the end of Cuda + PhysX.
Since with nVidia the OpenCL stack is actually on top of Cuda, it won't mean the end of Cuda.
And it would probably also make PhysX an even more popular option with developers, so it wouldn't mean the end of PhysX either.

Hence the doom-and-gloom of the blogger was misplaced.

Aside from that, OpenCL support still wouldn't solve the problem that only fast GPUs would be able to run advanced physics effects, and entry-level GPUs/CPU-only systems/current consoles would still need 'watered-down' physics content.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Scali
So? Does that somehow make those games any less than games built with a different API that runs on the CPU alone?
I don't see what your point is here.

Doesn't make them any better either.

Again, I don't see your point.
Is using PhysX on a console somehow less worthwhile than using Havok?

It means when talking about the benefits of accelerated Physx on NV gpu's, they don't apply to any other platform that Physx happens to "support."

You still don't get it, do you? I give up.

And you should. Because you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: munky
Doesn't make them any better either.

So if it's not better or worse, then you will agree that PhysX is a valid alternative to Havok or other APIs, even when not using GPU/PPU acceleration.
Yet from your posts I get the idea that you don't think PhysX has any right to exist apart from GPU/PPU acceleration.

Originally posted by: munky
It means when talking about the benefits of accelerated Physx on NV gpu's, they don't apply to any other platform that Physx happens to "support."

I think that's obvious. Benefits of accelerated PhysX are only available on systems with support for hardware acceleration.
Doesn't even need to be discussed.

However, the point was that you have PhysX which gives you PC CPU + console physics plus the added benefit of GPU/PPU acceleration over other APIs like Havok, which only offer you PC CPU and console physics.
However you want to put it, PhysX has a benefit over other APIs.

Originally posted by: munky
And you should. Because you're not fooling anyone.

I'm not trying to fool anyone.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: munky

It means when talking about the benefits of accelerated Physx on NV gpu's, they don't apply to any other platform that Physx happens to "support."

Well since Havok does not currently offer support for any GPU, it is far too restrictive, limited, proprietary, etc. that people should support the more open platform that is PhysX.

That's basically what you are saying.