John Carmack: Not a big fan of PhysX

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: dguy6789
While it may be true about Burnout, I haven't played it myself so I don't know, I was speaking in general. Every example that doesn't use PhysX is usually countered by some kind of subjective argument such as "although they give the same visual result, the way PhysX does it under the hood is technically more impressive". What about Ghost Busters physics? That looks better than Cryostasis and Batman physics to me. I don't think anyone cares if a developer is "cheating" or using "fake" or "not as good" physics if the end result looks good.

My stance is that I am against PhysX becoming a standard, not physics on the GPU. In current games with PhysX, it seems as if they are using PhysX just for the sake of saying their game uses it, not because it is required on any level for the physics calculations their games do. I haven't seen anything in a PhysX game that just blows me away visually or looks like something that simply can't be done without hardware physics.

With all due respect, if you're not against PhysX on the GPU, then you should have zero problems with PhysX becoming a standard.

I'm against PhysX for one big reason(Again that's PhysX the API, not hardware physics the idea). It's owned by Nvidia and is meant to be run on graphics cards. It can never be a fair ground. I would be just as against it if it were owned by AMD. The company that owns the API would certainly make it run better on their own hardware compared to their competitors' and or charge a fee for others to be allowed to support it among other things. It's a conflict of interest. It would make a lot more sense for someone who isn't producing graphics cards to run the standard such as Microsoft. Open source is the best case scenario but it is unlikely(just look at OpenGL success/progress compared to DirectX success/progress) so having some kind of DirectX like physics is the next best thing that I can see.

tl;dr: I dislike PhysX for the same reason I dislike Adobe PDF.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

At this moment the real barrier to suspension of disbelief when I'm playing a video game is the facial expressions.

Half Life 2 / the source engine /whatever it was that they used to automatically map facial expressions and lip/mouth movements based on an audio clip (even different languages worked) was and still is the best I've seen yet.

HL2's facial animation is straight up lol bad compared to something a bit more current- this is game engine and been out for years. Too bad you can't see the level of fine details that are in their faces, the details in the wrinkles with each expression etc, still you should be able to easily tell the vast progress that has already been made on that front. Still, that isn't quite where we want to be quite yet(the King is clearly much better then the others). This is out for developers now too. That is being used in at least a couple of upcoming games.

Really, the level of progress we have made since HL2 in terms of facial expressions is huge- but they aren't used very often.

I'd buy an extra card if it could add that realism to a game the second it came out.

That is a big burden on the CPU and GPU to reach those levels of complexity, although with DX11 that should be almost all moved to the GPU- still not likely to see it in too many PC games, they don't go for the same kind of cinematic experience their set top counterparts strive for so often(mainly Japanese developers in particular).

not to mention that games like Burnout Paradise have shown even a simple dual core machine can handle crash phsyics and tons of showery sparks flying all over the place no problem

Using Burnout for a physics example is like saying SF4 will train you to be a MMA fighter

That game looks quite impressive.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
With all due respect, if you're not against physics on the GPU, then you should have zero problems with PhysX becoming a standard.

Sorry Keys I think we've been through this before but...just look at what happened with nV blocking PhysX when an ATI card is present...as long as they own it they can do whatever they want and this can include having it run better on their hardware artificially to sell more cards (and I don't see how that is good for us in any way).

 

[evolucion8]

Carmack is one of the developers that helps to drive the development of better graphics, technology implementations etc. PhysX is a nice feature, but what I don't like from nVidia is their "Apple" attitude of creating a little world of exclusivity in technology implementations in every scenario. It would be like that your Toyota wouldn't turn on if you don't use Toyota or Infiniti batteries or Tires, even though any tire or battery should work fine.

ATi's approach is not about making the games or technologies more exclusive, is about to make the games to run or look better, things like 3dc+, tessellator, Fetch4 or Gather4 among other stuff, are incorporated or will be incorporated in DX11, and are open to everybody to implement without restrictions. Knowing that Carmack is in love with open source, I understand why he's not a big fan of PhysX.

 

[nOOky]

I'm not a big fan of PhysX either. Until an interesting game comes out to take advantage of it I will remain blase about it. I don't want another card in my box especially when the gpu should already be able to handle all the processing. I am however always amenable to things that make gaming better. Imho nvidia would be better served to integrate the chip onto their future gpus. I buy nvidia gpus for their speed if it's comparable to ATI when I'm in the market. I admit I am not up on it, but until a major game comes out supporting and pretty much requiring the tech. I can't see the need for a dedicated card. UT3 was a bomb as far as the series goes so don't go there hehe.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: IlllI
i've never heard him speak before. he sounds like a nerd

he IS a nerd

of course that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The fact that you're posting on a message board about computer game physics makes you (and the rest of us) a nerd as well.

not as big a nerd as he is by any stretch of the imagination. and my voice seems to have broken too (15+ years ago) unlike his.

 

[lopri]

I didn't get the analogy on SF4/MMA.. (me <- avid fan of SF4)

 

[BenSkywalker]

While it may be true about Burnout, I haven't played it myself so I don't know, I was speaking in general.

Here's the physics example I'm talking about. You really should try the game, it is an absolute blast- best arcade style care game ever IMO, but a physics simulation part, well, the vid speaks for itself

My stance is that I am against PhysX becoming a standard, not physics on the GPU.

We don't even have an open alternative on the horizon. It is either Havok, PhysX or hold back progression as of right now. Those are our only choices. As of right now, PhysX has demonstrated in game a lot more then Havok, that's why I like that solution better.

I didn't get the analogy on SF4/MMA.. (me <- avid fan of SF4)

No matter how good you get at SF4, no matter how perfect you can execute, it doesn't mean you know anything at all about an actual real combat simulation. Burnout is fun as hell, you can do all sort of things that are effected by physics, but trying to use it as an example of physics is as absurd as trying to state that SF4 will train you in real hand to hand combat, it just doesn't make any sense.

Knowing that Carmack is in love with open source, I understand why he's not a big fan of PhysX.

He doesn't like PPUs. As far as his stance on open source, DirectX is now his primary development environment.

ATi's approach is not about making the games or technologies more exclusive, is about to make the games to run or look better, things like 3dc+, tessellator, Fetch4 or Gather4 among other stuff

Everything you listed combined will have significantly less of an impact on game visuals then hardware accelerated physics.

not as big a nerd as he is by any stretch of the imagination. and my voice seems to have broken too (15+ years ago) unlike his.

How does your voice hold up standing in front of ~5K people under bright lights on stage?

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Everything you listed combined will have significantly less of an impact on game visuals then hardware accelerated physics.

I find it doubtful, Gather4 helps greatly to create realistic shadows, something that it couldn't be done in the past, we had only seen blocky or hard edge shadows. 3dc+ allows the compression of mipmaps to save memory bandwidth, allowing the implementation of very high quality normal maps to add detail without affecting the memory bandwidth or memory usage. Tessellator allows the usage of very highly detailed geometry models impacting minimally the VRAM or resource usage, blocky heads anyone? Those stuff is so important that Microsoft implemented them in DirectX, but PhysX? Isn't part of DirectX specification.

The only game that PhysX made a good show was in Mirrors Edge and Burnout Paradise, and what it did was adding some more debris, some more stuff on screen and that's it, and the simulations are quite often unrealistic, GRID and Crysis does a great physics simulation and doesn't have PhysX, we all agree that Physics is the future, but current implementations are far from ideal, specially that most developers aren't adopting PhysX, or is only half used, and the current nVidia "Apple" attitud of exclusivity stagnating progress (PhysX lock out in ATi hardware or DX10.1 anyone?)

 

[BenSkywalker]

I find it doubtful, Gather4 helps greatly to create realistic shadows, something that it couldn't be done in the past, we had only seen blocky or hard edge shadows.

We have had soft shadows for years.

3dc+ allows the compression of mipmaps to save memory bandwidth, allowing the implementation of very high quality normal maps to add detail without affecting the memory bandwidth or memory usage.

3DC+ is just a 4:1 compression method, nothing special by any means whatsoever, DXTC already offered 6:1 in the Quake3 era.

Tessellator allows the usage of very highly detailed geometry models impacting minimally the VRAM or resource usage, blocky heads anyone?

Tesselation has been around for a long, long time too. It has its good uses, humans isn't one of them. You end up with extremely toonish looking peeps, it's just ugly(it made sense back when we could push a paltry couple million polys per second, not when we are doing that per frame already). Tesselation's best utilization actually comes when combined with physics for real time deformation and geometry creation.

Those stuff is so important that Microsoft implemented them in DirectX, but PhysX?

I'm talking about physics, not PhysX in particular. ATi shows me something better I'd back it no problem. I'm interested in progress- real time advancements in physics is the next major hurdle we have in real time 3D gaming. I don't care if some former 3dfx employees get together and put something together that gets the anchors of the industry off their asses to do something. Right now, PhysX is the best we have seen. If ATi spent a small portion of the time they do denouncing a major new feature into coming up with an alternative we may have some good choices right now. We don't. It's PhysX or nothing at the moment.

The last time we had a big rift like this in the 3D community was over hardware T&L. Those devoted to holding back the industry last time watched 3dfx die, far quicker then they imagined was possible(they had a new generation coming up shortly, all sorts of great technology and performance to topple nV at the high end too....).

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

3DC+ is just a 4:1 compression method, nothing special by any means whatsoever, DXTC already offered 6:1 in the Quake3 era.

DXTC is extremely poor (quality-wise) for normal maps compared to 3Dc. That?s exactly why 3Dc was implemented in the first place.

 

[KIAman]

I agree with BenSkywalker. I'm not holding my breath until real physics makes its debut. Realistic paper and cloth is meh.

I'd consider something that can not only accelerate, but simulate the following.

1. Gravity
2. Wind
3. Magnetics
4. Motion
5. Skin!!!!
6. HAIR!!!!
8. Skeletal articulation
9. Explosions
10. Layer movements


Although, in the end, physics just contribute to the graphical experience and not much to the gaming experience (except mirror's edge like games). What would revolutionize gaming experience is AI.

Give me an AI card and make my single player FPS more spicy, not just "HELL MODE" where 1 nick on my finger is instadeath.

 

[DefRef]

How to give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about in one simple step: Say something like...

Originally posted by: Dribble
I hope the rage engine is good, but it's a bit late to the game. It's a console engine...

No, it's Carmack's attempt at a Swiss Army Engine that allows developers to write once, and have it run at 60Hz on PC, Xbox 360, or Playstation 3. Most people have forgotten that when id Tech 5 was first announced at E3 2007, Carmack's thesis was that instead of having to waste tons of dev time on mastering tools for each platform, games could be rapidly designed and tweaked and then rather refined code for all platforms would come out of the other end of his magic sausage maker. As this interview with id's Steve Nix said:

SN Walking in and seeing the technology running just as well on the Mac, the PC, the 360, and the PS3 at a high frame rate--people weren't expecting it. It's not difficult. It's just that our approach to technology allows us to do it very efficiently.

Our code is the most elegant, best-structured base code in the world. When we started out with id Tech 5, we didn't hack onto an old engine and then sort of replace parts as we went along. It's an entirely new engine. The structure is super-fundamentally sound. If you look at Quake 3, which was a multiplayer engine, but again, fundamentally sound, the licensees who took that went on to create some of the best single-player games ever in history in Medal of Honor, Call of Duty--even James Bond: Agent Under Fire, a console title, used the technology. It's the same approach with id Tech 5. The way the rendering works, there are no more texture limitations. Any game can take advantage of that. In a massively multiplayer game, texture constraints are a big problem. Even a fighting game where you're trying to get the ultimate detail in a smaller arena, texture limitations tend to be one of your number one limitations. Not only do we think people can make games outside the action-shooter space with our technology, we encourage it. We'd actually like to see those games made.

GS: What are these developers, who are all presumably familiar with Unreal Engine 3, most impressed by when they see your engine?

SN: I'm not that aware of what our competitors are doing and what they're promising with their road map, but when people walk into our booth, they see that we have four platforms running at 60Hz with the exact same assets. We probably have artists in the company that aren't aware we have our new technology running on the PS3 because you need to do absolutely zero changes, no packaging, no extra baking, no extra steps, to get to the PS3. It really is a seamless, multiplatform, no-hassle solution. That's what people are telling us is extremely attractive. There's also the power of the rendering. No one has this rendering solution that we have with the unlimited texture. People are shocked by that. They weren't expecting it. It's a totally different path than where everyone else is going with their technology right now. It's Carmack again coming up with something that no one else in the market is thinking about. People are surprised by that. I mean, you expect John [Carmack] to come up with massive technological leaps in rendering, but at the same time people are really shocked to see it running on all the platforms.

John Carmack is to gaming what Les Paul was to rock & roll and recording.

 

[dguy6789]

That is very cool.

 

[toyota]

hey DefRef that was an interesting little read. I really cant believe I havent seen that before but I havent. :thumbsup:


now go overclock your cpu or get another one because you are bottlenecking the hell out of that 8800gt sli setup. lol :Q

 

[Dribble]

Originally posted by: DefRef
How to give the impression that you don't know what you're talking about in one simple step: Say something like...

Originally posted by: Dribble
I hope the rage engine is good, but it's a bit late to the game. It's a console engine...

No, it's Carmack's attempt at a Swiss Army Engine that allows developers to write once, and have it run at 60Hz on PC, Xbox 360, or Playstation 3. Most people have forgotten that when id Tech 5 was first announced at E3 2007, Carmack's thesis was that instead of having to waste tons of dev time on mastering tools for each platform, games could be rapidly designed and tweaked and then rather refined code for all platforms would come out of the other end of his magic sausage maker. As this interview with id's Steve Nix said:

SN Walking in and seeing the technology running just as well on the Mac, the PC, the 360, and the PS3 at a high frame rate--people weren't expecting it. It's not difficult. It's just that our approach to technology allows us to do it very efficiently.

Our code is the most elegant, best-structured base code in the world. When we started out with id Tech 5, we didn't hack onto an old engine and then sort of replace parts as we went along. It's an entirely new engine. The structure is super-fundamentally sound. If you look at Quake 3, which was a multiplayer engine, but again, fundamentally sound, the licensees who took that went on to create some of the best single-player games ever in history in Medal of Honor, Call of Duty--even James Bond: Agent Under Fire, a console title, used the technology. It's the same approach with id Tech 5. The way the rendering works, there are no more texture limitations. Any game can take advantage of that. In a massively multiplayer game, texture constraints are a big problem. Even a fighting game where you're trying to get the ultimate detail in a smaller arena, texture limitations tend to be one of your number one limitations. Not only do we think people can make games outside the action-shooter space with our technology, we encourage it. We'd actually like to see those games made.

GS: What are these developers, who are all presumably familiar with Unreal Engine 3, most impressed by when they see your engine?

SN: I'm not that aware of what our competitors are doing and what they're promising with their road map, but when people walk into our booth, they see that we have four platforms running at 60Hz with the exact same assets. We probably have artists in the company that aren't aware we have our new technology running on the PS3 because you need to do absolutely zero changes, no packaging, no extra baking, no extra steps, to get to the PS3. It really is a seamless, multiplatform, no-hassle solution. That's what people are telling us is extremely attractive. There's also the power of the rendering. No one has this rendering solution that we have with the unlimited texture. People are shocked by that. They weren't expecting it. It's a totally different path than where everyone else is going with their technology right now. It's Carmack again coming up with something that no one else in the market is thinking about. People are surprised by that. I mean, you expect John [Carmack] to come up with massive technological leaps in rendering, but at the same time people are really shocked to see it running on all the platforms.

John Carmack is to gaming what Les Paul was to rock & roll and recording.

lol - the text you bolded backs up what I say. It runs on exactly the same assets on a console and a PC. The PC is much more powerful then the console - if it were a PC engine it wouldn't be able to run on a console because the PC is much more powerful. It's like saying it could run on both a PS2 and PS3 and look exactly the same. It does run on the consoles which means it's a console engine, designed for the same old 2005 console HW. Sure it runs on a PC too and that's great, but if it were designed for the more modern and powerful PC it would have no chance of running on a 360 or a PS3.

As for the rest of it, including the bit you added at the start, that's just marketing bull. I am sure the guys at Epic or whoever make the COD engine would proclaim exactly the same things. They all claim to have an engine that's easy to develop for all platforms at once, and runs at 60fps while looking really pretty. tbh both UE3 and the COD engine can back up that claim better then ID right now - their engines came out years ago, worked pretty well then, and have been tweaked to extract every extra little bit of performance since.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: DefRef
it's Carmack's attempt at a Swiss Army Engine that allows developers to write once, and have it run at 60Hz on PC, Xbox 360, or Playstation 3. Most people have forgotten that when id Tech 5 was first announced at E3 2007, Carmack's thesis was that instead of having to waste tons of dev time on mastering tools for each platform, games could be rapidly designed and tweaked and then rather refined code for all platforms would come out of the other end of his magic sausage maker.

Carmack seems to favor technolgies that are not tied to a specific hardware/software configuration. Even after everyone has jumped ship on OpenGL, his id Tech 5 engine (PC version) will use OpenGL over Direct3D. This guy was porting his games to consoles long before that became popular, so it should be obvious by now that he cares a lot about compatibility. The code should be written 1 time and it should work on every system.

If Carmack isn't a fan of PhysX, I would guess it's because it only works on certain systems. If he puts PhysX into his PC game, that means the Xbox version will either suck or he will need to write it all over again. Nobody wants to write the same thing twice, so a software solution is better. This would certainly explain why the new Wolfenstein uses Havok.

 

[Nemesis 1]

People can rave for or against PhysX all they want,

I think the hardware guys maybe should stop and think about it a min. tho .

To get true Physics in a game . The programmer has to use real world Math down to the smallest detail . What were seeing right now is very lazy physics. Until we use something like Raytracing and use the ray cast as a collision detection it well be surfacePhysics only ( Not realistic.) Once we get to this level hardware physics be way limited comparred to software. .

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
People can rave for or against PhysX all they want,

I think the hardware guys maybe should stop and think about it a min. tho .

To get true Physics in a game . The programmer has to use real world Math down to the smallest detail . What were seeing right now is very lazy physics. Until we use something like Raytracing and use the ray cast as a collision detection it well be surfacePhysics only ( Not realistic.) Once we get to this level hardware physics be way limited comparred to software. .

Can you give an example of "surface Physics" only? And what makes you think dedicated hardware couldn't perform Raytracing better than a software solution? When has this ever been true? 1990?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Finally found the damn quote I was looking for-

CPU: Physics chips seem to be all the rage these days. What do you think of them?

JC: I am not a proponent of physics cards. You could do it with a graphics card. There is enough processing power there left over after the graphics tasks are handled. The only thing they are useful for are things that are variable and don?t necessarily affect game play. You get 1,000 butterflies, and that looks nice, but it?s not that interactive.

Link.

Until we use something like Raytracing and use the ray cast as a collision detection it well be surfacePhysics only

You need to do another round of research, seriously. The ONLY level of physics ray tracing is capable of helping with is 'surface(collision detection) physics'.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Keys . NV raytracing on present tech is a joke. When NV shows hardware librarys that = real world math at real time Physics . Will all know it . There won't be know freaken debate, But that WEll NEVER EVER happen in hardware not ever. They haven't even scratched real world physics. Software well take longer but it well very quickly go by hardware physics.

Thats kinda what this Topic is about . Attack the article . But Ya better add alot of names to that list. Ican get a list if ya like that agree with this article and what the great one says.

Many Many elite Have now taken this view. I just read in another thread About Smoke and Fluid physics on Havoc People saying they don't have / Pure Bs. DX11 will openup alot for both the gpu and cpu in physics. Intel has demoed smoke and fluid for Larrabee
Larrabee is a GPU by the way . So havoc will play on the GPU for Physics. As Intel has Shown .

Protect Offset has demeos. AMD has demeos . All waiting on Dx11. Whos Pyhsics are they using . NVs?

Ya . NV is trying to sell Hardware Physics hard. But in the end Its going to come down to Software. The Cpu will be the GPU also . Who ever can scale hudreds of Cpu type cores will be Performance Leaders. Open . Will Trump Closed. C/C++ is Easier than c and better. More widely used in the handheld along with VLIW.

NO Keys Hardware Physics is a Dream . IF reality in gaming is the render goal. Why is it the NV is swithing Tech next Gen . Why is it More and More are Talking About Softtware everthing . Because Larrabee is out their These guys have seen and used them . They are now believers.

 

[BenSkywalker]

NV and ATi are still enjoying that keg of whoop ass they have all over Intel Nemesis.

Intel's fastest GPU isn't 1/10th nV's or ATi's.

Open . Will Trump Closed.

Yeah, the Linux fans have been telling us this for ten years now. Linux and Apple put MS out of business five years ago, don't believe me? Plenty of posts just like yours from ten years ago about what would happen in 5.

Protect Offset has demeos.

If you aren't spewing lies you will have a link where we can download it to see for ourselves. No piss poor Youtube vid clips, we need to see it in real time. If it is a demo as you claim, then you can tell us where to download the executable.

Why is it More and More are Talking About Softtware everthing

Abrash? He is interested in theoretical computing, he has never been a serious developer of games by any stretch of the imagination. Sweeney? He also talked about how pure ray tracing would fail, only a hybrid approach could work. Which one of these guys are you talking about? Because they are the only ones talking about going software.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ben don't let the darkside blind ya/ OP subject. Were talking about future Not now . Whats out now is as complete Joke . That only NV and its paid fanbois are raving about.

You saying Larrabbee has no wins is a Joke . Dream works has Stopped using AMD . Intel showed them what they have and they Went for it . Intels 3D is pretty DAm Good ALSO.

NV has an edge until till windows 7 is released than it will be Havoc showing the Muscle. IN Pyhsics.

No one cares about whats Out right now. Because it sucks. But in 3 months people will start to care.

 

[Keysplayr]

How much did Intel pay Dreamworks toswitch from their existing AMD systems?

Larrabee will be delay, after delay, after delay until someday, it will actually be plausible as a mainstream processor. Now we're hearing 2011 for its launch? Meanwhile AMD and Nv continue to increase their products power non-stop. The absolute faith you place in the two year away Larrabee is quite scary.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Whats out now is as complete Joke . That only NV and its paid fanbois are raving about.

ATi and nV- both of them are ten times faster then Intel, and what did you say, they were jokes? Why would you think Intel would still be in business in two years if according to you they are only one tenth the speed of a joke? Certainly they will completely fold if what you say is true. You should argue this one with yourself, is sounds absurdly moronic to me. Particularly with you being such a fan of Intel, saying they need to get ten times faster before we can consider them a joke.