• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mafia PhysX trailer

It's too bad that nVidia locks the functionality of their PhysX processors when a non-nVidia card is present as the primary display, otherwise I would buy a cheap PhysX only card. Oh well, nVidia will just have to live with a little less money.
 
Too bad PhysX destroys performance. Even old titles like GRAW2 run like total crap with maxed out PhysX settings, and if you get the frame rate under control it adds insane amounts of input lag and micro stuttering anyway. Seems like a dedicated PhysX card must be required to get decent performance.

Anyway, Mafia was absolutely fantastic in almost every aspect. I am just hoping that somehow they don't ruin Mafia 2 by making it multi platform, of course if they pull it off somehow they would fall into an extremely rare minority of developers.
 
motsm said:
Too bad PhysX destroys performance. Even old titles like GRAW2 run like total crap with maxed out PhysX settings, and if you get the frame rate under control it adds insane amounts of input lag and micro stuttering anyway. Seems like a dedicated PhysX card must be required to get decent performance.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't have those issues?
Infact PhysX in the UT3 engine gives mor eperformance...so let the 2006 anti-physx argument die, okay?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2393/4

But do you also whine about AA costing performance?


Anyway, Mafia was absolutely fantastic in almost every aspect. I am just hoping that somehow they don't ruin Mafia 2 by making it multi platform, of course if they did they would fall into an extremely rare minority of developers.
Click to expand...

that is my only fear in this game...that consolittis will wreck the game.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Funny, I don't have those issues?
Infact PhysX in the UT3 engine gives mor eperformance...so let the 2006 anti-physx argument die, okay?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2393/4

But do you also whine about AA costing performance?
Click to expand...
I have no issues in UT3 with PhysX either because it hardly uses it, rag doll and flak? Not too complex. Try GRAW2, I have played it at LAN parties where every single person there had the same issues on cards ranging from 9600's to a 295. Cryostasis is the same way, enable advanced PhysX and your frame rate drops to 12 with horrible mouse lag. In most situations I've seen other games accomplishing the same things in software using Havok or proprietary engines with next to no performance impact, so that's my complaint. Anyway, keep your silly AA comments to yourself, it has nothing to do with physics, and I have nothing against sacrificing a proportionate frame rate for visuals. Hell, I have been using super sampling more than AA recently anyway, which murders frames, so I am the last person to bitch about frame loss unless there are MUCH better alternatives at hand.
 
motsm said:
I have no issues in UT3 with PhysX either because it hardly uses it, rag doll and flak? Not too complex. Try GRAW2, I have played it at LAN parties where every single person there had the same issues on cards ranging from 9600's to a 295. Cryostasis is the same way, enable advanced PhysX and your frame rate drops to 12 with horrible mouse lag. In most situations I've seen other games accomplishing the same things in software using Havok or proprietary engines with next to no performance impact, so that's my complaint. Anyway, keep your silly AA comments to yourself, it has nothing to do with physics, and I have nothing against sacrificing a proportionate frame rate for visuals. Hell, I have been using super sampling more than AA recently anyway, which murders frames, so I am the last person to bitch about frame loss unless there are MUCH better alternatives at hand.
Click to expand...

You do know that the Extreme physx mode in GRAW2 is tailored for the PPU (it uses PhysX SDK v2.7.1.), GPU physx is first from PhysX SDK v2.7.3..but I will forgive your for that ignorance 😉
 
Ahh Physx, lock out almost half the userbase and never live up to Nvidia saying it was going to change the way we play games while anyone can use the physics in Bad Company 2, Red Faction, etc that actually do something meaningful. We all know that Physx isn't going to go anywhere the way it is and the way it's locked down.
 
Lonbjerg said:
You do know that the Extreme physx mode in GRAW2 is tailored for the PPU (it uses PhysX SDK v2.7.1.), GPU physx is first from PhysX SDK v2.7.3..but I will forgive your for that ignorance 😉
Click to expand...
Ignorance? Your example of UT3 is actually quite perfect. Normal maps get frame rates of over 100, and PhysX maps get around 30, and on top of that are unplayable because of stuttering and mouse lag. The physics used in those maps are nothing I haven't seen done in other games using software that have next to no performance impact at all as well. You also ignored Cryostasis which also is rendered unplayable when you turn on PhysX. You can keep your fan boyistic BS.

Anyway back to Mafia, I have my opinion, you have yours.
 
Last edited:
motsm said:
Ignorance? Your example of UT3 is actually quite perfect. Normal maps get frame rates of over 100, and PhysX maps get around 30, and on top of that are unplayable because of stuttering and mouse lag. The physics used in those maps are nothing I haven't seen done in other games using software that have next to no performance impact at all as well. You also ignored Cryostasis which also is rendered unplayable when you turn on PhysX. You can keep your fan boyistic BS.

Anyway back to Mafia, I have my opinion, you have yours.
Click to expand...

It is ignorance to think any PjysX SDK 2.7.1 game support GPU-physX.
And did you just compare levels with destrucable architechture to levles without?
What is next?
Comparing T&L games to shader based games?
Odly I never had these issues in UT3 PhysXlevel..on a q6600/800GT combo.

And Cellfactor, GRAW2 and UT Physx levels has the same and/or better physics as BFBC2...just years before.
But I guess that means that people are content with old tech 😉 )

And cryostais ran well too...it runs even better on my current rig.
That you installation/PC has issues is your problem, not a physx problem.
 
zerocool84 said:
Ahh Physx, lock out almost half the userbase and never live up to Nvidia saying it was going to change the way we play games while anyone can use the physics in Bad Company 2, Red Faction, etc that actually do something meaningful. We all know that Physx isn't going to go anywhere the way it is and the way it's locked down.
Click to expand...

AMD is far from 50% market share, please try again 🙂
 
Lonbjerg said:
AMD is far from 50% market share, please try again 🙂
Click to expand...

Latest Mercury data gives 43% for AMD and 57% for nVidia. Not what I would call "far from 50% market share"...

Anyway, the PhysX effects look really nice. Hopefully not only people with a GTX480 will be able to see them in action... Though I somehow doubt that. As I wrote, it looks nice, let's see if it will be usable at all 🙂
 
Lonbjerg said:
It is ignorance to think any PjysX SDK 2.7.1 game support GPU-physX.
And did you just compare levels with destrucable architechture to levles without?
What is next?
Comparing T&L games to shader based games?
Odly I never had these issues in UT3 PhysXlevel..on a q6600/800GT combo.

And Cellfactor, GRAW2 and UT Physx levels has the same and/or better physics as BFBC2...just years before.
But I guess that means that people are content with old tech 😉 )

And cryostais ran well too...it runs even better on my current rig.
That you installation/PC has issues is your problem, not a physx problem.
Click to expand...
As I said, PhysX only works well with a dedicated PPU, and if you are running Cryostasis well than you must have one. You don't seem to get my point however, you just keep trying to debase me with silly little comparisons.

The point is, to render PhysX that are as you say the same as BFBC2, you need a $100+ PPU, while BFBC2, Crysis, Red Faction Guerrilla, and various other games can do it just as efficiently using only your CPU with next to no performance impact. Why should anyone need to spend more money on something there CPU can already do?

I'm obviously wasting my time however, fan boys will be fan boys after all.
 
Tristicus said:
Try backing that up with numbers.
Click to expand...

Qbah said:
Latest Mercury data gives 43% for AMD and 57% for nVidia. Not what I would call "far from 50% market share"...

Anyway, the PhysX effects look really nice. Hopefully not only people with a GTX480 will be able to see them in action... Though I somehow doubt that. As I wrote, it looks nice, let's see if it will be usable at all 🙂
Click to expand...

zerocool84 said:
Did I say half or almost half??? They are almost half. Why did you have to bring your bs over here to the PC gaming forum?
Click to expand...

Selling != market cap:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
 
motsm said:
As I said, PhysX only works well with a dedicated PPU, and if you are running Cryostasis well than you must have one. You don't seem to get my point however, you just keep trying to debase me with silly little comparisons.

The point is, to render PhysX that are as you say the same as BFBC2, you need a $100+ PPU, while BFBC2, Crysis, Red Faction Guerrilla, and various other games can do it just as efficiently using only your CPU with next to no performance impact. Why should anyone need to spend more money on something there CPU can already do?

I'm obviously wasting my time however, fan boys will be fan boys after all.
Click to expand...


No, I said doing less, aka doing less than 2006 games, less than 2007 games, less than 2008 games...you catch the drift 😉
 
Lonbjerg said:
It is ignorance to think any PjysX SDK 2.7.1 game support GPU-physX.
And did you just compare levels with destrucable architechture to levles without?
What is next?
Comparing T&L games to shader based games?
Odly I never had these issues in UT3 PhysXlevel..on a q6600/800GT combo.

And Cellfactor, GRAW2 and UT Physx levels has the same and/or better physics as BFBC2...just years before.
But I guess that means that people are content with old tech 😉 )

And cryostais ran well too...it runs even better on my current rig.
That you installation/PC has issues is your problem, not a physx problem.
Click to expand...

First of all, absolutely no one plays the UT3 PhysX maps online. So enjoy your botmatches running at 30fps. Oh guess what, No one plays Cellfactor either because its a shit game and a crappy tech demo. Oh, no one plays Graw2 either.

Meanwhile BFBC2 has about 300000 players online this instant. PhysX is Triumphant for sure bro. Notice how PhysX is never in any major triple A titles at the hardware level.


Second of all, a fool like you would play Cryostasis for Physx. Everybody knows Cryostasis for its PhysX, and in the process completely misses the point of the game. PhysX and the accompanying bloat engine is why that game totally failed at retail, at least in the US and Europe. This sucks because it had probably had the most unique story since Planescape Torment. Not that you would even know what that is because "lolz its old tech m i rit"

This thread should be in the video forum. Oh wait, looks like you got hounded out of there already, so you came to troll here.
 
Last edited:
I don't give a crap about PhysX and Nvidia behaving like Apple.

I do care about the game. Mafia was awesome, this looks awesome. I'll very likely buy it.
 
StinkyPinky said:
I don't give a crap about PhysX and Nvidia behaving like Apple.

I do care about the game. Mafia was awesome, this looks awesome. I'll very likely buy it.
Click to expand...

Yea thia game looks cool and don`t care about Physx. Sad that something that could have been so cool is retarded and watered down.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Selling != market cap:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Click to expand...

So now it's not market share anymore, but units sold? In the last 7 months AMD ripped 8% of market share from nVidia, which means they sold so many more graphics cards it's not funny.

Also, the Steam survey - most used DX10 cards - HD4800 series. Most used DX11 - HD5700 series followed closely by HD5800 series. You did read what you posted, right?

The pie chart includes every single graphics card used on Steam (so what? a few milion people probably), with cards going waay back to early 2000.

Steam for nVidia has:

- ~5-series -> 8600GTS - in this category every single card is not suitable for PhysX
- 8800GS -> GTS250 - those cards won't be able to provide you smooth gameplay in any manner, especially in PhysX intense scenario parts
- GTX260 and faster - will probably be able to play the game okay (GTX2xx) to great (GTX4xx)

So now, having peeled off the useless cards from that chart, we're left with the important bits. Meaning - developers implementing PhysX are actually targeting a really small market. A huge majority of gamers won't be able to enjoy those things anyway.

Now I know PC gaming is also about pushing the boundaries of graphics - it would be welcome though if everybody having a semi-decent rig would be able to see those boundaries being pushed. This could be accomplished by using standards that both camps support.

tl;dr - stop being delusional and accept the fact that nVidia is not the supreme power you believe they are. And vendor-specific standards are bad.
 
Last edited:
Lonbjerg said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySqip0XBpn8&feature=player_embedded

Nice to se the glassshards react to shockwaves, instead of being dead and static..and dissapear af 10 seconds 😉
Click to expand...

Question: what do persistent debris have to do with physics of any kind?
I mean, if we assume they are just done on a CPU, and the physics gets "turned off" so they are indeed left dead and static once they have done there exploding, what would then cause them to disappear? Because I don't think it has anything to do with physics and more to do with not having too much crap all over the place to reduce performance.
Ghostbusters uses Velocity and has an in-game option for persistent debris, Tomb Raider: Underworld has persistent debris and I don't know what physics engine it uses, but it runs on consoles, so it won't be hardware PhysX on said consoles.

So Mafia 2 having some features which are available elsewhere in at least some form does not mean PhysX specifically is doing anything to allow those features, since you can have similar things (as usual) without PhysX.
Whether things like persistent debris (even without physics, or with low level physics) are allowed when not using hardware PhysX will indicate how much effort they put into supporting gamers (including consoles).
 
Excuse me, nerds? Could you stop jerking each other off about some incredibly stupid shit and talk about the game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top