Originally posted by: nRollo
What I'm talking about is they weren't very well done a decade ago. You can't really compare the wind blowing trash and debris around the whole scene, ripping things apart in UT3 Tornado,
?Ripping? what ?apart??
Is it destroying geometry in real-time like Red Faction was doing in 2001?
Is it digging tunnels, holes and collapsing bridges in a non-scripted way like explosive weapons and vehicles could in a 2001 title?
No, it?s not.
It?s just flinging unfixed objects around, and this has been done in games like UberSoldier where explosions will fling any non-attached item (including dead bodies) around.
The fact is you don?t even know what you talking about but try to mask this by using marketeering buzzwords like ?ripping things apart?.
yet here you are comparing a wind sound and having to to compensate movement in Quake 1 and Serious Sam1 to the wind effects PhysX offers.
Uh, no. You claimed PhysX adds wind which makes the player have to keep their balance. Aside from this being utter horseshit (again demonstrating you don?t really play games, you just market nVidia), I also demonstrated games that had wind effects that require the player to compensate in order to keep balance.
As for other wind effects, I?ve pointed out that games like Undying and Soldier of Fortune 2 had curtains and flags influenced by the wind like you extol Mirror?s Edge for having.
Which are those BFG? Anything I've listed as a PhysX effect can be found in the various PhysX reviewers guides from NVIDIA, in which they also give you save games to check them out.
Let?s see what
error8 posted:
I have to keep my balance on the pipe or else I will fall and this happens on my 4870 ATi card, with PhysX turned off. That has no connection with PhysX what so ever.
See, that?s someone that?s actually played the game, unlike you. Tell me, how much have you actually played of Mirror?s Edge?
What does that have to do with anything?! Let's stay on topic and avoid violating TOS by getting into a "who games more" debate, shall we? LOL
Nice try. It has everything to do with it, namely your lack of credibility. I doubt you?ve finished a single PhysX title, or even played a substantial portion of one for that matter. You just run around telling us how great PhysX is.
My point was that the low res, low poly effects of yesteryear you seem to want to hold forth as comparable are primitive shadows of current PhysX capabilities.
Again a strawman on your part. We aren?t talking about graphics, we?re talking about physics. Stop trying to deflect the issue.
I haven't seen remotely comparable effects on Havok,
Oh course you haven?t, because you don?t actually play games. You?re just an nVidia salesman hyping any piece of tech that happens to be recent. Last month it was Quad-SLI on ?must-have? big monitors with high AA levels, but now it?s 3D glasses running at prehistoric resolutions while claiming anything over 4xAA isn?t needed.
how about using FRAPs to create some videos for us? Put them on youtube for everyone to see and compare to the PhysX demos.
I?d need to play those games again to get to the relevant sections. Given you haven?t even finished a PhysX title, I don?t see why I should bother. You won?t even understand what I show you because you don?t even know what PhysX does, you just constantly market it.
As much as you tout the games of yore and their Havok physics, I'd think you would love to do this and shut me down.
If you need to ask about the capabilities something like Red Faction of then you know even less about physics than I thought.
Bzzzt.
Havok fully intended and pimped to death going to GPU acceleration because they knew it was the way forward. Intel bought them and didn't sell graphics yet so - cancelled.
And yet here?s Red Faction 3 producing a software solution far in excess of any hardware PhysX title.
And yet here?s the original Red Faction providing the ability to dig your own tunnels and holes in unscripted real-time while no hardware PhysX title allows it.
Hard for me to comment on unreleased games I've never played.
That certainly didn?t stop you from pimping PhysX when it was in the same boat. Why the double standard? Why can you comment on unreleased PhysX titles but not on unreleased Havok titles?
This is just like how you were dismissing the Far Cry HDR+AA patch because it was unreleased but then turning around and benchmarking the unreleased SM 3.0 path and telling us it was a ?must-have?. :roll:
The visuals are part of PhysX.
No they aren?t. The Unreal 3 engine does the rendering; all PhysX does is the physics calculations which are then passed back to the renderer to draw the results of.
The wind tearing the roof off a building is a little more impressive than Serious Sam's field of view starting to slide sideways while a wind sound plays.
Again a total strawman. We?re comparing your claim of having to balance on a pipe because of wind.
And where is this roof being ?torn off? by wind? Name the game(s). I?ll name one: NOLF 2, a 2002 title. Note only was the roof torn off but the entire building was ripped apart.
Offer to buy any game specified and make the videos myself to settle this.
Why don?t you start by actually finishing a PhysX game?
Facebook
Twitter