New Mafia II PhysX ON/OFF video.

[Sp12]

Lol even on ignore i see wreckages posts in nested quotes...

You do realize wreckage that nvidia is worth HALF of their value from the same period as well? It's called a recession.

Wait, how do I ignore someone? This sounds like an awesome feature.

Anywho, as has been said before, Physx will never take off in a meaningful manner until it becomes an open standard. Judging from Nvidia's track record, ATI/Havok will have an open platform if they really see value in it by that time.

 

[Acanthus]

Wait, how do I ignore someone? This sounds like an awesome feature.

Anywho, as has been said before, Physx will never take off in a meaningful manner until it becomes an open standard. Judging from Nvidia's track record, ATI/Havok will have an open platform if they really see value in it by that time.

View the members profile, the ignore controls are in there.

 

[zerocool84]

Anywho, as has been said before, Physx will never take off in a meaningful manner until it becomes an open standard. Judging from Nvidia's track record, ATI/Havok will have an open platform if they really see value in it by that time.

Everyone has said this before but people never listen. There are non-Physx games with more meaningful physics effects than anything that has been done with Physx. We were promised YEARS ago that it would change the way we played games. We're all still waiting.

 

[taserbro]

Everyone has said this before but people never listen. There are non-Physx games with more meaningful physics effects than anything that has been done with Physx. We were promised YEARS ago that it would change the way we played games. We're all still waiting.

I'm pretty sure physx remains purely cosmetic because devs aren't going to make games only about half their potential userbase can run. Suppose someone makes a revolutionary title based on physx tomorrow and while a great game, it basically requires an nvidia card to run above 25fps due to how physics-heavy it is, what do you think will happen with everyone who has invested into a radeon based rig?

I'd wager that aside from the massive [redacted] and conspiracy theories that nvidia bribed the devs to make it nvidia exclusive or to cripple multicore cpu code, the bottom line would be that it'll probably sell only about half of what it would if it weren't limited to nvidia gpus. Try selling that line to a VC, or anyone depending on their software to sell in order to get paid; the risk/reward just doesn't justify it, especially not nowadays when amd gpus are so overwhelmingly popular.

But it's not like hardware physics is incapable of creating groundbreaking gameplay; heck I recall seeing amazing demos videos of a fps taking place in a giant low-gravity pinball machine from the time of agea cards way long ago and some pretty mindblowing environment destruction from nvidia demos recently. It's just that it's not going to go far commercially unless amd adopts something with give or take the same capabilities as physx, both in the hardware and software support side so the devs can cater to everyone.
I reckon the ball might actually be in amd's court.


We allow cussing in P&N and OT, not in the tech forums.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[zerocool84]

I'm pretty sure physx remains purely cosmetic because devs aren't going to make games only about half their potential userbase can run. Suppose someone makes a revolutionary title based on physx tomorrow and while a great game, it basically requires an nvidia card to run above 25fps due to how physics-heavy it is, what do you think will happen with everyone who has invested into a radeon based rig?

I'd wager that aside from the massive shitstorm and conspiracy theories that nvidia bribed the devs to make it nvidia exclusive or to cripple multicore cpu code, the bottom line would be that it'll probably sell only about half of what it would if it weren't limited to nvidia gpus. Try selling that line to a VC, or anyone depending on their software to sell in order to get paid; the risk/reward just doesn't justify it, especially not nowadays when amd gpus are so overwhelmingly popular.

But it's not like hardware physics is incapable of creating groundbreaking gameplay; heck I recall seeing amazing demos videos of a fps taking place in a giant low-gravity pinball machine from the time of agea cards way long ago and some pretty mindblowing environment destruction from nvidia demos recently. It's just that it's not going to go far commercially unless amd adopts something with give or take the same capabilities as physx, both in the hardware and software support side so the devs can cater to everyone.
I reckon the ball might actually be in amd's court.

I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.

 

[HurleyBird]

So, it looks the choice is between basically no debris or silly WAAAYYY too much debris. *sigh*

The correct solution is to go half way between the two extremes. Thumbs down to the devs and Nvidia.

 

[taserbro]

I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.

As much as I'd love to see a grudgingly sponsored title shatter my mind (and sincerely, I can't say everyone would agree with me here and welcome that), nvidia isn't exactly in a comfortable position as of late. They just lost a their case with rambus, their latest line of products was received with lukewarm interest at best and we're approaching the computer-buying prime time of the year with a pretty pessimistic magic eight ball in the economy dept. There are a lot of companies and institutions in much better positions than they who are playing it safe at the detriment of everyone but themselves right now; that should sum up how courageous firms the size of nvidia are feeling right about now.

Furthermore, games like portal2 and BC2 already prove that in game physics can accomplish amazing things beyond visual eye-candy and tech demos all but prove that the technology exists to make it happen. A title pushing the limits of what has been done will more or less be redundant in that statement. I don't believe that no game dev has seen the potential of going down that road; it just happens that the hardware physics market is currently in a mexican standoff with neither sides willing to be the big loser and get things rolling by having to do all the open-platform work for their competitors to profit on. That said, nvidia's already contributed a lot in that direction by just promoting physic effects in general; I've played mafia2 thanks to a forum member pointing to the evga promo and while I agree that a lot of the physx was pretty pointless considering how taxing they were, it shouldn't overshadow the fact that some of them also showed a lot of promise.

 

[Tempered81]

Thumbs down to the devs and Nvidia.

Agreed. Too bad the situation is what it is. Take the money, help sell and promote your creation, etc. Perhaps a reason these "worthless little debris" effects are the only thing Mafia 2 devs incorporated into their GPU Physx lib was because of the huge backlash & community uproar over all the visual content removed by Rocksteady in Batman.

Just for laughs... Why not make the main character visible only when "Nvidia Physx" is set to very high, and an Nvidia GPU is detected via IHV check? Well it's possible, and would probably result in the developer receiving an even LARGER payday. But it wouldn't make any sense, and would open another can of worms just like this thread is doing.

I would almost appreciate a developer totally pushing the envelope with their creative design to really incorporate GPU physics processing into the final product. Not just create a small polygon of random shape and size like in MAFIA2, script it to fall from impact points on entities, and have it react to the floor with a realistic gravity algorithm. Then set 10,000 of them to appear on the screen at the same time, and have their positioning and placement calculated by the GPU (which has much more arithmetic power than a CPU).

I know if someone created this masterpiece im dreaming of, it would only run solely on Nvidia anyway (via GPU 'PHSYX'). I'd probably get a 8800gt or something just to check it out though.
There are some really talented studios out there accomplishing amazing things with HAvOK on a CPU. One of them should really attempt to push the envelope of physics incorporation handled on the GPU - even if its only usable by a small percentage of the gaming community only on one particular platform. It would be nice to see. And, overall, that's a trend Nvidia would like to see come about anyway.

 

[Acanthus]

It's not really that hard to get something like this off the ground.

Ageia had the right idea with Cellfactor. Show off why we want this.

How do we go from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVZ51iS5r4

To some shell casings on the floor and an obnoxious amount of unrealistic debris, when we have MORE graphics power and MORE computing power for physics.

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Acanthus]

Agreed. Too bad the situation is what it is. Take the money, help sell and promote your creation, etc. Perhaps a reason these "worthless little debris" effects are the only thing Mafia 2 devs incorporated into their GPU Physx lib was because of the huge backlash & community uproar over all the visual content removed by Rocksteady in Batman.

Just for laughs... Why not make the main character visible only when "Nvidia Physx" is set to very high, and an Nvidia GPU is detected via IHV check? Well it's possible, and would probably result in the developer receiving an even LARGER payday. But it wouldn't make any sense, and would open another can of worms just like this thread is doing.

I would almost appreciate a developer totally pushing the envelope with their creative design to really incorporate GPU physics processing into the final product. Not just create a small polygon of random shape and size like in MAFIA2, script it to fall from impact points on entities, and have it react to the floor with a realistic gravity algorithm. Then set 10,000 of them to appear on the screen at the same time, and have their positioning and placement calculated by the GPU (which has much more arithmetic power than a CPU).

I know if someone created this masterpiece im dreaming of, it would only run solely on Nvidia anyway (via GPU 'PHSYX'). I'd probably get a 8800gt or something just to check it out though.
There are some really talented studios out there accomplishing amazing things with HAvOK on a CPU. One of them should really attempt to push the envelope of physics incorporation handled on the GPU - even if its only usable by a small percentage of the gaming community only on one particular platform. It would be nice to see. And, overall, that's a trend Nvidia would like to see come about anyway.

Correct me if im wrong, but isn't MS working on an open standard for the next iteration of directX? I thought DirectPhysics was kind of a big deal.

Giving us multi vendor GPU support would do wonders for penetration numbers, which is what will actually get developers motive to put the stuff in their games.

Unfortunately, unless Nvidia wins some next gen console contracts (Playstation 4? Microsoft hates them) we wont see physX on a lot of games unless Nvidia continues the "pull up to their office with a dumptruck full of money to add a few tumbly boxes" approach.

 

[Acanthus]

I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.

The sad part is the super high end demos they have been showing off are going to have to be hardware locked in some way to high end physX only.

Those hair and cloth demos run at ~25fps with one character on screen and NO other actors or even scenery on a GTX480.

I honestly believe that Ageia having the proprietary add in card was a good move. If nvidia wants to sell us yet another 8800GT, they should just make a minimum spec card for "physX 2.0" and certify some cards that have enough raw power to be a dedicated physics card when the user buys a new GTX580/570/560/whatever.

 

[Keysplayr]

I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.

It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.

 

[HurleyBird]

It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.

Wow, just wow. So enthusiasts are to blame for the lack of interesting things being done with PhysX? Seriously? Obviously the game developers don't give a hoot about enthusiasts, they just don't want sell as many units as possible. We *could* have a lot more right now if PhysX wasn't so closed off, going as far as artificially disabling it when an ati card is present in the system. The enthusiasts aren't to blame here, Nvidia is.

 

[Sind]

It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.

This whole thread is full of reasons for said backlash. Does it really need to be spelled out any further? People have been waiting for something for 5 years, and still nothing beyond perceived gimmicks geared towards marketing have been implemented so far regarding Physx.

The only blame here should be leveled at Nvidia.

 

[SirPauly]

they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.

You control the developer relations of nVidia and control adding Physic content; how would you define adding PhysX in a great way?

 

[SirPauly]

Here is another article that touches on Mafia 2, touches on CPU, ATI and nVidia:

Mafia 2 PhysX Performance

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/09/03/mafia-2-physx-performance/1

 

[Wreckage]

The thing is PhysX is not going away. So some people in this thread are just going to have to accept it and buy a card that supports it, or play games with less features enabled. Because PhysX has a software side that is in nearly 100 games and runs on everything from the iPhone to all the consoles. This will keep GPU PhysX alive forever.

 

[SirPauly]

Idealism hat on:

Hopefully, there would be more pressure by Intel, AMD with Havok or Bullet, more maturity with OpenCL or Compute so nVidia may port GPU Physics to OpenCL, etc.. I just don't see Intel or AMD signing up for Cuda.

There are a lot of good things in PhysX. Sure would be nice to see more developers and consumers take advantage of it.

 

[Dribble]

Idealism hat on:

Hopefully, there would be more pressure by Intel, AMD with Havok or Bullet, more maturity with OpenCL or Compute so nVidia may port GPU Physics to OpenCL, etc.. I just don't see Intel or AMD signing up for Cuda.

There are a lot of good things in PhysX. Sure would be nice to see more developers and consumers take advantage of it.

The best hope is the next gen consoles support opencl or directx compute (very likely imo). The moment consoles can do that then all the console physics libraries will gain a hardware section, including physx which will have to get ported to run on opencl and directx compute to work. Then hardware physics acceleration will really take off.

 

[WelshBloke]

The thing is PhysX is not going away. So some people in this thread are just going to have to accept it and buy a card that supports it, or play games with less features enabled. Because PhysX has a software side that is in nearly 100 games and runs on everything from the iPhone to all the consoles. This will keep GPU PhysX alive forever.

So hardware GPU Physx runs on the iPhone now?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Honestly, this looks like another Batman AA kind of deal. You see that kind of immersion from a Call of Duty game without the FPS hit. Adding those stray bullets in say, Havok wouldn't do much performance wise.

"Hey guys, lets take out animations and features that could've easily been there and put them back in for our paying vendor! This is progress!" That's what this is and everyone can see it.

Also, Physx would be a pretty big deal if it wasn't crippled on the CPU side of things. Physx is coded to run on an immensely parallel architecture (G80+ SP's and up), yet only runs on a single core when used on a CPU. That's RIDICULOUS. It obviously spawns at least 32 threads because a 9500gt/8600gts is the minimum, correct? Also it was recommended the GTX 260 be used for Physx? What's that, 192+ threads? So what's stopping it from happening on the CPU side? Oh wait, that wouldn't sell nVidia video cards. Sorry, forgot. Proprietary features FTW? Unless there is a valid explanation for this, nVidia is intentionally crippling Physx for non-nVidia customers when it doesn't have to be. We're at a time where hex-core CPUs cost less than an Ipod. How about un-crippling Physx to actually take advantage of our hardware?

I'm the last to hop on proprietary features. I did play Mirrors Edge on my 8800GTS and it wasn't anything that couldn't have been done in many (if not, most) engines. Just look at NBA 2K10 or NBA live series, the jerseys and net are pretty complex and the jersey/net motions are NOT pre-rendered, yet there isn't a noticeable performance hit. It is usually at 60FPS with any modern dual core and 48xx or 88xx series card.

I guess no one from the nVidia camp wants to elaborate on why Physx is so crippled on CPUs. It's strikingly obvious. Physx isn't THAT intensive for CPUs. If Physx will halt a 5970 to 30fps while the 460 runs it at 45fps, with Physx only running on one core no less, then the 5970 could run it at least 50fps if Physx was able to run on two cores. Let Physx run on 3 cores? The game could probably run at above playable framerates. This is clearly nVidia oppressing the PC gaming community from features because they didn't buy an nVidia card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Wow, just wow. So enthusiasts are to blame for the lack of interesting things being done with PhysX? Seriously? Obviously the game developers don't give a hoot about enthusiasts, they just don't want sell as many units as possible. We *could* have a lot more right now if PhysX wasn't so closed off, going as far as artificially disabling it when an ati card is present in the system. The enthusiasts aren't to blame here, Nvidia is.

I didn't say it WAS the defacto absolute reason for anything. And I really wish you wouldn't react so dramatically to posts. You blow it out of proportion and maybe get the wrong context out of it.
What I'm saying is, maybe if ATI jumped on board a bit with PhysX, we'd be seeing a whole lot more being done. DONT FLIP OUT, I'M NOT BLAMING ATI!!!
They make their business decisions and so did NV. Done is done. I'm just wondering about what if's, thats all. So, no more Wow, just wow's please. Ask me first.

 

[Red Storm]

It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.

So... it's the fault of every company not named nVidia for declining to use their own engine which after all these years is still nothing more than visual enhancements and not actual physics? And all these "pitchfork-wielding" gamers are also apparently at fault because they decided not to lock themselves into one brand and go with all nVidia hardware?

If you really want this PhysX-only game of yours to become a reality you should be looking at the guys who are sending you free hardware, not blaming the other half of the market that didn't choose nVidia. They (nVidia) only want PhysX to work on their own hardware, why do you think that is? They just want more people to buy more of their own products (a mutual goal shared by all companies with something to sell). The issue is that nVidia tries to mask this under the guise of PhysX, which is not physics by the way, but strictly visual enhancements (which do look nice most of the time).

What I'm saying is, maybe if ATI jumped on board a bit with PhysX, we'd be seeing a whole lot more being done.

AMD cards can run PhysX. nVidia says they don't want to have to support their hardware, and that's fine. But they didn't just do that, they (tried to) put in measures to block AMD cards from running it at all. Remember that driver "bug"?

 

[SirPauly]

I guess no one from the nVidia camp wants to elaborate on why Physx is so crippled on CPUs. It's strikingly obvious. Physx isn't THAT intensive for CPUs. If Physx will halt a 5970 to 30fps while the 460 runs it at 45fps, with Physx only running on one core no less, then the 5970 could run it at least 50fps if Physx was able to run on two cores. Let Physx run on 3 cores? The game could probably run at above playable framerates. This is clearly nVidia oppressing the PC gaming community from features because they didn't buy an nVidia card.

It's not necessarily about camps and many have gamed on ATI and nVidia hardware.

PhysX can run on multi-core:

http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/physx-fluidmark/

It's up to the developer. Most PhysX titles are CPU based.

On optimizations, -- it's coming with SDK 3.0:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...cpu-gaming-physics-library-to-spite-intel.ars

http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/7/8/nvidia-were-not-hobbling-cpu-physx/

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/50554-does-physx-diminish-cpu-performance

http://physxinfo.com/news/3414/physx-sdk-3-0-automatic-multi-threading/

http://physxinfo.com/news/3391/physx-x87-and-sse/

A few articles from my PhysX thread at Rage.

 

[Keysplayr]

So... it's the fault of every company not named nVidia for declining to use their own engine which after all these years is still nothing more than visual enhancements and not actual physics? And all these "pitchfork-wielding" gamers are also apparently at fault because they decided not to lock themselves into one brand and go with all nVidia hardware?

If you really want this PhysX-only game of yours to become a reality you should be looking at the guys who are sending you free hardware, not blaming the other half of the market that didn't choose nVidia. They (nVidia) only want PhysX to work on their own hardware, why do you think that is? They just want more people to buy more of their own products (a mutual goal shared by all companies with something to sell). The issue is that nVidia tries to mask this under the guise of PhysX, which is not physics by the way, but strictly visual enhancements (which do look nice most of the time).



AMD cards can run PhysX. nVidia says they don't want to have to support their hardware, and that's fine. But they didn't just do that, they (tried to) put in measures to block AMD cards from running it at all. Remember that driver "bug"?

RedStorm, I'm not going to even address this post other than to say it is laden with innuendo and accusation, subtle, but there. No reason to mention my getting free cards, you could have just said Nvidia, but didn't. Stop being so sensitive to all this. There are GRAY areas. Not everything is BLACK or WHITE.

As for your last paragraph, YES, AMD cards most likely CAN run PhysX if made to do so. But, ATI backed Havok, cold shouldered PhysX for probably good business reasons. Nvidia blocked PhysX from running on GPU's when ATI cards are primaries instead of Nvidia cards. We all know this already, it's current events, nobody has forgotten or ever will. Would you want to support your competitors hardware with your API? Not likely. If things turned out differently and ATI did jump on the wagon, chances are cooperation from both camps would have provided support, but bitter rivals to the end is what we have.