Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 4,419
- 0
- 0
You can dance around all you want to, but it dosn't alter the fact that there is no such thing as DX10 with DX11 features tacked on.
Since I don't want to dance with ignorance again, you can read up here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30526857&highlight=dx10+tacked#post30526857
DX9 with DX10 "tacked" on is the same FUD as DX10 with DX11 "tacked" on. :thumbsdown:
Skurge
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 5,195
- 1
- 71
That didn't answer my question.
Toyota summed it up perfectly. "well its just the wording you have a problem with then?"
If the games looks the same as the DX9 version + tesselation that barely does anything to make it look better. That is tacked on to me and everyone else here. Except you cause you can't grasp the concept.
Lonbjerg
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 4,419
- 0
- 0
Dosn't matter what your personal fuzzy warm feelings are...they don't alter facts...and there is nothing "tacked" on in the new UE3 engine.
Get over it.
PhysX has been in the UnrealEngine 3 as the default physics engine since day 1.
You can (AFAIK) license other physics engines for use, but primarily UE3 has had PhysX which comes shipped with it.
PhysX also doesn't have to cost anything, and neither does UE3 (for PC). If you pay you can get source code access (for both PhysX and UE3), but it's not required.
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,551
- 136
If UE3 engine uses GPU PhysX then it's a huge huge break for nVidia. There are a lot of companies that use the various Unreal Engine versions for their games. I've always felt that GPU PhysX was overrated simply because it wasn't used for more than eye candy and didn't help gameplay in any way. If they implement this in a meaningful way, I will officially change my stance and say GPU PhysX is a real talking point.
Skurge
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2009
- 5,195
- 1
- 71
That would mean Consoles would get the short end of the stick if gpu accelerated physx is made mandatory. I just don't see that Happening with UE3. One of the biggest games that use UE3 is GOW and its a console exclusive.
Am I the only one who wants to see nvidia physx die off? simply because its not for everyone?
gamers with intel IGP or amd cards wont have get anything from these nvidia optimisations. Havoc is the better way to go when it comes to physic engines, simply because it can do more or less the same, and everyone can use it. And with how CPUs are improveing getting more cores, taxing the gpu for physx isnt helping any, esp for games that arnt cpu bound (which most arnt at high graphics levels).
2 arguments againt it:
1) not everyone can use it = nothing for others, because software developers are to lasy to do both.
2) most games at high settings arnt cpu bound, why not let cpu take physical engine stress instead of gpu (for better game performance).
gamers with intel IGP or amd cards wont have get anything from these nvidia optimisations. Havoc is the better way to go when it comes to physic engines, simply because it can do more or less the same, and everyone can use it. And with how CPUs are improveing getting more cores, taxing the gpu for physx isnt helping any, esp for games that arnt cpu bound (which most arnt at high graphics levels).
2 arguments againt it:
1) not everyone can use it = nothing for others, because software developers are to lasy to do both.
2) most games at high settings arnt cpu bound, why not let cpu take physical engine stress instead of gpu (for better game performance).
Last edited:
UE3 has been able to use hardware PhysX since it was launched (UE3 that is, not PhysX), back when it was PPU only. Anandtech even did an article on it, saying that it could be the "big break" for PhysX.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2393
That was over 3 years ago.
Also, Apex is used in Mafia 2 on PC, but (I think) not on consoles. All it can be used for is making things look prettier. Nothing game changing. Consoles are "holding back" PCs in this respect, but equally NV is holding back PCs. The only way for PhysX to become big is for it to be supported on both next generation consoles, which either requires it to be opened up, or for both next gen consoles to use NV hardware. In the case of the latter, it would be bad for PC gaming because NV could then get a stranglehold on these features on PC gaming, shutting AMD out.
If it's the former, then other physics solutions would either come to the fore, which could work on any hardware (e.g. something which works through OpenCL or similar), or NV will have to let everything use PhysX on both consoles and support third party hardware for it.
Last edited:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,677
- 6,250
- 126
As long as these don't become Minimum Requirements(IE can be turned off if necessary), not a big deal IMO.
Re:Tesselation- Whether it works better on one Vendors card or not will really depend on how it is used. The performance delta may not make much difference just because one Vendors implementation is theoretically superior.
Re:Tesselation- Whether it works better on one Vendors card or not will really depend on how it is used. The performance delta may not make much difference just because one Vendors implementation is theoretically superior.
What? If you mean that they are going to add tessellation to the point that no one can use then yes you may be right.
Either way if you feel the tessellation level being used in a game is too high you can easily tone it down now for AMD cards via the tessellation slider in CCC.
Interesting post. Can we re-qoute this sort of thing the next time someone moans about the likes of Crysis 2 being made for the consoles first, being dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, etc?
If not taking advantage of the full power of a gaming PC is bad then so is neglecting the extra features of Nvidia cards.
First of all this is off-topic but now I feel compelled to respond to you because I have noticed your posts in the Crysis 2 Demo thread.
The problem that most people with Crysis 2 is that so far there is nothing compelling about it graphically while the first Crysis had everyone astonished when it was released. Granted the Crysis 2 Demo is at the end of the day a demo but nothing suggests that CryTek is going to incorporate any sort of significant changes in the PC version of the game to make it look better.
In the eyes of the graphic card enthusiasts the first Crysis was and still is something we want to conquer with our gaming rigs but at the same time respect it for how good it looks.
At the time of posting this after 3 years and 3 months the original Crysis is still the best looking game created and that is quite sad considering how much faster graphics cards have gotten since 2007.
When a PC enthusiast looks at Crysis 2, we don't look at it as if it's something new, it has a lot to live up to considering how good it's prequel was graphically intensive and polished. You have to understand the sort of disappointment we feel when we compare Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 and see that in terms of graphics we have actually gone backwards and that's something no one was expecting in PC gaming especially from a develpoer like CryTek.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,686
- 10,855
- 136
BUT...
Crysis already has a physics engine, it uses the havoc one, where you run it on the cpu. Personally I liked that.
physx "extra" feature is a cruel joke ^-^, its really not that much/if any better than the alternatives and its exclusive so it hurts others (because software developers arnt gonna use more than 1 phsyical engine in a game, if they go with physx that means they LOSE all the people that have intel/amd grafics).
In this sense, neglecting a extra feature like "Physx", actually helps gamers get better gameing experiances because not everyone has a nvidia card. Havoc engine works great, and everyone gets a better gameing experiance, phsyx means SOME gamers lose out (on use of a physical engine) because of nvidia.
Everytime physx gets used, amd/intel users suffer to have no physical engine.
So remember to thank nvidia for worse gameplay experiances in the future to come.
Last edited:
But again if a card has extra features why not take advantage of them? That's the whole point of being able to choose the hardware that goes in a PC. What about games that support things like EAX that is (or was) only available on Creative soundcards?
Anyone using an Intel graphics card is already excluded from new games.
@Veliko
When Soundblaster had EAX, did the game makers *ignore* all other soundcard techs?
You do see how thats differnt right? also... was there a working alternative to EAX? because there is for physx.
this is why its a joke.... nvidia dont have 90%+ of the market or something, game developers that pick Physx HURT alot of people, because it means those others wont have any physical engine directly because of Nvidia paying people off to use their worthless extra feature called physx.
When Soundblaster had EAX, did the game makers *ignore* all other soundcard techs?
You do see how thats differnt right? also... was there a working alternative to EAX? because there is for physx.
this is why its a joke.... nvidia dont have 90%+ of the market or something, game developers that pick Physx HURT alot of people, because it means those others wont have any physical engine directly because of Nvidia paying people off to use their worthless extra feature called physx.
As an owner of an Nvidia card why would I be particularly bothered about that? People who didn't have Soundblaster cards couldn't get the EAX effects regardless of the alternatives available.
Red Hawk
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 3,266
- 169
- 106
Holiday season 2011, according to the trailer. Is that too late, or still enough time?
No compasion for other gamers?
1) there is no alternative to EAX, there is for physx.
2) Havoc works as well or better, and works for all users instead of just nvidia card owners. You win reguardless of which solution is used, so why support the nvidia feature? unless you enjoy watching others not get phsycal engines?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter