NVIDIA, Epic add DX11 features to Unreal Engine 3

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Lonbjerg

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
sandorski said:
I didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes you did, and in the same time you seem clueless about that NVIDA could make PhysX run on OpenCL if they wanted to.

Read up:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2147297

Claim #4 is just for you.


This manner of posting is counter-productive and inflammatory. Please do not post in this manner.

Deriding your fellow forum members as "clueless" is not the hallmark of respectful discourse.

This is a technical forum, not elementary school, and you are expected to conduct yourself accordingly.

Please familiarize yourself with the AnandTech Forum Guidelines:
We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.
Click to expand...

(I'm going to keep quoting this same body of text, over and over again, because some of our VC&G forum members appear to have a real difficult time remembering it)

Moderator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Storm

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Lonbjerg said:
Yes you did, and in the same time you seem clueless about that NVIDA could make PhysX run on OpenCL if they wanted to.

Read up:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2147297

Claim #4 is just for you.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but reading his post I took it to mean that because OpenCL is expanding, and because PhysX is so closed off, another API will eventually take over that can utilize all hardware regardless of brand name, and that is because it would cater to the whole market, not just the Nvidia half.
 
Lonbjerg

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Red Storm said:
Maybe it's just me, but reading his post I took it to mean that because OpenCL is expanding, and because PhysX is so closed off, another API will eventually take over that can utilize all hardware regardless of brand name.
Click to expand...

Read claim #4?!

I will post it here for you:
Lonbjerg said:
Claim #4

"OpenCL/DirectCompute is much better than PhysX"

This is a claim based on ignorance.

OpenCL <-> CUDA <-> Directe Compute

Those are API's and can be compared.

PhysX <-> Havok <-> Bullet Physics.

Those are physics middlewares and can be compared.

Let look at PhysX.
It's a physics middleware running on CUDA.

Then lets look at Bullet Physics 3.0
It's a physics middleware running on OpenCL.

OpenCL will never be a physics middleware, so comparing the two is really bad and dosn't contribute with anything but ignorance about the topic.
Click to expand...
 
PingviN

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
13
81
wahdangun said:
so where is the physix game that is fully destructible ? i still can't burn down the tunnel in metro, hell i even can't destroy any building/door in Batman : AA
what i have is lousy cloth and paper flying around or some smoke in metro its sooo limited i even don't care anymore, but with BF:BC2 i can do more and improvise like when i know an enemy in the building i can just destroy the wall and rush in or i will simply plant several C4 around the building and destroy it. can i do that in batman : AA ? heck i even try to put some explosive on the door but nothing happen not even a scratch, its look like the door was made from adamantium :hmm:

so i ask you what is more "realistic" ?

(Hint : i don't care how the bullet hole look like, i won't stare bullet hole while dodging enemy bullet )
Click to expand...

This. PhysX is an aesthetic feature, it doesn't do much for gameplay. I'd rather have scripted physics that affects gameplay than realistic-looking glass shattering and realistic cloth-physics.
 
Lonbjerg

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
PingviN said:
This. PhysX is an aesthetic feature, it doesn't do much for gameplay. I'd rather have scripted physics that affects gameplay than realistic-looking glass shattering and realistic cloth-physics.
Click to expand...

Cellfactor and Warmonger would like to have a word with you.

Thank for for make claim#6 obivious to me.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Lonbjerg said:
Again, that would only be true if NVIDIA couldn't port PhysX to OpenCL if needed.

So a false claim.
Click to expand...

Well, that could happen, but I kind of doubt Nvidia would do so without trying to negate the openness of OpenCL. Just wouldn't be an advantage to them anymore.
 
Red Storm

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Lonbjerg said:
Again, that would only be true if NVIDIA couldn't port PhysX to OpenCL if needed.

So a false claim.
Click to expand...

PhysX is Nvidia telling you that you have to buy their cards (preferably two or more!) and only their cards. This is what's holding it back. When we get a physics API that runs well regardless of what card you have in your system, then we'll see developers commit to using it in their games.

After all this time all PhysX has to show for itself (and I'm talking real, game play affecting physics) is two free to download (and poorly rated) games?
 
blckgrffn

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,676
4,308
136
www.teamjuchems.com
I am chiming in that I agree that the consoles are now holding us back in a big way. Thoughts to the contrary are pretty amusing given how much more $$$ is to be made in console game development than in PC game development. Of course the tech level there (CPU multithreading, ~dx9+ GPU's, limited frame buffer) is going to determine a) what the rendering engines are capable of (and optimized for) and b)what textures/art assets we get to enjoy.

Knowing what shoddy work some devs put into their *cross console* ports, why the **** would they care more about the PC? Getting handed money by nVidia/AMD? Clearly MS is not a big pusher at this point. Most game developers publish the game, layoff most everyone, move on to the next project.

Frankly, I think that it is amazing that we get any "PC First" FPS experiences these days. With motion controls enabling other bastions of PC gaming like RTS and RPGs to be played even more effectively on consoles of this generation, I predict that the next generation consoles will capture many of them as well.

Once we know what levels of Tesselation/APU acceleration the next generations of consoles have this may actually become relevant. Until then, we an uber-minority passing the time on a forum.

It's OK, PC... I am not abandoning you... yet... ;)
 
Last edited:
S

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
Lonbjerg said:
Not this BS again.

You cannot "tack" DX10 onto DX9.
You cannot "tack" DX11 onto DX10.

This myth (tacking on stuff...) really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really needs to die.
Click to expand...
Fact 1:
AA + Deferred shading under Dx9 was made possible through "tacking" Dx10 onto Dx9.

Fact 2:
Dx11 is backward compatible to Dx10, meaning tacking Dx11 onto Dx10 is possible as long as the hardware supports Dx11.

Insight:
The differences between Dx11 and Dx10 is small, but the difference between C++ and C is also small. It isn't about APIs, it is the way those APIs being used. Dx11 allows Object Oriented Shader Programming and compute shader, which is something DirectX lacks. Both of these are NOT backward/forward compatible. To utilize this, source code must be rewriten, not rebuild or recompile, but rewriten, which probably takes years. If it takes years, then why are there so many Dx11 games? Tick, by adding tessellation onto a Dx10 game and bamp, a Dx11 game. It is true? No, but Average Joes think so.

Fact 3:
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, which is still a Dx9 game, was made possible by rerouting the codepath(D3D11), utilizing SM5 on Dx11 compatible cards, and SM4 on Dx10 compatible cards, allowing much better performance.

Insight:
It crashes on some system/setup during startup, but when it does, it removes resets the codepath and start the game, and user probably didn't know it happened.

My thoughts:
As of now, we all experienced a drag in FPS from time to time while neither GPU/CPU is at 100&#37; load. If OOSP is implemented correctly, in theory FPS will always be at a given number plus/minus tolerance. If an object can't be processed in time, that object will lag, but not everything else. Objects that is important will have the highest priority, while trees miles away from the viewport can wait. Saying we are years away from that is actually being optimistic.

PhysX, or physics engine is just the beginning to OOE. The idea of changing the magnitude of its effect is a step forward. You can have multiple browser running, anyone of them get stuck probably won't others as long as it doesn't block resources needed by other browsers. You knew this by now, but have you ever question why this isn't happening in gaming? It does in MMO when your friend's FPS doesn't affect you. If MMO servers can stay alive while any individual client gets stuck, therefore not hurting other clients. Great, that happens in the big scale, what about the small scale? Within your PC?

The big thing about Dx11 isn't tessellation. In fact, tessellation is the least Dx11 can bring, so why was it such a big deal now? Because other than tessellation, developers still can't unleash the potential about Object Oriented Shader Programming. Can you blame them? No, it takes years of preparation and lots of money to start from sketches, and it may end up failing miserably.

"Okay, so what is the resolution?" Tick it, a bit at a time. Allow those who doesn't have the gears to play, and those who have the gear experience a bit more. "But that is far from its potential!" That is fine. "What if users complains?" If a tree falls where no one is around, then it didn't make any noise.

"We need to adopt new technologies, but there are so many of them, and some of them are actually the samething with different names, how do we solve this?" Tick it, a bit at a time. "Which one first?" The one that cost the least and makes the loudest noise.

Nvidia takes every single opportunity to show that they are ahead of AMD, and AMD digs every single flaw Nvidia has made. Those are marketing, not hardware, not GPU, but PR craps. Be it Nvidia or AMD, their high-end card rocks. They ain't the same, but they do worth the price. It is a business decision on what technology to adopt, the rest is PR. The bottom line, Epic implemented new technology into their engine, and to us, it is free.

Edit: Removed things that has no values.
 
Last edited:
T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
12,039
2,251
126
Lonbjerg said:
Cellfactor and Warmonger would like to have a word with you.
Click to expand...

Right because those are unbelievably great games that sold in their millions. Lol. :D

Something like Red Faction: Guerilla was a much better showcase for physics in games (other than fluid physics).
 
Last edited:
I

itsmydamnation

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2011
3,044
3,831
136
Lonbjerg said:
Quite funny to see people defending lower performance/qualty.

I am just waiting for you to post about how AMD is more "efficient per Watt" doing tesselation and the joke is complete ;)
Click to expand...

nice to see you complete ignored my post, speaks volumes :thumbsup:
 
PingviN

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
13
81
Lonbjerg said:
Cellfactor and Warmonger would like to have a word with you.

Thank for for make claim#6 obivious to me.
Click to expand...

You mean the two mediocre games trying to promote PhysX? AFAIK, they recieved poor criticism and were forgotten the second they were released. You gonna hold them as a standard for how PhysX is implemented in game these days? Really?
 
A

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Seero said:
Fact 1:
AA + Deferred shading under Dx9 was made possible through "tacking" Dx10 onto Dx9.

Fact 2:
Dx11 is backward compatible to Dx10, meaning tacking Dx11 onto Dx10 is possible as long as the hardware supports Dx11.
Click to expand...


Neither of those statements are correct.

You can't tack on Dx10 onto a Dx9 game. You have to develop a completely separate Dx10 render path from scratch and offer it alongside the old Dx9 path.

The Dx11 API is NOT backwards compatible to the Dx10 API. The Dx11 API is capable of supporting Dx10 and Dx9-class hardware with a single render path, by disabling features that the lower-end hardware cannot use. You still have to write a brand new Dx11 render path to support it if you are trying to add support to an existing Dx9 or Dx10 game.

The only thing that Dx11 gives you an advantage on is that if you are writing a new game or render path from scratch, you can potentially target all 3 feature levels at once with minimal additional work.
 
Lonbjerg

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
PingviN said:
You mean the two mediocre games trying to promote PhysX? AFAIK, they recieved poor criticism and were forgotten the second they were released. You gonna hold them as a standard for how PhysX is implemented in game these days? Really?
Click to expand...

Who do you define "mediocre"?
By sales?
If so, then SIMS are better games than BF:BC2...really?
 
Lonbjerg

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
aka1nas said:
Neither of those statements are correct.

You can't tack on Dx10 onto a Dx9 game. You have to develop a completely separate Dx10 render path from scratch and offer it alongside the old Dx9 path.

The Dx11 API is NOT backwards compatible to the Dx10 API. The Dx11 API is capable of supporting Dx10 and Dx9-class hardware with a single render path, by disabling features that the lower-end hardware cannot use. You still have to write a brand new Dx11 render path to support it if you are trying to add support to an existing Dx9 or Dx10 game.

The only thing that Dx11 gives you an advantage on is that if you are writing a new game or render path from scratch, you can potentially target all 3 feature levels at once with minimal additional work.
Click to expand...


It's amazing how people that know nothing about coding (not talking about you) keep making the same uninformed claims :|

The myth about "tacked" on is really stupid and need to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom