Where do you see PhysX is more mature then Havok? Refer to my earlier post. Havok isn't that far behind PhysX, it's just not marketed as much.
Where do you see PhysX is more mature then Havok? Refer to my earlier post. Havok isn't that far behind PhysX, it's just not marketed as much.
And I stand corrected. Nvidia will have to make PhysX run on OpenCL instead of Cuda only:
http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...platforms,764253.shtml
Or Havok will be giving it a run for it's money. AMD isn't dumb. By focusing on Havok, that will be optimized to run on OpenCL, they can optimize their own hardware for it. If they were to try and run PhysX through ATI Stream, it might actually run slower then on Nvidia hardware = bad publicity, and it takes away time to optimize for Havok instead. And doh, AMD prolly had nightmares with Jensen in them ...
Either way I don't care which physics sdk wins, I like the ragdoll effect etc I get from Physx, just as much as I like them from Havok. Recent games I've played with Havok are Fear 2, Dawn of War 2 and Fallout 3. Not the least games if you ask me.
http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...platforms,764253.shtml
Or Havok will be giving it a run for it's money. AMD isn't dumb. By focusing on Havok, that will be optimized to run on OpenCL, they can optimize their own hardware for it. If they were to try and run PhysX through ATI Stream, it might actually run slower then on Nvidia hardware = bad publicity, and it takes away time to optimize for Havok instead. And doh, AMD prolly had nightmares with Jensen in them ...
Either way I don't care which physics sdk wins, I like the ragdoll effect etc I get from Physx, just as much as I like them from Havok. Recent games I've played with Havok are Fear 2, Dawn of War 2 and Fallout 3. Not the least games if you ask me.
Not that I recall. I remember some antitrust law suits over IE, Google and various anti-virus programs, but I believe those were more about automatic bundling of software and features rather than denial of access or intentional performance crippling.
Actually when I said unused, I meant it hasn't been used in any retail production titles. And as far as I know, it hasn't, which is why I was wondering which titles it was going to be used in. I'm always interested in implementation of new features and technology regardless of how obscure they are.
Originally posted by: nosfe
i can't believe how easily wreckage stirred up the hornets nest with a one year old article
this ^^
MS Office did use undocumented bits of the Win32 API, MS' defense was that people in the Office division just happened to know these undocumented APIs from having worked in the OS division earlier. :roll:
One of the tactics MS used to crush Borland in the early 90s was to hold back API details "in beta" from Borland so developers had to use MS development tools to code for new features in Windows.
MS has also gotten in trouble with the EU (to the tune of hundred of millions in fines) for failing to document some client - server protocols used between Windows desktops and servers. They claimed incompetence rather than malice.
So while nVidia probably wouldn't stick in delay loops for ATI cards, they could easily keep private documentation and functions that would help nVidia cards run a little better with PhysX.
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,210
- 2,552
- 136
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9895558-7.html
http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/a...0002985,2114311,00.htm
"In its case, Novell also said that Microsoft withheld technical information to make WordPerfect work with Windows 95."
The "withheld technical information" was the hidden API's that made MS products "better" compared to the competition.
Obviously there is much more to the case but hidden Windows API's used by MS to enforce their own software dominance in other fields is definitely part of the anti-trust case. But bottom line is MS used their exclusive insider info to give them an edge in developing software for Windows.
The similarity to nVidia's PhysX and ATI is that ATI fears the exact same thing will happen to them where nVidia's drivers will have little extras built in that will give it an edge in PhysX acceleration.
Is it a tin foil hat idea? Yes, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities especially considering something similar has already happened in the software industry.
Says who? PhysX is no more an industry standard that Glide was in the 3Dfx days, or Cg was in the DX8 era. It's simply one of several physics API's available to developers, which just so happens to be supported by Nvidia on their GPU's. And like I said in the other thread, the whole accelerated physics technology is still in its early stages, so terms like "industry standard" don't even apply. Eventually there will emerge true industry standards, and those are likely to be cross-platform standards, not those owned by a single HW vendor.
So what? The fact that it happens to run on other HW is of no credit to NV, because they simply bought out what was already there. NV's only contribution is making it run on their GPU's, which I suspect was the primary reason they acquired PhysX in the first place. Havok also runs on AMD and Intel cpu's, with the added bonus of not being owned by Ati's primary competitor in the GPU market. It would be idiotic for Ati to support PhysX on their GPU's.
Also, you can't just put PhysX code on Ati HW and expect it to magically work. Nvidia implements PhysX on their GPU's via the CUDA abstraction layer, and if Ati were to support PhysX, they'd still have to write their own abstraction layer to interface the PhysX API to their HW. If they're gonna do the hard work of implementing PhysX on their GPU, might as well implement another API which isn't owned by NV.
Moreover, it would be idiotic for NV to just "offer" PhysX to Ati for free. The fact that you can download the SDK for free doesn't mean Nvidia will let anyone use it in a commercial product for free. They can make the documentation and some tools available to Ati, but still charge royalty/licensing fees.
Read my post before this one. Read the press release about gpu-accelerated 'cloth-physics' from Havok, running on ATI-cards through OpenCL.
You name the games with hardware physx support? I'll do it for you; Mirror's Edge. End of the list. if there is anything PhysX has won, it's time to market. If there is anything PhysX will lose, it's being compliant with only NV hardware. If there is anything havok will win, it's being 'compliant with all hardware', coz it can run on OpenCL. If Nvidia had been smart, they would have worked together with AMD, write some gpgpu-stuff that could run on both cards, and offer them PhysX for absolutely free. Bam, two major brands on board, where would that have left Intel? No, Nvidia thought they could pull it of by themselfs, which they obviously can not.
You name the games with hardware physx support? I'll do it for you; Mirror's Edge. End of the list. if there is anything PhysX has won, it's time to market. If there is anything PhysX will lose, it's being compliant with only NV hardware. If there is anything havok will win, it's being 'compliant with all hardware', coz it can run on OpenCL. If Nvidia had been smart, they would have worked together with AMD, write some gpgpu-stuff that could run on both cards, and offer them PhysX for absolutely free. Bam, two major brands on board, where would that have left Intel? No, Nvidia thought they could pull it of by themselfs, which they obviously can not.
They need to use an open standard or at the very least one that is controlled by Microsoft, not one that is owned by AMD or Nvidia. PhysX is a waste of time and money.
well..the list that uses physx after about 3 years of its existance its ridiculous, so its about the same lol
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
- May 7, 2005
- 5,161
- 32
- 86
On the top of my head, Blizzard is using Havok Physics for its highly anticipated sequel SC2. Not sure if its GPU accelerated though.
At the end of the day, I dont think it really matters whether or not its being accelerated by the GPU or CPU as long as the end results are there without severe performance drop offs. Although I guess its a matter of opinion when it comes to user preferences for those "extra" eye candy. Some really dont give squat about putting bullet holes through flags for example. What I dont like see is having multiple proprietary standards which is definitely bad for the consumer.
At the end of the day, I dont think it really matters whether or not its being accelerated by the GPU or CPU as long as the end results are there without severe performance drop offs. Although I guess its a matter of opinion when it comes to user preferences for those "extra" eye candy. Some really dont give squat about putting bullet holes through flags for example. What I dont like see is having multiple proprietary standards which is definitely bad for the consumer.
So you only count Havok titles that use the GPU for physics, but give PhysX credit for software-based execution?
Fallout 3 uses Havok not PhysX. Havok mnakes PhysX explode like a blood sausage.
It was a question. If it is true that Havok is used more widely, it seems to me that it probably should be the standard. There needs to be just one standard for the consumer.
What else is there? A few ut 3 levels ? A game demo that completely sucks and nobody plays, and the physx in it are far from 'cool'? Cryostasis isn't out yet, the water particles are said to give a SEVERE performance impact. Not out yet though...
It takes time and doesn't happen over night but here are a few examples in Sacred 2, best seen in HQ to see the effects:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhnqQhGh6C8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...I&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ux9UTB5_sA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhnqQhGh6C8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...I&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ux9UTB5_sA
It's out in the EU market...but the gameplay hasn't got great reviews.
Mirror's Edge I found got boring after a little while and stopped playing it...and I played it with PhysX acceleration through my 8800GT.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter