Physx - Are you interested in it? Have your say! VOTE!

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Physx - rate the importance if you care or not

  • Physx - what's that?

  • Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed)

  • Physx - neutral

  • Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up.

  • Physx - factors in the decision

  • Physx - must have! (Diehard fan)


Results are only viewable after voting.

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
931
160
106
Examples? I'd honestly like to see what you find so impressive about "well written CPU based algorithms."

And simulated fog, cloth, fog, fluid etcetera aren't gimmicks. Real physics is being calculated by the GPU to make these effects possible, so I don't see how you could call that a gimmick.

If anything, scripted animations are gimmicks because it's just a graphical effect with no physics computation..

To each his own. IMO, the scripted destruction we've had since BC2 and Red Faction has done much more for the gameplay than any PhysX game I can think of.

Are there many games, in which Nvidia has not been involved, that do use GPU accelerated PhysX?
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
That's what I am saying, there are some computational stuffs which run way faster in GPU.I also don't believe this conspiracy theory that NV removed some basic effects on purpose to make Physx look good.Every GPU vendor will try to play according to it's own strengths, there is nothing unfair about that.I will not cry foul if TressFx runs better on AMD hardware.

I am a firm believer in "cock up before conspiracy". I don't think they are deliberately removed, I think that some (not all) devs simply do one set of effects due to time contsraints and limited funding. If PhysX was proprietry and not tied to Nvidia only, I honestly think devs could be implementing it from scratch. We we would be way beyond some "eye candy" only and well into deformable terrain/buildings etc.

I like GPU Physx, I would not play Bl2 if Physx was missing.Some of the games where I enjoy GPU Physx includes Mafia 2(to some extent), Batman AC(probably best implementation).Does everybody care for it , hell no, if you don't like it just turn it off.

Again it isn't about not liking the effect, like everything sometimes it is done well and in others its very poor. It's about the fact that GPU PhysX is proprietry and as such developers never develop from the ground up with GPU PhysX in mind. It is always a tacked on feature because the devs simply cannot afford to ignore a substantial percentage of potential customers.
 

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
21
81
I am a firm believer in "cock up before conspiracy". I don't think they are deliberately removed, I think that some (not all) devs simply do one set of effects due to time contsraints and limited funding. If PhysX was proprietry and not tied to Nvidia only, I honestly think devs could be implementing it from scratch. We we would be way beyond some "eye candy" only and well into deformable terrain/buildings etc.



Again it isn't about not liking the effect, like everything sometimes it is done well and in others its very poor. It's about the fact that GPU PhysX is proprietry and as such developers never develop from the ground up with GPU PhysX in mind. It is always a tacked on feature because the devs simply cannot afford to ignore a substantial percentage of potential customers.

The devs don't care because according to them most of us pirate the games anyway , so it is not worth building a great looking game just for us.I would be very surprised if they would put any eye candy at all if it was not for NV and AMD.Regarding the proprietary nature NV has invested time and money behind it, they just can't give it away for free.If tomorrow AMD comes up with a better alternative it will trounce it anyway.
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
I figured this was common knowledge. Whenever an object is destroyed or damaged in a game, unless the change is registered in memory or to hard disk or SSD, then it won't remain destroyed.

You see the same thing with dead bodies. You kill a bunch of guys, and then seconds (or minutes) later, their bodies miraculously disappear.

This is done to save memory like I said, because for the change to become permanent, it would have to be saved to hard disk....or at least to memory until the gaming session ends.

So unless destroying or damaging the object is part of the plot or something, it's not going to be a permanent change.

Many games have had the option to have dead bodies not disappear for years. PCs have an abundance of RAM/HD/VRAM space, using lack of memory as an excuse why PhysX debirs melts away after a few seconds is a cop out IMHO.

Um, Mafia 2 uses PhysX and it has tons of cars. In fact, you spend most of the game driving around Empire Bay.. And lets not forget ARMA 3, which has helicopters, tanks and God knows what else.

And what makes you think PhysX can't do those calculations anyway? Especially when a GPU is so much more powerful than a CPU?

Mafia 2 does not use PhysX to do the car driving physics, that is done on the CPU. Arma 3 does not use GPU PhysX and again the CPU PhysX does not do the actual FMs or DMs. I stress that I am not claiming what PhysX can't do in games, I am pointing out what it doesn't do in games.

Potential means nothing if it is not realised. To date PhysX has not reached whatever potential it may have, and it never will because it is proprietary.

Fluid dynamics is one of the most complex and demanding physics, have you ever seen fluids being simulated in a game using the CPU?

Yes. Every single flight sim uses a simulation of fluid dynamics to do the flight models.

PhysX is proprietary, DirectCompute is proprietary, Havok is proprietary and the list goes on.

There is not a single physics engine that isn't proprietary.

I get your meaning though, that PhysX is limited to eye candy. However, that does not mean it's not relevant or important.

The most strenuous and intensive physics are often eye candy physics, ie cloth, fluid, smoke, fog etcetera..

It's still real physics no matter what way you slice it because it's being mathematically simulated by the GPU.

The problem is that none of what you mention requires a GPU to do the computing. In the context of PC gaming directcompute and OpenCL are non-proprietary as they are open to all platforms used in a current Windows OS.

I understand that Nvidia is at least trying with PhysX and that OpenCL or DirectCompute are not being pushed enough as viable alternatives. I just don't see PhysX as the way forward in PC gaming for physics due to it's proprietary nature.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
PCs have an abundance of RAM/HD/VRAM space, using lack of memory as an excuse why PhysX debirs melts away after a few seconds is a cop out IMHO.

And if these games were only being released on PC, then maybe you'd have a point. However, they aren't. The engines for these games are designed around the consoles first and foremost, and so they need to be more efficient when it comes to memory usage.

Load up Far Cry 3 and Metro Last Light if you have these games and check the RAM usage. You will be shocked at how little memory these games use.

The anemic memory of both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 has forced game developers to become wizards at the art of memory efficiency in games.

Mafia 2 does not use PhysX to do the car driving physics, that is done on the CPU.

PhysX is both CPU and GPU. There is no discernible difference between the two other than the code path they use, and the performance level. You can run Mafia 2 with PhysX on high on your CPU in fact, although it will struggle mightily with the extremely high particle count and the amount of computations of course...

Arma 3 does not use GPU PhysX and again the CPU PhysX does not do the actual FMs or DMs. I stress that I am not claiming what PhysX can't do in games, I am pointing out what it doesn't do in games

Arma 3 uses PhysX period. Whether it runs on the CPU or the GPU is a non issue because as I said above, PhysX runs on both. GPU acceleration is typically used for more intensive physics effects that would make the CPU struggle and compromise game performance.

Also, what makes you think PhysX isn't doing the FMs or DMs? Especially when the Arma 3 wiki page says:

Physics enabled vehicle handling and environmental objects (PhysX 3)

Source

Potential means nothing if it is not realised. To date PhysX has not reached whatever potential it may have, and it never will because it is proprietary.

You really need to look up what the word proprietary means.. And while PhysX hasn't reached it's full potential, it's on the way to doing so as more and more effects that were never even possible on the CPU become achievable.

Yes. Every single flight sim uses a simulation of fluid dynamics to do the flight models.

I should have been more specific. I really meant liquids..

The problem is that none of what you mention requires a GPU to do the computing. In the context of PC gaming directcompute and OpenCL are non-proprietary as they are open to all platforms used in a current Windows OS.

They require a GPU if you don't want to sacrifice performance and accuracy.

DirectCompute isn't an open standard and is proprietary because it's owned by Microsoft. OpenCL isn't proprietary though, as it's an open standard.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
852
31
91
Not everyone wants PhysX.

Colour me unimpressed.

It looks tacky and bolted on.D:
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
And if these games were only being released on PC, then maybe you'd have a point. However, they aren't. The engines for these games are designed around the consoles first and foremost, and so they need to be more efficient when it comes to memory usage.PhysX is both CPU and GPU. There is no discernible difference between the two other than the code path they use, and the performance level. You can run Mafia 2 with PhysX on high on your CPU in fact, although it will struggle mightily with the extremely high particle count and the amount of computations of course...

DirectCompute isn't an open standard and is proprietary because it's owned by Microsoft. OpenCL isn't proprietary though, as it's an open standard.

There is absolutely no reason why developers couldn't use extra the resources of the PC if they desired. The fact that they don't more often than not is another debate. Secondly, since all modern PC games require Windows and DirectX and by extension DirectCompute, it is to all intents and purposes non-proprietary in the context of this debate.

I keep having to come back to the salient point. GPU PhysX has been around since 2004 and it has not progressed beyond eye candy.

The potential of GPU PhysX is irrelevant if it is prevented from ever being realised. If it was going to become the accepted standard it would have happened long ago.
  • AMD refuse to adopt PhysX because they would be forced to pay a competitor a license fee (or whatever reason). They also haven't pushed viable alternatives hard enough IMHO.
  • Nvidia refuse to adopt a non-proprietary alternatives because they have invested too much into PhysX.
  • PC games developers cannot adopt GPU PhysX wholesale, or they would lose sales by locking out ~40% of potential customers instantly.
  • There is no accepted standard for physics in the same way DirectX is now the defacto standard for graphics.
  • All of the above points leave the PC gamer in a catch 22 of mediocre Physics that hasn't trully progressed for almost a decade.
Until this catch 22 is removed us PC gamers will be left with non-interactive eye candy flying around the screen. Unfortunately I don't see any change in sight. For the record I don't care if that standard is PhysX, DirectCompute or OpenCL based. As long as one standard was used it would be welcome.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
For the record AMD also refuses to develop or push any GPU physics at all. Nvidia is the only ones that keep not going. It is my opinion that doing nothing is worse than doing physx. Nobody else is working on any type of gpu based physics.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Go to the PhysX thread and the fanbois will be glad to show you how "PhysX off" means the game can't manage particle effects, decals, lighting effects, or screen flash. All for the glory of PhysX!

What is your point? Nvidia has nothing to do with that. So what or who are you accusing of "ruining" the game?
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
For the record AMD also refuses to develop or push any GPU physics at all. Nvidia is the only ones that keep not going. It is my opinion that doing nothing is worse than doing physx. Nobody else is working on any type of gpu based physics.

Yes we know about AMD, but none of that changes the points raised about Physx and you are wrong about nobody is working on any type of gpu based physics.
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Yes we know, but none of that changes the points raised about Physx.

It does because while you complain about not being able to run it, at least nvidia is trying something nobody else seems to give a damn about. CPUs are just not fast enough to process real physics yet. Not in real time. Physx is just eye candy now, but that is because developers make it so. Nvidia builds the libraries and software but not the games. I will take all the eye candy I can get in my games and not tell developers that having graphics like ps3 and 360 forever is OK.
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
Examples? I'd honestly like to see what you find so impressive about "well written CPU based algorithms."

And simulated fog, cloth, fog, fluid etcetera aren't gimmicks. Real physics is being calculated by the GPU to make these effects possible, so I don't see how you could call that a gimmick.

If anything, scripted animations are gimmicks because it's just a graphical effect with no physics computation..

Right, it hasn't amounted to anything yet it's being adopted by more and more developers, and being featured in more and more AAA titles..

It would be more accurate to say that it hasn't fulfilled it's potential..

LOL, and how many games use bulletphysics for game physics?

PhysX being integrated in the Unreal Engine 4, and being used in Witcher 3, Call of Duty Ghosts, Planetside 2, Everquest Next, Batman Arkham Origins begs to differ with you..
Are you saying that real physics can only be done by GPU PhysX? :confused: :p

"Real" is subjective after all. A poorly optimized game can require 100x the memory footprint and GPU horsepower than a well optimized game using 100x less resources, and still look WORSE (less "real").

UE4 games are probably not any more likely to use GPU PhysX than UE3 games did. Unreal Tournament's 3 physX maps (even the amazing tornado map) turned out to be sheer failures in terms of popularity due to unplayability among gamers except for those with uber elite Nvidia rigs back then. Look at Warmonger - a promising UE3 game built when Ageia was still around. The Batman games are to be expected anyway.

The word "gimmick" is a loose statement that explains how breaking a window suddenly shatters it into seemingly billions of microscopic pieces for the sake of an extravagant tech demo vainly showing off the dominance of Geforce rather than a realistic simulation where the window would usually break into a few large pieces and then maybe dozens of smaller (reasonably visible) pieces at most (let alone millions).

Bulletphysics is just an example of how flexible DC and OpenCL DX11 standard API can be for any game developers out there to work with. TressFX is a start, and looks better than any PhysX hair simulation to date. With this, there is the invaluable bonus of a universally applicable standard that is available for all enthusiast GPUs, rather than an exclusive, anti-competitive and monopolistic standard. I know that the same could be said for Microsoft's DirectX standards but that's a whole another "proprietary" strawman to worship for the ego that strives so badly to be granted the power of ultimate victory for once and for all. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Are you saying that real physics can only be done by the GPU? :confused:

Bulletphysics is just an example of how flexible DC and OpenCL DX11 standard API can be for any game developers out there to work with. TressFX is a start, and looks better than any PhysX hair simulation to date. With this, there is the invaluable bonus of a universally applicable standard that is available for all enthusiast GPUs, rather than an exclusive, anti-competitive and monopolistic standard. I know that the same could be said for Microsoft's DirectX standards but that's a whole another "proprietary" strawman to worship for the ego that strives so badly to be granted the power of ultimate victory for once and for all. :biggrin:

CPUs are not fast enough to do real time physics calculations while also doing all the tasks they do during gameplay. The GPU is much more up to the task. What games have used bulletphysics besides GTA and rdr from rockstar? I see people toss that name around but they have no developers doing anything with it. Plus I have seen zero that shows me it is as good at what it does.
 

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
852
31
91
For the record AMD also refuses to develop or push any GPU physics at all. Nvidia is the only ones that keep not going. It is my opinion that doing nothing is worse than doing physx. Nobody else is working on any type of gpu based physics.
Doing rubbish is actually worse than doing nothing.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
It does because while you complain about not being able to run it, at least nvidia is trying something nobody else seems to give a damn about. CPUs are just not fast enough to process real physics yet. Not in real time. Physx is just eye candy now, but that is because developers make it so. Nvidia builds the libraries and software but not the games. I will take all the eye candy I can get in my games and not tell developers that having graphics like ps3 and 360 forever is OK.

First where did i complain of not being able to run it, stop making things up.

Second point it does not matter what others are doing for people to have an opinion of GPU Physx.
 
Last edited:

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
NIGELG and Jaydip, can you please knock off the playground bullshit please? You are both capable of putting forward viable points in an adult fashion.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
.Arma 3 uses PhysX period. Whether it runs on the CPU or the GPU is a non issue because as I said above, PhysX runs on both.

Indeed! PhysX is much more than just the GPU component and very welcomed titles like Bioshock Infinite and Hitman Absolution offer PhysX!
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
Yeah but they did develop TressFX too, one of the crappiest looking stuff out there.

If you think TressFX looks crappy - I can only imagine what you think of hair simulation done by GPU PhsyX so far... o_O
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
CPUs are not fast enough to do real time physics calculations while also doing all the tasks they do during gameplay. The GPU is much more up to the task.

Most games don't even use the full potential of multi-core CPUs, so I fail to see how you could conclude CPUs are not up to the task.

Until there is an accepted standard GPU physics will be pure non-gameplay changing eye candy. To be honest even then GPU physics may never become THE standard. If a game used GPU physics exclusively it would be a disaster for the majority of gamers who use low/mid-range GPUs.

Right now a GTX650Ti/7850 would be far more representative of the more common types of GPU. No way such GPUs could handle complex physics calculations while rendering full blown graphics effects.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/29/asus_geforce_gtx_650_ti_boost_directcu_ii_oc_review/4
 

Jaydip

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,691
21
81

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
I liked TressFX and good to see innovation on hair rendering from AMD! Also looking forward to see what PhysX can do for fur in Witcher!
 

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
852
31
91
NIGELG and Jaydip, can you please knock off the playground bullshit please? You are both capable of putting forward viable points in an adult fashion.
Who died and made you a moderator??

I don't like PhysX because it looks tacky and artificial.I don't care for it because it is indeed rubbish hence the saying''It is better to do nothing than do rubbish''.

As for Tress Fx I have not seen any games that use it that I am interested in playing.