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

[ICDP]

Who died and made you a moderator??

Why, does my lack of moderator status preclude you from posting in an adult fashion?

 

[wand3r3r]

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.

These points are valid. (Whether you like/dislike physx)

 

[NIGELG]

Why, does my lack of moderator status preclude you from posting in an adult fashion?

You make many good posts. But do not presume to tell me how to post,act or behave...D:

I think the size of this thread shows that many people care for game physics in general....But physX is not the way to go about doing it.The Poll results indicate that not many are impressed.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You make many good posts. But do not presume to tell me how to post,act or behave...D:

I think the size of this thread shows that many people care for game physics in general....But physX is not the way to go about doing it.The Poll results indicate that not many are impressed.

Then pray tell how to go about it when the CPU is too slow at the present and nobody is working on alternatives that mean anything?

 

[ICDP]

You make many good posts. But do not presume to tell me how to post,act or behave...D:

Fair enough.

I think the size of this thread shows that many people care for game physics in general....But physX is not the way to go about doing it.The Poll results indicate that not many are impressed.

I agree, at first I was excited about the potential of PhysX back in the Aegia days. Almost 10 years later it still offers nothing but eye candy for all the hype. It is a nice feature when done well but it is such a niche it will never become an accepted standard.

My take is drop it and move on, hopefully TressFX is only the start of a new non-proprietary GPU physics that becomes the defacto standard.

 

[NIGELG]

Then pray tell how to go about it when the CPU is too slow at the present and nobody is working on alternatives that mean anything?

Because the market has decided that only a small,whiny minority are clamouring for GPU physics?

Face it ,man if it were that good there would be more people rushing to develop it and for it....

 

[ICDP]

Then pray tell how to go about it when the CPU is too slow at the present and nobody is working on alternatives that mean anything?

I asked before you how you can conclude the CPU is too slow to do complex physics when most games don't even use mult-core CPUs to their full potential? Use some of the unused cores to do the physics calculations.

The problem is developers cater for the lowest common demoninator (consoles) and only ever add a few nice but not earth shattering extras for the PC. Hopefully the next gen consoles will help change this.

 

[Final8ty]

Fair enough.



I agree, at first I was excited about the potential of PhysX back in the Aegia days. Almost 10 years later it still offers nothing but eye candy for all the hype. It is a nice feature when done well but it is such a niche it will never become an accepted standard.

My take is drop it and move on, hopefully TressFX is only the start of a new non-proprietary GPU physics that becomes the defacto standard.

I was excited about the potential of PhysX back in the Aegia days as well and even when NV first bought it.

 

[Final8ty]

I asked before you how you can conclude the CPU is too slow to do complex physics when most games don't even use mult-core CPUs to their full potential? Use some of the unused cores to do the physics calculations.

The problem is developers cater for the lowest common demoninator (consoles) and only ever add a few nice but not earth shattering extras for the PC. Hopefully the next gen consoles will help change this.

This is looking hopeful.

Havok Launches Next Generation Physics Engine
Press Release by
btarunr
Tuesday, March 12th 2013 Discuss (46 Comments)
Havok, a leading provider of interactive 3D game technology, today announced the launch of a major new version of its industry-leading Havok Physics technology. The release is the culmination of more than 5 years of internal R&D effort. It features significant technical innovations in performance, memory utilization, usability and simulation quality, and represents a major leap forward in physics simulation for games.

Designed from the ground up for the computing architectures that will define games for the next decade, this release targets next-generation home consoles, mobile and PC while continuing to offer full support for current generation consoles.

"This release of Havok Physics marks the third major iteration of our physics technology since the company was founded 15 years ago. Although Havok Physics is widely recognized as the industry's leading physics solution, our R&D team is constantly striving to innovate and push the technology further," said Andrew Bond, Vice President of Technology for Havok. "The result is a new engine core built around fully continuous simulation that enables maximum physical fidelity with unprecedented performance speeds. Beta versions of the technology have been in the hands of a number of leading developers for some time and we have seen dramatic performance gains with simulations running twice as fast or more, and using up to 10 times less memory. Additionally the new core's performance is extremely predictable, eliminating performance spikes. We are genuinely excited to see how game designers will harness the additional power that we are offering with this release."

"At 2K Czech, our games demand a physics solution that can scale efficiently and handle highly detailed interactive environments. Having recently moved to the next generation of Havok Physics, we've been blown away by how Havok's new physics technology is able to make highly efficient utilization of all available hardware cores with a very lean runtime memory footprint," said Laurent Gorga, Technical Director at 2K Czech. "This combination allows us to deliver the high quality simulation at the scale we need and we are really looking forward to making some incredible games with the new technology."

Havok is currently scheduling meetings for technical reviews of its latest Physics technology at GDC March 27th– March 29th.

 

[wand3r3r]

This is looking hopeful.

What happened to it? That article is 6 months old. Are games coming out or is it in the new consoles or anything?

NM I ended up looking at their site. From their site they claim to not only still be alive, but doing well.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I asked before you how you can conclude the CPU is too slow to do complex physics when most games don't even use mult-core CPUs to their full potential? Use some of the unused cores to do the physics calculations.

The problem is developers cater for the lowest common demoninator (consoles) and only ever add a few nice but not earth shattering extras for the PC. Hopefully the next gen consoles will help change this.

Cause the GPU is multiple times faster at these calculations than any CPU you can buy today. That's not hard to figure out is it?

Because the market has decided that only a small,whiny minority are clamouring for GPU physics?

Face it ,man if it were that good there would be more people rushing to develop it and for it....

You really think that's it? I've got news for you...you're wrong. The reason is because the PS3 and Xbox360 were too damned slow to do it. Now the new consoles will be better but still stuck with underperforming hardware by PC standards.

Why spend time and money building it into an engine when the consoles can't do it and PC gamers only buy games on sale for $20 or otherwise pirate everything? That's the perception the world has on those who claim to favor PC gaming.

 

[Carfax83]

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.

The reason why they don't is as I said before, the engines are designed primarily for the consoles, which ends up crippling the capabilities of the PC.

Perfect example is Borderlands 2. PhysX is broken in this game, because the engine is inherently CPU limited and does not scale effectively beyond two cores.

Regardless of how powerful your hardware is, you're going to experience severe lag and stuttering with PhysX turned on whenever the amount of draw calls exceeds whatever the engine can handle.

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.

I don't think this point is as salient as you believe it to be. As I mentioned before, eye candy physics is STILL physics, and is often more computationally intensive than gameplay affecting physics.

For example, the dynamic snow PhysX in Batman Arkham Origins uses a set of vortex, attractors, jets, turbulence grids, and noise field samplers.

So you have all of these physics calculations needed to enable this one effect.

 

[Carfax83]

Are you saying that real physics can only be done by GPU PhysX?

Real physics can be done on either the CPU or the GPU, but since the GPU has far greater computational resources, physics will always be faster and more accurate on the GPU.

"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").

In this case, real means requiring or utilizing physics calculations for physics effects.

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.

CPU and GPU PhysX has merged, so this argument is no longer relevant.

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).

I once saw my dad accidentally walk through a glass door at a 4th of July barbecue. The glass door shattered into hundreds of visible pieces, and likely tens of thousands of smaller pieces that were barely visible, or completely invisible to the naked eye.

Saying that a "realistic" simulation of a window breaking usually breaks into a few large pieces is ridiculous, because this depends on many factors such as the size and speed of the object, the impact location, the thickness of the glass....and so many other things.

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.

Well there is no actual PhysX hair simulation (at least not GPU accelerated) yet. Witcher 3 will supposedly have hair simulation though.

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'm all for open standards, but AMD lacks the resources and the commitment (at least from what I've seen) necessary to bring Bullet physics up to par with PhysX, which has many years head start.

I mean, AMD is just now tackling the issues with Crossfire, and that's been going on for years..

 

[Carfax83]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwgqbByjJI

A perfect example of the limitations of the CPU. The cloth physics in that demo looks totally unnatural, as the CPU is limited in the amount of calculations it can do and the speed at which it can do them.

Now compare that to this:

NVidia Apex clothing and hair demo

The GPU accelerated effects look far more realistic and fluid than the CPU version..

Also, a big problem with CPUs is that while they may be able to have one or two instance of cloth physics being calculated, when you start to go beyond that, the performance takes a nose dive.

So games like Arkham City which has multiple instances of cloth simulation on screen at the same time would not be possible on current CPUs..

 

[Deders]

For example, the dynamic snow PhysX in Batman Arkham Origins uses a set of vortex, attractors, jets, turbulence grids, and noise field samplers.

So you have all of these physics calculations needed to enable this one effect.

From what I have read it affects more than just the snow, it also affects the cape and probably more.

http://techgeek.com.au/2013/09/10/nvidia-physx-trailer-reveals-gameplay-batman-arkham-origins/

Similar to the calculations that are being used in the upcoming Assassin's creed title for sea battles.

 

[Final8ty]

A perfect example of the limitations of the CPU. The cloth physics in that demo looks totally unnatural, as the CPU is limited in the amount of calculations it can do and the speed at which it can do them.

Now compare that to this:

NVidia Apex clothing and hair demo

The GPU accelerated effects look far more realistic and fluid than the CPU version..

Also, a big problem with CPUs is that while they may be able to have one or two instance of cloth physics being calculated, when you start to go beyond that, the performance takes a nose dive.

So games like Arkham City which has multiple instances of cloth simulation on screen at the same time would not be possible on current CPUs..

The cloth looks fine to me seeing as the monster is jerking around so should the cloth and i find the cloth in your link to look off when she is in the black dress and she moves backwards slightly, so it down to a matter of opinion because there are many types of cloth and you have no idea how many calculations Havoks cloth is capable of or how many is needed for cloth simulation.

I zoomed in on the hair and to me it looked awful, some serous hair spray being used as the weight looked off and looked clumpy, all opinions.

Realism is down to more than just how many calculations can be done, how its implemented is what counts.

Just watched the havok demo again and i prefer their cloth.

 

[Final8ty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gN3fgKlymI

In my opinion this dont look more realistic with Apex on, just more exaggerated and on some things there is barely any notable difference, like when he is in the long cream colored clothing, which goes through his arms, hands and when the cars crash through the wooden fences.

 

[Deders]

Apex and PhysX are 2 different things working on the same technology.

 

[Final8ty]

Apex and PhysX are 2 different things working on the same technology.

I know.

 

[Carfax83]

From what I have read it affects more than just the snow, it also affects the cape and probably more.

http://techgeek.com.au/2013/09/10/nvidia-physx-trailer-reveals-gameplay-batman-arkham-origins/

Similar to the calculations that are being used in the upcoming Assassin's creed title for sea battles.

Yes, PhysX will be used for turbulence effects, snow, Batman's cape, environmental cloth effects, fog, smoke etcetera..

 

[Carfax83]

Realism is down to more than just how many calculations can be done, how its implemented is what counts.

Wrong, realism in physics wholly dependent on the amount of computational power available.

Do you think the latest Intel hex core processor can accurately simulate liquids?

It can't, because it lacks the power to do so. And whats why you won't find one instance of liquid simulation in any game that uses CPU based physics.

Just watched the havok demo again and i prefer their cloth.

Of course you do. The mind sees what it wants to see..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gN3fgKlymI

In my opinion this dont look more realistic with Apex on, just more exaggerated and on some things there is barely any notable difference, like when he is in the long cream colored clothing, which goes through his arms, hands and when the cars crash through the wooden fences.

You need to get your eyes checked dude, as the differences are pretty clear. With the beige overcoat, PhysX turned on gives the coat more accurate reaction to not only Vitto's body movement, but to the force field generated by the car's explosion.

And what are you talking about when you say:

which goes through his arms, hands and when the cars crash through the wooden fences

Vitto was sitting in the car the entire time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Carfax83]

Apex and PhysX are 2 different things working on the same technology.

Apex still uses PhysX for simulation. Apex is more of an artist's tool which makes it easier to implement these effects.

 

[Final8ty]

!)Wrong, realism in physics wholly dependent on the amount of computational power available.


Do you think the latest Intel hex core processor can accurately simulate liquids?

It can't, because it lacks the power to do so. And whats why you won't find one instance of liquid simulation in any game that uses CPU based physics.




2)Of course you do. The mind sees what it wants to see..



3)You need to get your eyes checked dude, as the differences are pretty clear. With the beige overcoat, PhysX turned on gives the coat more accurate reaction to not only Vitto's body movement, but to the force field generated by the car's explosion.

And what are you talking about when you say:



4)Vitto was sitting in the car the entire time, so I don't know what you're talking about.

1)Wrong as there would be no need for more than one physics engine if it was wholly dependent on computational power and not implementation, SpinTires.
Gpu Phyx has not accurately simulated water yet in any game in my opinion.

2) Why pull such a lame card when the same can be said about anybody including you.

3) Again matter of opinion and most of the comments referring to aspects in that video say the same as me. And you can stop with the personal defamation just because i disagree with you, there is nothing wrong with my eyes.

4) Its obvious im talking about the coat scene with the arms and hands when he was not in the car, the difference in how the fence reacts when in the car

My opinion physx at best in that game is giving an exaggerated reaction or different one, not a more realistic or accurate one.

 

[stahlhart]

You need to get your eyes checked dude

And you need to get your attitude checked, if you want to continue posting in this forum.
-- stahlhart

 

[Ajay]

I've generally liked the PhysX effects in games I've tried it with (UT3/special maps, Hawken, some others I don't recall ATM). So I voted "Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up."

Sadly, since my last gen card usually goes over to a F@H rig, I don't use it much and the performance hit on my main card is too high (so basically the price/performance don't line up for me).