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

[Carfax83]

You have some wrong ideas there. There is no console game now or ever that has GPU effects for GPU physx. Physx is MORE than GPU phsyx, it is also a base physics engine that has been used in a wide variety of games similar to Dragon Age origins. (I could name tons of other examples such as DA:O that did not have any physx graphical effects) There is no console game nor will there ever be a console game that uses GPU physics for graphical effects. Going back to my example of Dragon Age: Origins, every version of this game used physx but only as a base physics engine - for collision detection. If you think GPU physics will occur on any console you have some grave mis-ideas.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. You have to follow the context of the discussion we're having to understand why I said what I said.

There are people in this thread that believe NVidia purposefully removes effects like fog, sparks, smoke etcetera from games and then re-implements them for hardware accelerated PhysX.

Of course, that is ridiculous and there is no proof of that ever occurring. The console versions are the base versions of the game, and if an effect like fog, smoke, sparks etcetera weren't in the console game (pre-computed of course), then it wasn't in the original design and was added by the NVidia content team specifically for GPU accelerated PhysX.

 

[blackened23]

Oh, I see. I misunderstood you without reading the entire context of the thread (jumping in at page 15, oops!). I agree with you on your points.

 

[Carfax83]

Oh, I see. I misunderstood you without reading the entire context of the thread (jumping in at page 15, oops!). I agree with you on your points.

NP..

 

[Carfax83]

The thing is "real-time physics" is an absolute waste of precious computing power. Physics are predictable, think back to high school and why there are so many laws. Why would you waste limited cycles retracing a predictable event in real-time? It makes little sense.

Sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Real time physics isn't a waste of precious computing power.

Physics in real time reduces the reliance on scripted animations which take a LOT of additional time to create, so it reduces overall development time and resources.

It also increases immersion by enhancing interactivity with the game world. Also if realism is the holy grail of gaming, then real time physics must be pursued as it has a much higher potential for virtual realism than scripted animations. The only downside is that it can be expensive in terms of computational resources.

 

[Final8ty]

Sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Real time physics isn't a waste of precious computing power.

Physics in real time reduces the reliance on scripted animations which take a LOT of additional time to create, so it reduces overall development time and resources.

It also increases immersion by enhancing interactivity with the game world. Also if realism is the holy grail of gaming, then real time physics must be pursued as it has a much higher potential for virtual realism than scripted animations. The only downside is that it can be expensive in terms of computational resources.

+1
but it has to be real interactivity and not just eye candy.

 

[zlejedi]

Personally i consider it good thing to have.

Altrough it would be better if Nvidia allowed hybrid phyxX to work for people who bough AMD card with smaller Nvidia card for physX only.

 

[SirPauly]

It also increases immersion by enhancing interactivity with the game world. Also if realism is the holy grail of gaming, then real time physics must be pursued as it has a much higher potential for virtual realism than scripted animations.

imho,

That is very well said! That's what I appreciate most -- the pursuit and investments -- placing resources where their mouth is -- actual choice and content -- raw potential of advanced physics! Enjoy PhysX currently in WarFrame, PlanetSide 2 and Hawken!

Physx in its current state may not be ideal but there is a lot good here to me and with more competition, innovation, work and content -- gamers may be impressed more!

 

[railven]

Personally i consider it good thing to have.

Altrough it would be better if Nvidia allowed hybrid phyxX to work for people who bough AMD card with smaller Nvidia card for physX only.

Pretty much this. I like PhysX enough to go Hybrid for the handful of games that used GPU acceleration implementations. So far majority have been "meh" but the ones that do it right (Batman, hey guy hey) are just perfect examples of where I wish PhysX would always be.

I got enough Nvidia cards to offload PhysX, but Nvidia doesn't let me with an AMD card on my system

 

[KingFatty]

Is PhysX on the winning side of history? I mean, if you look at the past and see where proprietary technology vs. open technology has succeeded, what does history have to say about past examples? Is physx like the Amiga computers vs. windows, or is it like Apple vs. windows?

 

[NIGELG]

This unscientific poll still shows that the majority are ''unimpressed'' with PhysX.

Let the market decide!!!..

PhysX is very unimpressive in looks and performance.If it was that good a lot more people would have it......

 

[railven]

This unscientific poll still shows that the majority are ''unimpressed'' with PhysX.

Let the market decide!!!..

PhysX is very unimpressive in looks and performance.If it was that good a lot more people would have it......

Personally, I can't stand the polls posted on these forums. They have too much gray that it drives me insane as you can't really form any collective conclusion from the results.

Example: "PhysX's What's that?" That doesn't imply the person doesn't like PhysX, it implies they don't know what it is which can easily result in if you tell them what it is "oh, yeah that sounds cool, yeah I'd take it."

When people want to reach a simple "do you like PhysX" there should be only two options "Yes" or "no" and let them add their opinion on the post, not in the poll.

Stupid polls, every where (no offense OP) on these forums.

 

[railven]

Look at the results:

"Physx - what's that? " - 20
This means nothing, just person is uninformed and shouldn't even be in this topic. Once they are informed their opinion can go either way.

"Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed) " - 101
Definite no.

"Physx - neutral " - 63
So yes, no, what? Don't care? Sure? Another useless option. These votes can't count towards anything.

"Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up" - 76
This is a yes. It doesn't factor into their buying decision, but they appreciate it.

"Physx - factors in the decision " - 26
Definite Yes.

"Physx - must have! (Diehard fan)" - 6
This is a joke and almost a flame-bait option since.

With the throw away votes you get this:
Don't like PHysX - 101
Like PhysX - 108

More people care about PHysX than don't based on the results.

 

[wand3r3r]

Personally, I can't stand the polls posted on these forums. They have too much gray that it drives me insane as you can't really form any collective conclusion from the results.

Example: "PhysX's What's that?" That doesn't imply the person doesn't like PhysX, it implies they don't know what it is which can easily result in if you tell them what it is "oh, yeah that sounds cool, yeah I'd take it."

When people want to reach a simple "do you like PhysX" there should be only two options "Yes" or "no" and let them add their opinion on the post, not in the poll.

Stupid polls, every where (no offense OP) on these forums.

You are welcome to your opinion, feel free to make a poll if you think you have the ultimate question(s)...

I disagree which is why I think that if people don't know what it is they shouldn't be forced to decide if they like it, that would be misleading to say the least. They are clearly out of the results thus not muddying the results. I think there should be enough options to figure out the true sentiment, not just black and white where you don't know if they answered yes because they agree, or because there wasn't any other options.

The one thing I do wish is that with 300k members (iirc) there would be far more votes (10k+).

Either way I think this unscientific poll can gather a little more sense of the situation then the dozen loudest posters battering back and forth all across the forum about the merits of physx.

 

[wand3r3r]

Look at the results:

"Physx - what's that? " - 20
This means nothing, just person is uninformed and shouldn't even be in this topic. Once they are informed their opinion can go either way.

"Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed) " - 101
Definite no.

"Physx - neutral " - 63
So yes, no, what? Don't care? Sure? Another useless option. These votes can't count towards anything.

"Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up" - 76
This is a yes. It doesn't factor into their buying decision, but they appreciate it.

"Physx - factors in the decision " - 26
Definite Yes.

"Physx - must have! (Diehard fan)" - 6
This is a joke and almost a flame-bait option since.

With the throw away votes you get this:
Don't like PHysX - 101
Like PhysX - 108

More people care about PHysX than don't based on the results.

According to your descriptions.

"Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed) " - 101
Definite no.

and

"Physx - factors in the decision " - 26
Definite Yes.

"Physx - must have! (Diehard fan)" - 6
This is a joke and almost a flame-bait option since.

The nice extra means it's not a factor in purchases, but they will use it if it's on the card.

So 101 no vs. 32 yes

 

[railven]

According to your descriptions.

"Physx - no thanks! (Unimpressed) " - 101
Definite no.

and

"Physx - factors in the decision " - 26
Definite Yes.

"Physx - must have! (Diehard fan)" - 6
This is a joke and almost a flame-bait option since.

The nice extra means it's not a factor in purchases, but they will use it if it's on the card.

So 101 no vs. 32 yes

This is your poll, and this is the question of it:

"Physx - rate the importance if you care or not "

One of the options:
"Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up."

Since you made this poll, and I already know your stance on it, I find this option rather stupid if you were trying to make a point since this is a clear cut "yes I like PhysX when performance lines up."

 

[NIGELG]

This is your poll, and this is the question of it:

"Physx - rate the importance if you care or not "

One of the options:
"Physx - nice extra if price / performance lines up."

Since you made this poll, and I already know your stance on it, I find this option rather stupid if you were trying to make a point since this is a clear cut "yes I like PhysX when performance lines up."

Make a better poll if you don't like this one......:awe:.

A yes/no poll would be interesting.................

 

[railven]

Make a better poll if you don't like this one......:awe:.

A yes/no poll would be interesting.................

I don't have a point to make nor do I generally care the favor PhysX carries on one specific board.

But giving voters the benefit of the doubt with their selection, I'd predict PhysX wouldn't get slaughtered.

 

[SirPauly]

More people care about PHysX than don't based on the results.

imho,

That's the way I see it as well!

Appreciate the poll and many constructive views -- for or against PhysX!

Obviously Physx in its current form isn't ideal: proprietary, performance, lack of game-play advances, lack of content over-all -- nVidia may need to work harder -- innovate more -- may need to evolve more to inform, make aware, showcase more what physics may do to convince neutral and not impressed mind-sets/gamers!

 

[NIGELG]

That's the way I see it as well!

People do care about game physics but at present there is not enough demand for GPU physX for most developers to tack it on to games or to implement from the ground up.

Like 3d gaming GPU PhysX is on the decline but when or if there is a huge demand for such technologies it will become more widespread.

You like to say ''let the market decide'' .Hasn't the market decided that most gamers don't care or want GPU Physx?

 

[SirPauly]

IMHO,

Content is more from Borderlands 2, PlanetSide 2, Hawken, WarFrame, Metro: Last Light, X-com, Rise of the Triad, Batman Origins, Witcher, Call of Duty and potentially Everquest! Far from a decline!

As some wait for idealism for all, there is welcomed choice to consider that may raise someone's gaming experience now!

 

[Carfax83]

Like 3d gaming GPU PhysX is on the decline but when or if there is a huge demand for such technologies it will become more widespread.

You like to say ''let the market decide'' .Hasn't the market decided that most gamers don't care or want GPU Physx?

CDPR dropping Havok (which was used in Witcher 2) in favor of hardware accelerated PhysX in the Witcher 3 shows that contrary to your opinion, market acceptance of hardware accelerated PhysX has never been stronger.

 

[wand3r3r]

CDPR dropping Havok (which was used in Witcher 2) in favor of hardware accelerated PhysX in the Witcher 3 shows that contrary to your opinion, market acceptance of hardware accelerated PhysX has never been stronger.

There you go again, are you promoting opinions as fact! Unless you have a source of course? Contrary to your opinion, states own opinion! :whiste:

 

[Carfax83]

There you go again, are you promoting opinions as fact! Unless you have a source of course? Contrary to your opinion, states own opinion! :whiste:

So you take me to task for saying that increased developer adoption is a strong indication of wider market acceptance (a reasonable assertion and not presented as factual), but you didn't take NIGELG to task for saying GPU PhysX is on the decline without offering any supporting evidence.

Gee, I wonder what your stance on PhysX is :whiste:

 

[wand3r3r]

So you take me to task for saying that increased developer adoption is a strong indication of wider market acceptance (a reasonable assertion and not presented as factual), but you didn't take NIGELG to task for saying GPU PhysX is on the decline without offering any supporting evidence.

Gee, I wonder what your stance on PhysX is :whiste:

Sorry I didn't notice the quote from him, so you're both spouting opinions as fact.:$ It doesn't make it right.

My point definitely applies to both of you. Opinions are welcome, but have to be clear that they are opinions.

 

[Carfax83]

Sorry I didn't notice the quote from him, so you're both spouting opinions as fact.:$ It doesn't make it right.

My point definitely applies to both of you. Opinions are welcome, but have to be clear that they are opinions.

Sorry there's no way I'm going to say, "this is my opinion," after every comment I make just to please you

I don't think my comment was even remotely presented as factual. It was a reasonable conclusion based on actual evidence.

Unless you think increased developer adoption is not an indication of market acceptance