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

[cmdrdredd]

Im all for game Physics but i voted no thx for PhysX. I like more physics to be implemented in to games but not proprietary like NVs PhysX. Now new with consoles having the GPU performance for more Physics, im hopping we will see more game physics in next gen games.

They have less GPU performance than you think. They aren't going to be able to do GPU physics and give 60fps at real HD resolutions.

 

[SirPauly]

For me. appreciate the attempt, get the ball rolling, spending resources where their mouth is, offering something instead of just talking!

Like to see this continue to innovate, evolve and offer more content to choose from!

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I'd use PhysX if it didn't cause PS2 to crash every 5 minutes.

 

[AtenRa]

They have less GPU performance than you think. They aren't going to be able to do GPU physics and give 60fps at real HD resolutions.

Every game engine has Physics, and new Consoles will have easily 2-3x more performance than last gen. So, they can use more Physics with the new hardware. We dont care if they using the GPU or the CPU or both to calculate them, we only want more physics in games

 

[MrK6]

I turned mine off on my Titan and 780. Why? Hawken was dipping to 20fps in heavy battles. All the debris flying around became a distraction too. PhysX just looks like an afterthought because you can tell it's an overlay on the current graphics.

You must be a shill for AMD and bought a Titan and 780 just to throw some of the super sleuths on this board off the trail. But in all seriousness that's another major problem with Physx - nvidia can't even design to work properly on their best available hardware. Nvidia danced itself into a corner with their proprietary nonsense and the problem with that is that if you fail (or your company fails), so does your product. They have zippo support from the rest of the gaming world without paying handsomely for it because no one is going waste time working with products that only a fraction of the market can support.

I'm hoping that the new console age will bring better implementations of physics and mishaps like PhysX will be a cringe of the past. Hopefully the increased horsepower and architectures closer to that of PC's allows developers to spread their wings and make some software that takes advantage of all the wasted power we have today. Better threading and higher efficiency is where the future needs to go, something that PhysX sorely lacks, and probably why it's still an afterthought after all these years.

 

[Carfax83]

Im all for game Physics but i voted no thx for PhysX. I like more physics to be implemented in to games but not proprietary like NVs PhysX. Now new with consoles having the GPU performance for more Physics, im hopping we will see more game physics in next gen games.

I think people need to look up what the word proprietary means, because this doesn't make any sense.

You're against PhysX because it's proprietary, so does that mean you're against Havok which is also proprietary?

All the physics engines that games use are proprietary.. I can't think of a single one that isn't..

 

[Carfax83]

I turned mine off on my Titan and 780. Why? Hawken was dipping to 20fps in heavy battles. All the debris flying around became a distraction too. PhysX just looks like an afterthought because you can tell it's an overlay on the current graphics.

Right, so you got rid of your Titan and your GTX 780 and bought a 7970 instead........ :sneaky:

 

[Carfax83]

Strong words considering the results. Speaking of fairy tales.

As though this poll means anything. Other than the meager sample, this forum has always had a large number of AMD supporters and is a haven for the anti PhysX crowd. I was actually surprised at how many positive votes went to PhysX if anything..

If you want to gauge the popularity or market acceptance of PhysX, look at the bigger picture. PhysX has been gaining momentum over the years until it is now the most advanced game PhysX engine available, out innovating and displacing Havok..

Witcher 2 used Havok, but Witcher 3 will be using PhysX!

PhysX was the first game physics engine to bring gamers simulated cloth, fluid, smoke, fog etcetera, which was previously unattainable on CPU based solutions.

PhysX is scoring major title after major title, and is integrated into the Unreal Engine 4.

So no matter what the naysayers may say, PhysX isn't going anywhere, but up

 

[wand3r3r]

As though this poll means anything. Other than the meager sample, this forum has always had a large number of AMD supporters and is a haven for the anti PhysX crowd. I was actually surprised at how many positive votes went to PhysX if anything..

If you want to gauge the popularity or market acceptance of PhysX, look at the bigger picture. PhysX has been gaining momentum over the years until it is now the most advanced game PhysX engine available, out innovating and displacing Havok..

So no matter what the naysayers may say, PhysX isn't going anywhere, but up

Proof on the bold?

As people have been coming in and voting it's been pretty clear, only around 10% of enthusiasts in this forum care enough (or possibly support NV anyways) to even consider it as a criteria in a purchase.

Sure, this isn't the best proof ever, but it's the largest survey I've ever seen on the topic. It bodes badly on your side (clearly pro NV at any cost) because this forum is full of enthusiasts and the average person is likely even less aware of the feature, much less care enough to go NV for it. NV sponsored games are no indication of whether people care for the feature, or even consider NV because of it. (Agreed without the sponsorship/support it would die quick)

Regardless, I just want to settle this issue as it's touted and dismissed so widely but now we can clear the air (at least with some statistics vs. none) being there are no concrete numbers coming from anywhere else. I could care less if 90% or 10% consider it critical, I just wanted to see where the interest lies. You on the other hand seem very concerned (for some reason?)

I have never seen more numbers so I can only assume you disagree strongly and therefore try discredit it. Either get some better numbers or quit trying to taint this without the slightest proof otherwise.

 

[taltamir]

If you want to gauge the popularity or market acceptance of PhysX, look at the bigger picture. PhysX has been gaining momentum over the years until it is now the most advanced game PhysX engine available, out innovating and displacing Havok..

underlined portion: fair statement
rest of it: what does nvidia pouring in resources (allegedly) to develop it into the "most advanced engine" (allegedly) have to do with market acceptance? What does out innovating havok (allegedly) have to do with market acceptance?

Also, the physX marketing trick is to gain fake market acceptance by giving out for free to developers... but even free a developer isn't willing to lose that many customers so 99% of "physX" using games implement the CPU only version of it and cannot benefit from gpu physX at all.
This marketing ploy could have been truly great for nvidia if the way it worked resulted in automatic integration of the GPU accelerated version whenever you put the CPU only stuff in, but it doesn't.

Also it could have been great if nvidia hadn't tried to leverage a non existent monopoly too early. They did that by including DRM in their GPU drivers that disables physX if an AMD CPU is detected on the same system. So you can't have an AMD card as a main GPU and an nvidia card as a PhysX processor to go with it. You must have both cards be nVidia. There was an accidental release of a beta driver at some point without that DRM, as well as cracked versions of the drivers that remove said DRM.

As any shady businessman will tell you, FIRST you create the monopoly, THEN you leverage it. nVidia got those two steps confused and it was really pathetic to see them shooting their own foot like that.
Had they ENCOURAGED people to get an nvidia secondary physX card with an AMD main video card it would have allowed them to create the monopoly... then they could have introduced that "no AMD cards" limitation when/if they reached 90% of market share.

 

[Carfax83]

Proof on the bold?

That's just been my impression since I've been a member here on these forums.

On Guru3d, another forum that I post at, I would say it's the opposite.

Sure, this isn't the best proof ever, but it's the largest survey I've ever seen on the topic. It bodes badly on your side (clearly pro NV at any cost) because this forum is full of enthusiasts and the average person is likely even less aware of the feature, much less care enough to go NV for it. NV sponsored games are no indication of whether people care for the feature, or even consider NV because of it. (Agreed without the sponsorship/support it would die quick)

This poll doesn't constitute any kind of proof whatsoever. Do you honestly think a forum poll with just a few hundred participants says anything about the popularity or market acceptance of PhysX?

Especially since so many of the comments concerning PhysX are so ignorant?

I mean, you have people saying that NVidia removes effects from games and uses PhysX instead......

Or complaining about the proprietary nature of PhysX, while giving other physics engines (which are also proprietary) a pass.

Many of the people participating in this debate have never even used PhysX, or even have a basic understanding of game physics that's plain enough..

Regardless, I just want to settle this issue as it's touted and dismissed so widely but now we can clear the air (at least with some statistics vs. none) being there are no concrete numbers coming from anywhere else. I could care less if 90% or 10% consider it critical, I just wanted to see where the interest lies. You on the other hand seem very concerned (for some reason?)

When I see ignorant comments such as what I outlined earlier being tossed about, I can't help but respond. I wouldn't say that's me being overly concerned either, because I don' take this poll seriously.

The developer and market acceptance (such as CDPR dropping Havok in favor of PhysX) to me are the biggest indications of the success of PhysX, and not some forum poll no offense..

I have never seen more numbers so I can only assume you disagree strongly and therefore try discredit it. Either get some better numbers or quit trying to taint this without the slightest proof otherwise.

I'm not trying to taint anything, but if you honestly think this poll have legitimate credit, then I have a bridge to sell you Newfoundland..

 

[serpretetsky]

I think people need to look up what the word proprietary means, because this doesn't make any sense.

You're against PhysX because it's proprietary, so does that mean you're against Havok which is also proprietary?

All the physics engines that games use are proprietary.. I can't think of a single one that isn't..

yeah. I think people usuually mean that they don't want a system that is both proprietary AND being designed by a company with vested interests.

If it is proprietary, then they want it to be done by a neutral third party for whom it would be to an advantage to make it work equally well on all hardware.

 

[taltamir]

I think people need to look up what the word proprietary means, because this doesn't make any sense.

You're against PhysX because it's proprietary, so does that mean you're against Havok which is also proprietary?

You are right, that is a misuse of the word proprietary.
I think he meant a closed ecosystem.
Although in which case its odd that he brings up consoles since consoles are the epitome of a closed ecosystem.

You have to pay a license to develop for a console, and the console owner (MS/sony/nintendo) has veto power over what you sell.
With a PC you never have to speak to MS before/during/after selling a game and the platform is an open ecosystem where MS cannot prevent you from installing any...

At least, it was. WindowsRT, and metro on windows8 are a closed ecosystem because MS decided they are unhappy with the market being 90% MS 10% apple and decided they want to emulate apple in all things.
As soon as valve was told about that walled garden BS MS was trying to pull they were FORCED into switching from an ally to an enemy (as were many other companies). Hence the linux focus & steambox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)#Linux

 

[Carfax83]

underlined portion: fair statement
rest of it: what does nvidia pouring in resources (allegedly) to develop it into the "most advanced engine" (allegedly) have to do with market acceptance? What does out innovating havok (allegedly) have to do with market acceptance?

The market wants more realistic physics in their games, and PhysX is the only physics engine that can deliver it.

What other physics engine offers fluid, smoke, fog, cloth, hair, snow, fur simulation, plus other effects like turbulence, force fields etcetera all in one package?

Answer, none.. Why do you think CDPR is dropping Havok in favor of PhysX for the Witcher 3?

It's because PhysX is a more advanced physics engine that is capable of doing more..

Also, the physX marketing trick is to gain fake market acceptance by giving out for free to developers... but even free a developer isn't willing to lose that many customers so 99% of "physX" using games implement the CPU only version of it and cannot benefit from gpu physX at all

Software PhysX is free for developers, but hardware Physics isn't.

And while you're correct that the majority of PhysX titles are done with software PhysX, an increasing number of AAA titles have been using hardware accelerated PhysX as well.

Just this year we've had Metro Last Light, Batman Arkham Origins, Call of Duty Ghosts....all major titles.

Also it could have been great if nvidia hadn't tried to leverage a non existent monopoly too early. They did that by including DRM in their GPU drivers that disables physX if an AMD CPU is detected on the same system. So you can't have an AMD card as a main GPU and an nvidia card as a PhysX processor to go with it. You must have both cards be nVidia.
As any shady businessman will tell you, FIRST you create the monopoly, THEN you leverage it. nVidia got those two steps confused and it was really pathetic to see them shooting their own foot like that.
Had they ENCOURAGED people to get an nvidia secondary physX card with an AMD main video card it would have allowed them to create the monopoly... then they could have introduced that "no AMD cards" limitation when/if they reached 90% of market share.

NVidia's response to this was that because there is a great deal of communication between the rendering and PhysX card, they couldn't allow it as they cannot touch AMD's drivers. Plus they didn't want the burden of responsibility for tech support, validation and what not......which makes sense.

And why would they want to give their competitor any advantage anyway?

 

[taltamir]

Software PhysX is free for developers, but hardware Physics isn't.

And while you're correct that the majority of PhysX titles are done with software PhysX, an increasing number of AAA titles have been using hardware accelerated PhysX as well.

So? My point was to make the clear distinction between CPU and GPU physX (please don't call CPU physX software and GPU physX hardware. they are both software running on hardware). You admit the two are different beasts, that is good.

That GPU physX has been found in more titles is nice for nvidia, but doesn't in any way counter my statement

NVidia's response to this was that because there is a great deal of communication between the rendering and PhysX card, they couldn't allow it as they cannot touch AMD's drivers. Plus they didn't want the burden of responsibility for tech support, verification and what not......which makes sense.

It doesn't "make sense", it is a steaming pile.
Physics engines are no more tied up in the engine than input devices, internet stack, or audio output. All of which have been (rarely) incorrectly entangled up in the rendering pipeline by amature programmers before (there are games where your FPS will tank if your internet connection lags). But 99% of games keep them properly separated. Those games that mess it up end up being failures and nobody ever blames anyone but the programmers when that happens.
And nobody ever expected them to give tech support or verification of AMD hardware.

And the fact is, it works perfectly with an AMD main GPU if you use a cracked driver or that accidentally released drm free beta. (besides, physX is still being processed 100% on the nvidia GPU)

And why would they want to give their competitor any advantage anyway?

An advantage? It would have literally driven AMD completely out of the market.

How is having every nvidia customer buy 2 nvidia GPUs and every AMD customer buy 1 nvidia and 1 AMD gpu giving an advantage to AMD?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Every game engine has Physics, and new Consoles will have easily 2-3x more performance than last gen. So, they can use more Physics with the new hardware. We dont care if they using the GPU or the CPU or both to calculate them, we only want more physics in games

I said GPU physics specifically.

You should care cause the GPU is massively better at parallel processing tasks. If it's on the CPU it'll be pretty poor or have a huge performance hit.

 

[akugami]

yeah. I think people usuually mean that they don't want a system that is both proprietary AND being designed by a company with vested interests.

If it is proprietary, then they want it to be done by a neutral third party for whom it would be to an advantage to make it work equally well on all hardware.

I think the term you're looking for is vendor agnostic. Basically it's like Direct3D. Yes D3D is proprietary since MS owns it, but it's also vendor agnostic since MS doesn't manufacture any GPU hardware and MS will equally support any and all GPU OEM's out there. MS has no reason to push Matrox, Imagination Technologies, AMD, or nVidia. PhysX on the other hand...proprietary and the company pushing the technology is hardly a neutral party.

 

[borderdeal]

Change the thread title to AA instead of PhysX and realize just how ridiculous it is to say you would rather not have a feature instead of having it and choosing whether or not to use it. Oh yeah, it gets downright funny.
Make no mistake, everybody actually wants PhysX. Admitting it is entirely another fairy tale.

Mmm that is a really bold statement. I could care less for AA and I could care less for PhysX but according to you I am lying and I secretly want AA and PhysX. lol

 

[Keysplayr]

Mmm that is a really bold statement. I could care less for AA and I could care less for PhysX but according to you I am lying and I secretly want AA and PhysX. lol

Quite untrue. If you had the ability to run them both, why would you not? I mean of course this solely depends on the situation and hardware used, but if you could, you would. Explain the alternative. Why "wouldn't" AA be used if it was perfectly fine to do so without fps problems? Same for PhysX or ANY OTHER image quality or feature available for the situation?

Correct and ONLY answer:
People will generally use as many IQ enhancements as they can so long as game is still playable. This of course is completely reversed for pro gamers in FPS. They want sky high fps IQ be damned.

All these people can surely say that they aren't interested, and I'd maybe believe a very small percentage of them are being truthful. Any gaming enthusiast wants it ALL. Yes, I said ANY with the exception of pro gamers dependent of orbital fps.

 

[Mars999]

Use Bullet or Havok, vs. PhysX a it's proprietary and I hate that crap, leaves AMD out and I know it's a marketing strategy for Nvidia... but in the end I want cross platform and run once on anything when I use something. As to CUDA, I wish it would die and Nvidia just get behind OpenCL as everyone else has for pete's sake. MS, Intel, AMD, Apple, Google all support it.

So yeah, voted could care less and would rather see a different Physics SDK used, but agree the FX from the Physics is cool none the less

 

[atticus14]

I think as engines like CryEngine 3 have developed their own more advanced physics engines, physx will keep shrinking more and more into irrelevancy. I assume since consoles will now have access to more power and maybe even a hair of compute power, in house engines will also advance and devs will start incorporating more and more physics into games; and as usual no one will bother with physx unless a fat sack of cash is exchanged.

 

[mindbomb]

it's an average physics sdk with optional hardware acceleration for nvidia gpu's.
I don't understand why ppl dislike it so much, as there isn't a real alternative to it that supports amd, intel, and nvidia gpu's.

I think as engines like CryEngine 3 have developed their own more advanced physics engines, physx will keep shrinking more and more into irrelevancy. I assume since consoles will now have access to more power and maybe even a hair of compute power, in house engines will also advance and devs will start incorporating more and more physics into games; and as usual no one will bother with physx unless a fat sack of cash is exchanged.

But the cryengine 3 physics engine also doesn't support hardware acceleration for AMD graphics cards... so logically, shouldn't you also be against that?
Or are you saying that it is better for no one to have hardware acceleration than for one brand?
Isn't that a childish position?

 

[MrK6]

Quite untrue. If you had the ability to run them both, why would you not? I mean of course this solely depends on the situation and hardware used, but if you could, you would. Explain the alternative. Why "wouldn't" AA be used if it was perfectly fine to do so without fps problems? Same for PhysX or ANY OTHER image quality or feature available for the situation?

Correct and ONLY answer:
People will generally use as many IQ enhancements as they can so long as game is still playable. This of course is completely reversed for pro gamers in FPS. They want sky high fps IQ be damned.

All these people can surely say that they aren't interested, and I'd maybe believe a very small percentage of them are being truthful. Any gaming enthusiast wants it ALL. Yes, I said ANY with the exception of pro gamers dependent of orbital fps.

I find it ironic that you're trying to call people who don't agree with you lying/dishonest when that's what you're purposefully doing in your attempt to prove yourself. Considering your ad hominem attempts, find yourself on this handy-dandy pyramid and tell us why anyone should take you seriously:

You're stating, without reference or evidence, that PhysX is actually a visual enhancement AND that it's the only way to do physics in a game. The first is purely an opinion, of which we all differ as this thread has shown, and the second is an outright attempt to bully your point and you're hoping no one calls you on it (too late).

I personally don't care for most of PhysX effects because I think they're bombastic and unrealistic. Whoever codes them thinks "more is better" without the slightest consideration of whether it should actually look like that. I've made this point for years and I'll agree with anyone that states it's an aesthetic appeal. That said, that also means it's not inherently better, much like the similar arguments that are had over AA modes and implementation (which would have been a more accurate comparison, rather than just "AA").

The simple fact is that despite all of the money and marketing behind it, PhysX hasn't done near what other physics engines have done for gaming. The Battlefield series, for example, have made destructible environments "the new thing" in multiplayer games, and are pretty much mandatory now. That, and they did it more completely and efficiently than anything PhysX has (see the Hawken anecdotes from earlier in the thread).

Anyway, shills keep on shilling, the world still turns.

 

[DooKey]

I find it very cool that someone with a nick based upon an AMD processor is so unbiased.

Oh wait.....pot, meet kettle. Physician heal thy self. At least keys has it in his sig that's he's biased. Others lie about their bias.

Your post is nothing but an ad hominem like you accused keys of. Too many video card company groupies around this place.

 

[Keysplayr]

I find it ironic that you're trying to call people....schnip*

I think you want to make this about me, and not about PhysX. AMIRIGHT?
Methinks, yes.