Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
Phys-x is for me like AA. Although I have never owned a recent Nvidia card, if I could turn on better physics in a game for ... 5% performance hit, and I was still clearing 60/75fps, then sure why not. But for AMD users getting the 30%+ hit, no chance!
Regards to AA also, back in the mid 2000's I had a 6800XT AGP that could run older games such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Medal of Honour and Warcraft III with AA turned up and still get over 120fps, so why not? But these days people seem obsessed with benchmarking cards with 8x/16x AA and getting 30fps in game. Wouldn't it make more sense to drop AA altogether and more than DOUBLE your FPS? If you're running at 1080p native res, just how many jaggies can you actually see? I can never understand that. Spending an extra £X-hundred amount of money on an extra card for SLI and then playing every game with 16xAA.... no thanks. I'll take one card and ignore the occasional pixel.
Regards to AA also, back in the mid 2000's I had a 6800XT AGP that could run older games such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Medal of Honour and Warcraft III with AA turned up and still get over 120fps, so why not? But these days people seem obsessed with benchmarking cards with 8x/16x AA and getting 30fps in game. Wouldn't it make more sense to drop AA altogether and more than DOUBLE your FPS? If you're running at 1080p native res, just how many jaggies can you actually see? I can never understand that. Spending an extra £X-hundred amount of money on an extra card for SLI and then playing every game with 16xAA.... no thanks. I'll take one card and ignore the occasional pixel.
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
My name has nothing to do with the AMD K6 processor, it existed long before the processor did. Also, I don't think you know what ad hominem means, simply referencing the arguer doesn't make it ad hominem.
Once again you can't refute any of the points. Glad you're openly admitting defeat this time.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 627
- 126
There seems to be quite a disconnect from the statement, "everyone wants PhysX" to the results of this poll.
I'd be a bit more interested if it was hardware agnostic, and if it didn't extract such a performance premium. I'd accept the perf hit but the visuals are not anywhere near what I'd consider worth it.
In Batman AA for example, with PhysX off rudimentary effects like smoke and steam are not even there. This stuff has been in games for a very long time, this is what I'm talking about when I say that Nvidia removes visuals then puts them back in as PhysX and points out how great they are. We can argue all day about "real time" and accurate movements of particles etc. but the visuals don't have to be 100% interactive and reactive to be enjoyable. The ultimate goal is of course to have simulated environments perfectly model the physical world, but taking away visuals just for the sake of putting them back as GPU physics becomes a marketing exercise rather than a creative one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6DrPX1XDE&hd=1
It reminds me of visual effects studios that spend an inordinate amount of money making every shadow perfect, when the audience simply doesn't care. Peter Jackson talked a lot about this when making the Lord Of The Rings, the lesson he learned is if he tried to making everything 100% true to life and physics etc, the movie would never get finished.
I'd be a bit more interested if it was hardware agnostic, and if it didn't extract such a performance premium. I'd accept the perf hit but the visuals are not anywhere near what I'd consider worth it.
In Batman AA for example, with PhysX off rudimentary effects like smoke and steam are not even there. This stuff has been in games for a very long time, this is what I'm talking about when I say that Nvidia removes visuals then puts them back in as PhysX and points out how great they are. We can argue all day about "real time" and accurate movements of particles etc. but the visuals don't have to be 100% interactive and reactive to be enjoyable. The ultimate goal is of course to have simulated environments perfectly model the physical world, but taking away visuals just for the sake of putting them back as GPU physics becomes a marketing exercise rather than a creative one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6DrPX1XDE&hd=1
It reminds me of visual effects studios that spend an inordinate amount of money making every shadow perfect, when the audience simply doesn't care. Peter Jackson talked a lot about this when making the Lord Of The Rings, the lesson he learned is if he tried to making everything 100% true to life and physics etc, the movie would never get finished.
cmdrdredd
Lifer
- Dec 12, 2001
- 27,052
- 357
- 126
News flash!!!
Nvidia didn't make the game. Nvidia didn't make the engine. Nvidia didn't ask the developers to use physx. That's all on Rocksteady.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 627
- 126
Nvidia made sure the visuals would only work with Nvidia GPU's, and no CPU support. That's all on Nvidia. The dev could have gone their own way and had a CPU particle engine for the missing visuals, but that would hardly be the kind of relationship Nvidia would be a part of. That would just clearly show that PhysX is not really necessary in the first place. Also, Nvidia did (and continues to) supply code for such projects.
You'd be very naive to think the dev was free and clear to do whatever they wanted no strings. When you sign up to create a title that uses PhysX, you end up being bound to how Nvidia likes to do things. We've seen this many times. It's not wrong of NV to expect this, not at all. It's their choice and how they choose to promote PhysX, just don't pretend that the dev can do with the tech whatever they want.
Nvidia has a right to do this, just to be clear. But how Nvidia goes about promoting PhysX is counter productive and hurts PC gaming IMO.
You'd be very naive to think the dev was free and clear to do whatever they wanted no strings. When you sign up to create a title that uses PhysX, you end up being bound to how Nvidia likes to do things. We've seen this many times. It's not wrong of NV to expect this, not at all. It's their choice and how they choose to promote PhysX, just don't pretend that the dev can do with the tech whatever they want.
Nvidia has a right to do this, just to be clear. But how Nvidia goes about promoting PhysX is counter productive and hurts PC gaming IMO.
GPU and CPU PhysX are merging though. You can run "hardware" PhysX on the CPU in most games that use hardware accelerated PhysX......with a massive performance drop of course.
Only in the earlier games was there a sharp distinction. PhysX 3xx should have faster CPU performance though, so I'm hoping that a fast hyperthreaded quad core or better should be able to handle PhysX at medium settings in Batman Arkham Origins and Call of Duty Ghost....assuming these two games use PhysX 3xx.
I'm not a programmer so I have no idea as to the veracity of NVidia's claims to be honest. I was just stating their response to that argument.
If NVidia is going to officially support GPU PhysX in hybrid systems, then they will have to verify and validate those systems.
I have no personal experience with running a hybrid system so I can't comment on this.
Because it's better if the AMD customer is forced to switch over to NVidia completely, rather than use his AMD card for rendering and an NVidia card for PhysX.
Didn't you receive an infraction from Stalhart for [redacted]?
How many times does it need to be said, the original format for these games are the CONSOLE versions..
If it's not in the console version, then it wasn't part of the original design. And since the PhysX effects (or anything similar) weren't in the console versions, then they were ADDED to the game to make the PC version stand out..
Nothing was removed because the original designs did not have these effects!
Infraction issued for moderator callout.
-- stahlhart
Last edited by a moderator:
They removed a ton of stuff from Borderlands. Gearbox/Nv then made those effects part of the game menu's "PhysX" option. Just change Vendor ID of your gpu to make the option available, or go edit the games ini file, and you can see everything that was removed.
I like how GPU PhysX looks in games. I like the strong arm tactics too. It's AMDs own fault if they don't license the gpu physics technology, or at least create a competing product of their own like TressFX that covers all particle simulations. They just laugh like it's going to die off, or OpenCL will just magically take over without their assistance. At least Nvidia is trying to push cool new ideas out there, you can't expect them to invest their time & resources and not expect them to benefit. Every new game the particle effects get more impressive & the performance gets better for GPU powered PhysX effects. The drawback is now it's completely PC exclusive and IHV exclusive at that. Makes me wish I had a Titan or 780 instead of the 7950. I'll have to settle for editing game files if I really want to see the coolness. IMO they have a bad strategy, but the outcome is cool for gamers.
Some of the most impressive stuff yet - check out the APEX turbulence & particle effects coming out in Warframe with Nvidia GPU PhsyX:
http://youtu.be/j89kwKfYf5w
I like how GPU PhysX looks in games. I like the strong arm tactics too. It's AMDs own fault if they don't license the gpu physics technology, or at least create a competing product of their own like TressFX that covers all particle simulations. They just laugh like it's going to die off, or OpenCL will just magically take over without their assistance. At least Nvidia is trying to push cool new ideas out there, you can't expect them to invest their time & resources and not expect them to benefit. Every new game the particle effects get more impressive & the performance gets better for GPU powered PhysX effects. The drawback is now it's completely PC exclusive and IHV exclusive at that. Makes me wish I had a Titan or 780 instead of the 7950. I'll have to settle for editing game files if I really want to see the coolness. IMO they have a bad strategy, but the outcome is cool for gamers.
Some of the most impressive stuff yet - check out the APEX turbulence & particle effects coming out in Warframe with Nvidia GPU PhsyX:
http://youtu.be/j89kwKfYf5w
Just because you can make the effects available by faking a NV vendor ID doesn't prove it was "removed".
I dislike PhysX.
It's proprietary and so nothing but bad for the gaming industry and gamers, in the long run, any kind of global adoption of PhysX across the industry would put Nvidia in an unreasonable position of power.
CPU accelerated PhysX is among some of the worst coded in the industry, if you CPU accelerate most PhysX enabled games using the more advanced and large scale effects (cloth, smoke and water simulation) the PhysX will become the bottleneck to frame rate, however your CPU wont be anywhere near full load - extensive testing in the batman games demonstrates this perfectly. And it makes sense right, because Nvidia don't sell CPUs, they want to promote GPUs, so their CPU resolver is always going to be naff.
GPU physics in general remains eyecandy only to this day, there's no large scale interaction happening with the core game logic that offers anything more than other physics solutions on the market. Until it can meaningfully interact with gameplay elements it has little to no value.
As such it doesn't factor into my purchasing decision. Currently I have 2x GTX 580's in SLI.
*edit*
I'd also like to say that Nvidias behaviour with their TWIMTBP program is often reprehensible and downright malicious. We've seen game developers move physics effects which you can traditionally calculate on a CPU without issue, into the "hardware accelerated phsyx" options.
This means if you're a gamer with an AMD card your experience in the game is WORSE because effects you'd otherwise be able to render are deliberately removed. This again has been demonstrated in games like Batman arkham asylum where effects like tile smashes and bullet sparks which use only small numbers of simulated particles become locked to GPU acceleration only, but when FORCED via hacks to run on the CPU actually run at perfectly acceptable frame rates on a wide range of CPUs.
It's quite frankly disgusting behaviour, imagine if PhysX was standard across the industry, imagine how fucked AMD gamers would be. PhysX needs to die.
It's proprietary and so nothing but bad for the gaming industry and gamers, in the long run, any kind of global adoption of PhysX across the industry would put Nvidia in an unreasonable position of power.
CPU accelerated PhysX is among some of the worst coded in the industry, if you CPU accelerate most PhysX enabled games using the more advanced and large scale effects (cloth, smoke and water simulation) the PhysX will become the bottleneck to frame rate, however your CPU wont be anywhere near full load - extensive testing in the batman games demonstrates this perfectly. And it makes sense right, because Nvidia don't sell CPUs, they want to promote GPUs, so their CPU resolver is always going to be naff.
GPU physics in general remains eyecandy only to this day, there's no large scale interaction happening with the core game logic that offers anything more than other physics solutions on the market. Until it can meaningfully interact with gameplay elements it has little to no value.
As such it doesn't factor into my purchasing decision. Currently I have 2x GTX 580's in SLI.
*edit*
I'd also like to say that Nvidias behaviour with their TWIMTBP program is often reprehensible and downright malicious. We've seen game developers move physics effects which you can traditionally calculate on a CPU without issue, into the "hardware accelerated phsyx" options.
This means if you're a gamer with an AMD card your experience in the game is WORSE because effects you'd otherwise be able to render are deliberately removed. This again has been demonstrated in games like Batman arkham asylum where effects like tile smashes and bullet sparks which use only small numbers of simulated particles become locked to GPU acceleration only, but when FORCED via hacks to run on the CPU actually run at perfectly acceptable frame rates on a wide range of CPUs.
It's quite frankly disgusting behaviour, imagine if PhysX was standard across the industry, imagine how fucked AMD gamers would be. PhysX needs to die.
Last edited:
More claims without proof. You people should think first and then post.
If you force added effects to run on the CPU via hacks, the end result would be the same and you simply cannot determine or prove that any effect was removed. You simply don't have the necessary information to come to that conclusion. Namely a version completely without PhysX as a reference to see what the developer would have done if he didn't adopt PhysX at all. But wait, there is one...as Carfax said, the console versions are just that. So what you claim is not true.
You lie to bash PhysX, it's as simple as that. So stop lying.
If you force added effects to run on the CPU via hacks, the end result would be the same and you simply cannot determine or prove that any effect was removed. You simply don't have the necessary information to come to that conclusion. Namely a version completely without PhysX as a reference to see what the developer would have done if he didn't adopt PhysX at all. But wait, there is one...as Carfax said, the console versions are just that. So what you claim is not true.
You lie to bash PhysX, it's as simple as that. So stop lying.
Last edited:
The thing is it does not look accurate to me most of the time.
The fog in batman even with people just walking through it looks like they have fans strapped to there boots
The water in cryostasis behaves like light oil same for BL2, I did like the extra sparks in BL2 though.
The smoke trails in the Darkvold looked nice though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x9B_4qBAkk
BF3 has leaves and paper floating around but in some GPU phyisx titles no GPU phyisx no leaves and paper period, interactive or not and some of the added debris and particles in some of the examples have been superseded by BF3 and even Red Faction Guerrilla 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhsAMyCrfjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSsdHPK8BIs
The phyisx papers goes through batman's cape. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrAznQN9yYo
The weight of the rubble in Hawken is way to light http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIVpeP5AuVY
And most of the added Physx in Hawken in general just looks fake to me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAlC3VSN4Ks from 0:40 on and the comments basically say the same.
It could be said that things look more pretty than when turned off but realistic not in my opinion.
Last edited:
Adding the effects in the first place tells us the developers intentions with regards to what they want to see artistically in the game.
We cannot say for sure how they would have behaved without PhysX options creating a divide in the game but what we know for sure is that.
1) The developers desired these effects in the game, because they used them.
2) The effects are trivial to implement, in the case of batman it uses the unreal engine which supports emitters for particle effects out of the box
3) Every CPU that meets the minimum specs for the game is perfectly capable of calculating these trivial effects.
4) Games, especially AAA games, have always used projectile impact effects even as far back as 2D games like Duke Nukem 3D.
We can infer the behaviour of developers with the lack of Physx would be to implement these effects in a manner which everyone can use, not just hardware accelerated capable PhysX users.
Can we say for sure with absolute 100% certainty? No, of course not, this is a case of using common sense. There are many things we cannot prove with 100% certainity but it is nevertheless reasonable to believe. This is just blind defense of PhysX based on technicalities.
We KNOW some of these trivial effects do not require GPU acceleration, yet they were lumped into the rest of the GPU accelerated effects, this serves to hurt some gamers and so it's a bad thing. PhysX caused this artifical divide which does not exist in other non-physx titles and therefore is hurting some gamers, basic common sense.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
This interview/article may offer some insight:
Getting GPU PhysX effects into games: interview with NVIDIA Content Team
http://physxinfo.com/news/7165/gett...nto-games-interview-with-nvidia-content-team/
A lot of good questions and information, imho!
Getting GPU PhysX effects into games: interview with NVIDIA Content Team
http://physxinfo.com/news/7165/gett...nto-games-interview-with-nvidia-content-team/
A lot of good questions and information, imho!
This sums up what I've been saying nicely.
There is a strong trend of how developers create non-physx supported games, many effects such as fog, smoke, impact effects, basic particle effects, they're industry standards, they're expected by gamers and these things only ever appear in increasing amounts over time.
However Physx enabled games which lump the basic effects in with the more complex ones have a tendency to over do it, it means they break from the trend of modern games if you cannot use GPU accelerated Physx.
Now you can argue the details until you're blue in the face, whether this is Nvidias influence, whether it's the developers responsibility, whether money or resources traded hands, and the rest of it...but what remains FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT is the trend that games which implement GPU accelerated PhysX have a tendency for this behaviour and it goes against the trend of the industry.
The introduction of PhysX hurts gamers, that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion and is coherent with a reality where it's in Nvidia's best interest to hurt the experience for AMD users and promote the move from CPU to GPU Physx.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
1) Not necessarily as the console version lacks these basic effects. That would not be the case if the developer wanted them in. There is also the possibility that Nvidia is responsible for bringing these effects to the PC by either programming them themselves or encouraging the developer to do so. Just like TressFX which is AMDs work, not Crystal Dynamics'.
2) If it's so trivial, where is the fog simulation or the amount of particles in other UE games?
3) Irrelevant if the dev didn't originally want to use them, see 1)
4) That may be, but it is just conjecture as to how that influences Batman AA/AC. Different developer, different story.
See more at: http://physxinfo.com/news/5883/gpu-physx-in-alice-madness-returns/#sthash.goWJ6mAu.dpuf
Looking closely the hair has similar issues to Tomb Raider 2013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m77Ocf3A3PE and the comments are ironic seeing as the hair has similar issues and is not using PhysX.
Last edited:
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,219
- 55
- 91
You're serious? You'll surely excuse me if I can only take this as a joke.
Good one. :thumbsup:
1) Consoles are limited in numerous ways, they are almost always inferior to the PC when it comes to graphics, that difference can and is explained by lack of hardware to keep up with PCs.
2) It is trivial, I've developed with the Unreal Editor ever since UT99 and it's always had emitters that can emit physics enabled particles to simulate smoke and fog.
3) It's perfectly relevant because it demonstrates that it's not a technical barrier, if it's not a technical barrier it requires some other explanation.
4) Yes it's conjecture, I said in my previous post it's not an exact 100% proof, but in day to day reality, what is?
It's perfectly simple, we have a boat load of games released every year, the vast majorety of which ship with basic effects for everyone, then we have these PhysX games were basic effects are locked to GPU acceleration only when we know they need not be.
It doesn't matter if it's nvidias influence, it doesn't matter if it's the developers secret deals or wanting to keep nvidia sweet for their time and resources, it doesn't matter if someone was paid off, under the table or not. it doesn't matter if the whole thing is just an honest mistake...
What matters is that the introduction of PhysX while increasing the quality of the game for nvidia users, decreases the quality of the game for everyone else, because there's a trend for PhysX enabled games to lack basic features that statistically tend to appear in games of this class.
It'd be some MASSIVE coincidence if it just happened that most games PhysX is apparent in also would have never used this basic effects that every other game seems to manage to put it, seriously guys...
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
Unlike NVIDIA PhysX, you dont need specific hardware to run Havoc, every CPU can use it.
Same with every game engine physics, every Hardware being CPU or GPU can process it, you dont need specific hardware to run Frostbite 2/3 game Physics. Both NV and AMD GPUs have the same access to the Engines Physics.
1) Consoles are limited in numerous ways, they are almost always inferior to the PC when it comes to graphics, that difference can and is explained by lack of hardware to keep up with PCs.
2) It is trivial, I've developed with the Unreal Editor ever since UT99 and it's always had emitters that can emit physics enabled particles to simulate smoke and fog.
3) It's perfectly relevant because it demonstrates that it's not a technical barrier, if it's not a technical barrier it requires some other explanation.
4) Yes it's conjecture, I said in my previous post it's not an exact 100% proof, but in day to day reality, what is?
It's perfectly simple, we have a boat load of games released every year, the vast majorety of which ship with basic effects for everyone, then we have these PhysX games were basic effects are locked to GPU acceleration only when we know they need not be.
It doesn't matter if it's nvidias influence, it doesn't matter if it's the developers secret deals or wanting to keep nvidia sweet for their time and resources, it doesn't matter if someone was paid off, under the table or not. it doesn't matter if the whole thing is just an honest mistake...
What matters is that the introduction of PhysX while increasing the quality of the game for nvidia users, decreases the quality of the game for everyone else, because there's a trend for PhysX enabled games to lack basic features that statistically tend to appear in games of this class.
It'd be some MASSIVE coincidence if it just happened that most games PhysX is apparent in also would have never used this basic effects that every other game seems to manage to put it, seriously guys...
1) Consoles still can display a couple of particles and sparks and basic (2D) fog
2) And still it is mostly PhysX games where these effects are shown in abundance
3) I never said the barrier was of a technical nature. It doesn't change anything - the effects aren't in the base game, that's a fact. Therefore nothing was removed, it was never there to begin with.
4) With that attitude you can fabricate theories for everything and claim they are the truth.
What you say is still not true, there is no decrease in quality. Or do you have access to a different timeline where PhysX doesn't exist? Do you know the developers personally and know their reasoning? And what other games do you speak of? Give some examples.
I'll give you cloth simulation since I've seen that feature in enough games already. But extensive particles effects are (while certainly possible) not the norm and occur only in a tiny amount of games if the occur at all. Crysis 3 has some cool spark effects, that Stalker game had dynamic fog, but apart from that, that's it. I cannot see a trend here.
Last edited:
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