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

[NIGELG]

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.

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.

One game out of hundreds released???Come on,man!!!!

 

[Carfax83]

One game out of hundreds released???Come on,man!!!!

It isn't just one game though. SirPauly listed a whole bunch of others.. I chose the Witcher 3 because I think it's the most poignant example seeing as it previously used Havok.

At any rate, many of these games aren't your average game. They are huge blockbuster titles that will sell in the millions, and that's an important thing to note because only a handful of these big games get released every year.

Witcher 3, Batman Arkham Origins, Call of Duty Ghosts, Metro Last Light, Borderlands 2, Planetside 2, Everquest Next etcetera...

See a trend yet? While GPU PhysX isn't even close to monopolizing PC gaming, it has a significant number of big titles under it's belt.....which speaks for market acceptance.

 

[taltamir]

If NVidia is going to officially support GPU PhysX in hybrid systems, then they will have to verify and validate those systems.

You are repeating nvidia's false dilemma fallacy... "either nvidia officially supports feature X, or they write special DRM code to prevent its use".
This is a really poor false dilemma for them to set up because there are countless things they do NOT officially support that they haven't bothered DRMing against; by using this false dilemma they imply that anything they haven't specifically DRMed against is fully supported by them, a very bad position

Let me break it down for you:
1. Officially supported: "nVidia is proud to announce that we fully support the use of an nvidia GPU as a physX processor for systems with an AMD GPU"
2. No official support: "nVidia reminds all users that using an nVidia GPU as a physX processor with an AMD GPU as the primary is not a supported configuration"
3. DRM to block it: nvidia puts DRM in the driver that disables a feature if it detects an AMD GPU in the system. Earlier versions, an accidental beta, and cracked versions of the driver do not include that DRM and work perfectly fine. (proving that nvidia's claims are a steaming pile)

PS. the nvidia DRM doesn't actually check to see if a game is set to perform primary GPU processing on the AMD or nVidia GPU, it simply disables physX if an AMD GPU exists on the same system.

 

[wand3r3r]

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

By increased adoption in the context of a game adding it?

Also NV sponsoring games != market acceptance. It's like saying gamers love amd due to the titles in ge increasing.

 

[taltamir]

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.

Fact: When someone makes a statement without explicitly stating it to be a fact, it is by definition their opinion.
Demanding they put "this is only my opinion" after each post is ridiculous.
The only way to "spout an opinion as fact" is to explicitly STATE "this is a fact", and even then it is merely your opinion about what is factual (aka. If I say "fact: the earth is round", i am by definition actually saying "it is my opinion that the claim that the earth is round is a fact")

And there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with each side claiming an opposing view is a fact in a tech debate. each side states what THEY believe to be the facts and then they ARGUE about to so they can both teach and learn and find out which are true facts and which are false. If your feelings get hurt by someone disagreeing with you then you will never learn anything.

The only real way to actually "spout opinion as fact" is to say something like "Fact: Star trek is cooler than star wars". If you merely say "Star trek is cooler than star wars" you are clearly stating your subjective opinion.
Even then it is most likely tongue in cheek unless someone has serious social issues and really does believe their subjective opinions to be factual.

 

[SirPauly]

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?

imho,

Excellent question! Cuda is important to nVida and has fueled growth for GeForce, Tesla and Quadro but when will the time-line be when the resource/risk/benefit isn't there anymore and where spending resources on Cuda doesn't make any economic sense?

When OpenCL and Compute are so robust and mature -- competition very strong -- nVidia's PhysX may evolve for OpenCL support over Cuda or offer both!

 

[wand3r3r]

Fact: When someone makes a statement, it is, by definition, their opinion.
Demanding they put "this is only my opinion" after each post is ridiculous.
The only way to "spout an opinion as fact" is to explicitly STATE "this is a fact"

Ok, ironic people claiming effects were missing from physx games and only using physx get called out for proof, but claiming bl2 physx problems are from (insert random likely false reason), claiming physx is gaining market acceptance, etc. doesn't require proof.

I'm done with this but if people want to make stuff up just don't use double standards.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, ironic people claiming effects were missing from physx games and only using physx get called out for proof, but claiming bl2 physx problems are from (insert random likely false reason), claiming physx is gaining market acceptance, etc. doesn't require proof.

I'm done with this but if people want to make stuff up just don't use double standards.

Everybody wants Physics. End of story.

 

[SirPauly]

It's like saying gamers love amd due to the titles in ge increasing.

Appreciate AMD's investments based on it creates more awareness for the PC platform and trying to improve Radeon gaming experiences based on their hardware and software strengths in conjunction with their strategies and vision!

 

[taltamir]

Ok, ironic people claiming effects were missing from physx games and only using physx get called out for proof, but claiming bl2 physx problems are from (insert random likely false reason), claiming physx is gaining market acceptance, etc. doesn't require proof.

I'm done with this but if people want to make stuff up just don't use double standards.

Just because it is their opinion doesn't mean you can't call them out on it. Its just that the call out should be "this is false" or "prove it" rather than "stop spouting opinions as if it was fact! You are not allowed to make a statement that disagrees with me!".

 

[wand3r3r]

Just because it is their opinion doesn't mean you can't call them out on it. Its just that the call out should be "this is false" or "prove it" rather than "stop spouting opinions as if it was fact! You are not allowed to make a statement that disagrees with me!".

I just found it to be a double standard as I mentioned in the example.
I wouldn't have said anything but reading a few pages back he was telling others to prove subjective statements. I agree with your point anyway but I don't necessarily agree/disagree with his statements but the double standard was noticed.

And with that I'm out of this topic. (But not the thread)

 

[taltamir]

I just found it to be a double standard as I mentioned in the example.
I wouldn't have said anything but reading a few pages back he was telling others to prove subjective statements. I agree with your point anyway but I don't necessarily agree/disagree with his statements but the double standard was noticed.

I honestly don't even remember what his statement was.
It is very possible that he used a double standard but in such a case you should point out the double standard

 

[3DVagabond]

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!

I don't think anyone is knocking the potential of PhysX. Just that it's not used to it's potential, but people keep preaching it as a benefit.

For consumers the biggest complaint I've seen is it's use is exclusive to nVidia cards and it's nothing that makes it worth buying nVidia cards exclusively. I think the strongest proponents of PhysX don't buy nVidia because of it. They'd likely buy nVidia anyway, even if there were no games being released this year that utilized it.

Of those games you mentioned, how many would incorporate GPU PhysX if nVidia wasn't sponsoring the game, supplying the code, etc...?

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't think anyone is knocking the potential of PhysX. Just that it's not used to it's potential, but people keep preaching it as a benefit.

For consumers the biggest complaint I've seen is it's use is exclusive to nVidia cards and it's nothing that makes it worth buying nVidia cards exclusively. I think the strongest proponents of PhysX don't buy nVidia because of it. They'd likely buy nVidia anyway, even if there were no games being released this year that utilized it.

Of those games you mentioned, how many would incorporate GPU PhysX if nVidia wasn't sponsoring the game, supplying the code, etc...?

Name something that is used to it's full potential? This is not an argument to be taken seriously. Saying it's not being used to it's potential is a farce at best. It is indeed a benefit to have a feature than not to have a feature. It is indeed better to have a dime than not to have a dime. It is indeed better to have Anti-Aliasing than to not have it, and that isn't being used to it's full potential either.

^in bold. Where did you pull this "data" out of?

 

[3DVagabond]

Name something that is used to it's full potential? This is not an argument to be taken seriously. Saying it's not being used to it's potential is a farce at best. It is indeed a benefit to have a feature than not to have a feature. It is indeed better to have a dime than not to have a dime. It is indeed better to have Anti-Aliasing than to not have it, and that isn't being used to it's full potential either.

^in bold. Where did you pull this "data" out of?

Who were you replying to. I never said used to it's full potential. I'm not even sure what PhysX's full potential is. I'm talking about all of the things that PhysX can do, but we don't see. People like to talk about the potential of PhysX, but if they don't use it why is it a reason to want PhysX?

The bold part... Where did I even suggest there was any data? Is your reading comprehension really that poor, or is this simply an attempt to discredit someone by claiming they've said something they didn't?

I said, "I think". You could ask me why do I think that, if that's really what you want to know.

 

[Grooveriding]

That's the whole issue with GPU physx; it adds a few gimmicky features to a couple games a year. It doesn't even provide a full in-game physics implementation like say the cpu version of the SDK can, because it's far too inefficient to do so. A game using only gpu physx to provide all in-game physics would be unplayable on any setup.

So you wind up with superfluous debris particles and gelatinous 'water' that looks like jello etc. It gets knocked on and disregarded because it's done nothing to establish its self as a game-changer, just a performance killer...

 

[taltamir]

So you wind up with superfluous debris particles and gelatinous 'water' that looks like jello etc. It gets knocked on and disregarded because it's done nothing to establish its self as a game-changer, just a performance killer...

thats the sad part, I was really hoping for some first order physics. But that promise was never fulfilled

 

[Piroko]

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.

Realism and immersion are not the same, or else every movie would have been made in the same way that Skyfall was made (crashing tons and tons of cars for the takes). The trend is in the opposite direction, cheating realism to create a different kind of immersion.
Some scenes like the famed Battlefield 3 "blow up the whole side of a Hotel" animation will probably always be more impressive (and easier to pull off) as a scripted scene compared to a dynamical one, simply because the game relies on a very exact result of your actions to make the reaction of the accompanying NPCs more believable.

Look at the results:

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.

I would have agreed with your analysis if this poll were made in 2006 or 2007. PhysX has been in games for the better part of this Millenium, if people still don't know about it or don't care for it, chances are high that they never will. That is why I don't consider any option in this poll meaningless, as all of them carry a different value of 'hype'.

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.

Be careful with that statement, The Witcher 3 may still use Havok after all and only use PhysX effects. Havok isn't just a physics engine, they can also supply AI, a scripting engine and other tools to complement your inhouse engine development.

That is also one of the reasons why I consider the team around Havok to have won this 'physics war' as chances are high that you will see a Havok logo even in PhysX titles. Their market penetration is on a whole different level.

 

[FiendishMind]

You are repeating nvidia's false dilemma fallacy... "either nvidia officially supports feature X, or they write special DRM code to prevent its use".
This is a really poor false dilemma for them to set up because there are countless things they do NOT officially support that they haven't bothered DRMing against; by using this false dilemma they imply that anything they haven't specifically DRMed against is fully supported by them, a very bad position

Let me break it down for you:
1. Officially supported: "nVidia is proud to announce that we fully support the use of an nvidia GPU as a physX processor for systems with an AMD GPU"
2. No official support: "nVidia reminds all users that using an nVidia GPU as a physX processor with an AMD GPU as the primary is not a supported configuration"
3. DRM to block it: nvidia puts DRM in the driver that disables a feature if it detects an AMD GPU in the system. Earlier versions, an accidental beta, and cracked versions of the driver do not include that DRM and work perfectly fine. (proving that nvidia's claims are a steaming pile)

PS. the nvidia DRM doesn't actually check to see if a game is set to perform primary GPU processing on the AMD or nVidia GPU, it simply disables physX if an AMD GPU exists on the same system.

PhysX represented a rather signifigant investment for Nvidia, so it makes sense that it wasn't treated like the majority of features Nvidia chooses not to officially support. AFAIK Hybridiz requires it's creator considerable effort beyond just bypassing Nvidia's DRM to maintain, so I'm not so sure you can really call Nvidia's claims false. Nvidia might have been worried that if they left the feature unsupported but still accessible, any associated problems might result in negative blow back from the community for the new feature that Nvidia was hyping hard, the DRM might have just seemed like a simple/lower cost fix.

 

[SirPauly]

I don't think anyone is knocking the potential of PhysX. Just that it's not used to it's potential, but people keep preaching it as a benefit.

Of course it is a benefit to some!

 

[3DVagabond]

Of course it is a benefit to some!

I'm sorry. That wasn't too clear. I meant they keep preaching the things
Physx can potentially do as a benefit.

 

[KingFatty]

Name something that is used to it's full potential? This is not an argument to be taken seriously. Saying it's not being used to it's potential is a farce at best. It is indeed a benefit to have a feature than not to have a feature. It is indeed better to have a dime than not to have a dime. It is indeed better to have Anti-Aliasing than to not have it, and that isn't being used to it's full potential either.

The way I see it, it's wrong to think about this as having a feature vs. not having that feature.

Using your example, I would instead compare this to choosing between having a feature or having your dime.

And I think a lot of people are like "meh, I'll pay a nickel for that feature, but not a dime, I'd rather give up the feature and keep my dime"?

 

[railven]

I would have agreed with your analysis if this poll were made in 2006 or 2007. PhysX has been in games for the better part of this Millenium, if people still don't know about it or don't care for it, chances are high that they never will. That is why I don't consider any option in this poll meaningless, as all of them carry a different value of 'hype'.

And that is the power of marketing. Just because someone is ignorant of something doesn't mean they don't care to learn about it.

I still come across people who don't exactly know what PhysX is [EDIT: Just like I come across people who don't open the settings tab games (and these are the people Geforce Experience is tailored for, kudos to Nvidia for targeting more of a demograph), sure we can joke "then just get a console" and I jokingly do, but PC's do other stuff than just play games], and of course the usual "why can't I use PhysX on my computer, I have a Radeon..." those people are ignorant of the feature but show a clear desire to understand it.

I could have argued option number one was just as much flame bait as the last option (two sarcastic yes/no responses), BUT the author of the poll leaves the options for interpretation. "I don't know what that is" doesn't mean "I don't like it" or "I do like it." It's as open ended as the "neutral" option.

 

[railven]

The way I see it, it's wrong to think about this as having a feature vs. not having that feature.

Using your example, I would instead compare this to choosing between having a feature or having your dime.

And I think a lot of people are like "meh, I'll pay a nickel for that feature, but not a dime, I'd rather give up the feature and keep my dime"?

To add to this, if the mentally is "feature or no feature" and it is presented to devs as so, I'd personally push for no feature as then perhaps devs would refer back to use scripted copy"N"paste effects.

At this point I'm already at "no feature or feature" since I use an AMD card and whenever a PhysX game rolls around stuff seems to be missing (and no, not implying it is removed, but there is no incentive to add it when you are compensated to not to.)

 

[BoFox]

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's another potentially misleading obscurity here when you said "in favor". Is it really that much in favor of a better-looking game that the programmers decided to ditch 40% of enthusiast PC gamers with them not being able to enjoy the GPU-based Physx effects, -OR- because of Nvidia bribing them with a cool sum of $ that is very very hard to refuse - harder to refuse at the moment along with Nvidia's promising and convincing "politics" that PhysX will indeed attract more attention to the game's own glory with a greater payoff than without?

Plus Nvidia finally gets fur rendering done on GPU-based PhysX. Human hair rendering done on GPU-based PhysX in a real, tangible game is still yet to be seen, after all these years of PhysX games.......