PhysX games galore!

[Carfax83]

Because completely saying "**** you AMD" while mainly developing on AMD-based consoles doesn't really make sense?

While hardware accelerated PhysX has been tied to CUDA in the past (and CUDA requires NVidia hardware), it looks like that may change in the future as NVidia has hinted that they are interested in porting PhysX to other APIs like DirectCompute.

In fact, NVidia has done that already. The fur physics in Call of Duty Ghosts uses DirectCompute rather than CUDA..

So basically you're wrong if you think that hardware PhysX can't run on AMD based consoles.

 

[zlatan]

No seriously. Why doesn't Ubisoft just drop Havok and go with PhysX entirely (like CDPR) for their low level physics? After Watch Dogs, Havok to me is lackluster. PhysX is just a much better and more capable physics engine it seems, as you have the option to use the GPU for advanced physics effects that would cripple a CPU.

Havok has much better performance on consoles. PhysX don't evolve in the same way so it is to slow for the next-gen. This is why Ubisoft use Havok for every basic physics calculation. But PhysX can be used for smoke like AC4.

Personally, I hope that the hair physics in Witcher 3 uses CUDA for NVidia platforms, and DirectCompute for AMD.. The hair and fur physics should run faster under CUDA than DirectCompute..

Nope. There is a reason why the hair and the fur implemented in DirectCompute. Even if they call it PhysX. The simulation of these effects won't eat up to much performance, but the rendering will. A CUDA implementation should run much slower.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I already have the 650 though, just wasnt sure if it was sufficient

 

[sontin]

Havok has much better performance on consoles. PhysX don't evolve in the same way so it is to slow for the next-gen. This is why Ubisoft use Havok for every basic physics calculation. But PhysX can be used for smoke like AC4.

Yeah and UE has gone with PhysX since version 3... :|

 

[zlatan]

Yeah and UE has gone with PhysX since version 3... :|

I don't see a huge market for UE4 in consoles, especially with triple-A. They are also focusing on indies. The engine mostly licensed for MMO-s, mobile titles, and PC-only things.

 

[sontin]

I don't see a huge market for UE4 in consoles, especially with triple-A. They are also focusing on indies. The engine mostly licensed for MMO-s, mobile titles, and PC-only things.

... - what?!
UE3 was a console engine. UE4 will be the same. Daylight for example was released on PC and PS4...

 

[zlatan]

... - what?!
UE3 was a console engine. UE4 will be the same. Daylight for example was released on PC and PS4...

No, UE3 was a multi-platform engine. UE4 will be the same, but they must sell it. Most of the top studios will build an own engine or use an in-house one. That's why Epic use a new indie friendly licensing model. They actually compete against Unity now. Even Epic won't release a game for consoles.

 

[Carfax83]

Havok has much better performance on consoles. PhysX don't evolve in the same way so it is to slow for the next-gen. This is why Ubisoft use Havok for every basic physics calculation. But PhysX can be used for smoke like AC4.

I'd be curious to know where you're getting your information from when you say PhysX is too slow

PhysX has definitely continued to evolve over the years. Since the 3.0 SDK was released, PhysX is completely multithreaded and uses SIMD optimization extensively.

Anyway, this guy benchmarked several iterations of PhysX against BulletPhysics and PhysX did remarkably well.

He claims he would have benchmarked Havok, but the Havok license expressly forbids benchmarking their software. I wonder why? :whiste:

A CUDA implementation should run much slower.

Again, where are you getting this? Now CUDA is slower than DirectCompute? Yeah right..

 

[Techhog]

While hardware accelerated PhysX has been tied to CUDA in the past (and CUDA requires NVidia hardware), it looks like that may change in the future as NVidia has hinted that they are interested in porting PhysX to other APIs like DirectCompute.

In fact, NVidia has done that already. The fur physics in Call of Duty Ghosts uses DirectCompute rather than CUDA..

So basically you're wrong if you think that hardware PhysX can't run on AMD based consoles.

That just makes me even more angry. Why can't that be done for PC PhysX?

 

[zlatan]

I'd be curious to know where you're getting your information from when you say PhysX is too slow

I have booth middlewares. On PS4 Havok is much faster.

PhysX has definitely continued to evolve over the years. Since the 3.0 SDK was released, PhysX is completely multithreaded and uses SIMD optimization extensively.

These optimizations are useful, but Havok now has a redesigned pipeline, which is faster than anything in the market. It has to be, because the licence is not cheap.

Again, where are you getting this? Now CUDA is slower than DirectCompute? Yeah right..

This is not about the simulation. It's just a part of the problem. Sure, you can do it in CUDA, but for the rendering you must use D3D. CUDA-D3D interoperability is simply not as fast as doing the same job inside one API only. This simple.

 

[sontin]

No, UE3 was a multi-platform engine. UE4 will be the same, but they must sell it. Most of the top studios will build an own engine or use an in-house one. That's why Epic use a new indie friendly licensing model. They actually compete against Unity now. Even Epic won't release a game for consoles.

Most of the top studios?!
Rocksteady came out of nearwhere. I dont expect that Gearbox will start to write their own graphics engine.
There are enough studios out which have the potential to release the next big thing with a UE4 game.

BTW: Can you name one big Unity game?!

 

[Carfax83]

That just makes me even more angry. Why can't that be done for PC PhysX?

I just told you, it has been done for PC. Call of Duty Ghosts fur physics uses DirectCompute rather than CUDA, so it also runs on AMD hardware.

Witcher 3 will likely follow suit, because as zlatan says, the hair and fur physics requires very little simulation and instead is mostly rendering intensive. So it doesn't make sense to constrict it to CUDA in that sense..

So yeah, Witcher 3 hair and fur physics should be available to AMD hardware. Now other physics effect like cloth, water, smoke etcetera which require greater simulation may not be hardware accelerated on AMD GPUs though, as they likely use CUDA only.

 

[ViRGE]

Point of clarification: maybe I'm just reading this differently than everyone else, but to me the statement implies that they'll be working together to implement GameWorks, not just PhysX.

NVIDIA’s GameWorks Team is working closely with Ubisoft’s development studios to incorporate cutting edge graphics technology and gaming innovations to create game worlds that deliver unprecedented realism and immersion. NVIDIA’s GameWorks technology includes TXAA antialiasing, which provides Hollywood-levels of smooth animation, soft shadows, HBAO+ (horizon-based ambient occlusion), advanced DX11 tessellation, and NVIDIA PhysX technology.

PhysX is a part of GameWorks, but not every GameWorks title is a PhysX title. Developers can pick and choose which libraries they'd like to use. Which means that the use of PhysX is by no means guaranteed, and will occur on a game-by-game basis.

 

[zlatan]

Most of the top studios?!
Rocksteady came out of nearwhere. I dont expect that Gearbox will start to write their own graphics engine.
There are enough studios out which have the potential to release the next big thing with a UE4 game.

BTW: Can you name one big Unity game?!

Rocksteady will use UE3.
Gearbox is an indie.

Unity target indies. They don't need big Triple-A titles. UE4 want to be on the same road. This is where the money is. Every company who licence engines now focusing in indies. This is not a bad thing they just want money.

 

[sontin]

So, after Batman:AK they will stop making games? Nah.

 

[Carfax83]

I have booth middlewares. On PS4 Havok is much faster.

Out of curiosity what PhysX version did you test? And, did you know what CDPR dropped Havok in favor of PhysX?

If PhysX is so much slower as you claim, one has to wonder why they did that?

These optimizations are useful, but Havok now has a redesigned pipeline, which is faster than anything in the market. It has to be, because the licence is not cheap.

Yeah I know that Havok released their next gen physics engine last year.. NVidia will be releasing Flex shortly, so we'll see how they stack up then..

This is not about the simulation. It's just a part of the problem. Sure, you can do it in CUDA, but for the rendering you must use D3D. CUDA-D3D interoperability is simply not as fast as doing the same job inside one API only. This simple.

OK I did some checking and it seems you're right...

 

[zlatan]

So, after Batman:AK they will stop making games? Nah.

Nope. Probably they will use UE3 for a while. They already modified it, so there is no reason to replace it. The engine will evolve further and further.

 

[Carfax83]

PhysX is a part of GameWorks, but not every GameWorks title is a PhysX title. Developers can pick and choose which libraries they'd like to use. Which means that the use of PhysX is by no means guaranteed, and will occur on a game-by-game basis.

This is true. But you can be sure that NVidia will be pushing for PhysX integration. It surprised me greatly when I found out that AC IV was going to be getting PhysX effects.

Most of the work is likely being done by NVidia engineers anyway, so it's not like Ubisoft has anything to lose..

 

[sontin]

Nope. Probably they will use UE3 for a while. They already modified it, so there is no reason to replace it. The engine will evolve further and further.

And even then: UE3 uses PhysX as the main physics engine.

So...

 

[Techhog]

I just told you, it has been done for PC. Call of Duty Ghosts fur physics uses DirectCompute rather than CUDA, so it also runs on AMD hardware.

Witcher 3 will likely follow suit, because as zlatan says, the hair and fur physics requires very little simulation and instead is mostly rendering intensive. So it doesn't make sense to constrict it to CUDA in that sense..

So yeah, Witcher 3 hair and fur physics should be available to AMD hardware. Now other physics effect like cloth, water, smoke etcetera which require greater simulation may not be hardware accelerated on AMD GPUs though, as they likely use CUDA only.

Then it seems superficial.

I'd be more than willing to buy a PhysX card, but even that isn't an option. >_>

 

[zlatan]

Out of curiosity what PhysX version did you test?

For the consoles you need a "special one". I think the core was close to 3.3.x

And, did you know what CDPR dropped Havok in favor of PhysX?

Well Havok is a very expensive middleware. If a game is rely heavily on physics you should use the fastest one, even if you have to pay for it. On the other hand a free middleware is ... yeah free. :biggrin: So if it can do the job, then why pay for Havok?

Yeah I know that Havok released their next gen physics engine last year.. NVidia will be releasing Flex shortly, so we'll see how they stack up then..

Flex is a GPU-based stuff, and mostly created for the professional market. It is possible to implement such a complex physics simulation in a game, but not with middlewares. You have to write a very special engine, if you don't do that the lag will be too high. It should be possible to do this on PS4, but there are some drawbacks in the game mechanics. It is very hard to build a working world with this complexity.

 

[Carfax83]

Then it seems superficial.

I'd be more than willing to buy a PhysX card, but even that isn't an option. >_>

Well that could change in the future. NVidia claimed it was porting the entire PhysX library to DirectCompute. Not sure when that's going to happen though.

I'm not even sure how the entirety of PhysX would perform under DirectCompute..

 

[Carfax83]

Well Havok is a very expensive middleware. If a game is rely heavily on physics you should use the fastest one, even if you have to pay for it. On the other hand a free middleware is ... yeah free. :biggrin: So if it can do the job, then why pay for Havok?

The commercial license for PhysX isn't free if you're going to be using it for GPU accelerated effects.

Flex is a GPU-based stuff, and mostly created for the professional market. It is possible to implement such a complex physics simulation in a game, but not with middlewares. You have to write a very special engine, if you don't do that the lag will be too high. It should be possible to do this on PS4, but there are some drawbacks in the game mechanics. It is very hard to build a working world with this complexity.

NVidia is definitely positioning Flex for the game engine market. It's supposed to be introduced in PhysX 3.4. From their website:

FLEX is written in C++/CUDA, but a DirectCompute version is in the works, a FleX feature will appear in the PhysX SDK v3.4, release date TBD, and in major game engines in the near future.

I'm betting that Unity 5 and Unreal Engine 4 will have it integrated into the engines as an update.

Source

 

[Techhog]

Well that could change in the future. NVidia claimed it was porting the entire PhysX library to DirectCompute. Not sure when that's going to happen though.

I'm not even sure how the entirety of PhysX would perform under DirectCompute..

I'd even be satified with "normal"-level PhysX. However, that's not what I'll see. When I buy Arkham Knight next year, it'll run at sub-10FPS if I try to use PhysX unless I pony up for a GTX 770 or higher.

 

[chimaxi83]

Yawn. Wake us up when PhysX is something more than 100% graphical fluff.