The physics "claims" thread...

[WelshBloke]

Yeah...me too :hmm:

Nevertheless our computers won't be able to do either, realistically, without physics :awe:

Well a physics free computer would be awesome, not as awesome as a sandwich making computer or possibly a sumpin sumpin computer (I'm withholding judgement there till I know what it is).

Imagine, a computer freed from the laws of physics... hold on I cant type that without hearing it read out in a 'tales of the unexpected' stylee. :biggrin:

 

[Lonyo]

People talk about how AMD GPU PhysX has been all talk and no action.
Well PhysX on the GPU has been about the same.

"Oh well this is just a starting point"
"Well making it look prettier is good too because it's like AA/AF/tessellation"
"Give it time"
"It runs on everything"

PhysX hasn't done yet what the original PPU creators hoped it would, and it hasn't done anything deeply meaningful, and despite being present in a LOT of games, it's hardly been used in its GPU accelerated form for ANYTHING, let alone anything meaningful.

Just like AMD with the whole idea of GPU accelerated physics being all talk, PhysX is pretty much all talk.

You can say "these are the 'facts'" and make a thread about it, but at the end of the day the result is still the same, non-CPU PhysX has been around for 4 years and got nowhere, still.

 

[nanaki333]

when you take the time to admire physx, you notice a little something. how long do people spend admiring a game though? once you start playing, you don't notice any of that shit.

 

[notty22]

Here is some information, about new game engines that Nvidia is helping to develop.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/15919-unreal-engine-3-adding-directx-11-support-tessellation/

the Unreal Engine 3 has just added support for PC-exclusive DirectX 11 features, including tessellation. This is in addition to three multiplatform NVIDIA technologies -- PhysX, 3D Vision, and Apex -- so Epic is certainly not falling behind in the times.

PhysX of course refers to in-game physics -- the way water reacts when you run through it, for one example; 3D Vision refers to the ongoing 3D gaming trend which delivers maximum immersion (if done properly), Apex is lesser-known but can be terribly important -- it offers easier scaling on the developer end so gamers on a wide range of hardware and platforms can enjoy a given title. In short, what this means for gamers is better and more realistic looking games that use the engine, which these days, is quite a lot

Facts about NVIDIA and Unreal Engine 3:

• Epic Games and NVIDIA have worked together to integrate PhysX and APEX technologies into Unreal Engine 3.
• Unreal Engine 3 powers some of the most exciting games in the market across multiple platforms including: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Borderlands, Bulletstorm, Dungeon Defenders, Infinity Blade, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, DC Universe Online, Medal of Honor, and the upcoming Batman: Arkham City, BioShock Infinite, Gears of War 3, Mass Effect 3 and Mortal Kombat.
• The latest updates to Unreal Engine 3 are available now to all licensees. Unreal Engine 3 enables developers to ship games with "out of the box" support for DX11, APEX, PhysX, and 3D Vision.
• 3D Vision is the world's leading consumer 3D solution and supports PC gaming, 3D photos and videos, Blu-ray 3D movies, 3D Web browsing, and the new online 3D community, www.3DVisionLive.com.
• 3D Vision consists of wireless, active-shutter glasses and can work with compatible 120Hz desktop LCDs, 3D-capable notebooks, 3D HDTVs or projectors. A NVIDIA GeForce® 8800 GTX or higher GPU is also required.

 

[Lonyo]

when you take the time to admire physx, you notice a little something. how long do people spend admiring a game though? once you start playing, you don't notice any of that shit.

In Bioshock I did (in general, not physics, but the graphics and atmosphere).
In most games, not so much.

 

[Will Robinson]

If physX, as it has been implemented, was of any value to gaming, we wouldn't need threads like this in the 1st place. All anyone would have to do is turn it on and it would speak for itself. Do we have to debate whether animation, transparency, 3D game play (not to be confused with 3D display), AA, etc... are of any value in gaming? Of course not. People look at it and want it. No marketing, spin, or sales pitch required.

Now, does this mean that there's no potential for PhysX? Of course not. We need better implementation of it though to sell it to the masses, not spin and marketing.

QFT +1
Seems we have to be "persuaded","cajoled" and "bludgeoned" with posts to appreciate its marvelous effects on gameplay and graphics.....:hmm:
None of the "haters' here think it has no potential...it's just not being realized yet.

 

[blastingcap]

There have been VERY few games that used PhysX in a meaningful way. Batman did not let you blow through walls, it just made smoke/cloth/etc. marginally more realistic. Mafia II at least made it so that rocks could hurt you if they bounced off you. But trumping both of them in terms of gameplay value are games like BF:BC2, which didn't even use GPU physics in the first place! Heck, even Company of Heroes, a vintage game made five years ago, has more gameplay-changing physics than Mafia II or Batman. Not to mention the even-older Half-Life 2.

IMHO, until consoles can push higher-end graphics, we will be stuck with what we've got for the most part. One exception is multi-monitor gaming since that's pretty easy to code for, compared to PhysX, etc. The other exception I can think of off the top of my head is software workarounds for 3D (e.g., Crysis 2 3D support).

But GPU physics? Not till we get gamedevs on board, and most of them prioritize the console market these days.

 

[nanaki333]

In Bioshock I did (in general, not physics, but the graphics and atmosphere).
In most games, not so much.

while you're just walking around sure. when the action starts, admiration is the last thing on your mind when big daddy shows up

 

[at80eighty]

how predictable of you OP. masquerade your daily bias as fact & wag fingers at the people who hurt your feelings. hope the thread replies here should keep your own FUD out of the other threads for a while

 

[zerocool84]

how predictable of you OP. masquerade your daily bias as fact & wag fingers at the people who hurt your feelings. hope the thread replies here should keep your own FUD out of the other threads for a while

Like has been said already in this thread, when you have to make threads like this about it, it's obviously not that good.

 

[Gloomy]

they should add the 'spin' tag to this thread :awe:

 

[taltamir]

GPU physics is a tale of wasted potential. We want first order physics which meaningfully changes game-play, we get worthless particle, cloth, smoke and shatter animations that "move with you" but have absolutely nothing to contribute to gameplay.

Strawmen arguments wouldn't undo it. I have a physX capable card and have played those rare few games with GPU physX and itwas nothing but disappointment. It has so much promise... I would buy a physics only card TODAY if someone made a game with worthwhile first order GPU physics...

the problem USED to be that such a game has no market. today it means that the market is limited to people with an nvidia GPU doing graphic processing (so no using an AMD card for graphics and an nvidia card for physics). This is because nvidia has been absolutely stupid in how they work this technology, making one mistake after another and shooting themselves in the foot again and again. Pro tip, step 1: get a monopoly, step 2: exploit it for profit.... nvidia has the two confused and are trying to exploit a non existent monopoly with expectedly poor results. Its not that proprietary is necessarily bad, but nvidia is trying to abuse it at the phase were people actually have a choice on whether to use it or not.

 

[busydude]

It does not surprise me at all that Manju Hegde(founder of Ageia) left Nvidia.. I am pretty sure he was disappointed with the way Nvidia has been implementing PhysX.

 

[Carfax83]

Personally, I enjoy the changes that PhysX/Apex bring to games like Mafia 2 and Batman Arkham Asylum. While the physics isn't game changing/enhancing, the overall level of immersion and ambience is significantly impacted imo.

Having a gun fight in Mafia 2 and having impact debris from glass and other materials pile around you is pretty awesome, and a lot more visceral.

I can't even imagine playing either of those games without PhysX enabled! And I can't wait to see whether Batman Arkham City will implement PhysX as well..

If Batman Arkham City does implement PhysX, it will be awesome, even if it isn't game changing. Rocksteady will have had plenty of time to do a proper implementation this time, unlike with Arkham Asylum where PhysX was literally tacked on as an afterthought.

As for those complaining about GPU Physics not living up to it's potential, I agree completely.

But it's not Nvidia's fault. After buying out Ageia, Nvidia for a long time was the sole driver of hardware accelerated physics. Heck, is there even any actual games out there that use bullet physics yet?

The capability of PhysX has increased dramatically over the years since Nvidia ported it over to CUDA. The technology is certainly there. Just look at the demos on youtube, or even Nvidia's own website.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/apex.html

The real problem is that developers are reluctant to use PhysX for anything other than eye candy physics, because they know it's a vendor specific technology that not all gamers have access to. It would be irresponsible for a developer to make a game that would have a completely different gameplay experience for Nvidia and AMD users..

So, the end result is that the evolution of hardware accelerated physics has leveled out, rather than continued improving.....at least for now.

Supposedly Nvidia will be updating the engine this year to include much better multithreaded support and SIMD optimizations, so it should run much faster on current and future generation CPUs.

With so many vying interests competing though, it's going to be a long time before hardware accelerated physics becomes mainstream.

 

[taltamir]

Having a gun fight in Mafia 2 and having impact debris from glass and other materials pile around you is pretty awesome, and a lot more visceral.

I can't even imagine playing either of those games without PhysX enabled! And I can't wait to see whether Batman Arkham City will implement PhysX as well..

that is because those two specific games have no scripted pseudo physics. So if you turn it off there is a very noticable and visible lack.
For example, in the batman arkham asylum level where you fight the guy with the madness gas, there is absolutely no reason at all whatsoever for the "particles' that rotate around him without being interacted with by ANYONE (you or him or anything) to not be scripted. But they aren't, they are physics calculated which is:
1. Unnecessary FPS drop
2. Causes them to disappear entirely without nvidia physX.

But it's not Nvidia's fault. After buying out Ageia, Nvidia for a long time was the sole driver of hardware accelerated physics. Heck, is there even any actual games out there that use bullet physics yet?

Actually it is entirely nvidia's fault. Nvidia horribly mismanages this property. They offer CPU only physX for free with no requirement of implementing GPU PhysX, they emphasize particle effects over first order physics, and they try to exploit a non existent monopoly prematurely turning off potential partners and customers. Those are just the most major failures.

NONE of those have ANYTHING To do with physX / physics technical capabilities

The real problem is that developers are reluctant to use PhysX for anything other than eye candy physics, because they know it's a vendor specific technology that not all gamers have access to.

If nvidia encouraged people to use older nvidia cards as secondary dedicated physics processors, even with AMD cards doing graphics processing, then most if not all of people could have had physX by now. But nvidia instead put special DRM in their drivers that disables the ability to use GPU physX if an AMD GPU is detected... INCLUDING an IGP by AMD (limiting it further to mobo's without IGP or to intel IGP mobos). Although that was probably an oversight and someone here stated to me that this restriction is no longer in latest drivers

 

[Lonbjerg]

that is because those two specific games have no scripted pseudo physics. So if you turn it off there is a very noticable and visible lack.
For example, in the batman arkham asylum level where you fight the guy with the madness gas, there is absolutely no reason at all whatsoever for the "particles' that rotate around him without being interacted with by ANYONE (you or him or anything) to not be scripted. But they aren't, they are physics calculated which is:
1. Unnecessary FPS drop
2. Causes them to disappear entirely without nvidia physX.


Actually it is entirely nvidia's fault. Nvidia horribly mismanages this property. They offer CPU only physX for free with no requirement of implementing GPU PhysX, they emphasize particle effects over first order physics, and they try to exploit a non existent monopoly prematurely turning off potential partners and customers. Those are just the most major failures.

NONE of those have ANYTHING To do with physX / physics technical capabilities


If nvidia encouraged people to use older nvidia cards as secondary dedicated physics processors, even with AMD cards doing graphics processing, then most if not all of people could have had physX by now. But nvidia instead put special DRM in their drivers that disables the ability to use GPU physX if an AMD GPU is detected... INCLUDING an IGP by AMD (limiting it further to mobo's without IGP or to intel IGP mobos). Although that was probably an oversight and someone here stated to me that this restriction is no longer in latest drivers

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylum,2465-11.html

Reality would like a word...

 

[Lonyo]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/batman-arkham-asylum,2465-11.html

Reality would like a word...

What point are you trying to make? That article doesn't seem to disagree with his statements at all.

 

[notty22]

It does not surprise me at all that Manju Hegde(founder of Ageia) left Nvidia.. I am pretty sure he was disappointed with the way Nvidia has been implementing PhysX.

Beyond your opinion, do you have any links of interviews to support that ?
Its like saying, I'm pretty certain, Dirk left AMD because of his disappointment in Bulldozer .

edit:

Also from that TH link , review of Batman :

PhysX performance, but I have to admit that the eye candy is a lot of fun to watch. Once you've turned it on, it's not something you'll turn off if your hardware can handle it.

And new today, the collaboration with Nvidia : Epic Shows Off Mind Blowing Next-Gen Graphics

 

[Carfax83]

that is because those two specific games have no scripted pseudo physics. So if you turn it off there is a very noticable and visible lack.
For example, in the batman arkham asylum level where you fight the guy with the madness gas, there is absolutely no reason at all whatsoever for the "particles' that rotate around him without being interacted with by ANYONE (you or him or anything) to not be scripted. But they aren't, they are physics calculated which is:
1. Unnecessary FPS drop
2. Causes them to disappear entirely without nvidia physX.

Isn't the whole point of hardware accelerated physics to avoid "scripted pseudo physics?" For example instead of spending time on complex animations for a character wearing a cloak or dress, just let the physics engine take care of everything. Much faster and more realistic!

And I disagree with your example of Batman Arkham Asylum. The debris in the Scarecrow level was not part of the original game at all ie console versions. It was added SPECIFICALLY for those of us with PhysX capability (it also shipped late btw), therefore complaining about the lack of "scripted pseudo physics" here becomes disingenuous.

NONE of those have ANYTHING To do with physX / physics technical capabilities

Regardless of who's fault it is, do you honestly believe that cloth, smoke effects etc have nothing to do with physics at all?

On the contrary, only with hardware accelerated physX, has cloth, smoke, and even fluid based physics become a reality in modern gaming.

There is a reason why these effects were never present in games for the longest time, because they are so calculation intensive that CPUs just couldn't do them. Developers always had to use scripted animations to cover these effects, until hardware accelerated physx became available and the power of the GPU could be put to use.

If nvidia encouraged people to use older nvidia cards as secondary dedicated physics processors, even with AMD cards doing graphics processing, then most if not all of people could have had physX by now. But nvidia instead put special DRM in their drivers that disables the ability to use GPU physX if an AMD GPU is detected... INCLUDING an IGP by AMD (limiting it further to mobo's without IGP or to intel IGP mobos). Although that was probably an oversight and someone here stated to me that this restriction is no longer in latest drivers

If I remember correctly, Nvidia didn't want to support hybrid video card systems because of liability issues. The drivers would have had to be redesigned to support AMD hardware, and Nvidia would also have had to supply tech support as well..

 

[Skurge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M

This is all done on the CPU, even on consoles.

 

[Skurge]

There is a reason why these effects were never present in games for the longest time, because they are so calculation intensive that CPUs just couldn't do them. Developers always had to use scripted animations to cover these effects, until hardware accelerated physx became available and the power of the GPU could be put to use.

An i7 CPU can run the physx in mafia2 just as well as a GTX460 running physx and the game.

Actually when I turned on physx in Mafia 2 on my Phenom it got a small FPS drop (that was a stock 2.8ghz not the 3.5ghz that it was later overclockd to), but that was cause my 5770 was having trouble running the game at those settings anyway. With Sandy bridge and Bulldozer and some the optimizations that nVidia is making with APEX to run better on CPUs. I don't agree with the the point I quoted.

 

[notty22]

An i7 CPU can run the physx in mafia2 just as well as a GTX460 running physx and the game.

Actually when I turned on physx in Mafia 2 on my Phenom it got a small FPS drop (that was a stock 2.8ghz not the 3.5ghz that it was later overclockd to), but that was cause my 5770 was having trouble running the game at those settings anyway. With Sandy bridge and Bulldozer and some the optimizations that nVidia is making with APEX to run better on CPUs. I don't agree with the the point I quoted.

It can at about 24-27avg fps , and thats with med physX. I tried with my computer at 4.2ghz and a o/c ATI 4770.
That was avg fps from the benchmark also, when the phsyX parts happened the fps dipped below 20. When using cpu

With my current sli, I had best fps when disabling sli and dedicating 1 gtx 460 -using High PhysX settings.

 

[Skurge]

It can at about 24-27avg fps , and thats with med physX. I tried with my computer at 4.2ghz and a o/c ATI 4770.
That was avg fps from the benchmark also, when the phsyX parts happened the fps dipped below 20. When using cpu

With my current sli, I had best fps when disabling sli and dedicating 1 gtx 460 -using High PhysX settings.

I just used the benchmark, what FPS do you get with just 1 460 running both graphics and physx?

 

[notty22]

I know I worked at getting decent fps, in both configurations. But I disabled AA, put some things on med, and did a hack to stop cloth physX, and just experience the rest. And I got 40's. I'm not able to run the benchmark right now.


I found this review: They used the cpu for physX with a 5870 and got 13 fps@ high physX 24fps@med physX and 80 when physX off

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/09/03/mafia-2-physx-performance/4

 

[NoQuarter]

I thought this thread was going to be a physics claims thread but it's a PhysX claims thread, misleading