The physics "claims" thread...

[akugami]

I had a claim by claim rebuttal which was kinda long that I typed up yesterday but never posted. I scrapped the whole thing. This whole thread is one person's attempt at trying to sway public opinion. The fact is as someone mentioned, this is a PhysX thread and not physics. This is an attempt by the OP to attempt to drum up interest in PhysX. Clearly PhysX has failed or else there wouldn't be a need for threads like this.

The OP's so called claims also contain straw man arguments or conveniently ignores certain facts that have come to light over the years. Things like how nVidia has conveniently crippled CPU PhysX so that their GPU implementation looks much better by comparison. Or how the so called attempt to offer PhysX to AMD would have created an engineering and support nightmare. Not to mention the very few games that use GPU accelerated PhysX are good regardless of whether it has PhysX or not.

This whole thread is like a declaration of nVidia's failures in promoting PhysX as a "must have" feature for gaming. That doesn't mean physics hasn't improved gaming, it just means PhysX, while not a bad solution, hasn't taken the industry by storm and it certainly hasn't provided the innovation and improvements that nVidia promised.

 

[Lonbjerg]

because its the future our CPU heading off, look at SB, its enthusiast CPU but have GPU in it, and since enthusiast tend to be hardcore gamer too, the GPU become useless thats why we need open physics to become more standard(like bullet) and not nvdia crapy implemented, limited physix.

You want me (as a gamer) to downgrade my performance by chosing and APU over a GPU?

Wait...WUT? :|

 

[SirPauly]

because its the future our CPU heading off, look at SB, its enthusiast CPU but have GPU in it, and since enthusiast tend to be hardcore gamer too, the GPU become useless thats why we need open physics to become more standard(like bullet) and not nvdia crapy implemented, limited physix.

I definitely see potential with the APU, but it also needs time to evolve and mature as well.

 

[SirPauly]

That doesn't mean physics hasn't improved gaming, it just means PhysX, while not a bad solution, hasn't taken the industry by storm and it certainly hasn't provided the innovation and improvements that nVidia promised.

Good point and fair, imho!

 

[Lonbjerg]

Observation:
Where does the actuall implemtentaion of physics differ from Physx to Bullet in such a manner that PhysX is crap?

I hear this a lot...but no one has to dated documented anything but argument from brand loyality?

 

[SirPauly]

I don't think PhysX is crap and appreciate what nVidia is trying to do. I think the PhysX SDK is very popular with developers and their tools are impressive and one can make the argument that nVidia is the leader in Physics; as some can make the argument that Havok is the leader.

To me, this is all good, because Physic talk is still a lightning rod discussion -- important, powerful companies have their own strategies to try to bring more Physic content to gamers. For me, it is the chaos that may forge some common ground.

What has been underwhelming to some degree is the content of GPU Physics. Was hoping for one AAA title a month, or 6-12 titles a year. Sadly, this isn't the case and the question is; Why?

Is it the division? Developers don't desire to add GPU Physics?

HavokFX ripped away when it was showing such promise.

Bullet, which sounds great with no content at all.

Just feel so strongly that Physics can do so much to enhance gaming and there just seems to be so many obstacles, hehe!

 

[Aristotelian]

Uh, no. Just because something uses software physics it does not mean it’s scripted. Back in 2001 Red Faction was using dynamic physics so you could make holes in walls and floors. You could even dig your own tunnels if you kept firing at the same spot. What PhysX game allows that?

Also Far Cry 2 uses software physics and the events are definitely not scripted; they’re calculated on the fly.

Here’s a great example: I was sitting in some dry savannah and I decided to hit the Ranger Station with a rocket launcher. The rocket exhaust set the grass on fire around me. I started taking damage and the enemies spotted the smoke/fire and started shooting at me. Then I had to sprint to my jeep and drive it off the grass because the propagated fire was getting close to it.

Can you name a single hardware PhysX game that has done that?

Far Cry 2’s physics add meaningful changes to gameplay, they’re dynamic, and they run fast on the CPU.

I'd like an answer to the questions you pose here as well - I'm entirely in agreement with you.

 

[SirPauly]

FarCry 2 uses Havok, and one can make the argument that they're the leaders in the Physic World. It would of been neat to see what HavokFX could of been.

 

[HeXen]

it seems even applications can run better if created for gpu use, so i read. Is it even possible to create an OS, software and games that all run purely on a GPU without need of a CPU?

 

[SirPauly]

No, the CPU is still very important, imho!

 

[notty22]

it seems even applications can run better if created for gpu use, so i read. Is it even possible to create an OS, software and games that all run purely on a GPU without need of a CPU?

IE9 is going to feature more diverse gpu acceleration, Nvidia is working with Microsoft. The push is on for future sites to incorporate gpu accelerated, some interactive ,some 3d type content. Will it work ? Its just another idea instead of just flash based content. Its also coded to take use of Sandy Bridges IGP, so web pages that have started taxing cpu cycles as in laptops, low power mode, the IGP does the processing 'easier'.

 

[TransistorsX]

I think that nvidia's biggest mistake was to block AMD users from using PhysX with a secondary nVidia card, hampering its adoption. If I were nVidia, I would create a card with a G92 chip (They have lots of those in inventory), with 256MB fast GDDR3, reasonable clocks so It wouldn't need an external power connector (Like the 9800GT green edition) and no video outputs, pretty much a PhysX accelerator card for the price of $50.00 and no DRM, so both, nVidia and AMD users can enjoy it, broadening its adoption to the PC gaming scene, instead of creating a monopoly of something almost non existent.

 

[toyota]

you cant really make a physx card anymore for nvidia gpu users. the level of physx card you need is related to how much gpu power you already have. a 9800gt level card would be sufficient for some setups but lacking in others. its always going to be a moving target and you see how quick the original physx cards from Ageia quickly became too weak. now for AMD users, any decent mid range card would be useful as their only other option for running hardware physx is using the cpu.

 

[TransistorsX]

Erm, what? I used to had an AGEIA card and the only game that gaves me random slodowns with it was Batman AA, but most of the time was playable. I currently use a 9600GT card as a PhysX processor and never got any slodowns, not even a single 40's dip when used with Mafia 2, Cryostasis or Batman AA. Let alone a 9800GT card with its full 128 stream processors at reasonable clocks or a GT240. It would be a nice addition specially when for example, GTX 460 or GTX 570 are rendering at a high resolution and needs every cycle to spare for rendering and not wasted into useless PhysX effects.

 

[SirPauly]

Since Havok was discussed, this is an older interview with Havok and HavokFX:

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/havok_fx_interview/

At one time, they were firmly behind GPU Physics, too.

 

[toyota]

Erm, what? I used to had an AGEIA card and the only game that gaves me random slodowns with it was Batman AA, but most of the time was playable. I currently use a 9600GT card as a PhysX processor and never got any slodowns, not even a single 40's dip when used with Mafia 2, Cryostasis or Batman AA. Let alone a 9800GT card with its full 128 stream processors at reasonable clocks or a GT240. It would be a nice addition specially when for example, GTX 460 or GTX 570 are rendering at a high resolution and needs every cycle to spare for rendering and not wasted into useless PhysX effects.

if you have something like a gtx480 then using a 9600gt for dedicated physx would be little to no better than letting the gtx480 handle both graphics and physx. and sorry but I dont believe that you avoided ever dipping into the 40fps in Cryostasis and Mafia 2. heck a 9600gt does not even meet the minimum requirements to be used as a dedicated physx card for running high Apex settings in Mafia 2.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I'd like an answer to the questions you pose here as well - I'm entirely in agreement with you.

It's covered in claim #2, I am reading posts to update, to kill of the same false claims, just with different games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93lGcMC4mc&NR=1


Notice how the debris dissapears into the ground, into thin air....or remains static.

It's amazing how the same false claims keep comming back and back...it''s like poeple are willfully dumb.

 

[Lonbjerg]

you cant really make a physx card anymore for nvidia gpu users. the level of physx card you need is related to how much gpu power you already have. a 9800gt level card would be sufficient for some setups but lacking in others. its always going to be a moving target and you see how quick the original physx cards from Ageia quickly became too weak. now for AMD users, any decent mid range card would be useful as their only other option for running hardware physx is using the cpu.

So goes for any other I.Q. setting be it AA, AF, HDR ect...

 

[Lonbjerg]

Erm, what? I used to had an AGEIA card and the only game that gaves me random slodowns with it was Batman AA, but most of the time was playable. I currently use a 9600GT card as a PhysX processor and never got any slodowns, not even a single 40's dip when used with Mafia 2, Cryostasis or Batman AA. Let alone a 9800GT card with its full 128 stream processors at reasonable clocks or a GT240. It would be a nice addition specially when for example, GTX 460 or GTX 570 are rendering at a high resolution and needs every cycle to spare for rendering and not wasted into useless PhysX effects.

Try runnin Cryostais with your PPU...I did...it was not powerfull enoguh.
Running with GPU physX nettet me far greater FPS than PPU PhysX.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Since Havok was discussed, this is an older interview with Havok and HavokFX:

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/havok_fx_interview/

At one time, they were firmly behind GPU Physics, too.

Yup, that was untill Intel's got a hold of Havok.

They killed HavokFX...so AMD wouldn't benefit form it.

 

[HeXen]

No, the CPU is still very important, imho!

but why exactly? especially if everything could run faster on GPU? it would actually be kinda nice to not have a CPU, less heat, smaller designs. Assuming its possible.

 

[TransistorsX]

if you have something like a gtx480 then using a 9600gt for dedicated physx would be little to no better than letting the gtx480 handle both graphics and physx. and sorry but I dont believe that you avoided ever dipping into the 40fps in Cryostasis and Mafia 2. heck a 9600gt does not even meet the minimum requirements to be used as a dedicated physx card for running high Apex settings in Mafia 2.

You are just underestimating the 9600GT, just like the CPU bottlenecking topic. Mafia 2 high requirements are a marketing bluff, plus I play the games at maxed settings at 1680x1050 on a Radeon HD 6970 and when I enabled Mafia 2 on High and APEX, never experienced any slowdowns. But, there's a bug, if you leave the Cloth folder on the APEX folder, it won't use more than the 20% of the 9600GT computing power, and the game would run at steady 40's. Once I deleted the Cloth folder, the 9600GT GPU usage moved to 60% and the game ran at 112fps average.

 

[TransistorsX]

but why exactly? especially if everything could run faster on GPU? it would actually be kinda nice to not have a CPU, less heat, smaller designs. Assuming its possible.

Not all the code is suitable for GPU's, like serial, branchy dependant code. Plus lots of posters here think's that 512 CUDA cores are much better than 6 Nehalem cores, but can't be compared directly as x86 processors has much fatter execution resources that are very efficient with multi purpose code, while GPU's has lots of very small cores. Put it like this, 4 Nehalem cores will smoke 4 CUDA cores.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You are just underestimating the 9600GT, just like the CPU bottlenecking topic. Mafia 2 high requirements are a marketing bluff, plus I play the games at maxed settings at 1680x1050 on a Radeon HD 6970 and when I enabled Mafia 2 on High and APEX, never experienced any slowdowns. But, there's a bug, if you leave the Cloth folder on the APEX folder, it won't use more than the 20% of the 9600GT computing power, and the game would run at stead 40's. Once I deleted the Cloth folder, the GPU usage moved to 60% and the game ran at 112fps average.

Download EVE - Online.
Make a trail account.
Disbale GPU Physx (if you have an NVIDIA card)
Run the game, set all settings at maximum.
Go into the character creator.

Lets see who is "bluffing" and how is playing an uninformed parrot.

This is how "Incarna" will run when launched.

Kudos too CCP for not letting AMD hold back their game.

 

[taltamir]

It's covered in claim #2, I am reading posts to update, to kill of the same false claims, just with different games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93lGcMC4mc&NR=1


Notice how the debris dissapears into the ground, into thin air....or remains static.

It's amazing how the same false claims keep comming back and back...it''s like poeple are willfully dumb.

Stop the strawman arguments already. We all know and understand that scripted destructible environment means that debris remain static.
Although disappearing into thin air/ground is actually a function of RAM and also occurs in GPU physics! (albeit to a lesser extent, because it uses the vram to augment the amount of ram dedicated to keeping track of those)

GPU physics serves to improve upon the "dead debris" as you call them by making them interactive, this is neat... but the improvement is NOT Significant enough to matter so they cheat by crippling non GPU physics implementations on select games by erasing content that should have just been static.

Also as many people keep telling you. Extra particles are not that interesting to us, we want first order physics. You twist this into arguments we never made and then deem us to be "willfully dumb"