Your Take on PhysX

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

Game play > Graphics... any day, any time.

A terrible game with poor visuals is a terrible game. A terrible game with nice visuals is still a terrible game.

this isnt 1999 so graphics are important part of a game. yes I agree that game play is the most important but I want great visuals WITH great gameplay. the card in my computer is a graphics card not a gameplay card and if I want shit graphics then I would play on a PS2. Valve seems to be able to deliver great gameplay with overall decent graphics. companies need to preserve good gameplay while also offering some nice graphics, environments and effects.

 

[shortylickens]

There are just so many things wrong with the last two things toyota said that I cant possibly refute them without getting a little bit ticked off. And since the mods have already warned me about that I will just have to let it slide for now.

In the morning I will realize that since his posts are so incredibly weak they probably weren't even worth a response.

 

[n7]

I have zero interest in PhyX, & presently the same amount of interest in CUDA.

So far, it's pure marketing BS in terms of improvements to 99% of games out there that people actually play.

It was ridiculously poorly done in UT3, which is the only title i own that utilized it.

If good games truely start utilizing it in a beneficial way in the future, it might become a purchasing factor for me.
Till then, it's nothing but marketing as far as i am concerned.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
There are just so many things wrong with the last two things toyota said that I cant possibly refute them without getting a little bit ticked off. And since the mods have already warned me about that I will just have to let it slide for now.

In the morning I will realize that since his posts are so incredibly weak they probably weren't even worth a response.

what was wrong with what I said? I agreed with him that gameplay is the most important. Im just adding that I want good graphics and stuff to go along with that. how in the hell could that possibly be controversial? we should be moving forward since we have tech that can make things look cooler but of course gamplay should never be sacrificed for visuals.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I don't care about PhysX. I care about physics. And when it can change the way I play a game (most games) then I'll start buying into whatever API best does this.

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

Game play > Graphics... any day, any time.

A terrible game with poor visuals is a terrible game. A terrible game with nice visuals is still a terrible game.

this isnt 1999 so graphics are important part of a game. yes I agree that game play is the most important but I want great visuals WITH great gameplay. the card in my computer is a graphics card not a gameplay card and if I want shit graphics then I would play on a PS2. Valve seems to be able to deliver great gameplay with overall decent graphics. companies need to preserve good gameplay while also offering some nice graphics, environments and effects.

No one ever said graphics weren't important. And graphics, even before 1999, have always been as "important" as they are now. However gameplay will always trump anything else.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens
There are just so many things wrong with the last two things toyota said that I cant possibly refute them without getting a little bit ticked off. And since the mods have already warned me about that I will just have to let it slide for now.

In the morning I will realize that since his posts are so incredibly weak they probably weren't even worth a response.

what was wrong with what I said? I agreed with him that gameplay is the most important. Im just adding that I want good graphics and stuff to go along with that. how in the hell could that possibly be controversial? we should be moving forward since we have tech that can make things look cooler but of course gamplay should never be sacrificed for visuals.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by: toyota
thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

You act like your opinion is greater than his. And I don't particularly get why you brought the "visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay" argument. What constitutes crappy visuals? And can you even think of a game with good gameplay but "crappy visuals"? On the other hand, I can think of a few games with good to great graphics with mediocre gameplay.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
I don't care about PhysX. I care about physics. And when it can change the way I play a game (most games) then I'll start buying into whatever API best does this.

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

Game play > Graphics... any day, any time.

A terrible game with poor visuals is a terrible game. A terrible game with nice visuals is still a terrible game.

this isnt 1999 so graphics are important part of a game. yes I agree that game play is the most important but I want great visuals WITH great gameplay. the card in my computer is a graphics card not a gameplay card and if I want shit graphics then I would play on a PS2. Valve seems to be able to deliver great gameplay with overall decent graphics. companies need to preserve good gameplay while also offering some nice graphics, environments and effects.

No one ever said graphics weren't important. And graphics, even before 1999, have always been as "important" as they are now. However gameplay will always trump anything else.

what do you think"I care nothing for visuals" means? to me that sounds like he saying they arent important. yes for the 3rd time gameplay IS the MOST important and thats actually something no one is disputing. I jsut want coool graphics and effects to go along with that. for example play STALKER on all low DX8 settings and the atmosphere is diminished in many areas of the game especially underground.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: shortylickens
There are just so many things wrong with the last two things toyota said that I cant possibly refute them without getting a little bit ticked off. And since the mods have already warned me about that I will just have to let it slide for now.

In the morning I will realize that since his posts are so incredibly weak they probably weren't even worth a response.

what was wrong with what I said? I agreed with him that gameplay is the most important. Im just adding that I want good graphics and stuff to go along with that. how in the hell could that possibly be controversial? we should be moving forward since we have tech that can make things look cooler but of course gamplay should never be sacrificed for visuals.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by: toyota
thank goodness everyone doesnt feel the way you do. sure gameplay is the most important feature but visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay. lighting alone can completely transform a scene and make the game feel more immersive.


for the record I think phsyx is a waste at the moment.

You act like your opinion is greater than his. And I don't particularly get why you brought the "visuals can make or break some games almost as bad as crappy gameplay" argument. What constitutes crappy visuals? And can you even think of a game with good gameplay but "crappy visuals"? On the other hand, I can think of a few games with good to great graphics with mediocre gameplay.

Im talking about that I am glad that everyone doesnt feel like he does when it comes to visuals. I like cool graphics and effects and adding more atmosphere to a game is always nice. part of what made FEAR cool was the shadows and lighting and if you remove that then you remove part of the game. I want to really enjoy a game and great visuals can certainly add to that. no where did I say that gameply wasnt the most important feature. why do you think Valve keeps improving their graphics? why do you think so many people are looking forward to the Black Mesa remake of the original HL1 game. its because it ads cool visuals to a game that has great gameplay thats why. some of you people just want to argue about anything I guess.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

You are the one who started the argument by saying... "thank goodness everyone doesn't feel the way you do." I think it was pretty obvious when he said he didn't care about graphics at all that he was hyperbolizing, exaggerating, etc.

There are also games where graphical elements are part of gameplay, which makes them gameplay. You mentioned FEAR, but I'll give you one better: Left 4 Dead. The flashlight just isn't used for show. It is important to actually play the game strategically; and therein lies where my beliefs about the relationship between graphics and gameplay.

And people care about Black Mesa because it is a remake of a good game. Do you think many people would care if... [goes to find a crappy old game] oh Operation Blockade was remade with only better graphics?

And I started typing my response before you back-peddled on your response, so don't try to think I'm "arguing about anything."

 

[madh83]

It's so early right now, it's really not worth it from a gameplay point of view. However, this being a tech forum, people will want physx for the new techiness of it. From a gaming perspective, it will most likely not be a big deal until a generation away from now when the next consoles are powerful enough to adopt physics acceleration, since most fo the game development seems to appeal to broadest base. That's not to say there won't be one or two games in the next two or three years that will really use it well, it just won't be the norm. Yes, I know ps3 is getting physx, but I doubt it's powerful enough to really use it practically, like a pc who uses a 8800GT just for physics.

 

[Tempered81]

retarded, sucks balls.

If they fixed it up some, it would be a piece of crap.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Red Storm
I will take interest in PhysX (or HavokFX, or any other GPU-accelerated physics engine) when they allow for actual game play changes. Shooting holes in cloth and better looking window explosions mean nothing to me.

Ditto.

I care nothing for visuals. I want gameplay.
That why I, you know, PLAY GAMES!

If I wanted to stare at something pretty & useless I'd just go to the Hooters website.

Then you can go play NES or Atari right?

 

[kreacher]

The only reason I'm thinking of going for an NVidia GPU is because I already have a two year old 8800GTS 640 (G82) which could be dedicated to Physx (can't sell it anyway).

 

[geokilla]

If you guys want to get into the whole gameplay>graphics, I gotta agree. There are some games out there that I loved to play and still wouldn't mind playing, such as MapleStory. Only reason I quit was because everyone else that I played with quit too.

I just thought it would be an interesting discussion on what people think about PhysX. Sadly, it seems that it's getting a bit out of hand, as usual here in the Video forum.

How many applications actually do use PhysX and CUDA on a day to day business? I believe there's very little and eventually, ATI will have its own kind of physx (Havocs) that can run NVIDIA PhysX and vice versa. I believe it's up to the developers to determine whether they want to take advantage of this or not. It may sound like I'm hating on NVIDIA, which contradicts my last post, and I have to agree with that. I might be a bit contradicting in this post.

 

[bryanW1995]

cuda is nice for the DC benefits. F@H and SETI@home are the 800 lb gorillas of DC and both benefit a LOT from cuda. I wouldn't buy a 9800gtx over a 4870 for it, but I'd probably pay a few bucks more for a gtx 260 over a 4870 for it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: kreacher
The only reason I'm thinking of going for an NVidia GPU is because I already have a two year old 8800GTS 640 (G82) which could be dedicated to Physx (can't sell it anyway).

IIRC you can use an nVidia card for dedicated physx processing while using an ATI card for video...

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i'd still rather play CS:S than crysis on high settings. that game isn't even fun no matter how good it looks.

physx is a piece of shit, marketing, costing OUR MONEY in paying THEM R&D Dollars. ITS NOT FREE PEOPLE. NOTHING IS FREE, the cost is embedded in the price/sacrificing quality of the card.

the way nvidia updates their drivers/software, i see a very slow improvement of physx over time. its not worth anything right now, and i dont see it being worth anything in the next generation, nor maybe the next.

i'd much rather nvidia put less money into marketing (like paying chizow, not money becuase we know he gets none) some viennas) and more money into providing better driver support, lowering prices of cards, better customer support etc.

it'd also be nice of them to stop renaming cards to trick customers (yes, many people will get tricked) into buying "new" cards when they are buying 2 generation old video cards. how about make more efficient dual gpu's on 1 PCB instead of 2, how about dual monitor SLI support instead of taking 2 years to get it working.

 

[BenSkywalker]

For those lamenting that gameplay is more important then graphics- there is a PC Gaming forum, I post there all the time, it really does work. If all you care about is gameplay, it's a good forum for you. This is the Video forum, coming in here and saying graphics don't matter seems an awful lot like thread crapping. I'm not saying I disagree with you in any way shape or form, but games are allowed to have good graphics and good gameplay. Honestly.

I see this as two different issues rolled in to one honestly.

First off, there is no big leap coming for graphics rendering on the actual rendering side for many years. We are at the point now where the 'big jumps' are going to be compression of the complexity of shaders utilized and the speed in which they run at. Outside of lighting models way beyond anything on the horizon(several orders of magnitude beyond RTRT) there isn't going to be another shocker in terms of graphics fidelity.

More advanced physics in games, particularly particle effects, are going to be the, by far, largest improvement we are going to see in game visuals for a long time now. Yes, there are other areas we are going to see progress being made, but none of them have the potential to have as much impact in a short span of time as significantly more advanced physics.

With that said, the only physics platform right now that is a viable alternative to that end is PhysX. Yes, I know that Havok will have GPU support at some date in the future. After OpenCL is finalized, after we have drivers that support it, after Havok gets ported over THEN developers can START taking advantage of it. Don't get me wrong, any game coming out in a timeframe to use GPU accelerated Havok have at it, but I was really hoping that we would see a bit better adoption of technology that can help push the industry forward. We have had the technology available to us for years already, we have an installed base of over 100 million PCs and Macs that can run PhysX right now, a bit better adoption rate from developers would be welcome(this year looks to be much better in this regard, we actually have a decent selection of titles hitting with proper support).

In terms of PhysX itself, as a physics API it really isn't much different from Havok. The only big difference at this point in time is that PhysX can run on MUCH faster hardware and hence, do more to enhance the visual experience in games. For that reason, and no other, right now I like PhysX quite a bit more then the alternatives.

How much of a factor would it be for me buying hardware right now? Well, with close to parity between parts I would rather have the part that supported it then not, and with price and performance being so close it could end up being the deciding factor for me, but that is mainly due to the fact that everything else is so close. If we were seeing faster adoption of more advanced physics by game makers, that would change things considerably. Losing 10% raw framerate for a huge visual benefit in a decent selection of games would likely be a worth while trade off for me.

This would have been so much easier if ATi would have gotten PhysX up and running on their hardware when nV offered. Then everyone could be benfitting now instead of having the loyalists from either camp fighting about it

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: taltamir
physics doesn't look right, its not realistic, the cloth for example: 1. looks like crud. 2. clips

If you can find those warhammer online cloak beta pics, its such a small detail but you look at it 100% of the time youre playing the game, and it looks goooooood. I just wonder how long its going to take them to enable it live.

 

[nOOky]

My take on PhysX? It's not a deal-breaker for me personally. I consider myself an avid gamer, I have two computers sitting side by side, one with each brand of video card. If the technology allowed for noticeable improvements that made me go "wow" when I saw them, it would help me consider when it's time to buy. I've always fantasized about a great fps that would let the character do certain things in-game like PhysX offers, but it's not implemented currently in any interesting game. I certainly applaud the push for more "physical" interaction in games. I am just the type who buys things for what they can do now, I don't future proof because things change so fast in the pc world. If an ATI card is better for the games I play I buy it, if an nvidia card is faster I buy that. PhysX and Cuda have absolutely zero impact on my gaming experience right now, hell I'll admit that I think folding is a waste of my wattage and that I don't know what Cuda does, but I would suspect that's with quite a few gamers.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

My take:

PhysX is like glide.
A nice groundbreaking work that will ultimately be overrun by API's that can run on more hardware.
That is unless that PhysX to OpenCL rumor has some truth to it, but I don't see what nvidia would have to gain by doing so.
I can see CUDA/BROOKE+/ect.. going down this path as well.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
I could care less about PhysX But I have and will purchase cards solely for CUDA/openCL support

+1. PhysX is lame, always has been.

I do really like the CUDA abilities of the Nvidia GPUs, however. They definitely add value to me, although that may not apply to everyone.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

In terms of PhysX itself, as a physics API it really isn't much different from Havok. The only big difference at this point in time is that PhysX can run on MUCH faster hardware and hence, do more to enhance the visual experience in games. For that reason, and no other, right now I like PhysX quite a bit more then the alternatives.

I agree. I support all forms of physics in games. Any technology that can make gaming better. PhysX is currently the best form of game physics right now and has a lot of industry support.

Adding more realism to a game is a good thing in my book.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Willing to get a slightly less powerful card that hedges against physx being useful (as in I'll buy nvidia just incase it turns out having a spare physx card in the system is useful).

 

[taltamir]

currently there are less than a dozen games with GPU physics (hundreds of SIMPLE Cpu physX but who cares)... DX11 will bring gpu physics to all, havok is now porting to openCL so it will bring it to all.

Of those dozens of game only 3 are A titles... and none of those appeal to me.

And the implementation is weak.

So there is really no point in even wishing that nvidia and amd get together to port it to ati parts. there is just no need, physX on gpu is already DEAD. they never made the comitment needed for it to dominate the industry, and that is a good thing too because it will just create a monopoly... as it is we are gonna have a bunch of varied physics on GPU engines that run on all cards really soon..

Keep in mind that physics existed on PC games since the first game was coded, its physX, specifically on gpu or ppu, that was new and exciting... but it never paned out.