That is not true. PhysX is an engine that runs on consoles too because it runs on CPU. The part where Nvidia video card helps is the part where the physics which can be scaled up and run on GPU. Users can still enable it without a video card to offload it with assuming the CPU is strong enough to handle the load.The console version, which has no PhysX at all, is considered the standard version of the game.
come on now, he knows that physx is the physics engine. he is just talking about the hardware level physx and we all know that. and sorry but even the best cpu in the world will not be running hardware physx worth a crap in this game unless you think 20-25 fps for an average is playable.That is not true. PhysX is an engine that runs on consoles too because it runs on CPU. The part where Nvidia video card helps is the part where the physics which can be scaled up and run on GPU. Users can still enable it without a video card to offload it with assuming the CPU is strong enough to handle the load.
With Batman AA, user can switch physx on without an Nvidia card. This should also be true with Batman AC.
Well, I haven't played AC yet, but CPU + tweak does allow PhysX to perform in AA. Having GPU accelerated means the load gets put onto GPU, not disappeared. The requirement of the game is actually quite low. I believe any I7 or above CPU will have lots of resources to spare, so I don't really know if it can pull 60FPS with most, if not all effects on with CPU.come on now, he knows that physx is the physics engine. he is just talking about the hardware level physx and we all know that. and sorry but even the best cpu in the world will not be running hardware physx worth a crap in this game unless you think 20-25 fps for an average is playable.
what is this cpu + tweak you speak of? there is no way to run the original game smoothly with hardware physx on cpu that I have ever seen. you can have an i5 or i7 because it makes little difference since physx does not use even 4 cores effectively and is dog ass slow on the cpu. its not made to run full hardware level effects on cpus properly in the first place.Well, I haven't played AC yet, but CPU + tweak does allow PhysX to perform in AA. Having GPU accelerated means the load gets put onto GPU, not disappeared. The requirement of the game is actually quite low. I believe any I7 or above CPU will have lots of resources to spare, so I don't really know if it can pull 60FPS with most, if not all effects on with CPU.
what is this cpu + tweak you speak of?
um that gives almost 30 fps average which is not playable as it still slows way down when encountering physx effects. it is quite foolish for someone to have a nice pc and then try and run physx on the cpu. the effects do not even look normal like that because it is running to slow anyway.http://physxinfo.com/news/237/batman-arkham-asylum-cpu-physx-trick-how-it-works/
Change MaxPhysicsSubsteps = 5 to
MaxPhysicsSubsteps = 1 within the config file (BaseGame.ini) of batman.
DC is just one method of doing physics or animations. Its relatively new.
um that gives almost 30 fps average which is not playable as it still slows way down when encountering physx effects. it is quite foolish for someone to have a nice pc and then try and run physx on the cpu. the effects do not even look normal like that because it is running to slow anyway.
Well its the only choice ati/amd users have. I think Nvidia is trying to monopolize the graphics card industry. :O
Well its the only choice ati/amd users have. I think Nvidia is trying to monopolize the graphics card industry. :O
I think its a value added feature for nvidia users - to help nvidia help sell cards. I think AMD needs to get off its laurels and take their hardware to the devs like nvidia does.....AMD has always in the past made the hardware expecting devs to come their way instead of vice versa.
Anyway, i'm kind of torn on physx. Its a "gee whiz neat" feature but its certainly nothing mind blowing. And some games have a pretty big performance hit for it, although that seems to vary depending on which game.
Jen-Hsun Huang, chief executive officer at Nvidia Corp. that provides the lion’s share of discrete graphics processors, also said recently that Havok acquisition by Intel will create “negative synergies” for GPU physics. Nevertheless, he was a little more positive about the technology and indicated that there were other middleware companies working in the field.
“Physics is – physics processing has a long ways to go and there are so many companies out there. [There are] quite a few middleware companies out there that are creating technology in this area, and many games, many game developers incorporate their own physics engine. So my sense is that there’s a lot of invention still left to do in this area. I’m not sure why they bought that company, to tell you the truth. It might give them some advantages with respect to Havok, but it obviously creates negative synergies everywhere else,” said Mr. Huang.
According to Richard Huddy, who joined AMD when it acquired graphics chip company ATI Technologies last year, Havok FX is unlikely to be released at all or power many video games. While AMD admits that there are some games on the horizon that can compute physics effects on GPUs, it is highly unlikely that there will be a significant number of them, unless comprehensive tools for GPU physics are available.
Therefore, for AMD, which is the second largest provider of x86 central processing units (CPUs) in the world, it makes more sense now to promote physics calculations on its multi-core processors, granted that there are special development tools offered. As a consequence, without Havok FX and with no substantial intention to support it by AMD, GPU physics is unlikely to become popular in the short term future.
Still, physics processing on GPUs may get a boost in popularity when Microsoft releases its DirectX 11, which is projected to support additional features that will provide new opportunities for games developers.
I saw this video today showing the Batman Arkham City game with vs without physx.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trq6B4anzjM&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
It looks like if you don't use physx there will be no physics effects at all looking at this video. Everything I see done there with physx I've seen in other games that don't use it.
Also, this is obviously not everything in the game, but having recently played the BF3 beta; I don't see anything here I haven't seen done on the CPU.
Is this a wise choice to mandate physx in order to have physics effects in a game ? Especially considering the rather large performance hit gpu physx has historically had versus cpu implemented physics.
I'll assume there will be the option to run this on the CPU, in the past though this was ridiculously intensive (Mafia 2) bordering on unplayable. I do wonder though as in this comparison it says with GTX card vs without GTX card ? The video is obviously to help EVGA sell cards of course, perhaps there will be a CPU option.
This is my big complain too, some of it is just so overdone. The final side by side with the circular hallway and shattering glass highlights this. Just way overdone with the debris on the ground, I noticed the same in Mafia 2; excessive amounts of overdone debris.
Those instances are also where I would notice my framerates chugging.
The BF3 beta had some amazing unscripted physics and destruction. In the Caspian Border map buildings would shatter and pieces go flying around, the terrain would rupture from tank fire, bushes swaying from the wind of artillery shells passing by etc. No slow-downs and more impressive than anything I've seen done before.
Until third-party physics applications running on the gpu can approach and exceed what the better game development houses like Dice and Crytek can do on their own with the cpu and their in-house engines; how is it going to take off ?
Imho,
OpenCL seems like a nice candidate and port Physic middleware's to this. As long as nVidia has a competitive and technological advantage with Cuda/PhysX, without any competition really for the GPU component -- don't see any movement to OpenCL. nVidia may just simply offer where doing what is best for our company and our customers.
Just like to see more adoption and to take advantage of the strengths of GPU processing and my idealism.
Actually there's a very important secondary reason, and it has nothing to do with computational performance: API overhead. Whenever you do debris calculations on the CPU, all of that stuff has to be setup as objects and submitted to the GPU, which has a fairly high overhead. With PhysX, most (if not all) of that is done as a second-order calculation on the GPU; the CPU never knows about the individual objects and never has to deal with them. This is why doing all those debris calculations on the GPU is so fast, because it's a bunch of tiny objects that get to skip the submission process. If the CPU had to be involved in any way (e.g. this was first-order physics and had to be sent back), it would be much slower even with the higher computational performance of a GPU.
And that's actually a very interesting point. iGPUs have relatively low performance, but the interconnect between the iGPU and CPU are massively superior in terms of latency, bandwidth, and use of shared resources. I'm not sure if anyone in the public has studied it (I'm sure AMD has), but perhaps the limiting factor right now is not dGPU computational performance, but dGPU interconnects?
Every gpu physx game ever released from the past four years:
http://physxinfo.com/data/vreview.html
Only 17, that's 4.25 a year. Four of those games are good, the rest are unfortunately, crap. One is not even a true game, it was a free download tech demo. Another, Unreal 3, only has a few effects in one level. Then there is Hot Dance Party, and its sequel; Hot Dance Party 2.
Pretty poor all around: Four years, 17 games (really 15 1/2), most crap. More impressive physics seen on the CPU with no performance hit, versus inferior physics done with gpu physx = 20-50% framerate hit.
Tech demos and a lot of overdone debris effects. Stuff like that has been shown for a long while and used to that degree would cripple any setup out there. Probably why the graphics are terrible in those videos, so they could achieve a playable framerate.
Crysis physics on the CPU, no performance hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0MWls-C5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaHS-y_mapQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related
Battlefield 3 physics on the CPU, no performance hit, knocking down walls, buildings, the vegetation reacting to the wind shear off artillery shells, debris without unrealistic heaps of little fragments all over the place :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwgRch5PMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YJdqHe6EcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBLOOjoE1Kk
Incredible gameplay with physics like that is what drives PC gamers to spend their money!
Why Battlefield 3's PC Version is More than just a Game
But this is no different than what I showed in my link, except that fewer rigid bodies are used. And how do you know there was a performance hit? I didn't see any framerate issues in any of the demos..
Also, the videos just goes to show the limitations of the CPU. Mafia 2 with hardware physx can have up to 10,000 unique particles/objects on the screen at any given time, while the CPU struggles with a few thousand of the same objects on screen at the same time.
Honestly, rigid body physics is perhaps the least impressive of all the various game physics. It doesn't begin to look impressive until we see thousands of rigid bodies.
Here's something far more impressive. Fluid simulation being done on a GTX 480, with 128,000 particles!
Lets see a CPU do that! Or what about something as simple as realistic looking hair?
Realistic hair has long eluded game physics for decades, and only now with hardware acceleration can we finally see realistic looking hair.
If we're going to have a discussion about game physics, we have to agree on what constitutes actual physics. Like I said on the previous page, BF3 uses scripted animations in combination with real time physics, so it's not 100% real physics..
I posted a good example, but you ignored it:
Extremely realistic depiction of a female character in EVE Online
To render these kinds of effects in real time, probably isn't possible on any current CPU without a severe drop in performance.
Also, there's nothing in BF3 or Crysis that can't be done on a GPU. In fact, if it was done on a GPU, it would be much faster.
As an EVE player I'd like to note that the shipping version of the game looks nothing like that; none of the character options have flowing hair or flowing dresses like that. In fact the player base hates the "walking in stations" component.
Correct. It's CPU-only.
I understand that but with Mafia 2, using a single GPU for rendering and PhysX, the cloth physics are done on the CPU. Using a dedicated GPU for physx, the cloth physics are done with hardware PhysX.
edit:
http://physxinfo.com/news/3892/mafia-ii-is-not-using-gpu-for-physx-cloth-simulation/
http://physxinfo.com/news/4009/mafia-ii-apex-clothing-in-numbers/
Yes I sure do.
Benchmarks
DX11 high preset, DOF off, physx enabled: 55.60 fps avg, 13.05 minimum
DX11 high preset, DOF off, physx disabled: 58.53fps avg, 14.32 minimum
DX9 very high preset, physx on: 36.57fps avg, 10.67fps minimum
DX9 very high preset, physx off: 38.87fps avg, 8.89fps minimum
As I said, minimal performance hit. Do you believe my results or are you going to pull a toyota on me?
I hope so. If you know of an Internet Spaceship game where I can get long flowing dresses, please let me know. Because right now the NeX store selection is limited to form-fitting clothes and pencil skirts.Are we playing the same game? :\
That thread is from before the walking in stations component even launched. I swear on my GTX 570 that there's not an iota of GPU acceleration to be found as it currently stands.That is false...
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1441048
Would you stop posting false (but easily debunkale) information, thanks.