12 posts in a row, what is wrong with you man.+1 again
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.
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.
12 posts in a row, what is wrong with you man.
I wonder how much less of a hit CPU PhysX would be if it actually used multiple cores. If using a single core drops you from 100+ down to 23 fps, you would probably get playable performance with quadcore support. Wonder if that's on Nvidia's "to-do" list.
Lon, I'm pretty sure at this point I could say the sky was blue and you'd disagree on principle. There is no GPU PhysX acceleration, which is in no way surprising since there's basically nothing to physically interact with on the current version of Incarna.And mine uses GPU PhysX...alter your settings...and stop posting false information.
Lon, I'm pretty sure at this point I could say the sky was blue and you'd disagree on principle. There is no GPU PhysX acceleration, which is in no way surprising since there's basically nothing to physically interact with on the current version of Incarna.
Here's one with hair, still no GPU PhysX: http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/ViRGE/PhysXIndicator3.jpgSeriously...a bald charecter?
LOL
/mental ignore
I'm aware performance doesn't scale linearly with core count, and that you need something even more parallel to see the greatest benefit--but referring to this post it's clear the multicore support (if it's even being used) is nothing significant, and I'm just wondering how much of a boost 4-8 full cores would be. Again, assuming it was optimized for such.No performance dosn't scale linear in physics...with 3 cores you would qucikly run into a bottleneck, where one thread (object) stalls while waiting for collision results from other threads...and with only 3 concurrent...most of the time is spendt waiting for other threads to complete.
and PhysX SDK 3.0 has build in multicore support by auto in the compiler, this is old news...and even mention in this thread.
I might be a good idea to actually read the thread before complaning about other posters.
I am downloading this now.
First of all, 16GB ? Why so big. Hope this is not port bloat like GTA IV.
Going to check it out tomorrow, I know the graphics are nothing special, but maybe physx will have finally done something new or innovative in a game.
Thats fine, but you can't label such things as "physics" because they're not. This is similar to people that think the cinematic scenes in the Final Fantasy series and other games are being rendered real time, when they're not.
Note : Apologies for digging this quote from this long running thread.
That's exactly why I said this whole argument seems very similar to what I heard in raster/raytrace debates. Some ray tracing proponents argue raster engines are not rendering "real" graphics (read "unbiased"), but are full of (clever) tricks to accommodate the shortcomings of the method (regarding reflection, refraction, caustics, ambient lighting, occlusion, etc.).
Then why being a purist regarding physics, but not graphics ? Where do you place the limit between "acceptable tricks and scripts" and "unreal biased physics/graphics" ? In fact, event "real" GPU physics are always approximations/oversimplifications of reality (as even said "unbiased" raytracers only simulate light transport as closely as possible given optic science knowledge, computing science advances, and algorithm complexity/expense).
That's why I find perfectly fine the current CPU physics implementations (scripted, etc.), as long as we cannot generalize expensive unbiased physics computations (be it GPU physics / CPU physics / whatever). "Cosmetic" GPU physics on only a handful of capable hardware (strong NVIDIA cards, 560 and higher, that can afford to compute PhysX and give acceptable framerates) will not lead us towards physics impacting gameplay.
That being said, I have nothing against PhysX as a technology.
I have been playing for a while and I am VERY disappointed. I have had numerous slowdowns and little pauses for no reason at all. even the benchmark dropped to nearly zero at times. at the places its having issues the gpu is not even being hardly loaded at all. the choppier it gets the less gpu usage its showing so something is wrong here. and why did they fool with DX11 features yet not not take the time to upgrade the console looking textures?
EDIT: its not just me as others are reporting same issues. whats new? delay a game for month and still cant get it right.
I have been playing for a while and I am VERY disappointed. I have had numerous slowdowns and little pauses for no reason at all. even the benchmark dropped to nearly zero at times. at the places its having issues the gpu is not even being hardly loaded at all. the choppier it gets the less gpu usage its showing so something is wrong here. and why did they fool with DX11 features yet not not take the time to upgrade the console looking textures?
EDIT: its not just me as others are reporting same issues. whats new? delay a game for month and still cant get it right.
This. The DX11 implementation is so terrible it makes my head spin.
Pisses me off to be honest. It doesn't even *look* any better in DX11 but the framerate gets HALVED in DX11 mode. The textures are terrible. Sorry, 1000$ worth of GPU's should chew through everything thrown at them, this is very frustrating.
Skip this one until a few patches come out, guys.
LOL. This should not be a surprise, another nvidia bought and paid for title with DX11 that cripples your hardware, where have we seen this before.
Looking forward to playing later, I liked the first game. Will report on framerates. It's play some of this or install my new MB/CPU, and I don't want to start in on that till the weekend. Once I start I won't want to stop until I have windows installed and my entire system set up to my liking, which will have me up all night.
Either behaviour is physcially simulated or it's not.
It's easy to see, I don't get people acting like it "hard to tell the difference"...they are being dishonest in my opinion...or need to go see an optician.
CPU physics = Scripted destruction (aka the same thing happens again and again and again and again and again and again...) with a small amount inert debris (it dosn't affect other object/players/NPC')...and most often dissaper right through the ground..or into thin air.
GPU physics = dynamic destruction with large amount of interactive debris that dosn't go away.
A world of difference.
In my humble scientific opinion, what you call a scripted destruction/animation and dynamic destruction are just the same kind of physics approximation, but on a different precision/scale/bias ...
And to continue with my analogy with RT, current games (with raster engines) are often more beautiful than RT tech demos, because of art, carefully designed textures, hand crafted pre-calculated lighting, etc. Even if the raster engine has more "bias" and is not as close to reality than a RT engine, it may look better due to clever tricks ... Yet I do not see a lot of gamers advocating the use of RT engines in games because those engines are less biased (if it was the case, I guess RT game engines like Arauna, Brigade and others would stand a chance against the FrostBite engine et al) ...
Same for physics : I don't see why it's bad to use clever tricks (scripted animations, biased physics, just enough particles to feel real, etc.) if it's to allow physics on the largest user base possible (and thus possibly offer physics that impact gameplay) ...
I sure would prefer broad adoption of "unbiased" physics in games (whatever that may mean), as much as I would prefer competitive RT engines for games, but it's not gonna happen soon. I fear it will stay a checkbox feature because it's too expensive to run on CPU, and even on low/mid NVIDIA cards ... "Scripted" CPU physics are perfectly fine as a mid-term solution.
(As for those who say physics are more efficiently computed on CPU and/or don't scale well with cores/parallelism : I though physics computations where embarrassingly parallel, and thus where particularly suited to GPUs ... Am I wrong ?)
Hardly.
LOL. This should not be a surprise, another nvidia bought and paid for title with DX11 that cripples your hardware, where have we seen this before.
Yes, Nvidia crippled the game on ALL hardware to make everyone upgrade to SLI GTX580's just to play this game with smooth frame rates in DX11. THEIR PLAN IS WORKING YOU ARE SO SMART!!!!!!!!!!!()#*&$#(*RU& FS:LF
LOL. This should not be a surprise, another nvidia bought and paid for title with DX11 that cripples your hardware, where have we seen this before.
Calm yourself, you're putting the conspiracy spin on it.
I'm just pointing out the game runs like a dog as a byproduct of its DX11 implementation.