Exactly why could be debated, hard to know precisely. Whatever the reasons are, they're still present, as gpu physx still hasn't taken off with only 16 titles that support it over its four years of market presence.
Subjectively 70% of the games that do support it are utter trash as well. Which really reflects even worse upon it.
I loaded it up last night and the performance was so poor in DX11 I stopped playing. I tried DX9 and it ran fine and pretty much looked the same. Still going to wait to see if they can fix it for DX11 before going any further.
BF3 is much better anyways, so I can wait.
Exactly why could be debated, hard to know precisely. Whatever the reasons are, they're still present, as gpu physx still hasn't taken off with only 16 titles that support it over its four years of market presence.
Subjectively 70% of the games that do support it are utter trash as well. Which really reflects even worse upon it.
I loaded it up last night and the performance was so poor in DX11 I stopped playing. I tried DX9 and it ran fine and pretty much looked the same. Still going to wait to see if they can fix it for DX11 before going any further.
BF3 is much better anyways, so I can wait.
PhysXInfo.com: Over last years, amount of GPU PhysX games is actually decreasing. There were five games in 2009, three in 2010 and so far only one in 2011. How can you explain that?
Tony Tamasi: It was a choice on our part. We had a large amount of resources we could otherwise dedicate to content, but we needed to advance the core technology. We needed to get PhysX 3 done, and we needed to get APEX done to the degree where it is usable by game developers. We had to put a lot of resources there, which meant that some of those resources weren’t directly working on games.
But in the long term, game developers can actually use PhysX and APEX, and make use of the GPU without significant amounts of effort, so that a year or two years from now more games will come out using GPU physics.
Rev Lebaredian: When we initially acquired Ageia, we made a big effort to move many games over to GPU PhysX. We learned a lot in that period of time: getting GPU physics into games, what are the problems, what works and what doesn’t. That gave us the opportunity to regroup, refocus, and figure out how to do it correctly.
We made a conscious decision. After we did a bunch of PhysX and APEX games in 2009 and early 2010, we said “Ok, we have learned enough, we need to sit down and focus on finishing APEX and changing it based on what we just learned, as well as PhysX 3”. Doing as many titles as we were doing before was just going to slow us down.
It made more sense to slow down the content pipeline but get the tools right, but that puts us in the position when once those are complete, it is actually less work for us to get PhysX in games.
This slowdown has not been because of any problems. It is something that we have decided to do.
Objectively > subjectively
But for one that thinks PhysX is dead, irrelevant pointless and the evil killer of babyseals...you sure whine a lot about it
You even create threads about it...like this one.
If you didn't care about the added physics you wouldn't do this.
You'd simply don't care.
Your actions contradicts your statements.
First, DirectX is not a standard. Second, no physics engine is not proprietary. Third, it can be done, but who is going to pay for development cost? Fourth, why reinvent the wheel when there exist one? If the complain is PhysX doesn't work on AMD video card, then should AMD be the one who is responsible for it?My question is...why couldn't it be written into some version of Directx as a standard so every GPU could do it if it adhered to that standard?
I am confused. Are you talking about DirectX or are you talking about PhysX? You made it sounded like Nvidia is responsible for problem that occurs on game code. Dx11 broke on regardless of what video card you use, be it AMD or Nvidia, and batman:AC is from Rocksteady, not Nvidia.Exactly why could be debated, hard to know precisely. Whatever the reasons are, they're still present, as gpu physx still hasn't taken off with only 16 titles that support it over its four years of market presence.
Subjectively 70% of the games that do support it are utter trash as well. Which really reflects even worse upon it.
I loaded it up last night and the performance was so poor in DX11 I stopped playing. I tried DX9 and it ran fine and pretty much looked the same. Still going to wait to see if they can fix it for DX11 before going any further.
BF3 is much better anyways, so I can wait.
I am confused. Are you talking about DirectX or are you talking about PhysX? You made it sounded like Nvidia is responsible for problem that occurs on game code. Dx11 broke on regardless of what video card you use, be it AMD or Nvidia, and batman:AC is from Rocksteady, not Nvidia.
Lets go back to PhysX, are there something wrong with PhysX of the game? Why are you so upset about no PhysX yet you use 3xGTX480 before the game is released. Now you are upset because PhysX works fine, but Dx11 is not. What exactly upset you?
First, DirectX is not a standard. Second, no physics engine is not proprietary. Third, it can be done, but who is going to pay for development cost? Fourth, why reinvent the wheel when there exist one? If the complain is PhysX doesn't work on AMD video card, then should AMD be the one who is responsible for it?
In case you don't realize, AMD has began the work, but with all the reason downfall, I don't think this will be on the priority list.
I guess when Nvidia is paying you it's easy to take the cash and add in code to prevent smoke and debris from showing up unless you have a specific video card installed.
Overall I don't like it because it is bad for gamers as a whole; proprietary, poor-performing, offering no improvements in its current state over what we had in the CPU.
It's not eh? If it wasn't then it wouldn't be used in nearly every single game would it? It's part of Windows, that's as standard as you can damn well get.
Also why the heck are you adding questions to a question? You're talking in absolute circles.
What I'm saying is you can have a Physics API inside DirectX (NOT PHYSX...there is a difference). That way any GPU that adhered to the DX standard can have access to those features. Much like any GPU that can do DX11 can do tessellation to varying degrees. That or I think they should drop Physx entirely from games. I guess when Nvidia is paying you it's easy to take the cash and add in code to prevent smoke and debris from showing up unless you have a specific video card installed.
I find it very strange that you believe a free added feature like GPU physX is such a terrible thing. I really dont think you guys really could possibly have such hard feelings for an option that you dont ever have to turn on. This isnt something nvidia is forced on anyone.
You guys already know that Nvidia adds these gpu enhanced physX after the fact. Its eye candy that wouldnt have ever been there at all had they not done it. Its eye candy that no console owners will see. You can enjoy the game just as they do, without gpu physx.
WTH is the problem????
Its just pointless drama resulting in complete useless bashing for something you arent even asked to turn on. Evil nvidia Drama full of pure misinformation.
If you dont like physX, dont use it and stop thinking about it. No one is making you look at it, just leave it be!
WOW!!!!!
OMG!
This is the most insane thing i have heard in a long while. Stop your lies and misinformation. Its 100% BS. Couldnt be further from the truth. Completely in every way false and total propaganda.
WOW!!! i mean this blows my mind!!!
I find it very strange that you believe a free added feature like GPU physX is such a terrible thing. I really dont think you guys really could possibly have such hard feelings for an option that you dont ever have to turn on. This isnt something nvidia is forced on anyone.
You guys already know that Nvidia adds these gpu enhanced physX after the fact. Its eye candy that wouldnt have ever been there at all had they not done it. Its eye candy that no console owners will see. You can enjoy the game just as they do, without gpu physx.
WTH is the problem????
Its just pointless drama resulting in complete useless bashing for something you arent even asked to turn on. Evil nvidia Drama full of pure misinformation.
If you dont like physX, dont use it and stop thinking about it. No one is making you look at it, just leave it be!
I find it very strange that you believe a free added feature like GPU physX is such a terrible thing.
It's not that nVidia is taking anything away or hiding -- but they're adding dynamic content for PhysX.
It's not free. It costs in FPS and GPU horsepower. In a game that makes extensive use of it, you can expect a 20% framerate hit on your average single gpu nvidia card.
It is not free at all when looked at from this perspective. Many options you can enable or disable will cost you frame rate in games, physics is not one of them in games that make use of CPU implementations. GPU physx introduces a framerate hit of some significance for physics. Maybe if it was doing something for the game that really wowed you or changed the experience in a way CPU physics has not been able to, that would be acceptable, but it doesn't.
When it does, or when they find a way to make it not cost any performance, I'll have some respect for the feature.
In short, you believe that CPU process physics better than GPU and therefore it is a waste of time and resources. That is fine, but you aren't the one spending resources on it. Instead you buy products from those who does spend the resource on it. It is well known that batman:AC uses PhysX, and you have the option not to buy it, but you did. May be you will buy another game that features PhysX, may be you won't, but so far it seems you do like them. You may have brought them just to see how bad it is, that is fine, but then featuring PhysX did get you as a customer.I never said I was upset...
I am not adding questions to your question, I am answering your question with another question. Let say I have the ability to write such engine that works on all GPUs, CPUs and OSes. What motivates me into making it? Money is a good reason, making the world better for everyone for free is not.It's not eh? If it wasn't then it wouldn't be used in nearly every single game would it? It's part of Windows, that's as standard as you can damn well get.
Also why the heck are you adding questions to a question? You're talking in absolute circles.
What I'm saying is you can have a Physics API inside DirectX (NOT PHYSX...there is a difference). That way any GPU that adhered to the DX standard can have access to those features. Much like any GPU that can do DX11 can do tessellation to varying degrees. That or I think they should drop Physx entirely from games. I guess when Nvidia is paying you it's easy to take the cash and add in code to prevent smoke and debris from showing up unless you have a specific video card installed.
When it does, or when they find a way to make it not cost any performance, I'll have some respect for the feature.
In short, you believe that CPU process physics better than GPU and therefore it is a waste of time and resources. That is fine, but you aren't the one spending resources on it. Instead you buy products from those who does spend the resource on it. It is well known that batman:AC uses PhysX, and you have the option not to buy it, but you did. May be you will buy another game that features PhysX, may be you won't, but so far it seems you do like them. You may have brought them just to see how bad it is, that is fine, but then featuring PhysX did get you as a customer.
I am not adding questions to your question, I am answering your question with another question. Let say I have the ability to write such engine that works on all GPUs, CPUs and OSes. What motivates me into making it? Money is a good reason, making the world better for everyone for free is not.
In short, you believe that CPU process physics better than GPU and therefore it is a waste of time and resources. That is fine, but you aren't the one spending resources on it. Instead you buy products from those who does spend the resource on it. It is well known that batman:AC uses PhysX, and you have the option not to buy it, but you did. May be you will buy another game that features PhysX, may be you won't, but so far it seems you do like them. You may have brought them just to see how bad it is, that is fine, but then featuring PhysX did get you as a customer.
I am not adding questions to your question, I am answering your question with another question. Let say I have the ability to write such engine that works on all GPUs, CPUs and OSes. What motivates me into making it? Money is a good reason, making the world better for everyone for free is not.
PhysXInfo.com: What do you think about Hybrid PhysX? Isnt it for good?
Rev Lebaredian: Good at what cost?
Supporting it would be a huge amount of QA for us, and it would be weird too if well find a bug in AMDs drivers, what will we do?
Ashu Rege: For the foreseeable future we will not supporting it officially. If it works- it works, if some guys can figure out how to make it work great for them.
I'm with you on that. I do like the eye candy. Papers flying around in the wind and extra smoke effects add something for me. Many people might not care or notice but I'm pretty good at spotting details.... .
I guess when Nvidia is paying you it's easy to take the cash and add in code to prevent smoke and debris from showing up unless you have a specific video card installed.
It's not free. It costs in FPS and GPU horsepower. In a game that makes extensive use of it, you can expect a 20% framerate hit on your average single gpu nvidia card.
It is not free at all when looked at from this perspective. Many options you can enable or disable will cost you frame rate in games, physics is not one of them in games that make use of CPU implementations. GPU physx introduces a framerate hit of some significance for physics. Maybe if it was doing something for the game that really wowed you or changed the experience in a way CPU physics has not been able to, that would be acceptable, but it doesn't.
When it does, or when they find a way to make it not cost any performance, I'll have some respect for the feature.