Batman Arkham City, no physics at all if you don't use physx ?

[Seero]

That is just wild conspiracy and conjecture though and if it was the case there would of been many ex-employees, developers speaking against this and expose it. How could anyone keep it secret? You build a successful developer relations through hard work, working with developers and being pro-active --not pay-offs, one may imagine.

Nothing more than a re-chew of old gums. Whatever argument it is, it had been used on batman AA. Batman AA was a success, small group of programmers had created a game that was good at all fronts.I don't see anything really new in the game, but whatever they did with old tricks, they did it right, which is what matters. PhysX was one of those tricks they have used. The affect were nothing more than flying papers and leaves, but people were happy about the utilization of PC. Despite the fact that there are a few pro-AMD fanboys who kept spinning about PhysX, many AMD users were happy about the game and you really don't need a Nvidia card to play the game. Some found that there exists a parameter within its ini files which allows CPU PhysX look as good as if it is GPU accelerated. AMD users weren't the loser, AMD fanboys were.

Batman AC did not take long to develope, so I can sense that there will be a lot of recycle codes in it, and there is really no point of removing PhysX out of the original code. In fact, it seems they have developed on top of what they have accomplished with PhysX into another level, which is IMO worth looking at as PhysX can be executed on CPU if it is powerful enough. Comparing to good old dual core, I believe those with I7 or above will have a lot of left over CPU power for some flying papers.

One really cool thing about PhysX is its scalability. If you have seen the documentary of rocket sled, then you will have heard the programmer increase the number of particles of the bridge for fun just to see what happens. So it is possible to change from breaking into tens of pieces to millions of pieces which one variable change, what does it mean? It means, the stronger the GPU or CPU, the more move papers, without the need of massive change to game code. This is the true beauty of PhysX. You don't need a freaking 284TB of skin files to utilize the hardware, just a change of setting and done, enriched visual effects. If they code it (Nvidia, not game dev) right, it will turn any games that use PhysX scale dynamically based on the platform it operates.

Now name another physics engine that does that.

 

[notty22]

It's the developers that have gone the extra mile to make, design, develop the game and it's advertising campaign. This paranoia about Nvidia being involved is ridiculous.
Think about, it was impossible to verify if PhysX was even a definite feature of this game sequel until only recently. Yet months ago, there were very sweet looking in game pictures and movie clips circulating , just about anywhere a pc, console gamer would ever look. They even took out advertising like this in more than one city.

Batman NASCAR Hood

 

[blackened23]

Nvidia paid Crytek 2 million US to implement their version of DX11. It is well documented:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/faith/nvidias-2-million-crysis/

There's absolutely no reason for a developer to do something specific to a video card unless there's an incentive. Their goal is to make the game run well for everyone out there regardless of their GPU.

So anyway, yeah, Crytek was paid 2 million US - that information was revealed in a leak. So who else did nvidia pay?

Edit: I just wish AMD was this aggressive. These tactics are ethically questionable but if thats how nvidia plays, I don't understand why AMD remains so tame. They need to take their cause to developers, yet they don't.

 

[tviceman]

Nvidia paid Crytek 2 million US to implement their version of DX11. It is well documented:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/faith/nvidias-2-million-crysis/

You fanboys need to wake up, there's absolutely no reason for a developer to do something specific to a video card unless there's an incentive. Their goal is to make the game run well for everyone out there regardless of their GPU.

So anyway, yeah, Crytek was paid 2 million US - that information was revealed in a leak. So who else did nvidia pay?

Do you have any other source or confirmation that verifies this besides Kitguru? They're about as dependable as brightsideofnews.

EDIT: This has to be one of the more ridiculous rumors that exist. Two million dollars paid to a developer to optimize a single game? That was months late with it's DX11 patch? Two million dollars? For game optimizations? Reallly?

 

[Keysplayr]

Nvidia paid Crytek 2 million US to implement their version of DX11. It is well documented:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/faith/nvidias-2-million-crysis/

You fanboys need to wake up, there's absolutely no reason for a developer to do something specific to a video card unless there's an incentive. Their goal is to make the game run well for everyone out there regardless of their GPU.

So anyway, yeah, Crytek was paid 2 million US - that information was revealed in a leak. So who else did nvidia pay?

And it will run just as good on any GPU. But will only run PhysX on Nvidia GPU's. I think that those who need to wake up, are those that don't realize that Nvidia doesn't take away from any game. Only adds. The game will run fine on AMD cards and Intel capable GPUs won't it?

 

[Grooveriding]

There was most assuredly an exchange of money between nvidia and Warner Bros or Rocksteady. Do you think all the free copies of the game given out with nvidia cards were for free ? Along with the rolld in physx help etc.

Thread was not about advertising or money exchanges though ?

Really was made to discuss if gpu physx has managed to prove itself as being in the same league of some of the high end CPU physics done in some AAA titles.

I agree with the posts stating that it seems to only add some additional graphical effects but nothing in the realm of physics. Looking at Crysis 1, BFBC2 or BF3; the physics in those games are not only more impressive but alter gameplay. So I think gpu physx still has a ways to go to prove itself, especially with the performance hit it incurs.

Also waiting to see if the game will really have no in game smoke, debris etc. if you choose not to or cannot use gpu physx.

 

[notty22]

The developers of this game look invested in this game/game series. That's a good thing for pc gamers. IMO, we can all see another blockbuster Batman movie coming, and with that more PC Batman games to add to this series. It's (edit)only some fans that are looking for villains behind the game production. I'm going to enjoy the game, and that's my agenda.

 

[SirPauly]

There was most assuredly an exchange of money between nvidia and Warner Bros or Rocksteady. Do you think all the free copies of the game given out with nvidia cards were for free ? Along with the rolld in physx help etc.

Thread was not about advertising or money exchanges though ?

Really was made to discuss if gpu physx has managed to prove itself as being in the same league of some of the high end CPU physics done in some AAA titles.

I agree with the posts stating that it seems to only add some additional graphical effects but nothing in the realm of physics. Looking at Crysis 1, BFBC2 or BF3; the physics in those games are not only more impressive but alter gameplay. So I think gpu physx still has a ways to go to prove itself, especially with the performance hit it incurs.

Also waiting to see if the game will really have no in game smoke, debris etc. if you choose not to or cannot use gpu physx.

Imho,

I think many want the same thing: Dramatic changes in game-play to redefine gaming itself from Physics. This may take a complete effort by the industry itself to make this happen though and isn't going to be done over-night or the very short term.

So, one can wait or one can enjoy some GPU Physic content now that improves fidelity and modest game-play changes over what the developer may of intended while one waits for Physics to evolve and mature over time. For me, it is interesting some of the ways developers think of using Physics to improve their titles like the effects in Alice and even a title like Dark Void. It may be uninteresting for others.

nVidia seems to desire to be an important player for the future of Physics -- trying to innovate it -- at least they're trying to bring content to their customers and placing resources where their mouth is. If you don't like it -- one can disable it. At least the feature is offered to bitch about it.

 

[tviceman]

There was most assuredly an exchange of money between nvidia and Warner Bros or Rocksteady. Do you think all the free copies of the game given out with nvidia cards were for free ? Along with the rolld in physx help etc.

Just like Dirt 3 and Deus EX: HR with AMD cards! This stuff happens all the time and I like getting free games when I upgrade my graphics card.

Thread was not about advertising or money exchanges though ?

Really was made to discuss if gpu physx has managed to prove itself as being in the same league of some of the high end CPU physics done in some AAA titles.

I agree with the posts stating that it seems to only add some additional graphical effects but nothing in the realm of physics. Looking at Crysis 1, BFBC2 or BF3; the physics in those games are not only more impressive but alter gameplay. So I think gpu physx still has a ways to go to prove itself, especially with the performance hit it incurs.

Also waiting to see if the game will really have no in game smoke, debris etc. if you choose not to or cannot use gpu physx.

Back on topic, I think it's safe to assume the video options will closely resemble how Arkham Asylum played out when it came to advanced physx effects (with the big exception being Arkham City has DX11 support).

 

[blackened23]

And it will run just as good on any GPU. But will only run PhysX on Nvidia GPU's. I think that those who need to wake up, are those that don't realize that Nvidia doesn't take away from any game. Only adds. The game will run fine on AMD cards and Intel capable GPUs won't it?

Actually I agree with that, Key, i'm pretty much neutral on nvidia or AMD as I own both. Where it gets questionable is paying developers to add features and then disable them on the competition, that can be seen as unethical. The initial version of batman:AA disabled anti aliasing on AMD hardware, but was patched in 6 months later. Now I don't know who was at fault for that one. But nvidia did help with the development and was rumored to disable it purposely on AMD hardware...who knows if thats true. Again for emphasis: This is just a rumor, I have no idea if nvidia was behind this.

But as far as value added features, yeah, you're right. It doesn't detract from the game, only adds, its an added value for nvidia customers. Thats great. AMD needs to do this as well.
As I mentioned before I think this is AMD's worst fault, they wait for developers to come their way instead of vice versa. The way I see it, AMD needs to promote their hardware to the developers like nvidia does, and they just don't.

 

[SirPauly]

But AMD is much more than the past, when they were ATI. Good lord, in the past they were simply deemed marketing exercises and hardly no content.

What sense does it make to offer the hardware without software to take advantage of a company's vision? It's a waste of hardware for their customers. Think about that for some time.

Now, you see AMD promoting DirectX 11, EyeFinity and even Stereo3d with native support for Deus Ex. This is great stuff.

 

[Seero]

Actually I agree with that, Key, i'm pretty much neutral on nvidia or AMD as I own both. Where it gets questionable is paying developers to add features and then disable them on the competition, that can be seen as unethical. The initial version of batman:AA disabled anti aliasing on AMD hardware, but was patched in 6 months later. Now I don't know who was at fault for that one. But nvidia did help with the development and was rumored to disable it purposely on AMD hardware...who knows if thats true. Again for emphasis: This is just a rumor, I have no idea if nvidia was behind this.

It is far too clear that it really doesn't matter what a thread is about. If it has something to do with PhysX, the bolded statement is going to raise. I mean, are there really nothing other than conspiracy to talk about?

You guys made it sounded like it is the first time in history where a game comes with a video card. Gee, why will publisher send a free copies of the game to you when you buy a video card?

ATI paid for Half life 2, stated in the kitguru link.

Nvidia paid for crysis.

ATI paid for Dirt 2, and oh sh!t 1.7 million Dirt 3 keys leaked!

Ever wonder how much 1.7 million Dirt 3 keys worth? Did Codemaster give out 1.7 million keys to AMD to bundle up with their video card for free?

Please cut the conspiracy theories, it pollutes every single thread, making VC&G nothing other than a fanboy war zone. If you have a problem with PhysX, I have a tip for you, vote with your wallet. Mind you that the last round PhysX won big time, and lots of votes are from AMD users.

 

[Rifter]

What we need is a Open Physics standard that will run on all platforms, so that rules out it being rolled into Direct X as well. We need something that can run on windows/linux as well as all the consols.

While i disagree with Nvidia being so closed with there Hardware PhysX and not allowing a nvidia GPU to run it on a ATI powered system at least they are doing something to make GPU accelerated physics move foreward.

All ATI has done is talk about it for years without actually DOING a damn thing. Its great to have plans and talk about it but when ten years later you have nothing to show for it its obvious you were just tyiing to hype it up and boost sales with no real intent to actually make it happen. This is one reason i prefer Nvidia, at least they will put money into there standard and work with developers to make sure its at least used in some games, beats ATI's Non existant Physics API thats used in zero games and never will be.

 

[Rifter]

Where it gets questionable is paying developers to add features and then disable them on the competition, that can be seen as unethical.

It can only be seen as unethical if you are a fanboy or have hardware from the company that decided not to spend the cash. If the developer decides not to add whatever feature to the game due to budget reasons or whatever reasons and then Nvidia or ATI step up to the plate with cash or coders to add the features they feel will benifit there users what makes you think they should also give them to the direct competetion?

They are out to make themselves money not give there direct competetion handouts. Remember if no one had stepped up to the plate no one would get to use these features. Im 100% ok with Nvidia or ATI spending money on features and locking it out of the comptetion, if the competetion wants to spend money to make there users experiance with the game more enjoyable they are more than welsome to do so. If not then they have to deal with there users not having those features available. This is business not charity.

 

[Grooveriding]

What we need is a Open Physics standard that will run on all platforms, so that rules out it being rolled into Direct X as well. We need something that can run on windows/linux as well as all the consols.

While i disagree with Nvidia being so closed with there Hardware PhysX and not allowing a nvidia GPU to run it on a ATI powered system at least they are doing something to make GPU accelerated physics move foreward.

All ATI has done is talk about it for years without actually DOING a damn thing. Its great to have plans and talk about it but when ten years later you have nothing to show for it its obvious you were just tyiing to hype it up and boost sales with no real intent to actually make it happen. This is one reason i prefer Nvidia, at least they will put money into there standard and work with developers to make sure its at least used in some games, beats ATI's Non existant Physics API thats used in zero games and never will be.

Yeah but do they need to do anything more than talk about it ?

As yet, from my gaming experiences, physx has brought nothing to the table to make me say 'hey why doesn't AMD do this, this is great ?'

I see value in physics in gameplay as well, particularly in multiplayer games like Battlefield 3; where you can destroy buildings, terrain and walls etc. This opens up new lines of sight, makes enemies visible and impacts and changes the way you choose to play the game. All this is done on the CPU and with no discernible performance impact.

I think physics running on the GPU, of which physx, seems to be the only implementation - has a loooooong ways to go just to prove its self as being worth noting. With CPU implementations doing a better job and costing nothing performance wise, physx is doing zilch to make GPU physics look like something that deserves being pursued.

Whether or not in-game physics running on the GPU is worthwhile is just not known, with the only available example currently: physx - it certainly doesn't look like it amounts to anything useful as yet.

I really don't want to see AMD say 'hey lets take up this gpu physics idea because its failing so badly for nvidia, maybe we can make it work' Nvidia has the money to burn away trying to get it to work. Since DX is the dominant API, I'd prefer GPU makers just make chips that work the best they can under that API. In my opinion physx is going to disappear, it's gone too long with gaining too little traction.

 

[Rifter]

Yeah but do they need to do anything more than talk about it ?

As yet, from my gaming experiences, physx has brought nothing to the table to make me say 'hey why doesn't AMD do this, this is great ?'

I see value in physics in gameplay as well, particularly in multiplayer games like Battlefield 3; where you can destroy buildings, terrain and walls etc. This opens up new lines of sight, makes enemies visible and impacts and changes the way you choose to play the game. All this is done on the CPU and with no discernible performance impact.

I think physics running on the GPU, of which physx, seems to be the only implementation - has a loooooong ways to go just to prove its self as being worth noting. With CPU implementations doing a better job and costing nothing performance wise, physx is doing zilch to make GPU physics look like something that deserves being pursued.

Whether or not in-game physics running on the GPU is worthwhile is just not known, with the only available example currently: physx - it certainly doesn't look like it amounts to anything useful as yet.

I really don't want to see AMD say 'hey lets take up this gpu physics idea because its failing so badly for nvidia, maybe we can make it work' Nvidia has the money to burn away trying to get it to work. Since DX is the dominant API, I'd prefer GPU makers just make chips that work the best they can under that API. In my opinion physx is going to disappear, it's gone too long with gaining too little traction.

I wouldnt say it has zero performance impact running on the CPU, BF3 is brutal on the CPU almost requiring a quad core to be run, i would call that a very CPU demanding game.

I agree 100% that the current GPU Physx is pointless from a gameplay perspective, sure it looks nice in some games but for gameplay it adds nothing. But thats because it CANT not because its not able to as a API but because all the people playing the game cant use it. It wouldnt be a good thing if some players could destroy the enviorment and get better shots and some couldnt, that would be unfair. So untill we have a open GPU physics standard that runs on all platforms from consols to PC we will never have a physics API that can go the full way to its potential, we will be stuck with visual enhancements but not gameplay enhancements.

So dont write off GPU physics yet just because the only current API can't add much to gameplay due to fairness issues and not everyone being able to take advantage of it.

 

[Carfax83]

I see value in physics in gameplay as well, particularly in multiplayer games like Battlefield 3; where you can destroy buildings, terrain and walls etc. This opens up new lines of sight, makes enemies visible and impacts and changes the way you choose to play the game. All this is done on the CPU and with no discernible performance impact.

Just an FYI, the physics in BF3 isn't fully unscripted. It's like BC2, but more advanced in that some of the physics uses randomized scripted physics, and the rest is calculated in real time.

This is unlike hardware PhysX, where everything is calculated in real time.

Whether or not in-game physics running on the GPU is worthwhile is just not known, with the only available example currently: physx - it certainly doesn't look like it amounts to anything useful as yet.

The biggest advantage to using GPU physics is that all the physics calculations can be handled in real time, which removes the need for scripted animations which costs developers additional time and money.

I really don't want to see AMD say 'hey lets take up this gpu physics idea because its failing so badly for nvidia, maybe we can make it work' Nvidia has the money to burn away trying to get it to work. Since DX is the dominant API, I'd prefer GPU makers just make chips that work the best they can under that API. In my opinion physx is going to disappear, it's gone too long with gaining too little traction.

People have been saying PhysX is failing for years, yet it's still managed to acquire some big titles. Batman AC is just the latest example, but we will have Metro Last Light next year as well.

 

[ViRGE]

Agreed, Microsoft would do gamers a favor by including a physics API in DX (I assume this is possible, they just haven't done it yet?).

Saying MS should include a physics API in DirectX is like saying they should include UE3 with DirectX. A physics system is middleware; that's not what an API is for. APIs are for programming, and to that extent MS already has DirectCompute. The onus has long been on developers to write a meaningful physics middleware package that uses DirectCompute/OpenCL.

I agree 100% that the current GPU Physx is pointless from a gameplay perspective, sure it looks nice in some games but for gameplay it adds nothing. But thats because it CANT not because its not able to as a API but because all the people playing the game cant use it. It wouldnt be a good thing if some players could destroy the enviorment and get better shots and some couldnt, that would be unfair. So untill we have a open GPU physics standard that runs on all platforms from consols to PC we will never have a physics API that can go the full way to its potential, we will be stuck with visual enhancements but not gameplay enhancements.

So dont write off GPU physics yet just because the only current API can't add much to gameplay due to fairness issues and not everyone being able to take advantage of it.

Agreed. PhysX has lived up to its technical capabilities, but I'd say it's largely languished in terms of game design. Instead of taking the next step after HL2 by introducing physics to the wider game world, it's been used to add more debris; the latter just isn't very exciting given the potential. And actually it wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that PhysX debris is usually done to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[Keysplayr]

I wouldnt say it has zero performance impact running on the CPU, BF3 is brutal on the CPU almost requiring a quad core to be run, i would call that a very CPU demanding game.

I agree 100% that the current GPU Physx is pointless from a gameplay perspective, sure it looks nice in some games but for gameplay it adds nothing. But thats because it CANT not because its not able to as a API but because all the people playing the game cant use it. It wouldnt be a good thing if some players could destroy the enviorment and get better shots and some couldnt, that would be unfair. So untill we have a open GPU physics standard that runs on all platforms from consols to PC we will never have a physics API that can go the full way to its potential, we will be stuck with visual enhancements but not gameplay enhancements.

So dont write off GPU physics yet just because the only current API can't add much to gameplay due to fairness issues and not everyone being able to take advantage of it.

So you're saying that if AMD had climbed on board with PhysX early, then perhaps we would have these kinds of destroyable game effecting environments now? It would be interesting to know that potential outcome had those decisions been made long ago. We could then know who it truly holding back the industry.

 

[Rifter]

So you're saying that if AMD had climbed on board with PhysX early, then perhaps we would have these kinds of destroyable game effecting environments now? It would be interesting to know that potential outcome had those decisions been made long ago. We could then know who it truly holding back the industry.

Thats pretty much exactly what im saying.

I mean think about it Nvidia cant add destruction to enviorments with GPU PhysX without having it available to all players. How would it go over in (insert FPS shooter game here) if some guy with Physx Starts blowing holes in stuff and going on a killing spree while the other ATI users have to run around and get better angles for shots without using destruction of the enviorment. Wouldnt really be fair.

Thats why i said untill we have a industry wide compatable on ALL systems/consols GPU physics API we have not seen what GPU physics can really do.

 

[SirPauly]

Yeah but do they need to do anything more than talk about it ?

At least nVidia is doing instead of talking. Now talking instead of doing is a good thing or the smart thing?

 

[Red Storm]

So you're saying that if AMD had climbed on board with PhysX early, then perhaps we would have these kinds of destroyable game effecting environments now? It would be interesting to know that potential outcome had those decisions been made long ago. We could then know who it truly holding back the industry.

That makes perfect sense from Nvidia's perspective, but zero sense from AMD's. Of course Nvidia wants nothing more than AMD to license PhysX. On top of being paid by your competitor, they would have total control over how GPU physics works (you can guarantee it's going to be geared/more efficient for their own architecture, quicker updates for themselves, etc.).


Unfortunately, it's not going to happen until a 3rd party like Microsoft releases a physics API that neither AMD nor Nvidia own.

 

[SirPauly]

What we need is a Open Physics standard that will run on all platforms, so that rules out it being rolled into Direct X as well. We need something that can run on windows/linux as well as all the consols.

While i disagree with Nvidia being so closed with there Hardware PhysX and not allowing a nvidia GPU to run it on a ATI powered system at least they are doing something to make GPU accelerated physics move foreward.

All ATI has done is talk about it for years without actually DOING a damn thing. Its great to have plans and talk about it but when ten years later you have nothing to show for it its obvious you were just tyiing to hype it up and boost sales with no real intent to actually make it happen. This is one reason i prefer Nvidia, at least they will put money into there standard and work with developers to make sure its at least used in some games, beats ATI's Non existant Physics API thats used in zero games and never will be.

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.

 

[SirPauly]

That makes perfect sense from Nvidia's perspective, but zero sense from AMD's. Of course Nvidia wants nothing more than AMD to license PhysX. On top of being paid by your competitor, they would have total control over how GPU physics works (you can guarantee it's going to be geared/more efficient for their own architecture, quicker updates for themselves, etc.).


Unfortunately, it's not going to happen until a 3rd party like Microsoft releases a physics API that neither AMD nor Nvidia own.

Imho,

The key is PhysX' foundation is on Cuda. Not only does one have to license PhysX but Cuda, invest resources on an API controlled by nVidia. IF AMD licenses Cuda, it may offer a clear monopoly of control for nVidia with GPU processing. AMD may be best served, imho, by investing in OpenCL and try to compete against nVidia.

I already offered in this thread that AMD has respect for PhysX -- and had quiet talks about PhysX with nVidia -- and my theory was about porting PhysX to OpenCL. PhysX is not the problem with AMD but more-so Cuda.

 

[NIGELG]

At least nVidia is doing instead of talking. Now talking instead of doing is a good thing or the smart thing?

Read Virge's post above....''PhysX effects are usually done to the point of ridiculousness''

I've been trying to tell you this on Rage3D as well.If GPU physics ever take off I'll be surprised.It looks as though it's dying.Implemented in one or two games a year including Crappy games like Dark Void ETC ETC.


CPU'S are getting better and better.GPU pHYSx is an extremely niche market feature.