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

[Bobisuruncle54]

The irony whining about proprietary and desire proprietary DirectX to solve the proprietary problem, hehe!

DirectX isn't proprietary in this context because it will work on any GPU or CPU that is able to run it though, so those "whining" are absolutely right. If this debate involved the game running in Linux then yes it would be a problem, but using DirectX instead of PhysX would be a much better situation for the industry and gamers on the whole.

Besides, modern quad core CPUs could perform quite well with an optimized engine. It's just a pity no game since HL2 has really stood out for making the physics engine integral to the game play.

 

[waffleironhead]

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..

This particularly amuses me as it seems like its the cornerstone of some of the physx defense. 100% real doesnt equate to better imo. Its like the phenom versus core2quad. "its a real quadcore!" debate. I may be completly wrong here, but I'm guessing most people dont care how the underlying physics happen, they dont care if "it's 100% real physics". They care about how it looks and how it affects gameplay, they care about whether enabling brings their system to a standstill.
If I have chose between scripted scenes, preset breakpoints, and whatever else they have to do to make it run on my hardware, over some floaty smoke or debris clouds that are "100% real physics". Its a pretty easy choice IMO.

Dont get me wrong, physx has some great potential, but I think they are spending too much time on the 100% part.

 

[Predicament]

I find physics to be highly overrated.

 

[SirPauly]

DirectX isn't proprietary in this context because it will work on any GPU or CPU that is able to run it though, so those "whining" are absolutely right. If this debate involved the game running in Linux then yes it would be a problem, but using DirectX instead of PhysX would be a much better situation for the industry and gamers on the whole.

Besides, modern quad core CPUs could perform quite well with an optimized engine. It's just a pity no game since HL2 has really stood out for making the physics engine integral to the game play.

I don't have a real problem with proprietary and don't pick and choose them; it's part of the technology landscape. Ideally, would like everything to be open though.

Looking forward to great leaps in game-play based on Physics -- while I wait will try to enjoy the content from the CPU and GPU -- and hopefully together they can make it happen by utilizing their strengths.

 

[tviceman]

This is an excellent analogy for physx vs CPU physics; discussing raytracing compared to what we use in current games. Raytracing can create photo-realistic imagery, but if it were implemented in a game you would be playing at less than a 1FPS slideshow.

Raytracing, who wouldn't want to play a game like this ?:

Nice, far more impressive than the physx tech demos. But not playable or possible, yet.

Exactly the same with physx, the tech demos look great, the actual, realistic implementations we get in games are just awful compared to what we see done on the CPU. As well, it costs significant FPS hits to do less than what we see done on the CPU. Overdone debris that looks out of place is not impressive.

Tech demos are nice, but if those effects were possible in game, we would see them in game. It may have the potential to do that, but in its current state, gpu physx looks like alpha technology that is not even ready to be used. The minimum expectation would be it could deliver effects at least on par with what the best CPU physics in game engines are delivering. Not less with a large performance hit.

I still don't understand exactly why it is you're arguing / complaining about gpu-physx. Is it that gpu-physx hasn't offered something that alters gameplay? Or that you think the visual effects aren't good? Or both? The games that have GPU-enabled physx aren't being "held back" by physx - the games themselves are made as to close as possible to the developer's vision and, if not for Nvidia's engineers helping to build in gpu-accelerated effects, then there wouldn't be an argument to have at all. So I really just don't understand why anyone is arguing about something extra added to a game that, if not liked, can be shut off at any time.

You keep wanting to compare the physics of BF3 and Crysis to Batman AA or Mafia II, but it's not a valid comparison because those games were built completely different for completely different gameplay. BF3 or Crysis having amazing physics in game; I certainly do not disagree with you. Perhaps, though, the effects their "interactive" physics could have been improved visually (more varied explosions instead of being canned and pre-calculated, reactive smoke and fog, debris that can cause damage) or at least sped up with dedicated GPU calculations....

 

[MrK6]

No one cares about PhysX when the game looks like it was made in 2007. Good thing this will probably be <$20 in a month or two like its predecessor.

 

[SirPauly]

I do because many games are multi-platform and GPU PhysX may raise the gaming experience and immersion bar over what one may see from the console. Perfect example may be Batman AC.

 

[tviceman]

No one cares about PhysX when the game looks like it was made in 2007. Good thing this will probably be <$20 in a month or two like its predecessor.

Played Deus Ex: HR? Graphics aren't everything.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-human-revolution
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/batman-arkham-city

 

[Carfax83]

There has been quite similar debates regarding raster engines and raytracing engines : raster engines are known for the need of lots of careful tweaking, tricks and artwork adaptations in order to look ok whereas any good RT engine require much less special attentions on shaders, artwork nor illumination to alleviate shortcomings in realism ...

As much as I would like unbiased physics computations to happen in every title out there, biased computations (scripts, oversimplifications, etc.) will be preferred as long as the lowest common denominator is too weak to perform otherwise.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure the analogy fits this particular discussion.

We don't have the hardware performance capability to create ray traced games as of yet, but we do have the hardware performance capability to create games with very realistic physics.....and it's not even that expensive.

Earlier in this thread, I said that the fastest consumer desktop processor, the Core i7 990x, was inferior to even a low level GPU like the GTS 250 when it comes to massive number crunching....and it is.

My dedicated PhysX card which cost me 100 USD will pimp slap a 1000 USD Core i7 990x in anything physics related....unless it requires double precision accuracy, but no game requires that.

Also, depending on what card you have and what settings you use, you may be able to run a game at high settings with physx enabled on a single graphics card with a very reasonable framerate.

 

[Carfax83]

If I have chose between scripted scenes, preset breakpoints, and whatever else they have to do to make it run on my hardware, over some floaty smoke or debris clouds that are "100% real physics". Its a pretty easy choice IMO.

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.

Dont get me wrong, physx has some great potential, but I think they are spending too much time on the 100% part.

I'm no physics buff, but I'd like to think that physics tends to be fairly objective, rather than subjective. It's either physics, or it's not.

Animated scenes like the bridge collapse in HL2 cannot count as physics, because there are no physics calculations being done by either the CPU or the GPU.

 

[Seero]

DirectX isn't proprietary in this context because it will work on any GPU or CPU that is able to run it though, so those "whining" are absolutely right. If this debate involved the game running in Linux then yes it would be a problem, but using DirectX instead of PhysX would be a much better situation for the industry and gamers on the whole.

Besides, modern quad core CPUs could perform quite well with an optimized engine. It's just a pity no game since HL2 has really stood out for making the physics engine integral to the game play.

Hi, never seen you before.

You may have never used windows XP before. I did, and my system and OS worked flawlessly until the first Dx10 game comes. I curse and curse MS about XP not supporting Dx10. I keep cursing until I got Vista, and I stopped cursing about Dx10....

Problem with Dx is identical to PhysX with GPU acceleration, you can't buy it without the bundle! Having said that, PhysX is as good as any other physics engine so I really don't understand what is there to complain about. Yes, only Nvidia video card can accelerate PhysX, but the part that gets accelerated is the part that does not affect gameplay, so what exactly is the problem? No one needs Nvidia wares to play PhysX games, PhysX runs on CPU just fine! Are people still believe that PhysX only runs on video card?

The point is this, console ports cannot utilize PC wares, and we all should know that. Using PhysX to generate some vistual effects that doesn't change gameplay so people with multiple high-end video cards and CPUs can crank up the graphic settings to utilize all these extra power. What is so bad about that? Do you guys want a game that only runs with Nvidia video cards now? If not than what is wrong knowing Nvidia users don't really get more other than some visual affects? If AMD users also want such capability, Nvidia really shouldn't be the target, but AMD.

 

[Grooveriding]

I still don't understand exactly why it is you're arguing / complaining about gpu-physx. Is it that gpu-physx hasn't offered something that alters gameplay? Or that you think the visual effects aren't good? Or both? The games that have GPU-enabled physx aren't being "held back" by physx - the games themselves are made as to close as possible to the developer's vision and, if not for Nvidia's engineers helping to build in gpu-accelerated effects, then there wouldn't be an argument to have at all. So I really just don't understand why anyone is arguing about something extra added to a game that, if not liked, can be shut off at any time.

You keep wanting to compare the physics of BF3 and Crysis to Batman AA or Mafia II, but it's not a valid comparison because those games were built completely different for completely different gameplay. BF3 or Crysis having amazing physics in game; I certainly do not disagree with you. Perhaps, though, the effects their "interactive" physics could have been improved visually (more varied explosions instead of being canned and pre-calculated, reactive smoke and fog, debris that can cause damage) or at least sped up with dedicated GPU calculations....

Perhaps another read through is in order then if you can't understand.

The short of it is: Physics being done on the CPU has done more impressive and more immersive additions to games than gpu physx has with no significant performance hit. gpu-physx has show to be not as good as CPU physx with a serious performance hit.

Why give gamers an inferior solution at a performance penalty, beyond trying to get more card sales ?

Better a developer does not use it and uses physics done on the CPU until gpu physx leaves what is clearly alpha level technology and can present some benefit over CPU physics for a gamer.

If you have examples of gpu physx creating a better experience in any games with physcs effects than some of the best examples of physics done on the CPU, please share them with us. That is why BF3 and Crysis are so relevant in showing gpu physx inadequacy.

 

[waffleironhead]

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.



I'm no physics buff, but I'd like to think that physics tends to be fairly objective, rather than subjective. It's either physics, or it's not.

Animated scenes like the bridge collapse in HL2 cannot count as physics, because there are no physics calculations being done by either the CPU or the GPU.

The things I described do indeed use physics to complete the actions. They just dont fit your narrow definition as to what counts. Thats fine, keep painting yourself into a narrow corner about what counts and what doesnt. Ill just warn you to be careful you dont define it so narrowly that even physx doesnt fit anymore.

 

[tviceman]

If you have examples of gpu physx creating a better experience in any games with physcs effects than some of the best examples of physics done on the CPU, please share them with us. That is why BF3 and Crysis are so relevant in showing gpu physx inadequacy.

I truly disagree with your rationale, but this is an argument that will go nowhere so believe what you wish.

 

[MrK6]

Graphics aren't everything.

Except when we're talking about graphics.

 

[notty22]

If you have a Nvidia card, you can turn on that useless physx and max out the graphics detail. Everyone else gets Catwoman without the claws and tail, lol J/K

 

[Keysplayr]

Instead of always arguing about PhysX, how bout if you don't like it, turn it off. That's all there really is to it. It's mindnumbingly simple to do.

 

[Carfax83]

If you have examples of gpu physx creating a better experience in any games with physcs effects than some of the best examples of physics done on the CPU, please share them with us. That is why BF3 and Crysis are so relevant in showing gpu physx inadequacy.

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.

 

[Carfax83]

The things I described do indeed use physics to complete the actions. They just dont fit your narrow definition as to what counts. Thats fine, keep painting yourself into a narrow corner about what counts and what doesnt. Ill just warn you to be careful you dont define it so narrowly that even physx doesnt fit anymore.

So the bridge collapse in HL2 counts as physics to you?

 

[Grooveriding]

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.

This is just not the case. If all the physics in BF3 and Crysis were done on the GPU it would be slower, much slower. It would suck up so much GPU horsepower the game would crawl.

This is why CPU physics is superior, it doesn't kill your framerate. There is a reason even a nvidia worked on title like Crysis 2 didn't use physx, the game killed GPUs enough.

This is why the only games you see using gpu physx are games that are not that impressive or demanding in the graphics department, so there is performance to spare. For a cutting edge title like BF3 or the first Crysis, it would of been too much, particularly with the vast extent of physics used in those games.

Further, gpu physx is never going to land in a major multiplayer title like BF3 for the same reasons mentioned before. It would be hard to take advantage of blowing out a wall with your tank to shoot the guy inside when your system is slowed to a crawl while the gpu physx calculates out a million useless fragments on the floor.

 

[notty22]

This is why the only games you see using gpu physx are games that are not that impressive or demanding in the graphics department, so there is performance to spare.

How about popular and highly acclaimed titles with anticipated sequels ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_Asylum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_City

Actor Mark Hamill was reluctant to return for the sequel, wanting to leave the Joker role on a "high note", but relented after learning of the involvement of Paul Dini and Kevin Conroy.

Reception

Batman: Arkham City received universal acclaim by critics, and as of October 18, it is the best-reviewed game of 2011 according to review aggregator Metacritic.[41]

 

[Carfax83]

Well since you declined to comment on the youtube video I posted again, I take it that you must find it impressive

This is just not the case. If all the physics in BF3 and Crysis were done on the GPU it would be slower, much slower. It would suck up so much GPU horsepower the game would crawl.

I don't know what would give you this impression, since Crysis wasn't particularly CPU dependent. I recall playing Crysis on my overclocked Q9450 rig back in the day, and I don't recall it ever using anymore than 20% of my CPU, and thats for both game logic and physics set to the max.

Add on to that the fact that a lot of the physics in Crysis is pre-calculated and animated, I don't think modern GPUs with sufficient horsepower would have any problem; especially if the game is being played at 1920x1200 and below with high settings.

BF3 uses a lot more CPU and GPU than Crysis, but even so, whether or not the physics can be offloaded to the GPU would depend on what the graphical settings were set to.

This is why CPU physics is superior, it doesn't kill your framerate. There is a reason even a nvidia worked on title like Crysis 2 didn't use physx, the game killed GPUs enough.

Yes, in GPU bound games, offloading extra work to the GPU doesn't make much sense. So thats why you buy a cheap dedicated physx card, and poof, no more problems!

This is why the only games you see using gpu physx are games that are not that impressive or demanding in the graphics department, so there is performance to spare. For a cutting edge title like BF3 or the first Crysis, it would of been too much, particularly with the vast extent of physics used in those games.

You don't consider Metro 2033 to be cutting edge? Metro 2033 has hardware accelerated physx, and it was a graphical power house.

Further, gpu physx is never going to land in a major multiplayer title like BF3 for the same reasons mentioned before. It would be hard to take advantage of blowing out a wall with your tank to shoot the guy inside when your system is slowed to a crawl while the gpu physx calculates out a million useless fragments on the floor.

If you're playing at GPU bound settings, you'd have to get a dedicated physx card. Thats what I did, since I play at 2560x1600.

 

[ViRGE]

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.

 

[Carfax83]

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.

So the game has no HW accelerated physx component?

 

[Grooveriding]

Well since you declined to comment on the youtube video I posted again, I take it that you must find it impressive



I don't know what would give you this impression, since Crysis wasn't particularly CPU dependent. I recall playing Crysis on my overclocked Q9450 rig back in the day, and I don't recall it ever using anymore than 20% of my CPU, and thats for both game logic and physics set to the max.

Add on to that the fact that a lot of the physics in Crysis is pre-calculated and animated, I don't think modern GPUs with sufficient horsepower would have any problem; especially if the game is being played at 1920x1200 and below with high settings.

BF3 uses a lot more CPU and GPU than Crysis, but even so, whether or not the physics can be offloaded to the GPU would depend on what the graphical settings were set to.



Yes, in GPU bound games, offloading extra work to the GPU doesn't make much sense. So thats why you buy a cheap dedicated physx card, and poof, no more problems!



You don't consider Metro 2033 to be cutting edge? Metro 2033 has hardware accelerated physx, and it was a graphical power house.



If you're playing at GPU bound settings, you'd have to get a dedicated physx card. Thats what I did, since I play at 2560x1600.

I didn't comment on the video because it was a tech demo again, I knew Eve did not have that in-game, but did not want to bicker on it.

I respect your points. And sure Metro had some very limited use of physx. That game was rough on systems, but for the most part it was the DOF setting that killed frames.

But, the fact remains there is no game that has used gpu physx to create the sort of immersive and game-changing physics we see done on the CPU in games like BF3 and Crysis among others.

It just tanks performance to the point it would not be feasible. The heaviest implementation I've seen of gpu physx was in Mafia 2 and Apex High was a huge performance hit for effects that didn't approach, again, physics done in other titles and better.

I think gpu physx has its place in less visually impressive games that aren't impressive graphics powerhouses where there is some spare gpu power to throw around. Still is definitely alpha technology basically being tested and funded by nvidia card purchases.

If it ever approaches the more impressive and game-changing physics seen on the CPU without a performance hit, or if it manages to exceed them in an impressive way to justify its current performance hit; it will be worth taking notice of.

In its current state nvidia should be paying us to use it while they try to make it work, rather than the other way around.