Lol even on ignore i see wreckages posts in nested quotes...
You do realize wreckage that nvidia is worth HALF of their value from the same period as well? It's called a recession.
Wait, how do I ignore someone? This sounds like an awesome feature.
Anywho, as has been said before, Physx will never take off in a meaningful manner until it becomes an open standard. Judging from Nvidia's track record, ATI/Havok will have an open platform if they really see value in it by that time.
Anywho, as has been said before, Physx will never take off in a meaningful manner until it becomes an open standard. Judging from Nvidia's track record, ATI/Havok will have an open platform if they really see value in it by that time.
Everyone has said this before but people never listen. There are non-Physx games with more meaningful physics effects than anything that has been done with Physx. We were promised YEARS ago that it would change the way we played games. We're all still waiting.
I'm pretty sure physx remains purely cosmetic because devs aren't going to make games only about half their potential userbase can run. Suppose someone makes a revolutionary title based on physx tomorrow and while a great game, it basically requires an nvidia card to run above 25fps due to how physics-heavy it is, what do you think will happen with everyone who has invested into a radeon based rig?
I'd wager that aside from the massive shitstorm and conspiracy theories that nvidia bribed the devs to make it nvidia exclusive or to cripple multicore cpu code, the bottom line would be that it'll probably sell only about half of what it would if it weren't limited to nvidia gpus. Try selling that line to a VC, or anyone depending on their software to sell in order to get paid; the risk/reward just doesn't justify it, especially not nowadays when amd gpus are so overwhelmingly popular.
But it's not like hardware physics is incapable of creating groundbreaking gameplay; heck I recall seeing amazing demos videos of a fps taking place in a giant low-gravity pinball machine from the time of agea cards way long ago and some pretty mindblowing environment destruction from nvidia demos recently. It's just that it's not going to go far commercially unless amd adopts something with give or take the same capabilities as physx, both in the hardware and software support side so the devs can cater to everyone.
I reckon the ball might actually be in amd's court.
I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.
Thumbs down to the devs and Nvidia.
Agreed. Too bad the situation is what it is. Take the money, help sell and promote your creation, etc. Perhaps a reason these "worthless little debris" effects are the only thing Mafia 2 devs incorporated into their GPU Physx lib was because of the huge backlash & community uproar over all the visual content removed by Rocksteady in Batman.
Just for laughs... Why not make the main character visible only when "Nvidia Physx" is set to very high, and an Nvidia GPU is detected via IHV check? Well it's possible, and would probably result in the developer receiving an even LARGER payday. But it wouldn't make any sense, and would open another can of worms just like this thread is doing.
I would almost appreciate a developer totally pushing the envelope with their creative design to really incorporate GPU physics processing into the final product. Not just create a small polygon of random shape and size like in MAFIA2, script it to fall from impact points on entities, and have it react to the floor with a realistic gravity algorithm. Then set 10,000 of them to appear on the screen at the same time, and have their positioning and placement calculated by the GPU (which has much more arithmetic power than a CPU).
I know if someone created this masterpiece im dreaming of, it would only run solely on Nvidia anyway (via GPU 'PHSYX'). I'd probably get a 8800gt or something just to check it out though.
There are some really talented studios out there accomplishing amazing things with HAvOK on a CPU. One of them should really attempt to push the envelope of physics incorporation handled on the GPU - even if its only usable by a small percentage of the gaming community only on one particular platform. It would be nice to see. And, overall, that's a trend Nvidia would like to see come about anyway.
I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.
I totally understand what you are saying but going by what certain people in this thread have said, since Nvidia has so much extra cash at hand, they should help develop a game with great Physx that will WOW us all. I'd definitely sell my 5870 in a heart-beat if there was a game with Physx like we've been shown in demos/videos. As it is right now, it's still gimmicky which is fine but if they truly want Physx to be the de-facto standard, they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.
It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.
It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.
they need to get the ball rolling on some games that actually use Physx in a great way.
Idealism hat on:
Hopefully, there would be more pressure by Intel, AMD with Havok or Bullet, more maturity with OpenCL or Compute so nVidia may port GPU Physics to OpenCL, etc.. I just don't see Intel or AMD signing up for Cuda.
There are a lot of good things in PhysX. Sure would be nice to see more developers and consumers take advantage of it.
The thing is PhysX is not going away. So some people in this thread are just going to have to accept it and buy a card that supports it, or play games with less features enabled. Because PhysX has a software side that is in nearly 100 games and runs on everything from the iPhone to all the consoles. This will keep GPU PhysX alive forever.
Honestly, this looks like another Batman AA kind of deal. You see that kind of immersion from a Call of Duty game without the FPS hit. Adding those stray bullets in say, Havok wouldn't do much performance wise.
"Hey guys, lets take out animations and features that could've easily been there and put them back in for our paying vendor! This is progress!" That's what this is and everyone can see it.
Also, Physx would be a pretty big deal if it wasn't crippled on the CPU side of things. Physx is coded to run on an immensely parallel architecture (G80+ SP's and up), yet only runs on a single core when used on a CPU. That's RIDICULOUS. It obviously spawns at least 32 threads because a 9500gt/8600gts is the minimum, correct? Also it was recommended the GTX 260 be used for Physx? What's that, 192+ threads? So what's stopping it from happening on the CPU side? Oh wait, that wouldn't sell nVidia video cards. Sorry, forgot. Proprietary features FTW? Unless there is a valid explanation for this, nVidia is intentionally crippling Physx for non-nVidia customers when it doesn't have to be. We're at a time where hex-core CPUs cost less than an Ipod. How about un-crippling Physx to actually take advantage of our hardware?
I'm the last to hop on proprietary features. I did play Mirrors Edge on my 8800GTS and it wasn't anything that couldn't have been done in many (if not, most) engines. Just look at NBA 2K10 or NBA live series, the jerseys and net are pretty complex and the jersey/net motions are NOT pre-rendered, yet there isn't a noticeable performance hit. It is usually at 60FPS with any modern dual core and 48xx or 88xx series card.
Wow, just wow. So enthusiasts are to blame for the lack of interesting things being done with PhysX? Seriously? Obviously the game developers don't give a hoot about enthusiasts, they just don't want sell as many units as possible. We *could* have a lot more right now if PhysX wasn't so closed off, going as far as artificially disabling it when an ati card is present in the system. The enthusiasts aren't to blame here, Nvidia is.
It would be cool if they did this, but you see the backlash NV is getting for just adding "some" physics content to a game. Can you imagine a ground up PhysX game that only NV hardware can run properly? I'm not saying this to be funny, but torches and pitchforks would be a factor. And this is unfortunate. We could have had a whole lot more by now.
What I'm saying is, maybe if ATI jumped on board a bit with PhysX, we'd be seeing a whole lot more being done.
I guess no one from the nVidia camp wants to elaborate on why Physx is so crippled on CPUs. It's strikingly obvious. Physx isn't THAT intensive for CPUs. If Physx will halt a 5970 to 30fps while the 460 runs it at 45fps, with Physx only running on one core no less, then the 5970 could run it at least 50fps if Physx was able to run on two cores. Let Physx run on 3 cores? The game could probably run at above playable framerates. This is clearly nVidia oppressing the PC gaming community from features because they didn't buy an nVidia card.
So... it's the fault of every company not named nVidia for declining to use their own engine which after all these years is still nothing more than visual enhancements and not actual physics? And all these "pitchfork-wielding" gamers are also apparently at fault because they decided not to lock themselves into one brand and go with all nVidia hardware?
If you really want this PhysX-only game of yours to become a reality you should be looking at the guys who are sending you free hardware, not blaming the other half of the market that didn't choose nVidia. They (nVidia) only want PhysX to work on their own hardware, why do you think that is? They just want more people to buy more of their own products (a mutual goal shared by all companies with something to sell). The issue is that nVidia tries to mask this under the guise of PhysX, which is not physics by the way, but strictly visual enhancements (which do look nice most of the time).
AMD cards can run PhysX. nVidia says they don't want to have to support their hardware, and that's fine. But they didn't just do that, they (tried to) put in measures to block AMD cards from running it at all. Remember that driver "bug"?