Well, he's right in a way. An *ironic* way. In the same way that AMD is 'holding back' Nvidia PhsyX by not liscensing it from them, Nvidia held back tesselation by not getting on board with ATI's propriety 'tru-form' tech way back in the day, and then again during the 2900xt-HD4890 era. Not that I blame either company for not jumping aboard on their competitors propriety tech when the options are 1. adopt it and give their competitor a huge advantage, or 2. don't adopt it because it will die without support from both companies.
Tesselation only took off after it became an industry standard. GPU physics will be the same way, and it's about time someone (*cough* microsoft) went through with it already.
These guys forget it ALWAYS goes both ways. They blame ATI for not adopting Physx but others can blame Nvidia for not adopting Tessellation way back then.
I must be blind, because I can't tell much difference between the PhysX on vs off, on the videos. I'm not a game-player, though, so that is probably why.
Because you hadn't even Googled it. There have been quite a few games that have used it. But, just like PhysX, it was one vendor only, it wasn't typically implemented in a way that was a slam dunk for game improvement.I agree that if all hardware (regardless of vendor) supports the same features then games would more quickly take advantage of said features, but there were ZERO titles that I am aware of with tessellation prior to DX11 but there has been a dozen or so games gpu-accelerated physics. Why was there not even 1 game with tessellation before DX11 came about?
I agree that if all hardware (regardless of vendor) supports the same features then games would more quickly take advantage of said features, but there were ZERO titles that I am aware of with tessellation prior to DX11 but there has been a dozen or so games gpu-accelerated physics. Why was there not even 1 game with tessellation before DX11 came about?
View post # 281 in this thread.
Keys,
The reason people are so hostile towards Physx is because it is being used a marketing tool. It hasn't been providing anything but some additional eye candy, such as debris (which doesn't look realistic anyway), or more realistic cloth movement. Minor improvements in the visual quality which end up costing a ton in performance.
Physx really should be focusing on world interaction, ballistics, cause and effect versus scripted animations. It should make you say, "wow! the game feels (not looks) so much more realistic, I just have to play with physx on" rather than "wtf I lost 40% of my frame rate for some lame debris and cloth?".
Nvidia is using it the wrong way, they are using it for eye candy which is the easiest thing to flaunt in the eyes the customer.
I must be blind, because I can't tell much difference between the PhysX on vs off, on the videos. I'm not a game-player, though, so that is probably why.
You're not blind, the difference is minimal.
The only in your face effect that you can't miss with physx is how it cuts your framerate in half :thumbsdown:
That didn't really work because it worked for him, and not for me. Mine actually got slower when I used my 8800 GTX as the PHYSX Processor, as opposed to taking out the PHYSX and enabling it on the single GPU. mine worked in reverse, where it actually slowed down.
there is supposed to be a new driver (v260) coming out today that will have a "clean install" checkbox... he could use that.
The original Unreal Tournament (as well as the games based off that engine, at least by editing the config file) had tru-form support. Counter-strike also, I think, and probably a few others. I think there were actually quite a few but it wasn't heavily marketed. I only know of TF2 that used the later tesselator (via a command line), although there may be some other obscure ones ou there.
But really, the answer is that Nvidia spent more money, and marketed more heavily. It doesen't really matter in the long run though; games that used the ATI tesselator are like a drop in the bucket compared to games which use PhysX which is again a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of market penetration Glide had... and we all know how that ended. As soon as a strong industry standard emerges that everyone can use, the few developers who use PhysX will dump it en-masse.
Only one that has brought something to the table is NVIDIA
Lol talking about physics marketshare growing.
Stanley tools is the worlds #1 weapons dealer!
Actually it was aegia, nVidia simply bought them out.
but you are correct on most of what you said.
AGIEA's SDK only supported CPU and PPU.
NVIDIA developed the GPU support.
(AFAIR it was with PhysX SDK 2.73)
So in fact I was correct about that part too
No, nvidia recompiled the physX C code that was written for the PPU with their CUDA compiler. The entire porting process (minor modifications were needed) supposedly took them under a month. (although it took longer though before they actually started integrating it into their driver)
And apparently its simple enough to hack the driver to allow it to run on an ATI card as well: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764.html
but both nvidia AND AMD were hostile to the idea
I think Dguy had the right overarching original idea: That its not physx that should be hated on, but the spartan environment of the "non-physx" game when other non-physx games have done so much better on the cpu alone.
Golem showed up and subverted that idea, rightly, with the following thought: For this specific game, if the original console version is no different (in the physics department) than the ATI PC version, then nothing was lost and only what Nvidia paid for was gained for Nvidia card owners and that's all there really is to it (in this case).
So I guess the next question is: Is there a difference between the console version and the ATI PC version?
If there is, we're one step closer to the "Nvidia is a crapbag" side of the argument, and if not then Nvidia is free to do with its dollars to benefit its customers as it sees fit.
Can someone confirm yea or nay on the console issue?
Maybe someday physX will add something valuable to gameplay. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
It seems to me that something is wrong with either the code or the hardware at this time. If adding some stupid effects can drop framerates substantialy on nvidias flagship cards it kinda makes a person wonder....Maybe nvidia makes it that way so even if you purchase flagship cards you still gotta get a dedicated physX card to take advantage of the feature you already purchased anyways!
Define "valuable"..or you just made a poor, useless, subjective fallacy.
/whine "Why does having 1000x more interactive obejcts moving around tax my PC worse than a scripted animation with 100 obejcts in it?
I don't know what world you live in, but in this reality PhysX has gone from 0% market share in Jan 2006 to surpassing Havok's marketshare this year *shrugs*