Physx is just a gimmick.

[reallyscrued]

Ok, if the smoke has cleared, lets move on.

The Akham Asylum video does indeed look like nVidia marketing. We had destructible environments in Half Life 2, sparks in Doom 3 , steam/fog in a million games, without the need for PhysX. It seems they are shorthanding people without nV cards since they COMPLETELY REMOVE the damn cloth from the ceiling, the fog from the stairs, and the papers from the ground. (On second thought, why the hell are there so many papers on the ground anyway?)

I'm betting someone will come out with a patch that allows the things to be rendered no matter what kind of hardware you have. Batman Arkham Asylum HQ mod. Woot.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: Fox5
Also, the primary difference I've seen in physx and the physics engines that came before is weight modeling. Objects in physx have weight.

Take a look at red faction guerilla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ofYAlaikYA

Looks tight....

....I knew I shouldn't have bought a dual-core.

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: apoppin
features removed?
- i think not .. you Radeon cannot run that game's physX [period]

PhysX looks a hell of a lot better in Batman than your silly example of shorts - your video card is well suited for console ports

I got to agree with Scholzpdx, that the Batman PhysX demo has just plain removed features that would work fine on most current CPUs. It a clear case where Nvidia is marketing the need for GPU PhysX, and they paid extra for these effects, but don't fall for the hype.

Just looking at Mirror's Edge for an example, all the GPU effects except the glass work just fine on only 2 threads. Now looking at the Batman demo I see the same thing where most of the effects should work fine except more than likely the destructible floor tile.

The end result is you either have enough CPU power to run all the GPU PhysX effects or you get nothing ( not even static banners. )

QFT. The vast majority of the PhysX features could have easily been put into the game for everyone to see (I have an nVidia rig as well as an ATI rig). This is just nVidia getting developers to cut and hold content for their hardware. :thumbsdown:

 

[thilanliyan]

Here's a cool fluid demo that I think runs on the CPU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Q_jyIU&feature=related

I don't know if this can actually be used in games though...although they do state it can be used in a bunch of 3D Studio programs.

 

[AmberClad]

If you guys don't agree with someone's opinion, you're always free to refute their opinions with facts. Posting benchmarks results would be one way. Flaming, throwing around insults and profanity is not acceptable. Now, if anyone else wishes to dispute the issue, take it to PM instead of derailing the thread. That goes for everyone.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[Henrah]

Originally posted by: thilan29
Here's a cool fluid demo that I think runs on the CPU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Q_jyIU&feature=related

I don't know if this can actually be used in games though...although they do state it can be used in a bunch of 3D Studio programs.

Very cool! But yes, like you said, it's not for real-time games.

(I have Max 9. Might get RealFlow4. Looks like a lot of fun!)

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: apoppin

PhysX looks a hell of a lot better in Batman than your silly example of shorts - your video card is well suited for console ports

How does 'attacking' Scholzpdx's videocard for lack of gpu power have anything to do with the discussion of whether PhysX effects can be programmed and replicated in CPU code?

The point being made in this thread is that the so called "special" physx effects can likely be added to a game and run on a quad core processor since they aren't dramatic enough to utilize say 240 stream processors of a GTX275 just to see the characters cape move realistically.

The bigger issue at hand though is that the market is becoming segregated because we may eventually be forced to choose a graphics card vendor based on the direction game developers take with PhysX vs. Havoc. If suddenly PhysX becomes the major determining factor in games, we will all say hi to GF12 at $650 (GTX 280 at $650 June 2008 anyone?).

The industry needs to move towards a unified standard so that gamers benefit from increased details and effects from added physics. This shouldnt' be a fight between NV and ATI since that actually hurts gamers. The focus should be on how can games be made better for everyone. Havoc and PhysX should be more like DirectX and Open GL. Right now there is no AND. This is also why the adoption for incorporating physics in games is so slow.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: apoppin

PhysX looks a hell of a lot better in Batman than your silly example of shorts - your video card is well suited for console ports

How does 'attacking' Scholzpdx's videocard for lack of gpu power have anything to do with the discussion of whether PhysX effects can be programmed and replicated in CPU code?

The point being made in this thread is that the so called "special" physx effects can likely be added to a game and run on a quad core processor since they aren't dramatic enough to utilize say 240 stream processors of a GTX275 just to see the characters cape move realistically.

Oh I think 16 to 32 sp's would be enough to make a difference. No need for 240.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Red Faction has a lot of destructable environments, but I don't know if I'd say it's a good example of physics simulations(not that they aren't cool and couldn't be used more often in games). Check out when they blow up a bridge in that clip as a quick example, the chunks just fall straight down, staying level. Cool? Sure. Physical simulation? Not exactly. Not knocking the game or the engine in any way, they absolutely did what they were going for and for what it is accurate physics really wouldn't add much at all.

We had destructible environments in Half Life 2, sparks in Doom 3 , steam/fog in a million games, without the need for PhysX

You are absolutely right, we had environments that fell apart in nicely scripted ways and fog we clipped through. The difference with a physics simulation is how things respond to interaction, not just that some things can respond to physical interaction(and in the case of fog, it doesn't even respond without a physics simulation running).

This is just nVidia getting developers to cut and hold content for their hardware.

nVidia funded these additions to the game- they did so to promote their products for their customers obviously, and it was absolutely self serving- but this content was built solely for nVidia based PCs.

The point being made in this thread is that the so called "special" physx effects can likely be added to a game and run on a quad core processor since they aren't dramatic enough to utilize say 240 stream processors of a GTX275 just to see the characters cape move realistically.

Well have ATi pay developers to do that then and we can see for ourselves. We have heard comparable things about games like Mirror's Edge and it turns out it was very misguided. The effects people are looking at may not seem like much, but the fog rolling off of your body in particular is going to crush a CPU, I don't think people appreciate how complex that is.

 

[SirPauly]

I don't know, personally have a desire to see more dynamic aspects in games either through advanced CPU or GPU physics. Have nothing against a company trying to promote their technologies and actually a good thing. If nVidia desires to spend resources -- it's their resources to spend the way they see fit.

I like realistic liquids, cloth, cloth that rips, more particles, particles that react to the environment, smoke and steam that react to the environments and looking forward to many more rigid bodies and much more destructible effects. Give developers the tools and hardware and to see what their imaginations may offer.

 

[terentenet]

@Ben, very true. While in NBA 2K9 we can see cloth move, it moves by a script, not by physics. So everything in non-physics games can move as well, just scripted and not very realistical.
As Ben said, Physx add interaction and make the game more interesting. Passing through the same place 10 times will cause a different motion to different objects in the scene. The paper will not always move the same way, the cloth will not move the same, will not rip in the same place and will hang differently depending on the ripping point.
While I am sure all this can be done by the CPU, tests have shown us that a modern GPU can make calculations many times faster than any highly overclocked quad core CPU. Why waste one out of four CPU cores on Physx and sometimes even that wouldn't be enough, when you can waste 32, maybe 64 shader processors from a GPU's 240 and even have room for more?
Of course, it would be just fair to let players decide what details they want in game, so even if you don't have an Nvidia card to process the Physx, let it be processed by the CPU. Performance would most likely be decreased... but each to their own.

 

[Henrah]

Originally posted by: terentenet
Of course, it would be just fair to let players decide what details they want in game, so even if you don't have an Nvidia card to process the Physx, let it be processed by the CPU. Performance would most likely be decreased... but each to their own.

I agree. That would be very fair. I hope developers will offer this. +1

 

[SirPauly]

Zogrim is a very passionate person that has a PhysX web-site and has made these comparison videos of some of the PhysX titles:

Sacred2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK7BkiNboRU

Mirrors Edge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...wMTQ2k&feature=related

Cryostasis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufpPwho9Ec

Batman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI

Darkest of Days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfm_Qr6RP8

 

[MarcVenice]

So, having played Batman on my HD 4890's, without physx ofcourse, and having seen the youtube video with Physx, I still must say im not very impressed. Ill start with the most ridiculous thing, the sparks. Nuff said. The banners, lol. Now, the cape, I can remember games where the cape would move more or less exactly the same, once again not impressed at all. More impressive were the tiles, now if something would actually become really destructable and add to the gameplay, I'd say were heading in the right direction. The fog, nice touch, and it can add to the atmosphere. In outdoor games for example it could be even cooler, when the sun comes up etc?

But, to do a REAL apples to apples comparison, I'll bring home a GTX295 and fire up batmang again. Then I'll report back again and see if I changed my opinion on aforementioned physx add-ons.

 

[thilanliyan]

About the Arkham Asylum demo, you can play WITH PhysX even without the nVidia card but it becomes pretty slow in certain places such as when there's smoke. The only thing I didn't like with the tiles part was that if you aimed the batarang or whatever it's called at the juction between tiles, it always missed and hit ONE tile and that got knocked off. I know this is anal but I wanna see several tiles get knocked off if I hit the junction!!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: apoppin
features removed?
- i think not .. you Radeon cannot run that game's physX [period]

PhysX looks a hell of a lot better in Batman than your silly example of shorts - your video card is well suited for console ports

I got to agree with Scholzpdx, that the Batman PhysX demo has just plain removed features that would work fine on most current CPUs. It a clear case where Nvidia is marketing the need for GPU PhysX, and they paid extra for these effects, but don't fall for the hype.

Just looking at Mirror's Edge for an example, all the GPU effects except the glass work just fine on only 2 threads. Now looking at the Batman demo I see the same thing where most of the effects should work fine except more than likely the destructible floor tile.

The end result is you either have enough CPU power to run all the GPU PhysX effects or you get nothing ( not even static banners. )

*You* guys are saying it has features removed for the Radeon cards just because ATi can render smoke
- You keep saying. "it should work"
:roll:

yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: apoppin
*You* guys are saying it has features removed for the Radeon cards just because ATi can render smoke
- You keep saying. "it should work"
:roll:

yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

Think about it, though - how hard would it have been for them to just have static versions of all those effects for when PhysX is disabled? Games have had less precise but visually similar versions of these effects for years. I have to say I found that video amusing - turn off PhysX and the smoke/steam, cloth, sparks, and broken tile disappear completely. They could've easily had static steam that doesn't interact with the player, static banners (or banners that move, but not as fluidly), sparks that fall out in predefined arcs, and tile that breaks in fixed patterns.

 

[SirPauly]

I hear what you're saying but personally desire the particles to react to their environments -- bounce off things and many of them. Smoke and steam flow and react to their environments.

The key that is missing to all of this is rigid bodies to me and a lot of them for maybe some gamers to actually take notice in my mind set. It's a combination thing to me where a combination of fluids, softbodies, particles and rigid-bodies may transform scripts and static game-play but this takes time.

All in steps - every new effect is another step to me. Yeah, it's dynamic paper or cloth that moves more realistic or glass that shatters and drops more realistic but it all helps in a subtle way.

If gamers truly desire realism and improved game-play - Physics should really help a lot as we move forward if one can separate the politics between Intel, Amd/ATI and nvidia.

Dynamic is a great thing to me. I don't fault nVidia for trying to be aggressive here at least they're putting their resources where their mouth is. It's up to nVidia to try to convince people and they have their work cut out for them. Let's see what they can do.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: apoppin
*You* guys are saying it has features removed for the Radeon cards just because ATi can render smoke
- You keep saying. "it should work"
:roll:

Well as I pointed out Nvidia did pay for these extra effects, but the point is some of these effects can be done over the CPU.
- You keep saying you played Mirror's Edge "then you would know what I mean"
:roll:

yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

PhysX on the CPU or the GPU looks the same.
- well unless your drunk
:beer:

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

No it just runs faster on the GPU. Try with Arkham Asylum...you'll see the same effects but it will be slow.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: apoppin
*You* guys are saying it has features removed for the Radeon cards just because ATi can render smoke
- You keep saying. "it should work"
:roll:

Well as I pointed out Nvidia did pay for these extra effects, but the point is some of these effects can be done over the CPU.
- You keep saying you played Mirror's Edge "then you would know what I mean"
:roll:

yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

PhysX on the CPU or the GPU looks the same.
- well unless your drunk
:beer:

It has been demonstrated however, time and time again, that the exact same effects run on a CPU often brings it to it's knees. I understand you do not like the idea of physics run on the GPU because that current technology belongs to Nvidia. But what in the heck is the name of the tune you'll be singing along to when ATI finally runs physics on their GPUs? It's got to happen eventually. We can see PhysX progressing more and more. Little steps. More titles. physics in future games will only get heavier and heavier as the next dev takes it to the next level.

Is there a way to run with PhysX on CPU only in all of those titles? Do we have to use an ATI GPU to force PhysX onto the CPU? Or is the option no longer available in those titles?
Not sure. But in previous tests that I have seen, the CPU chokes pretty hard on those calculations.

I wonder how an i7 would fare if all PhysX calculations could be made to run 6 cores (2 physical and 4 logical due to HT) 100%. I think it would do better, but still no where near what probably even a 16sp 8400GS could crunch. IMHO.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
even a 16sp 8400GS could crunch.

This is OT but I think you mentioned the 8400GS no longer works with PhysX. Why is that? Just curious.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: apoppin
*You* guys are saying it has features removed for the Radeon cards just because ATi can render smoke
- You keep saying. "it should work"
:roll:

yet PhysX definitely looks better with PhysX hardware
- unless you are looking through rose colored glasses and denying what you see

Think about it, though - how hard would it have been for them to just have static versions of all those effects for when PhysX is disabled? Games have had less precise but visually similar versions of these effects for years. I have to say I found that video amusing - turn off PhysX and the smoke/steam, cloth, sparks, and broken tile disappear completely. They could've easily had static steam that doesn't interact with the player, static banners (or banners that move, but not as fluidly), sparks that fall out in predefined arcs, and tile that breaks in fixed patterns.

i did think about it

i would say it is *impossible* .. considering it is a twiimtbp game
- they don't give a CRAP about Havok and what *can* be done with the CPU [and isn't being done, anywhere]

the whole point is .. never mind what *can* be POSSIBLY done; i am looking at what IS done
- and the people with Radeons don't get the effects that the GeForce people do

... slow-mo .. slo-schmo .. who cares? - it doesn't look right with a Radeon


IF you want to play BAA the way it is meant to be played ,,, THEN Nvidia has seen to it that the people with GeForce get better physics [period]

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
It has been demonstrated however, time and time again, that the exact same effects run on a CPU often brings it to it's knees.

Not all the effect's but some of them. In Mirror's edge it was the glass, and even then it only look like one thread was used for the PhysX calculations.

I understand you do not like the idea of physics run on the GPU because that current technology belongs to Nvidia.

Keys I really don't care if nvidia or the next guy owns PhysX. I just don't see anything positive coming for these titles that look like their removing effects to help market GPU PhysX.

Is there a way to run with PhysX on CPU only in all of those titles?

The real question is can we control what PhysX effect to enable? The problem with that again is nvidia can't showcase that much of a difference if they allow it.

Do we have to use an ATI CPU to force PhysX onto the CPU?

Is this a serious question?

Or is the option no longer available in those titles? Not sure. But in previous tests that I have seen, the CPU chokes pretty hard on those calculations.

From what I've seen some effects are doable, but not all. In Mirror's Edge only the glass causes a problem, when I look at my CPU usage it max 50% so half of my CPU was unused.

I wonder how an i7 would fare if all PhysX calculations could be made to run 6 cores (2 physical and 4 logical due to HT) 100%. I think it would do better, but still no where near what probably even a 16sp 8400GS could crunch. IMHO.

This should give you some idea what it would look like, and that with CPU at 100% usage with CUDA and without.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/978/3/
GeForce 9800 GTX+ = 3 minutes 53 seconds @ 100% CPU load
Intel Core i7 965 = 4 minutes 31 seconds @ 100% CPU load

 

[SirPauly]

The people that do like PhysX, well, like myself, may see the PhysX glass half full and the people that don't like PhysX well, like some others, may see the PhysX glass half empty and away we go, hehe! Isn't if fun though, hehe?! Spirited debate is actually healthy to me.

It's all about making the scene we play in more dynamic and how the environments react to the player through game-play, immersion and realism. This is what I hope for and trying to learn as I go. Are you guys happy with the way games are? I'm not and so glad it is starting now and taking these steps. It's not totally mature yet and may not be for everyone for many reasons but it's starting and that's a great thing to me.

Im so looking forward to content offered by PhysX -- Havok -- Compute Shader -- OpenCL -- Cuda. See, I don't pick and choose the vehicles -- like them all because they all have potential to improve things dynamically.

Edit: Typo's -- always those frigg'n typo's, hehe, and need to learn to use Preview!