Physx is just a gimmick.

[Fox5]

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

Lots of destructible stuff, but nothing that indicates whether it models weight.

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.

It does depend on the complexity being used. Most physx effects were accomplished to some extent on last gen hardware.
The splinter cell games had cloth physics (with a much lower mess, more akin to what's in that nba game), sparking electronics can be static animations, and in general things can be even lower res approximations or faked and get the same visual impact.

But right now, physx is still being added as an afterthought. We need games that really take advantage of it. I've seen more impressive physx demonstrations from unreal tournament 3 custom maps than I have from real games. So far games are offering interactive effects that do little or nothing more than static animations. Besides that, current day cpus are capable of handling hundreds of interactive bodies in real time (especially if you take advantage of a quad core), the only things in the games that couldn't be done on the cpu is the fog. Depending on the mesh density, the cloth might be a problem, but the meshes could easily be scaled down.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Fox5

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

Lots of destructible stuff, but nothing that indicates whether it models weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL2KrV9YJmo

 

[SirPauly]

Hehe, I take it this is what you desire to see?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

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.

Yes, the new 190 drivers minimum requirement for PhysX on the GPU is 32 sp's. Used to be 16 with the 180's.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Fox5

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

Lots of destructible stuff, but nothing that indicates whether it models weight.

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.

It does depend on the complexity being used. Most physx effects were accomplished to some extent on last gen hardware.
The splinter cell games had cloth physics (with a much lower mess, more akin to what's in that nba game), sparking electronics can be static animations, and in general things can be even lower res approximations or faked and get the same visual impact.

But right now, physx is still being added as an afterthought. We need games that really take advantage of it. I've seen more impressive physx demonstrations from unreal tournament 3 custom maps than I have from real games. So far games are offering interactive effects that do little or nothing more than static animations. Besides that, current day cpus are capable of handling hundreds of interactive bodies in real time (especially if you take advantage of a quad core), the only things in the games that couldn't be done on the cpu is the fog. Depending on the mesh density, the cloth might be a problem, but the meshes could easily be scaled down.

it takes time to fully integrate something new into a game engine
- i am impressed with the speed with what Nvidia has accomplished this - so far - and i wonder what the naysayers will say next year when we have games that look like the Unreal maps all throughout

i don't see ANY impressive Havok demonstrations of what it has lately done for the CPU
- maybe someone else knows where they are hiding


- this topic title is Bogus - PhysX is no gimmick and there is NO PROOF with the OP's NBA clip that it is

 

[Nemesis 1]

Really Havok not busy. I do believe havok has been working on pyhsics using open CL for some time C++. AMDs dance with havoc is good . Project offsets demo was best I have seen . Metor. I do believe to see what Havoc has been up to won't be along wait after ATI releases DX11 cards. So don't get excited about what Havoc has or hasn't till we see DX 11 cards that can take advantage of it . Games are coming . We won't have long to wait now. The future arrives when it gets here. Soon!

This is really cool stuff. But don't miss observations that we can all make and see. An example I have seen is the companies that intel is sharring tech with . Both ways theirs and intels . The thing that stands out to me is . All these companies are releaseing threading monsters in 2010. I admitt If intel is helping them with compilers or is intel only allowing use of there compiler . But Apple Imagination Intel are going to be releasing some threading monsters here shortly . It also funny . Both Apple and Intel have bought more Imagination stock . Intel now owns 24% and Apple uped its share to 14% .

I really like imagination for 1 reason . NV ION . NV crying about what goes on atom . Hay its intels . They want something differant . Imagination is what they want . Same with Apple . All apple handhelds will use Imagination gpus in 2010 . Atom soc will use imagination in 2010. The 4 processor Imagination is = to the Xbox . They also have 6 cores and 8 cores I believe. Add in lucid hydra and were talking much gpu cpu power.

This really is like it was back at the beginning . Innovation ANEW. Its going to be great for us. ALL of US.

 

[Nemesis 1]

By the way . If any want to make a quick buck . Buy Imagination stock . I sold gold to buy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

The steam\fog in any game I have seen is static. The destructable envionment in HL2 was very limited and weak. Mostly a bunch of cans or one wall you can knock down. Nothing complicated. I hope we are able to move into something much more realistic and complex in the future.

 

[Genx87]

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

OK, what do we see NEW from Havok .. in PC games?


Round 1 - PhysX wins by default; Havok is a no show
{as far as i can see; where is AMD?}

 

[Genx87]

Well Havok is used in games but limited to the CPU. I expect once larrabee shows up it will magically be useable on an Intel GPU. AMD? Well they seem fit to play second fiddle to their biggest competitors. It may not be a bad thing or it could be a terrible thing. It all imo depends on if we get an industry wide standard. If we do then AMD saved themselves the expense of developing their own. If we dont within the next 5 years then they will always be playing catch up and on the outside looking in. The bottom line is if we want complex physics there isnt a CPU out there that can do it to a level a GPU can. Intel knows this, Nvidia knows this. It is just a matter of time before both are going head to head on a GPU in the physics dept.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

OK, what do we see NEW from Havok .. in PC games?


Round 1 - PhysX wins by default; Havok is a no show
{as far as i can see; where is AMD?}

What you say is true upto a point. Right now today! But right now today whats on games doesn't cause immersion its distracts, That sucks. Until immersion its all fluff!

Asking about were AMD Physics is. Is strawmans argument or a red herring either or . We all KNOW AMD said NO to PX. So thats were AMD pyhsics is at . Which you already new.

AMD pyhsics arrives with DX 11 . We all know this .

Right now today not 1 game is immersive. Crysis is nice to look at . But immersive NOT. The PX I have seen is OK but If it wasn't there I wouldn't miss it. Its just to early . 2010 is what we all been waiting on . Shows about to begin.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

OK, what do we see NEW from Havok .. in PC games?


Round 1 - PhysX wins by default; Havok is a no show
{as far as i can see; where is AMD?}

What you say is true upto a point. Right now today! But right now today whats on games doesn't cause immersion its distracts, That sucks. Until immersion its all fluff!

Asking about were AMD Physics is. Is strawmans argument or a red herring either or . We all KNOW AMD said NO to PX. So thats were AMD pyhsics is at . Which you already new.

AMD pyhsics arrives with DX 11 . We all know this .

Right now today not 1 game is immersive. Crysis is nice to look at . But immersive NOT. The PX I have seen is OK but If it wasn't there I wouldn't miss it. Its just to early . 2010 is what we all been waiting on . Shows about to begin.

yes, right now .. *today* .. we know a bunch of Saviors are coming back also


*Why* does AMD's physics arrive with DX11?
- do we know there is a dedicated area on die for it; or are they allowing a 2nd or 3rd GPU to process it as nVidia does?

AMD has been *talking* about Physics forever .. what makes DX11 any different?
- do you have links to any of this you promise?; you have been promising a "show" for many years [and Lilith ain't coming back - ever]


a few "Immersive" recent games:

Chronicles of Riddick : AoDA
STALKER: Clear Sky
Fallout3
TheWitcher
CoJ: BiB
X3:TC
FC2
Arma2

 

[BenSkywalker]

The bottom line is if we want complex physics there isnt a CPU out there that can do it to a level a GPU can. Intel knows this, Nvidia knows this. It is just a matter of time before both are going head to head on a GPU in the physics dept.

The bothersome thing to me about that quote is its' accuracy. Why are we waiting for Intel to give nVidia competition? We went through this once before, waiting for ATi to give nVidia competition because 3dfx refused to. Really hoping this doesn't play out the same way.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

OK, what do we see NEW from Havok .. in PC games?


Round 1 - PhysX wins by default; Havok is a no show
{as far as i can see; where is AMD?}

What you say is true upto a point. Right now today! But right now today whats on games doesn't cause immersion its distracts, That sucks. Until immersion its all fluff!

Asking about were AMD Physics is. Is strawmans argument or a red herring either or . We all KNOW AMD said NO to PX. So thats were AMD pyhsics is at . Which you already new.

AMD pyhsics arrives with DX 11 . We all know this .

Right now today not 1 game is immersive. Crysis is nice to look at . But immersive NOT. The PX I have seen is OK but If it wasn't there I wouldn't miss it. Its just to early . 2010 is what we all been waiting on . Shows about to begin.

yes, right now .. *today* .. we know a bunch of Saviors are coming back also


*Why* does AMD's physics arrive with DX11?
- do we know there is a dedicated area on die for it; or are they allowing a 2nd or 3rd GPU to process it as nVidia does?

AMD has been *talking* about Physics forever .. what makes DX11 any different?
- do you have links to any of this you promise?; you have been promising a "show" for many years [and Lilith ain't coming back - ever]


a few "Immersive" recent games:

Chronicles of Riddick : AoDA
STALKER: Clear Sky
Fallout3
TheWitcher
CoJ: BiB
X3:TC
FC2
Arma2

Immersion has nothing to do with graphics, period.

If a game is good, it can be immersive. Anyone ever play Zelda on the Nintendo? That was an immersive game. Same with Baldur's gate, TIE Fighter, the list goes on.

If you rely on graphics to be immersed in game, IMHO, you are not a gamer.

 

[Nemesis 1]

LOL . Lithith . Your like all men . How dare a women claim equality! Mysteries remain mystries to the blind. Your view is same view as the HRCC/ JEWS/ Moslems. LOL!

You didn't see AMDs dance. Go utube . What part of AMD using CL with Havoc don't You understand. CL arrivies with DX11.

Look been good thread . Don't muddy up waters. You have already used this tactic on another poster. I won't play as I would be banned and you wouldn't . But your NO match for me. Larrabee gets here when it gets here . Imagination gets here when it gets here . DX 11 and CL gets here when it gets here . The promised show starts when they arrive . What part of that don't you understand?

 

[BenSkywalker]

You didn't see AMDs dance. Go utube . What part of AMD using CL with Havoc don't You understand. CL arrivies with DX11.

OpenCL is out and fully supported by nVidia already. We have all heard plenty of talk for long enough. PhysX is shipping games on an increasingly frequent basis- the alternatives don't even have consumer support for demos. Honestly, it's time to put up or shut up.

 

[Dribble]

For whatever reason Ati is behind the game right now, behind in gpu compute (stream isn't really there yet), behind in physics (as discussed), no 3d vision equivalent, behind in handhelds (no tegra equivalent). While they have done well in desktop graphics (fast cards, first to DX10.1) they really have gone off the boil as far as innovation is concerned. Perhaps it's the influence of AMD + big debts mean less money to burn?

It's a shame really - if for example they had an equivalent to physx in use then both companies would probably have agreed to stop fighting and use some combined standard by now, which would have meant better physics for all of us. It's only because nvidia are the only ones that they can continue to make gpu physics an nvidia only thing. Instead they really have their head in the sand - I mean havok belongs to Intel, Intel don't like AMD any more then nvidia. When havok arrives it'll be for larrabee, if it runs on ati cards it'll only be because intel for now allows it to happen, it certainly won't be optimised for ati or written with them in mind.

Instead of standing up and fighting for their place they seem to be happy to sit at Intel's feet begging for scraps, safe in the knowledge Intel will give them just enough to stay in business (to keep monopolies people of Intel's back).

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

Right now I would say it is shaping up to be a fight between Havok(Intel) and PhysX(Nvidia). I'd prefer a standard API in directX. But if this is how we get to that point so be it. Somebody has to get the ball rolling. Pretty static graphics are getting old real fast.

OK, what do we see NEW from Havok .. in PC games?


Round 1 - PhysX wins by default; Havok is a no show
{as far as i can see; where is AMD?}

What you say is true upto a point. Right now today! But right now today whats on games doesn't cause immersion its distracts, That sucks. Until immersion its all fluff!

Asking about were AMD Physics is. Is strawmans argument or a red herring either or . We all KNOW AMD said NO to PX. So thats were AMD pyhsics is at . Which you already new.

AMD pyhsics arrives with DX 11 . We all know this .

Right now today not 1 game is immersive. Crysis is nice to look at . But immersive NOT. The PX I have seen is OK but If it wasn't there I wouldn't miss it. Its just to early . 2010 is what we all been waiting on . Shows about to begin.

yes, right now .. *today* .. we know a bunch of Saviors are coming back also


*Why* does AMD's physics arrive with DX11?
- do we know there is a dedicated area on die for it; or are they allowing a 2nd or 3rd GPU to process it as nVidia does?

AMD has been *talking* about Physics forever .. what makes DX11 any different?
- do you have links to any of this you promise?; you have been promising a "show" for many years [and Lilith ain't coming back - ever]


a few "Immersive" recent games:

Chronicles of Riddick : AoDA
STALKER: Clear Sky
Fallout3
TheWitcher
CoJ: BiB
X3:TC
FC2
Arma2

Immersion has nothing to do with graphics, period.

If a game is good, it can be immersive. Anyone ever play Zelda on the Nintendo? That was an immersive game. Same with Baldur's gate, TIE Fighter, the list goes on.

If you rely on graphics to be immersed in game, IMHO, you are not a gamer.

I'm not going to argue that a great game one may be immersed but with great graphics with a great game one may be immersed more. Improved graphics helps create more immersion to me because it offers tools that may drive realism, atmosphere, mood, emotions and story-telling. It's a combination of factors and what you're doing to me is offering extremism for both sides without any middle ground.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Look you keep saying the saviour is coming . playing your little games that amount to distractions only.

Your right . Its not here thats a fact ,. But another fact, Whats here that which someone is dispertly trying to push . So they show junk. and say look at this . I loked . Saw nothing good . Idid see posiabilities tho . Thats all I have seen .

Right now today after 1 year show better than what project offset has shown . Go get it lets see it . Yep your right that was only demo . A 1 year old demo that clobbers anything shown by anyone demo or gameplay, But its all lies right. In last 3 years 1 company has not told 1 lie as far as products go . And thats Intel . So I tend to pay attention to what there showing and saying . We have pheneom at 50% faster than X2 on AMD slides . We all know how that turned out . ATI with the R600. NV can of whoop ass . and Big bang and big bang 2. LOL.

You choose to believe what you want . But what my eyes have seen in games is not what I want or exspect. NOW Metor demo had what I want and exspect . Till I see something like that . ALL fail.

 

[yusux]

I see it as an positive addition, thought if every game developer uses Crysis engine, & every computer has a quadcore we wouldn't need Physx.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The bottom line is if we want complex physics there isnt a CPU out there that can do it to a level a GPU can. Intel knows this, Nvidia knows this. It is just a matter of time before both are going head to head on a GPU in the physics dept.

The bothersome thing to me about that quote is its' accuracy. Why are we waiting for Intel to give nVidia competition? We went through this once before, waiting for ATi to give nVidia competition because 3dfx refused to. Really hoping this doesn't play out the same way.

Some seem to not understand what they been told . Maybe there is other problem .

Lets try this . I understand it perfectly .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFi6y1Ap-c

 

[BenSkywalker]

Right now today after 1 year show better than what project offset has shown .

Crysis, Cryostasis, GT5, GoW2, GoW3, UC2- you can list a slew from both the PC and even the consoles. Project Offset, to be kind, was a mediocre tech demo. You want to impress people, get some hands on game time to the public. Anything less is so much BS at this point. Project Offset to date has shown the public as much gameplay as Duke Nukem Forver and should be taken just as seriously. Put up or shut up.

NV can of whoop ass .

I think anyone not utterly psychotic would agree upon the fact that the GTX295 opens at least a can of whoop ass on Intel's latest graphics chip we can acquire. If Intel was too scared, too weak, or too inept to step into the ring that is their issue. I see both nVidia and ATi in the ring ready to shred them to little tiny bits. As of right now, the can of whoop ass has been without a doubt delivered not only by nV, but also ATi who didn't even need to make the comment. Intel has been pounded into the ground in the graphics market by sub $30 nV and ATi parts and handily. They have proven so far they can run off at the mouth in the graphics arena, nothing more. Put up or shut up.

You choose to believe what you want .

I believe reality, not fairy tales. We have tons of shipping game to go along with tons of shipping hardware to play it on. If Intel has anything at all, stop talking and start showing. The years of inane running off at the mouth have proven absolutely nothing. Playable game on playable hardware or go in the corner and cry quietly

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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).

...Right. And my question was...why couldn't they have just left the nicely scripted ways environments blew apart and keep the fog we could clip through when PhysX is not enabled? But then make them realtime when PhysX *is* enabled?

That's what makes it an nV showcase.

 

[sbuckler]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
...Right. And my question was...why couldn't they have just left the nicely scripted ways environments blew apart and keep the fog we could clip through when PhysX is not enabled? But then make them realtime when PhysX *is* enabled?

That's what makes it an nV showcase.

The fact that it doesn't work on ati hardware is more ati's fault for not having anything like physx and 3d vision, and not trying to get developers to use it.

Fundamentally this is a console game - they produced it to look as good on a console as possible. Nvidia paid and/or helped a lot to add physx and 3d vision. If you have a 3d vision set-up then I bet this game will look amazing. Being as how pc gaming is taking such a bashing from the consoles, gotta at least give nvidia a well done for making it better on a pc, even if they weren't nice enough to make their competitors cards use the features too.