Originally Posted by shadow001
Funny,and here i though that when i played the beta of battlefield bad company 2 for instance,and can pretty much knock down anything from fences to,cement walls and trees or even bring an entire house down,and do it in any order i wish,with whatever weapon i want,that it's pretty good physics calculations going on.
And it doesn't require a GPU for physics either,it's all done with the CPU...
So your argument for GPU accelerated physics was?
What physics are you talking about? You can destroy the scenery in Bad Company 2 but it just disappears. If you blow up a wall there aren't pieces of wall laying around, there is just an explosion effect and a hole.
There really isn't that much going on in the game in the physics area.
Crysis had FAR more physics interactions without having deformable terrain.
The real benefit of Physx comes from visual effects that react realistically but don't effect the game play (since not everyone will have hardware Physx support). It has nothing to do with small numbers of large physical objects reacting because that's easy for a CPU to handle. When you have hundreds of thousands of particle effects bouncing around and interacting with the scenery though, you need to have something similar to a GPU to process it all. Water, smoke, sparks, debris... that is what physx is for.
Crysis and Flatout 2 are perfect examples of what kind of physics a CPU is good at (hundreds of medium to large objects in a scene that actually interact and effect the player's movement), but neither have realistic liquid physics, volumetric smoke or particles that bounce off of the scenery. Things like that are just too much for most CPUs, yet a GT 240 or 9600GT would barely break a sweat if used as a dedicated Physx card.