View Single Post
Old 03-23-10, 11:08 AM   #32
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 575
Default Re: I have seen the future....

Originally Posted by Toss3 View Post
That graph is flat out wrong.

Here's the list of all of the titles currently using Havok. If you do a simple search you'll see that there are ~124 PC titles in there. All in all there's over 200.

Note here that I'm not saying in any way that Havok is better than PhysX, because clearly it isn't. Instead of saying "Havok" I could have said "physics run on the CPU".

I'm just saying that "GPU assisted physics" is a feature nvidia currently are touting as a major advantage of their cards and I'm just pointing out that that argument bares no weight at all. It's currently only being used for things that could be done on a CPU 10 years ago, but now suddenly require a gpu to run. Then they limit the performance of PhysX on CPUs to make their cards look better. See where I am going? Nvidia being the only one having PhysX is only hurting the market, not advancing it.

I would very much like to see future titles make use of the PhysX effects shown in the plethora of different demos out there, but with only one camp having access to those features I don't see it happening.
You want to list out when those game came out in the market, Xbox games stopped coming out in in late 2005. You still think that graph is still wrong? If you look at 2006 and up, which is what those graphs are showing, the number of Havok titles for PC goes down pretty fast. This is when Havok was the only solid physics engine out there prior to Novedex

What are you talking about now? First you want to talk about PC only, the list you just showed me a list that isn't PC only. What do you exactly want to talk about? Because throwing a billion darts at a board you are bound to hit something correctly.

There is only one camp because ATi doesn't get off their butt to do anything, they can talk and show powerpoint slides all they want it, buts till they actually get some decent opencl and direct compute drivers and with bullet with some games, they don't have much of a choice (yeah they aren't in the greatest shape right now).

Funny thing is games 10 years ago had very little outside of collision detection based on bound box, even games 5 years ago, same old collision detection based on pre poly (acutally just more precise bound box based on skeletons), now we are doing per poly with physX, see the difference in escalation.

When you really want to talk about things like this, guys really read some basic game programming books, don't need to know the real thing and make a game, just the basics and history have how games have evoloved from a tech point of view. To me when people put out for the most part pointless arguements based on crap knowledge, guess what.........
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote