View Single Post
Old 04-06-10, 01:38 AM   #48
XMAN52373
Registered User
 
XMAN52373's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Default Re: Physx Games Coming out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by noko View Post
Rollo, fermi is not strong enough by itself to run PhysX and the game Metro 2033? Must have a separate PhysX dedicated card? That is way beyond what most folks would do. Kinda cool but misses by a mile except for a niche market.

Developers will probably get tired of PhysX anyways and make their own physics routines using OpenCL or Direct Compute and pass it along, maybe a bullet game will finally come out. I am glad Nvidia is pushing PhysX and seeing developers use it, gives folks an option to have these effects if they want which is good. For me a single 260 card didn't do well with physX and rendering at the same time unless one degrades everything which made PhysX pointless.
Couple things to consider here. For DC, you almost need Microsfot to get involved and to be honest, about as far as I want them involved in gaming is making the API as they have killed off a few good lines of games already because they "got involved in gaming".

For OCL, it still needs a front end such as PhysX to to the stuff. OCL was supposed to be getting worked into Havok, ATI has truely droped that ball. 3 years and 1 demo of a single color water droplet affect on water, yawn.

CryTek who by far has built the best in house physics engine to date, yes it is even better than PhysX(will get into that in a sec), has just upped the anty even more with Cry Engine 2 but sadly no devs are very interested in uing their engines, sad really.

As for PhysX, pay close attention Rollo cause while I like PhysX it has severe draw backs. While PhysX can and does add some very nice and realistic interactive affects to games, the problem is that the devs who use it tend to focus way to much on 1 aspect of it to add 1 or 2 disticnt PhysX features to a game for added eyecandy and fail to go for a more balanced of the same. Examples of what I refer to:
B:AA-Smoke/fog and debris that is interactive and reactionary, but absolutely nothing else
Crostasis-Awesome water affects and some weapon based physics, nothing else
GRAW2-With a patch added some cool environment affects that makes the game replayable and enjoyable, but nothing else
Then there is the game with teh glass and flags, interactive and reactionary but very little else is added to the game.

As one can see from my examples, the focus on one or 2 tings and ignore other aspects that could add even more. Toss in the fact the PhysX SDK is the same for consoles and PCs, they seem to be very lazy in coding for multi core usage for PC but yet take the extra time and effort for consoles. Metro 2033 being the lone exception to date but even it suffers when no dedicated PhysX card is in the machine but is still playable without as multi core WAS coded to work and time takien to make sure it worked.

Now for havok. Havok is yet another physics engine that could be as good as physx IF games that used it wouldn't script 100% of all physics basd stuff and constantly reuse it and call it reactionary. It could also use some GPU support to maybe help that along(see my point on OCL and ATI above).
__________________
C2Q6600@3.3
ASUS GTX570
eVGA 780i SLi AR
8GB DDR2 PC8500
Windows 7 U x64
XMAN52373 is offline   Reply With Quote