I have seen the future....

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Toss3

You were the one who took up the whole Havok vs PhysX stuff to begin with - I just said that gpu-accelerated PhysX is a gimmick and you still haven't addressed that argument which was the point to begin with. I honestly don't care what physics engine a game uses as long as it doesn't affect the game itself(which is exactly what nvidia's PhysX does).



This has nothing to do with ATI at all. They are not arguing that nvidia should give them PhysX for free. They are just sticking up for the consumers calling nvidia out on the lies they are feeding us. We don't need a gpu to run those effects currently presented in PhysX titles and that is the truth.



Red Faction:


Mirror's Edge:


Just to prove that you don't need a gpu to simulate broken glass. Funny how a game made in 2001 can look better than a game made in 2009.



What are you talking about? No one is saying that gpu accelerated physics would be WORSE. We all know what PhysX is capable of - what we are saying is that it isn't being utilized for anything beyond what could be done on a cpu.

All of these things, you forget that now the glass in Mirror's edge also causes damage to the player, as in per poly collision detection, and also now the amount of object calculations of the glass itself. What am I talking about? The amount of calculations to do these things, aren't just a visual crap shot. This is what you guys are missing, you think game developement is still like the text based games of the 80's? I think you guys think it is. Guess what I've been around long enough to know some of the best things in games, that I like, I don't see them in the best games today, and thats why I still play at times text based games.

You guys want realism in physics, lets go through some simple neutonian fluid dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid

now what were we using in games 5 years ago, were we using physics for water? Whats the difference in calculations amounts? Are we using physics in todays water, yeah on a per poly basis, to show interaction, lets get some real physics involved the increase is in the tens of thousands of increase in calculation amounts and more so because we have to use particles. I don't need to keep posting but a basic understanding is all I'm looking for, if you think physics is easy to implement there are quite alot of implications from design, hardware side that without understanding now computers and games evolve on features, anyone even a two year old can say something is a gimmick. I can say Sh*t my favorite games are wizardary 1, 2, 3 and they still are, and everything since then has been a gimmick with game design is involved.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Well,this is what i'm thinking about getting this year,being the enthusiast user that i am,and i think i'm covered for CPU power for the next couple of years at least,no matter how sophisticated physics get:





Dual socket enthusiast board,costing 600$,and can support 6 core/12 thread CPU's in each socket,for a grand total of 24 threads and with 48 GB of memory in total as a maximum and support for both SLI and crossfire,and unlike standard server boards,it has plenty of options for overclocking too.


Expensive,sure,but problem solved for a long time to come...It's an EVGA classified SR-2 motherboard btw,and it's out now.

Well I'm an enthusiast have a mac pro with 2 quad core xeons at 2.93 ghz with 16gigs of ram, I spend 6 grand total on my computer (with a 30 inch monitor) a year and half back, and I know I don't need to touch my cpu's for another 2 years. Good investment, I know CPU power won't hold me back for a while. I never really cared about SLi or Crossfire. If I did I would probably have gotten a system from titanus or some company like that, back then.

[Rollo]

Hmmm.

My only point in posting this was to note this game kicks ass in DX11 with PhysX- very immersive.

Personally, given the choice between an ATi DX11 card and an NVIDIA DX11 card, I'd buy the NVIDIA card for this game alone. (not to mention all the other games with PhysX I have, and the ones that are still in development)

The thread isn't meant to be about marketshare of PhysX vs Havok, what can be done on cpu and what can't, whether NVIDIA should give ATi users PhysX capability.

This is a very nice game, it would really annoy me if I knew I couldn't see it at it's best after buying a high end graphics card.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

All of these things, you forget that now the glass in Mirror's edge also causes damage to the player, as in per poly collision detection, and also now the amount of object calculations of the glass itself. What am I talking about? The amount of calculations to do these things, aren't just a visual crap shot. This is what you guys are missing, you think game developement is still like the text based games of the 80's? I think you guys think it is. Guess what I've been around long enough to know some of the best things in games, that I like, I don't see them in the best games today, and thats why I still play at times text based games.

You guys want realism in physics, lets go through some simple neutonian fluid dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid

now what were we using in games 5 years ago, were we using physics for water? Whats the difference in calculations amounts? Are we using physics in todays water, yeah on a per poly basis, to show interaction, lets get some real physics involved the increase is in the tens of thousands of increase in calculation amounts and more so because we have to use particles. I don't need to keep posting but a basic understanding is all I'm looking for, if you think physics is easy to implement there are quite alot of implications from design, hardware side that without understanding now computers and games evolve on features, anyone even a two year old can say something is a gimmick. I can say Sh*t my favorite games are wizardary 1, 2, 3 and they still are, and everything since then has been a gimmick with game design is involved.

The point is that we're not even close enough to have enough processing power simulate physics interation properly,the way it happens in real life,while having acceptable performance anyhow....That's the point,so shortcuts have to be taken,which is what developers do in the end.


Push physics to it's logical limits and see Current GPU's dragging along at 1 fps in desktop systems,even enthusiast level setups...No thanks.


Here's the link for the CPU's i'm thinking of using with the above board btw:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...ufacture=Intel

Basically Xeon versions of the i7 920 and can be overclocked to 4 Ghz,and they're only 350$ each and i'd have 16 CPU threads to play with....I'd only upgrade to 6 core/12 thread processors when they get much cheaper of course(1200~1300$ a pop right now..ouch).


Add some nice DDR 3 memory from corsair(12GB of it),and voila,super computer as your home system,and it would cost about 2000$ between the motherboard,the CPU's and the ram.....I could fit that motherboard in my coolermaster HAF 932 case with room to spare.

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by Razor1

All of these things, you forget that now the glass in Mirror's edge also causes damage to the player, as in per poly collision detection, and also now the amount of object calculations of the glass itself. What am I talking about? The amount of calculations to do these things, aren't just a visual crap shot. This is what you guys are missing, you think game developement is still like the text based games of the 80's? I think you guys think it is. Guess what I've been around long enough to know some of the best things in games, that I like, I don't see them in the best games today, and thats why I still play at times text based games.

You guys want realism in physics, lets go through some simple neutonian fluid dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_fluid

now what were we using in games 5 years ago, were we using physics for water? Whats the difference in calculations amounts? Are we using physics in todays water, yeah on a per poly basis, to show interaction, lets get some real physics involved the increase is in the tens of thousands of increase in calculation amounts and more so because we have to use particles. I don't need to keep posting but a basic understanding is all I'm looking for, if you think physics is easy to implement there are quite alot of implications from design, hardware side that without understanding now computers and games evolve on features, anyone even a two year old can say something is a gimmick. I can say Sh*t my favorite games are wizardary 1, 2, 3 and they still are, and everything since then has been a gimmick with game design is involved.

Believe me I get the difference between physics then and now, but are you honestly telling me that those simulations in Mirror's Edge couldn't be done on an i7 at 4Ghz? I should also have included the video without PhysX so you could see for yourself how awful it looks even compared to red faction. The point here wasn't that the glass shattering with physx on looked worse than red faction, but that it looks worse with it turned off. This to me makes no sense.

If, and when, nvidia chooses to properly support PhysX on multicore CPUs and allow people to use dedicated physx cards along with their ATI gpus I'll definitely support it, but until then I won't.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Toss3

Believe me I get the difference between physics then and now, but are you honestly telling me that those simulations in Mirror's Edge couldn't be done on an i7 at 4Ghz? I should also have included the video without PhysX so you could see for yourself how awful it looks even compared to red faction. The point here wasn't that the glass shattering with physx on looked worse than red faction, but that it looks worse with it turned off. This to me makes no sense.

If, and when, nvidia chooses to properly support PhysX on multicore CPUs and allow people to use dedicated physx cards along with their ATI gpus I'll definitely support it, but until then I won't.

Thats an art direction my man, thats the problem look at this way you want something that has breakable polys or do you want something that is premade and broken down when collision is detected. There is a major difference, there will be art limitations based on polygon arragement and texture details, if you want more realism, then we have to go into procedural texture being built on the fly, based on new UV's made for the polygons. Those aren't easy to do at all even with the horsepower we have today.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by shadow001

The point is that we're not even close enough to have enough processing power simulate physics interation properly,the way it happens in real life,while having acceptable performance anyhow....That's the point,so shortcuts have to be taken,which is what developers do in the end.


Push physics to it's logical limits and see Current GPU's dragging along at 1 fps in desktop systems,even enthusiast level setups...No thanks.


Here's the link for the CPU's i'm thinking of using with the above board btw:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.p...ufacture=Intel

Basically Xeon versions of the i7 920 and can be overclocked to 4 Ghz,and they're only 350$ each and i'd have 16 CPU threads to play with....I'd only upgrade to 6 core/12 thread processors when they get much cheaper of course(1200~1300$ a pop right now..ouch).


Add some nice DDR 3 memory from corsair(12GB of it),and voila,super computer as your home system,and it would cost about 2000$ between the motherboard,the CPU's and the ram.....I could fit that motherboard in my coolermaster HAF 932 case with room to spare.

Neutonia fluid simulations are doable on todays GPU's, but they are very intensive, and thats about all they will do, so no pretty game, pretty water though, and they aren't doable on CPU's at the necessary frame rates.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Hmmm.

My only point in posting this was to note this game kicks ass in DX11 with PhysX- very immersive.

Personally, given the choice between an ATi DX11 card and an NVIDIA DX11 card, I'd buy the NVIDIA card for this game alone. (not to mention all the other games with PhysX I have, and the ones that are still in development)

The thread isn't meant to be about marketshare of PhysX vs Havok, what can be done on cpu and what can't, whether NVIDIA should give ATi users PhysX capability.

This is a very nice game, it would really annoy me if I knew I couldn't see it at it's best after buying a high end graphics card.

Played it for quite a bit now and i got to say that always dealing with low ammo and filters when you go outside or near radioactive areas can and does piss me off some....Died many times already coming up with different strategies.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

Neutonia fluid simulations are doable on todays GPU's, but they are very intesive, and thats about all they will do, so no pretty game, pretty water though, and they aren't doable on CPU's at the necessary frame rates.

Then you get super realistic physics with no graphics to go along with those,which kinda defeats the whole point doesn't it,regardless if they're attempted on CPU's or GPU's.


I'm trying to look at it globally here,from gameplay,to graphics,to interactivety and of course physics,the system that can pull off Crysis caliber graphics along with full newtonian physics simply doesn't exist yet.

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by Razor1

Thats an art direction my man, thats the problem look at this way you want something that has breakable polys or do you want something that is premade and broken down when collision is detected. There is a major difference, there will be art limitations based on polygon arragement and texture details, if you want more realism, then we have to go into procedural texture being built on the fly, based on new UV's made for the polygons. Those aren't easy to do at all even with the horsepower we have today.

I get what you are saying and definitely wouldn't mind getting an extra physx card if there was a game that required it(/made proper use of it). Sadly this is not the case.

What I think is going on is that nvidia knows that a single GPU running both physics and rendering wouldn't outperform a multicore CPU + GPU doing the same task(fluidmark proves this, see chart below). They also know that most people wouldn't shell out for an extra card unless there are games out there that make use of it(reason why I think ageia would have failed). So they gimped the cpu support of physx to make having a physx-capable card look more attractive. It's marketing and makes them money they otherwise wouldn't get, but unless you own nvidia stock this is not behavior you should support as it hurts the consumer.

[MikeC]

I'll second Rollo's opinion.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149249

BTW, if you dislike PhysX, just turn it off in the control panel

Excellent debate between PhysX and Havok...

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by MikeC

I'll second Rollo's opinion.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149249

BTW, if you dislike PhysX, just turn it off in the control panel

Excellent debate between PhysX and Havok...

Does the future hold great overclocks for us? Nice to see that nvnews' got a day 1 review! Can't wait til' Friday!