I have seen the future....

[Xion X2]

Hmm. This thread actually has some good information in it.

Thumbs up to both razor and Toss for providing their info. I had no idea that PhysX had gained so much marketshare.

Some key issues, I think, are:

1) How many of those PhysX titles from razor's graphs run on the GPU exclusively (this would be Nvidia's selling point.)
2) How does performance with multicore physics w/ a CPU compare to single-GPU physics (Toss answered this one with his graph.)

I still contend that most of the best physics effects that I've seen were ran strictly on the CPU. HardOCP comments on this here when demo'ng Ghostbusters on a quad-core with the Terminal Reality team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9boF-JZKcU

And I've yet to see explosions and smoke effects of the quality of Battlefield Bad Company 2, with physics on the CPU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDJqetBhR-Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxjAVGcPCk&NR=1

Notice that the engine is smart enough to know how much structural damage a building can take before it collapses.

From what I've seen of Metro, I just don't see any significant gains at all from PhysX in that game over what the above titles offer. In fact, I'm generally less impressed than I am with the CPU-physics games.

[CaptNKILL]

I still don't understand why people are calling the destruction in Bad Company 2 "physics".

The only thing being calculated in real time is the dozen or so random chunks of wood\stone that actually collide with things. Beyond that, they're simply deleting "wall" models and replacing them with "hole" models. If enough walls have been deleted, the building plays the "fall over" animation, which is the same every time. They cover all of the transitions up with smoke effects but none of it is dynamic, even if it looks good.

There is no physics calculation being done for any of that, other than the chunks of wood that bounce (rather than fall through things).

A far better example of the kind of physics a CPU can do would be Flatout Ultimate Carnage. Just look at all of the debris flying around that actually has physics interactions:



... or you could look at Crysis for several examples of real physics calculations as opposed to canned model swapping and preset animations:



I know that isn't in real-time, but the engine can do it in real time with enough rendering and processing power. You won't see anything like this in Bad Company 2. Absolutely nothing close to it.

BC2 is a great game, but it doesn't do anything that proves that we don't need GPU physx. In fact, with GPU physx they could have made the walls actually fall apart dynamically, but it wouldn't be usable for everyone so that's obviously not realistic at this point. The game is already a multicore CPU hog. If it was doing more real physics it wouldn't even be playable.

[XMAN52373]

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.

Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Toss3

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.

And yet you fail to address the point that GPU based Physics, when used soley for that purpose, totally out classes what any multi core CPU can hope to do.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

I still don't understand why people are calling the destruction in Bad Company 2 "physics".

The only thing being calculated in real time is the dozen or so random chunks of wood\stone that actually collide with things. Beyond that, they're simply deleting "wall" models and replacing them with "hole" models. If enough walls have been deleted, the building plays the "fall over" animation, which is the same every time. They cover all of the transitions up with smoke effects but none of it is dynamic, even if it looks good.

There is no physics calculation being done for any of that, other than the chunks of wood that bounce (rather than fall through things).

A far better example of the kind of physics a CPU can do would be Flatout Ultimate Carnage. Just look at all of the debris flying around that actually has physics interactions:



... or you could look at Crysis for several examples of real physics calculations as opposed to canned model swapping and preset animations:



I know that isn't in real-time, but the engine can do it in real time with enough rendering and processing power. You won't see anything like this in Bad Company 2. Absolutely nothing close to it.

BC2 is a great game, but it doesn't do anything that proves that we don't need GPU physx. In fact, with GPU physx they could have made the walls actually fall apart dynamically, but it wouldn't be usable for everyone so that's obviously not realistic at this point. The game is already a multicore CPU hog. If it was doing more real physics it wouldn't even be playable.

And adding even better physics to battlefield bad company adds what to the game gameplay wise?....Do players have enough time to apreciate how the buildings fall apart realistically and avoid getting killed by other players in the process....Hell no.


It's a game that always emphasizes being constantly on the move after completing an objective,and always looking around you to avoid getting shot at,so i don't see how even better physics would improve things,since the fast paced action leaves little time to apreciate it anyhow,even if it were added.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

Yah, such boring crap.

I mean all games in 2001 were doing that right?

[CaptNKILL]

Originally Posted by shadow001

And adding even better physics to battlefield bad company adds what to the game gameplay wise?....Do players have enough time to apreciate how the buildings fall apart realistically and avoid getting killed by other players in the process....Hell no.


It's a game that always emphasizes being constantly on the move after completing an objective,and always looking around you to avoid getting shot at,so i don't see how even better physics would improve things,since the fast paced action leaves little time to apreciate it anyhow,even if it were added.

The same can be said for anything that is done to improve visuals and realism. None of it is necessary to gameplay.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

And yet you fail to address the point that GPU based Physics, when used soley for that purpose, totally out classes what any multi core CPU can hope to do.

Hence why GPU physics also fails,as at least for now,it requires at least 2 GPU's to perform well,one for the graphics and another for the physics calculations,especially when the user wants to play at high quality graphics settings.


Once a single GPU can handle both tasks at the same time,with at least playable performance,then you have something that can appeal to a larger market,as a single card does it all....That's not the case right now,not even close to it.

[CaptNKILL]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Its a shame the red faction demo is all scripted crap. No matter he shot the glass, it fall apart exactly the same each and every time. Boring, scripted and preprogrammed.

Actually, it is real time calculated glass shards:


Incredibly impressive for the time really. Newer implementations are probably more accurate but for a 9 year old game RF did an extremely good job.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Hence why GPU physics also fails,as at least for now,it requires at least 2 GPU's to perform well,one for the graphics and another for the physics calculations,especially when the user wants to play at high quality graphics settings.


Once a single GPU can handle both tasks at the same time,with at least playable performance,then you have something that can appeal to a larger market,as a single card does it all....That's not the case right now,not even close to it.

That largely depends on what resolution your are playing at and with what GPU you are using. Alot of people still have 17", 19" and 19" wide screen LCDs. Most of what is sold at WallyWorld and BB either have standard 19s or 19WS.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

The same can be said for anything that is done to improve visuals and realism. None of it is necessary to gameplay.

To a point i agree,but having played the game on 3 monitors for instance,and having a much wider field of view,which has on many occasions saved me from getting killed by enemy players that like to use the knife,as i can see them coming at me from the side monitors,when i normally wouldn't be able to see them coming using just one display.


Or how about being a tank driver and see enemy players trying to plant C4 on the tank with the side displays,or being a helicopter pilot and seeing most of the map and those that are trying to shoot me down with RPG's or heavy machine guns.


Call it a crutch or even cheating if you want,but it's fun as hell,enhances the gameplay for me,and doesn't require any specific support from developers either...

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

Actually, it is real time calculated glass shards:


Incredibly impressive for the time really. Newer implementations are probably more accurate but for a 9 year old game RF did an extremely good job.

I have my doubts, but for 2001, I guess scripted is as good as you can get.