Physx Games Coming out?

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Slytat

That's a very bad comparison tbh, at least AFAIAC. I've only ever seen one game where PhysX was truly impressive (Mirror's Edge). It's been used to mediocre effect in other games, but most of the time, I find it unnecessary. I was going to put one of my 280s in my new rig for PhysX, but on reflection, I'd rather not mess around with hacks etc for the extremely limited gains that PhysX affords.

I'd give up PhysX long before I'd give up AA for example. But as you said, it's entirely subjective. I saw a video of Mafia 2's PhysX and it looks weak IMHO. Then again, I wasn't holding out much hope that Mafia 2 would be even half as good as the 1st one , regardless of PhysX.

I agree with you to a point. It is true that games that use PhysX seem to add little as what the Dev adds is usually 1 huge effect or 2 big ones and that is all. But the difference here is as Rollo says, Atleast it is out there and Nvidia is pushing GPU based physics mean while we are all still waiting to for ATI to do something, anything, in any game that is GPU physics based.

[Slytat]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

I agree with you to a point. It is true that games that use PhysX seem to add little as what the Dev adds is usually 1 huge effect or 2 big ones and that is all. But the difference here is as Rollo says, Atleast it is out there and Nvidia is pushing GPU based physics mean while we are all still waiting to for ATI to do something, anything, in any game that is GPU physics based.

And that's a good thing until you stop your own API from running on your own hardware. I'd like to see ATI do more as well and hopefully they will. There are still many aspects of GPU development where ATI are playing catch up tbh. I was very reluctant to switch back to ATI as my mainstay graphics platform but as I've said before, I've been pleasantly surprised so far.

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by Slytat

That's a very bad comparison tbh, at least AFAIAC. I've only ever seen one game where PhysX was truly impressive (Mirror's Edge). It's been used to mediocre effect in other games, but most of the time, I find it unnecessary. I was going to put one of my 280s in my new rig for PhysX, but on reflection, I'd rather not mess around with hacks etc for the extremely limited gains that PhysX affords.

I'd give up PhysX long before I'd give up AA for example. But as you said, it's entirely subjective. I saw a video of Mafia 2's PhysX and it looks weak IMHO. Then again, I wasn't holding out much hope that Mafia 2 would be even half as good as the 1st one , regardless of PhysX.

All of these effects don't alter the gameplay, only the looks. You don't need really need them, so I think it's a fair comparison.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by Rollo

The staff at ATi probably spend their weekends scouring parking lots and ditches for aluminum cans and deposit bottles to cash in for their "Let's get hardware accelerated physics in one game so we can say we have this" project.

That's what this forum needs more of, paid representatives of one company slandering employees of said companys major competitor.

In your absence we were forced to have discussions based solely on level headed logic and reason!

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Rollo

ATi isn't "prevalent in the market now" - they lost some of their second place desktop market share in Q4 2009.

ATI is prevalent in the market whether your little green stereoscopic blinders will allow you to see that or not. If you check Steam's hardware survey, the 4870 took over the DX10 spot from the 8800GTX, and the 5*** series cards have sold very well as is evident from these and other forums.

As for what devs "will" do, given that many games are still in development, and several have launched, I guess they don't care as much about it being proprietary as you do Xion.

Show me the money. Show me the list of games that either A) have launched or B) are going to launch, that use GPU PhysX. The last time someone showed this, it had about 15 games on it, half of which were second-rate titles.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Vardant

There's still no competition, so porting PhysX to OpenCL or Direct Compute is not necessary. Even if Bullet comes out, it will take a few years before we see game built on that from the ground up. PhysX is way ahead in GPU department and they can always port it in the future.

It doesn't matter if it's proprietary or not, they're making progress and other companies are trying to catch up. If it wasn't for NV, we would be nowhere near this.

An open standard is necessary because Nvidia is not allowing non-Nvidia users to run PhysX. And since a good amount of the population does not run Nvidia cards, well, there you have it. Simple deductive logic.

If much of the population does not own Nvidia cards, then there's no way a developer is going to waste a lot of time coding for GPU PhysX. They're going to code for the platform that EVERYONE owns which is a CPU that can run PhysX effects. This is exactly what we see thus far which is why you have about 10-15 GPU PhysX titles on the market or in development out of hundreds of PC titles. The only developers that are going to go this route are the ones who are smaller base that Nvidia can twist their arm enough to go with their proprietary technology.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Slytat

And that's a good thing until you stop your own API from running on your own hardware. I'd like to see ATI do more as well and hopefully they will. There are still many aspects of GPU development where ATI are playing catch up tbh. I was very reluctant to switch back to ATI as my mainstay graphics platform but as I've said before, I've been pleasantly surprised so far.

I again agree with you. But concider this, ATI with 10.2 and.3 has already caused a problem where an Nvidia card is in a system for PhysX. Their CCC app will not open until the PhysX driver is turned off. Now if they can cause this, again, as I have asked here and on other sites, who would you blame in the future should an ATI driver update cause the PhysX driver to stop functioning properly to the point of artifacts in a game. Nvidia or ATI? It is for that reason Nvidia stopped it from working when an ATI card is is being used as they would be blamed by most people and THEY are the ones who would have to foot the bill to try and fix it. ATI might then try to se that as an excuss to claim Nvidia is sabatoaging their drivers.

[Slytat]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

I again agree with you. But concider this, ATI with 10.2 and.3 has already caused a problem where an Nvidia card is in a system for PhysX. Their CCC app will not open until the PhysX driver is turned off. Now if they can cause this, again, as I have asked here and on other sites, who would you blame in the future should an ATI driver update cause the PhysX driver to stop functioning properly to the point of artifacts in a game. Nvidia or ATI? It is for that reason Nvidia stopped it from working when an ATI card is is being used as they would be blamed by most people and THEY are the ones who would have to foot the bill to try and fix it. ATI might then try to se that as an excuss to claim Nvidia is sabatoaging their drivers.

I think it's more likely Nvidia (for financial reasons) in this case but I don't know that for sure so I won't speculate any further

[Vardant]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

An open standard is necessary because Nvidia is not allowing non-Nvidia users to run GPU PhysX. And since a good amount of the population does not run Nvidia cards, well, there you have it. Simple deductive logic.

We almost exclusively play DX based games. Is DX an open standard? Hardly.

Originally Posted by Xion X2

The only developers that are going to go this route are the ones who are smaller base that Nvidia can twist their arm enough to go with their proprietary technology.

2K Games, DICE, Gearbox Software, Realtime Worlds. The last one may be smaller, but otherwise?

If NV really wanted to block anyone with ATI HW, they could do it. If you want a reason why they did all of this look at XMAN52373's post. I said this was going to happen sooner or later and it did.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

We almost exclusively play DX based games. Is DX an open standard? Hardly.

No,but it's owned by microsoft,creators of the windows O/S,which without it,there would be no gaming on windows based PC's period,unless developers used OpenGL.....Microsoft have way more influence on the overall market that either ATI or Nvidia period.


And both ATI and Nvidia have to comply and fully support the DX10 and DX11 standard,as there's no optional features within either spec,or the ability to add extra graphics features as was the case up until the DX9 version.


So the only way to make either companies hardware look special,at least in marketing terms,is to promote features that have nothing to do with the DX specification in the first place,such as physics,Cuda on Nvidia's or Eyefinity from ATI's end.


In terms of features that affect the visual effects seen on screen,both companies have products that have to comply with the DX spec and look exactly the same once rendered on screen,so there's no product differenciation there apart from the actual performance of course,but seeing a pure DX11 application with no fallbacks to DX9 or DX10 is still a couple of years away anyhow.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

No,but it's owned by microsoft,creators of the windows O/S,which without it,there would be no gaming on windows based PC's period,unless developers used OpenGL.....Microsoft have way more influence on the overall market that either ATI or Nvidia period.

Completely disagree. Fergot about OpenGL that is totaly OS independant and had those behind its development had been vigorous about keeping it up todate and current. It would still be a vary viable option for Devs today.

Originally Posted by shadow001

So the only way to make either companies hardware look special,at least in marketing terms,is to promote features that have nothing to do with the DX specification in the first place,such as physics,Cuda on Nvidia's or Eyefinity from ATI's end.

Sadly, CUDA isn't really much for games but has been made recently so, really dont know why Nvidia went on that marketing fix with that one game stupid. You also fergot Nvidia 3D surround and Nvision. Nvision being Nvidias answer to Eyefinity and ATI working with 3rd parties to compete with 3d Vision.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by Vardant

We almost exclusively play DX based games. Is DX an open standard? Hardly.

DirectX purpose is to standardize PC gaming on Windows platform which is exactly the opposite what NVIDIA is trying to accomplish with PsysX.

I wonder how long is NVIDIA going to be able to afford to convince developers to use PhysX.

Anyway the day PhysX (at least in present form) will die is going to be big win for the consumers, well except for some who buy NVIDIA product ONLY.