Physx Games Coming out?

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

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.

I did mention OpenGL,but the main focus for that API is professional graphics environments first and foremost....Some early developers supported OpenGL in their first games for it's multiplatform potential(Mac's,linux),and also because way back then,direct X sucked hard,as even direct X5 didn't even support multitexturing in a single pass....We had to wait for Direct X6 for that one.


Today though,it's actually the direct X11 standard that's in the lead for graphics features support compared to the OpenGL standard,so the latter really has it's multiplatform advantage as it's selling point and still allows the use of custom graphics features using custom OpenGL driver extensions,something that Direct X stopped once DX10 rolled in.

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.

The examples i quoted were relating to features that's not part of the direct X standards in the first place,and it's where the emphasis is being placed by both companies to make their hardware look special in end users eyes.....The graphics effects capabilities are the same for both,as they have follow the DX11 specification to the letter there,so there's no way to make either card look "special" in that area.


That's my main point.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

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 will die is going to be big win for the consumers, well except for some who buy NVIDIA product ONLY.

Disagree. Is there a standard for multi monitors and spanning the res for gaming? No, but yet ATI brought it out to gamers anyways. Maybe MS will adoupt it for DX in an update or v12 maybe they wont. Does that make it any less legitiment for gamers? NO.

PhysX is the same. Right now, there is no STANDARD as you want to call it for having in game physics. look at all the options devs have. Physx, Havok, Bullet, ODE but yet none are part of DX. Maybe MS will add it, maybe it wont, doesn't make it any less legitiment. Just because Nvidia is doing all the legwork to get something that can add something to games for gamers doesn't make it worthless.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

I did mention OpenGL,but the main focus for that API is professional graphics environments first and foremost....Some early developers supported OpenGL in their first games for it's multiplatform potential(Mac's,linux),and also because way back then,direct X sucked hard,as even direct X5 didn't even support multitexturing in a single pass....We had to wait for Direct X6 for that one.


Today though,it's actually the direct X11 standard that's in the lead for graphics features support compared to the OpenGL standard,so the latter really has it's multiplatform advantage as it's selling point and still allows the use of custom graphics features using custom OpenGL driver extensions,something that Direct X stopped once DX10 rolled in.





The examples i quoted were relating to features that's not part of the direct X standards in the first place,and it's where the emphasis is being placed by both companies to make their hardware look special in end users eyes.....The graphics effects capabilities are the same for both,as they have follow the DX11 specification to the letter there,so there's no way to make either card look "special" in that area.


That's my main point.

While today, yes OGL is mostly professional, had they kept pace with MS and DX, more Devs would still be using it. JC still does and is the only one who still supports OGL standard.

And while DX is a standard, alot of what is in DX today is because of the design efforts of Nvidia and ATI. Both still come out with features and ideas not in DX that eventually end up being adopted/included into furture DX specs.

GPU based physics, expanded resolutions support, 3d support are all things that are being pushed by ATI and Nvidia and could very well end up in an update to DX11 or be apart of DX12. The point being, without these extra features they work hard to bring to us gamers, they would never get added to any APIs standard.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Disagree. Is there a standard for multi monitors and spanning the res for gaming? No, but yet ATI brought it out to gamers anyways. Maybe MS will adoupt it for DX in an update or v12 maybe they wont. Does that make it any less legitiment for gamers? NO.

PhysX is the same. Right now, there is no STANDARD as you want to call it for having in game physics. look at all the options devs have. Physx, Havok, Bullet, ODE but yet none are part of DX. Maybe MS will add it, maybe it wont, doesn't make it any less legitiment. Just because Nvidia is doing all the legwork to get something that can add something to games for gamers doesn't make it worthless.

Absolutely wrong comparison. Nothing is stopping NVIDIA to use multi monitors and they will. No need to get permission from AMD, pay for license and be dependent on ATI drivers.

As for the other physics you mention, they are not limited for use by one company only.

Yes PhysX is absolutely worthless for millions of gamers that use ATI product, funny you say NVIDIA is doing legwork.

Just about everybody who doesn't buy NVIDIA product ONLY is critical about how the PhysX is being used by NVIDIA. People like to see in game physic that are not limited for use by one company ONLY.

Anyway hope to see some open standard part of DirectX soon, in the meantime as I said before, HAVOC is 100% better it runs on my PC without any hacking and buying an additional Graphic Card.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

Just about everybody who doesn't buy NVIDIA product ONLY is critical about how the PhysX is being used by NVIDIA. People like to see in game physic that are not limited for use by one company ONLY.

Anyway hope to see some open standard part of DirectX soon, in the meantime as I said before, HAVOC is 100% better it runs on my PC without any hacking and buying an additional Graphic Card.

Funny, I've never cared about PhysX being "NVIDIA only". I can use all the PhysX games, and I can use all the Havoc games. If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to run the Havoc games.

[Revs]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Funny, I've never cared about PhysX being "NVIDIA only". I can use all the PhysX games, and I can use all the Havoc games. If I had an ATi card, I'd only be able to run the Havoc games.

Not true

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

Absolutely wrong comparison. Nothing is stopping NVIDIA to use multi monitors and they will. No need to get permission from AMD, pay for license and be dependent on ATI drivers.

As for the other physics you mention, they are not limited for use by one company only.

Yes PhysX is absolutely worthless for millions of gamers that use ATI product, funny you say NVIDIA is doing legwork.

Just about everybody who doesn't buy NVIDIA product ONLY is critical about how the PhysX is being used by NVIDIA. People like to see in game physic that are not limited for use by one company ONLY.

Anyway hope to see some open standard part of DirectX soon, in the meantime as I said before, HAVOC is 100% better it runs on my PC without any hacking and buying an additional Graphic Card.

And nothing is stopping ATI from supporting PhysX cept for ATI. Havok is crap, half assed physics. truely a shame when gamers would rather settle for prescripted, prerendered rail based, repeating crap over something that CAN add much more to a game. Nothing Havok can do hasn't been done before by pregrammed effects. Oh wait, THAT IS WHAT HAVOK DOES!

CryTek has by far the best physics based engine available. Next best solution for physics is PhysX Havok is a very distant third.

The comparison is valid. ATI is working with Devs to include support for 3600x1920 resoltions. This is not a DX standard resoltion but may be in the future. GPU based physics is the same way, its not there now, could be in the future. Will it be PhysX, highly unlikely, but someone has to do it before MS will adopt it. this has always been the case. PS 3 is an example.

Now I agree Nvidia shouldn't have prevented their GPUs from doing PhysX with an ATI card doing teh rendering. But I will refer you to a post I made on page 6 concerning that issue as an example as to why they did it.

And what is so funny about nvidia doing the legwork for GPU based physics? Tell me again just WHERE is ATI and THEIR GPU based counter solution? Oh, that right, you can't because they DONT ****ING HAVE ONE even tho they promised all ATI users one 3+ years ago. And now they have a means to do it with OpenCL (FYI Nvidia has already ported and is ready to use an OCL GPU physics based solution driver) and YET all ATI user are still waiting for something more than that 1 demo they did 2+ years ago. Again, another example of ATI dropping the ball and letting someone else do teh Legwork.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

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.

You mean this STEAM survey, where ATi has 31% of the market and NVIDIA has 62% of the market? Where the Top 20 slots for DX10 cards break down NVIDIA-13, Ati- 5, Intel-2? Where the 48 series you say "took over" really trails the 9800/GTX 200 series they compete against? Where all the 5X series combined have barely sold more than the GTX260 alone?

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

You sure you want to point out the STEAM survey Xion? It really makes me happy when you do, pointing out lopsided statistics like the above would probably be trolling if I wasn't correcting your erroroneous info.

Originally Posted by Xion X2

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.

Sure thing.

Here's the list of PhysX games:
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html
Add Metro 2033 to that.

Now here's the list of ATi GPU accelerated games, which they have been promising to provide for their customers for four years:








Yep- ATi is the company of broken promises. What they do is say they'll give gamers features that gamers want, then they sit back and wait for someone else to do it for them. When their saviors don't arrive, they say "We support open standards!". I'd say NVIDIA is advancing the industry, and ATi is just teaching their customers about "bait and switch".

"We'll have GPU accelerated physics, buy our cards now, it's comin' soon!"

"We'll have great 3d gaming support, buy our cards now, it's comin' soon!"

"We'll have lots of great GPGPU apps, buy our cards now, it's comin' soon!"

I think ATi should check out this site:

http://promisekeepers.org/

I think ATi owners should check out this link:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...GTX480&x=0&y=0

Six days to go and you won't have to feel like deadbeat dad's orphans!

[Heinz68]

@XMAN52373
Enough said in my first reply I'm not going to repeat myself.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

While today, yes OGL is mostly professional, had they kept pace with MS and DX, more Devs would still be using it. JC still does and is the only one who still supports OGL standard.

And while DX is a standard, alot of what is in DX today is because of the design efforts of Nvidia and ATI. Both still come out with features and ideas not in DX that eventually end up being adopted/included into furture DX specs.

GPU based physics, expanded resolutions support, 3d support are all things that are being pushed by ATI and Nvidia and could very well end up in an update to DX11 or be apart of DX12. The point being, without these extra features they work hard to bring to us gamers, they would never get added to any APIs standard.

Guess what....John carmack isn't using OpenGL anymore in their latest ID tech 5 engine....The one they've been teasing gamers for the past 2 years with their Rage game,which will also run in consoles btw.


OpenGL served it's purpose when it supported a lot more features than DirectX did at the time,but now the roles are reversed on feature support,and the Mac and linux markets are too small to boother with when brand new games using new graphics engines,take 4~5 years to make at least.


I'm in agreement that ATI and Nvidia do develop technologies that ultimately get adopted within the DX specification,but guess what,it only sees widespread use amoung developers when it's actually part of the specification and both ATI and Nvidia have hardware/software support for it,and this applies to PhysX and 3D vision,which needs developer support right off the bat.....Eyefinity does not,as it's up to ATI's driver team to do all the work,not developers.


Remember the DX9 debate on SM 2.0,SM2.0b and SM3.0?,which the latter is what Nvidia was pushing hard at the time,and what happened there?....Yup,games only saw widespread use of SM3.0 when both ATI and Nvidia cards supported the feature in hardware,and offered good performance while doing those shader effects.


What makes you think it'll be any different with PhysX?

[Vardant]

Why is it, that when it comes to "discussion" about physics engines, some people always compare GPU version of PhysX to CPU version of Havok and completely forget about CPU PhysX?

Originally Posted by shadow001

Guess what....John carmack isn't using OpenGL anymore in their latest ID tech 5 engine....

Really? That's some amazing stuff considering PS3 doesn't support DX.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

Why is it, that when it comes to "discussion" about physics engines, some people always compare GPU version of PhysX to CPU version of Havok and completely forget about CPU PhysX?

Because it's done with the CPU,so there's no need for a specific video card to do it,and it's up to the developers to choose which one depending on which one suits their needs better.