Physx Games Coming out?

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

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

Spoken like someone who has no answers. Free is better! Not always. Havok has not done thing one remotely close to what PhysX has done or even Cry Engine 1. All any dev who has used havok has done is to use repeating prescripted physics with very little reactionary realism to it, very boring. Hell, HL2 and eh grav gun is more impressive than what Havok has offered to date.

You also ignored the fact how ATI PROMISED GPU based physics solution with OpenCL and Haovk, yet here we are, OCL is here, Havok has been here and to date still just the one demo. Yawn, yet another broken promise from ATI, Atleast Nvidia IS doing and PUSHING GPU based physics and has answers for when other options become available. ATI has given lip service and nothing else, they are waiting on everyone else to do the hard work.

Also, I noticed you ignored the point of how ATI 10.2 and .3 drivers break their own CCC app if physx is loaded and running. Gee, I wonder if Nvidia had left it open and an ATI driver breaks physx driver who you would be blaming for that. I'm very confident it WOULDN'T be ATI.

[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?


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

It supports a custom version of OpenGL if i'm not mistaken,and i'm guessing it's up to ID to make sure that a port from D3D to what Sony uses is possible,and besides,the version that consoles will use is a watered down version since they're still stuck with DX9 GPU's anyhow,so it won't have the looks that the full DX11 PC version will have.

[Vardant]

MPC: So, you said Rage is a 60Hz game. Is it an OpenGL or DirectX game?

JC: It’s still OpenGL, although we obviously use a D3D-ish API [on the Xbox 360], and CG on the PS3.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...tails_and_more

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Vardant

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...tails_and_more

I heard that too....2 years ago,when he made that comment.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

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?

You need to do a fact check, teh RAGE engine has 80% ported from the DOOM3 engine which is all OGL. And JC has made no public announcement about it being DX. The last statement about what they use was that its is OGL. Until someone can find and post a link to him qouting that it is now DX based and not OGL, it is OGL btw. Good luck by the way, all I have ever found are rumors, nothing concrete from JC himself.

And SM3 was getting wide spread use and support way before ATI brought it to the public in the R5XX line. FC was the first game to use it. by the time teh R5XX line launched there were already more than 20 AA title games that used it, more if you wanna count all games. Try again please. The reason for that was because when the 6x00 series launched, Nvidia helped many a Dev add SM3 to the game code.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

You need to do a fact check, teh RAGE engine has 80% ported from the DOOM3 engine which is all OGL. And JC has made no public announcement about it being DX. The last statement about what they use was that its is OGL. Until someone can find and post a link to him qouting that it is now DX based and not OGL, it is OGL btw. Good luck by the way, all I have ever found are rumors, nothing concrete from JC himself.

Sounds like a challenge.....I'll see if i can dig up something

And SM3 was getting wide spread use and support way before ATI brought it to the public in the R5XX line. FC was the first game to use it. by the time teh R5XX line launched there were already more than 20 AA title games that used it, more if you wanna count all games. Try again please. The reason for that was because when the 6x00 series launched, Nvidia helped many a Dev add SM3 to the game code.

Not even close to the extent it did once both ATI and Nvidia supported the feature,which is pretty much the minimum requirement in every shipping game being released these days.


So that particular situation in the past resembles the support that GPU based physics is getting right now.....Basically only a few games are actually bothering with it at all,and the vast Majority are not,and support for it will only increase once both ATI and Nvidia support it,or even better yet,it'll be also integrated into a future DX version.



It's how it's been working for the past 15 years now when it comes to new feature support,so why would some people believe it'll be any different now is beyond me.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

I heard that too....2 years ago,when he made that comment.

And it is still the only comment on record from him concerning what he is using for the engine. Be nice if someone would get him on record again as to what he is using.

[Heinz68]

@ XMAN52373
One more time. Enough said in my first reply I'm not going to repeat myself.
Actually since I'm repeating myself already here is the reply just in case you didn't read.

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.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by shadow001

Sounds like a challenge.....I'll see if i can dig up something




Not even close to the extent it did once both ATI and Nvidia supported the feature,which is pretty much the minimum requirement in every shipping game being released these days.


So that particular situation in the past resembles the support that GPU based physics is getting right now.....Basically only a few games are actually bothering with it at all,and the vast Majority are not,and support for it will only increase once both ATI and Nvidia support it,or even better yet,it'll be also integrated into a future DX version.



It's how it's been working for the past 15 years now when it comes to new feature support,so why would some people believe it'll be any different now is beyond me.

Actaully it is. For those 2 years BEFORE ATI had their own SM3 based card, who do you think the Devs were using for the SM3 support. Sure as hell wasn't ATI. I like how you and other ATI defenders seem to think that once a feature is finially support by both parties it somehow magicly gets huge support. In the time from R520 to R600, teh games that launched with SM3 weren't using ATI cards for the Dev support on it.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Heinz68

@ XMAN52373
One more time. Enough said in my first reply I'm not going to repeat myself.
Actually since I'm repeating myself already here is the reply just in case you didn't read.

And yet again a post WITH NOTHING but an oppion or an answer to any of the points I brought. Havok is not better. Hell, as I said, HL2 grav gun is far better than anything Havok has done to date. But go ahead, love your prescripted, repeating prerendered totally programmed, non-realistic or reactionary physics based tool.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Actaully it is. For those 2 years BEFORE ATI had their own SM3 based card, who do you think the Devs were using for the SM3 support. Sure as hell wasn't ATI. I like how you and other ATI defenders seem to think that once a feature is finially support by both parties it somehow magicly gets huge support. In the time from R520 to R600, teh games that launched with SM3 weren't using ATI cards for the Dev support on it.

My point still stands that while developers were using Nvidia cards to test and implement SM3 in their games,since Nvidia supported the feature first,the number of games that landed on retail shelves with SM3 support was much smaller than it was once both companies supported the feature.


Even john Carmack himself stated that he hated having to make choices in what features to support when GPU's from both compaines didn't support the same features,as it made game development a bigger pain in the ass than it had to be,and it was the reason why Microsoft did what it did starting with DX10.


All features are mandatory to support it hardware,and there's no possibility to support extra features beyond the DX10 spec,and the same goes for DX10.1,and of course DX11 as well....


Here's a question for you?....Don't you find it funny that features like 3D vision or GPU physics or Cuda or Eyefinity or stream,only started to really being developed after the DX10 specification was released a little over 3 years ago,and made it mandatory to support the same features on all graphics cards,from all makers,therefore there's nothing special to be gained on that front from GPU makers anymore,in order to make their cards "Special" in marketing terms,and all these features above have nothing to do with the DX standard.


I do find it histerical really....Just me though.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

And yet again a post WITH NOTHING but an oppion or an answer to any of the points I brought. Havok is not better. Hell, as I said, HL2 grav gun is far better than anything Havok has done to date. But go ahead, love your prescripted, repeating prerendered totally programmed, non-realistic or reactionary physics based tool.

Looks like you still didn't read, maybe I should have made bold this part.

HAVOC is 100% better it runs on my PC without any hacking and buying an additional Graphic Card.