• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Let Battle Commence

Rroff said:
While I agree that most of the effects could be done in the "usual" fashion and many of those affects can run at full speed on the CPU in the limited fashion used in batman... I can see now why many of the effects are simply missing on non-hardware physx as the developer would have had to spend a few more months coding alternative paths for each individual feature that with physx they could implement with a few lines of code...

Unfortunatly the subtlies of the smoke effects, etc. seem to be lost on a lot of people - personally the "usual" style smoke looks cheap and nasty to me now I have noticed and can compare it to the physics smoke that interacts with the environment, flows and reacts to objects passing through it.

Same with the cloth effects, etc. and proper smoke/fluid dynamics, cloth, etc. effects can't currently be done on the CPU with useable performance.
Click to expand...

The smoke is the only thing that gets my attention.
 
Final8y said:
What edge has ATI implemented that is purely ATIs that needs coding for that stops it running on other hardware.
Ati has not tried to ram anything down coders throats.
Click to expand...


More to the point what has ATI ever implemented?
ATI can use physx in there drivers if they want to.
 
queamin said:
They are both there to make money anyway they can some legal and some not so legal.
Click to expand...

Making money is given of business but not an excuse or there would not be ea legal anything, as the term its only business is to try and justify anything as long as money is being made including murder.
 
deuse said:
More to the point what has ATI ever implemented?
ATI can use physx in there drivers if they want to.
Click to expand...

I think there's a point somewhere in here. It always seems Nvidia are the ones leading in terms of innovation, with ATI behind.

I'm no Nvidia fan boi (actually I've had more ATI cards than Nvidia cards) but I do feel Nvidia are ahead of the cure understanding the capability of their cards, in particular outside of the gaming context. It shines through in their excellent drivers for Linux (I know some seem to disagree but all my desktops currently run Nvidia based chipset motherboards and they have been flawlessly supported by Nvidia drivers, as have any Nividia graphics cards I have).

All in all I'd rather have a slightly slower Nividia for the same money as an ATI card at the moment.
 
deuse said:
More to the point what has ATI ever implemented?
ATI can use physx in there drivers if they want to.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't know what ATI has implemented by now assuming that your old enough to know then there is no point in me pointing them out as anyone who have been following over the years would know by now.

Just to cover the obvious, implemented & actually being used are 2 different things & my point is implemented.
 
Slightly O/T, but what *nix distros are you running Dangerstat - I mentioned yesterday that I had issues with Ubuntu and nVidia, be interesting to know what you are running and how you set it up.
 
Final8y said:
Well if you don't know what ATI has implemented by now assuming that your old enough to know then there is no point in me pointing them out as anyone who have been following over the years would know by now.

Just to cover the obvious, implemented & actually being used are 2 different things & my point is implemented.
Click to expand...


Please point out what graphic implementation ATI have done as an old git like me can't remember :)
 
Actually, Nvidia owns them, they don't need a 'license' as such. But then, PhysX is still a proprietary SDK, and I can't see Nvidia making it very cheap for AMD to implement (moreover, I suspect some kind of royalties would be wanted) - whilst Nvidia sell the source code to their PhysX SDK, they, as far as I know, don't sell the source code for the underlying PhysX driver, otherwise developers would likely go off breaking compatibility in all sorts of stupid ways.
 
What people have to bear in mind is Nvidia are anti-competitive and should be punished accordingly - take for example PhysX being disabled with an ATi card in the machine. In any other industry, they would be done for being anti-competitive.

Anyone who thinks Nvidia have tried/want to offer out their standard to ATi is wrong IMO. All Nvidia want to do is dominate the standards and make people have to buy their cards. Unfortunately for them, PhysX will be dead soon (phew) and we'll be chasing open standards.
 
Lightnix said:
Actually, Nvidia owns them, they don't need a 'license' as such. But then, PhysX is still a proprietary SDK, and I can't see Nvidia making it very cheap for AMD to implement (moreover, I suspect some kind of royalties would be wanted) - whilst Nvidia sell the source code to their PhysX SDK, they, as far as I know, don't sell the source code for the underlying PhysX driver, otherwise developers would likely go off breaking compatibility in all sorts of stupid ways.
Click to expand...

ATI would have to effectively write a CUDA emulator that translated it to something their hardware could handle - probably nothing nVidia could do about that even if they didn't like it...
 
Lightnix said:
Actually, Nvidia owns them, they don't need a 'license' as such. But then, PhysX is still a proprietary SDK, and I can't see Nvidia making it very cheap for AMD to implement (moreover, I suspect some kind of royalties would be wanted) - whilst Nvidia sell the source code to their PhysX SDK, they, as far as I know, don't sell the source code for the underlying PhysX driver, otherwise developers would likely go off breaking compatibility in all sorts of stupid ways.
Click to expand...

It's early days for implementing physics. Hopefully Microsoft will see it as a major part of Directx and including physic specific apis in future revisions of DX. Atm a lot of it can be done using OpenCL and compute shader in DX11 but it will take a lot of legwork to get up to speed to compete with PhysX right now.
 
dangerstat said:
I think there's a point somewhere in here. It always seems Nvidia are the ones leading in terms of innovation, with ATI behind.

I'm no Nvidia fan boi (actually I've had more ATI cards than Nvidia cards) but I do feel Nvidia are ahead of the cure understanding the capability of their cards, in particular outside of the gaming context. It shines through in their excellent drivers for Linux (I know some seem to disagree but all my desktops currently run Nvidia based chipset motherboards and they have been flawlessly supported by Nvidia drivers, as have any Nividia graphics cards I have).

All in all I'd rather have a slightly slower Nividia for the same money as an ATI card at the moment.
Click to expand...

SLI was invented by bought out 3DFX.
PHYSX came from bought out ageia
NVIDIA OptiX Engine is based on bought out RayScale.
 
rafster said:
Unfortunately for them, PhysX will be dead soon (phew) and we'll be chasing open standards.
Click to expand...

I doubt we will see the end of physx any time soon... eventually nVidia will be forced by the market to lift its reliance on CUDA to work... but theres still a lot of games, etc. where physx is a better choice to havok (and vice versa).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom