• 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.

Star Wars: 1313 Gameplay- PhysX Title?

tommybhoy

tommybhoy

tommybhoy

Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
13,434
Location
Under The Stairs!
Star Wars: 1313 Gameplay is seriously looking the business(straight to the good bit!):


Looking like the devs are getting geared up for the next gen consoles, so they are using the PC to get some pretty pretty going on at long last!

The dev said that the demo was developed on the PC using Nvidia hardware and noticed that it's looking like a lot of PhysX is going on.

Since I'm a sad SW's fan(that can't be bothered with mmo's at all), if it is indeed full of PhysX goodness, then it looks like I'll be going to the 'green side' next time(don't really care if PhysX is worth it or not, I'll want it and I'll have it god damn it!)!

May the force be with you...
 
Last edited:
Yep looks like Physx to me, Wish they would come out with a stand alone Physx card like Ageia did years ago, Don't want to spend hundreds on an Nvidia card just for 1 feature.
 
DF1986 said:
Yep looks like Physx to me, Wish they would come out with a stand alone Physx card like Ageia did years ago, Don't want to spend hundreds on an Nvidia card just for 1 feature.
Click to expand...

Huh!? You can just buy a cheap Nvidia card that supports PhysX. No different to the stand alone Ageia card.
 
Considering its basically AMD gpu's in all the next gen consoles, and potentially AMD cpu's in one or two of them, physx is likely to not be a big thing in gaming, ever again basically.

Physx is nothing more than an API, to date its been used almost exclusively to beef up a couple of effects, nothing even slightly game changing. Game changing physics, IE designing in the ability to pick up any box in the game and throw it at other characters, is a fundametal part of the games design, you can't add/remove that with physx tacked on.

Sparks coming down is not remotely intensive, they all dissipated and went no where, you're talking about something done in loads of games in the past decade, stuff sliding around the floors, what part of that vid looked "physx-y" to you exactly?

Considering enviroment wise it looked like the force unleashed, ie boxes sliding around and people grabbing on to things, and the force unleashed used three separate physics engines, with one of them being Havok and their own Euphoria, and none being the physx engine.

Basically chances of it are slim to none, all the biggest best most "physics" using games around, none at all use physx, the games that go physx basically use it for extremely limited bits. Just Cause 2 iirc, uses havok, but uses physx to improve the water, and like 2-3 other effects, the main game engine physics that decide everything important to the game aren't physx.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Considering its basically AMD gpu's in all the next gen consoles, and potentially AMD cpu's in one or two of them, physx is likely to not be a big thing in gaming, ever again basically.
Click to expand...

A possible reason for Nvidia to throw more weight behind it to generate more gpu sales on the PC and improve on it.

Even better, perchance even unlock(with no support) it and let it run alongside AMD hardware, instead of constantly blocking it:(.

Regardless of an individuals stance on whether it's blocked or not(which usually boils down to the usual arguments), the bottom line is, it's blocked from driver level unless it's hacked.

Admittedly it could be a potentially good thing if PhysX was to die in the long run for PC gaming, due to it locking out ~half(for talking sake) of the available PC gaming user base.
 
Last edited:
I love Star wars but I am not a great lover of 3rd persoon shooters. On saying that though, MP3 is getting better :)
 
drunkenmaster said:
Considering its basically AMD gpu's in all the next gen consoles, and potentially AMD cpu's in one or two of them, physx is likely to not be a big thing in gaming, ever again basically.

Physx is nothing more than an API, to date its been used almost exclusively to beef up a couple of effects, nothing even slightly game changing. Game changing physics, IE designing in the ability to pick up any box in the game and throw it at other characters, is a fundametal part of the games design, you can't add/remove that with physx tacked on.

Sparks coming down is not remotely intensive, they all dissipated and went no where, you're talking about something done in loads of games in the past decade, stuff sliding around the floors, what part of that vid looked "physx-y" to you exactly?

Considering enviroment wise it looked like the force unleashed, ie boxes sliding around and people grabbing on to things, and the force unleashed used three separate physics engines, with one of them being Havok and their own Euphoria, and none being the physx engine.

Basically chances of it are slim to none, all the biggest best most "physics" using games around, none at all use physx, the games that go physx basically use it for extremely limited bits. Just Cause 2 iirc, uses havok, but uses physx to improve the water, and like 2-3 other effects, the main game engine physics that decide everything important to the game aren't physx.
Click to expand...

There is only one reason why next gen consoles will use AMD hardware.

Its cheaper.
 
Impressive technically, but the game play looks like just holding one button when climbing that thing.
 
tommybhoy said:
^

It's relatively simple, used to do it with my old 9800Gt along with a 5870, then with a 6950>70, but can't do it any more due to having CrossFire:

http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html

Nvidia don't like it running with AMD, so they actively try and kill each hack with new PhysX updates.:(
Click to expand...

Much obliged. Had heard of certain hacks to allow it, but not having a spare nVidia gpu hadn't bothered researching. But if can pick up a cheap second hand nvidia gpu I might be tempted to give it a shot.

Does the GPU power effect the performance hit, or is any nVidia card with physx support capable of doing the same job?

And what kind of performance hit would I likely see with physx enabled?
 
It always worked with my 9800gt, but, imo, it was usually 'poorly' coded so that you would purchase a second card just to use for dedicated PhysX.

Mafia 2 for example at the time, Nvidia recommended something silly like twin 260's using a dedicated 260 just for the PhysX iirc, where as a 9800gt did the job with my 5870.

It depends on what PhysX settings you want to use and it's game dependant too.

Afaik, the physX instructions need to go through to the gpu via the cpu, so there is added overhead that's going to hit your bandwith.

I wouldn't recommend spending over £35 just to try it, don't you know anyone with an old spare card that you could try it out first?
 
Last edited:
In Mafia 2 you can just set it to high and I think the CPU handles it. You get a huge performance hit but it still shows you what it adds.
It's not worth the effort or investing money into, even though I can use it maxed with no issues, it just looks completely overdone and removes you from the game.


That video actually looks ok but it's not overdone so could be easily handled by a CPU i'm sure. And there is no need to add something that a sprite can easily replicate for much less resources.
 
I don't unfortunately and the last nVidia card Ihad was the 5800 Ultra probably about 10 years ago. That card put me off nVidia a little. Although had I not bought a 7970 and stuck an aftermarket cooler on it, I might have been tempted with a 690 (although the 2gb per GPU would possibly put me off as I would have needed it to last a while at that price lol).

Cheers for the advice.
 
opethdisciple said:
There is only one reason why next gen consoles will use AMD hardware.

Its cheaper.
Click to expand...

That's not even remotely true, MS have publically said they disliked working with Nvidia, and the main reason they went with AMD last time around was the experience of working with nvidia first time around making them not an option.

Sony are also widely reported to be incredibly unhappy with Nvidia, they haven't all gone AMD because they are cheaper, they went AMD as they can't stand working with Nvidia.

Likewise, AMD are creating a platform, Nvidia are not, Intel are creating a platform also but their graphics are so pathetically poor that they aren't an option, the next-- next gen consoles Intel might actually have marginally decent graphics and their visual quality and buggyness has improved dramatically in the past couple years, but still a mile away from AMD/Nvidia.

Nvidia are, worse partners, have been late on almost every product they've bought out in the past 5 years, have had some serious long term reliability problems(bumpgate cost Sony for instance 10's mils in laptops). They are less efficient and have no integration with CPU/GPU, and yes, due to a multitude of manufacturing problems they also tend to cost noticeably more per chip.

MS, Nvidia, Nintendo simply don't trust Nvidia and don't want to work with them, its really as simple as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom