PhysX NextCarGame

shankly1985 · 23 Dec 2013 at 23:55

Take a look at this games PhysX and this isn't locked to Nvidia's version the game is using it's own engine. Now why is it we can get this amount PhysX in this game but yet a Game like AC Black Flag needs GPU for smoke??
I mean really, look at this game and Wow!

PhysX Engine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlobFMBm3M

Next Car Game - Race: Gravel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyB2kPxq_W4

Next Car Game - Derby: Stadium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iW1RnjxMcQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUQORh0g--HQ6CsiyFYVUOCQ

http://nextcargame.com/

Martini1991 · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:08

Are you incorrectly using physics?

shankly1985 · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:10

Martini1991 said:
Are you incorrectly using physics?

Like it matters PhysX or Physics you no what I mean. The Point is this is something a Game would SLAP Nvidia on and say look GPU PhsyX, when it easy to see we dont need GPU based PhsyX.

Orangey · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:31

It matters.

Rroff · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:36

shankly1985 said:
Like it matters PhysX or Physics you no what I mean. The Point is this is something a Game would SLAP Nvidia on and say look GPU PhsyX, when it easy to see we dont need GPU based PhsyX.

Its only relatively recently that hardware can do destruction physics like that in realtime - try that on something before a core 2 CPU and it would crawl to a halt and even a core 2 would struggle.

PhysX has a far larger feature set of physics it can simulate - the physics engine used in the game has been carefully designed to work the best way for the game, it probably can't simulate things like fluid dynamics and softbodies or if it can it will be very simplistic versions - those kind of things still need a GPU to be done in realtime.

jrmanders · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:47

Just bought the Pre-alpha today, really looking forward to using my second Titan that is arriving tomorrow and dedicating it to PhysX only.

tommybhoy · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:47

@Roff,

You are pushing PhysX features that this title probably won't use and doesn't need.

The Flatout series has been doing physics destruction for years now, each title raising the bar on destruction.

Shankly has a point, this title has an extremely high level of detailed physics destruction, I haven't seen a single gpu PhysX title that can compare with this level of detailed destruction.

You can play it yourself by registering for the free demo here:

http://nextcargame.com/free-technology-demo/

PhysicsMan94 · 24 Dec 2013 at 00:57

shankly1985 said:
Like it matters PhysX or Physics you no what I mean. The Point is this is something a Game would SLAP Nvidia on and say look GPU PhsyX, when it easy to see we dont need GPU based PhsyX.

Wait, are you using we don't need GPU based physics calculations? Or are you saying we don't need the proprietary nVidia feature called PhysX?

Of course one can put a lot of physics calculations through the CPU (rigid body mechanics, fluid dynamics etc) but it reaches a point where the CPU can only handle so much - and that's where the GPU comes in useful due to its ability to efficiently calculate massively parallel problems (which there are tonnes of in physics due to the high natures of symmetry in many phenomena).

Trying to process all the physics simulations through the CPU is a bad idea when the problems start getting very complicated - I welcome GPU based physics and think that nVidia's PhysX is a brilliant feature which I enjoy having active in a fair few titles.

Silent_Scone · 24 Dec 2013 at 01:20

As above when you realise what is involved with physics calculations you understand why putting it on the CPU just isn't as effective. It is volumetric effects such as smoke and water that are much better off on the gpu. Makes me laugh when people mock smoke in Physx as it's a relatively simple effect yet in realtime requires a lot of processing power.

TheRealDeal · 24 Dec 2013 at 01:36

MjFrosty said:
As above when you realise what is involved with physics calculations you understand why putting it on the CPU just isn't as effective. It is volumetric effects such as smoke and water that are much better off on the gpu. Makes me laugh when people mock smoke in Physx as it's a relatively simple effect yet in realtime requires a lot of processing power.

I think we have gone through this before and agreed the gpu is the way forward. The main point is that what physx does in current games is nothing that can't be done on a decent cpu. While nvidia are in control of physx its very likely not going to be pushing the boundary's of what's easily capable on the cpu.

The main point is the gpu is more capable but not being used to anything above what a cpu is capable of apart from in the odd demo that for years barely reaches us gamers.

Please don't make me bring out the assassin's creed cheech and chong smoke to show how physx is being used wrong. Had a few drinks and don't wanna kill myself laughing at that.

I can't remember where i read it but from what i remember it's actually better to use the gpu and cpu together for physics to let the gpu do as much work on the actual rendering of the game as it has less impact on fps and can create better effects. Makes sense to me but i have limited knowledge and this could well be wrong.

Time for Kaap to sober up and build his new rig as Physx/physics threads never go well. Maybe bf4 will get mantle just in time before this goes Nuclear.

Orangey · 24 Dec 2013 at 02:10

For physics effects to be meaningful they have to be worked into core gameplay mechanics, that won't happen with PhysX as you could only sell the game to half the market. Therefore PhysX will never win and just keep being added as an aesthetical afterthought. We may as well forget it and make something better than PhysX and open.

End of!

tommybhoy · 24 Dec 2013 at 02:14

+1

That's exactly why we will never see the full potential of PhysX.

Great post.

Panos · 24 Dec 2013 at 03:06

Those ~60 games that support PhysX are absolute eye candy. And not talking about smoke, but particles, flow etc. Its superb and you can see the difference.

So why the rest gazilion of games that do not support PhysX do not come close to it by using CPU? Because the games will be a slideshow, and even an overclocked 4700K will be crippled.

See TW Rome 2. How slideshow fest is for the majority of the systems. Latest versions have cut quite a lot the extra CPU physics to improve performance and you can see that at ultra settings.

On contrary, put the "old" TW Empire, that supported gpu nv physx, and while looks as good, see the particles on the battles, from cannon balls hitting everything, to musket fire, mortars, head on collision of cavalry, etc. Ten times more stuff going on those scenes than on Rome 2, however the game runs better and looks better.

Is shame that PS2 has deactivated the PhysX. It was the best looking game ever with all these explosions, and particles, etc going on.

K1LaW8tt5 · 24 Dec 2013 at 03:12

Panos said:
Those ~60 games that support PhysX are absolute eye candy. And not talking about smoke, but particles, flow etc. Its superb and you can see the difference.

So why the rest gazilion of games that do not support PhysX do not come close to it by using CPU? Because the games will be a slideshow, and even an overclocked 4700K will be crippled.

See TW Rome 2. How slideshow fest is for the majority of the systems. Latest versions have cut quite a lot the extra CPU physics to improve performance and you can see that at ultra settings.

On contrary, put the "old" TW Empire, that supported gpu nv physx, and while looks as good, see the particles on the battles, from cannon balls hitting everything, to musket fire, mortars, head on collision of cavalry, etc. Ten times more stuff going on those scenes than on Rome 2, however the game runs better and looks better.

Is shame that PS2 has deactivated the PhysX. It was the best looking game ever with all these explosions, and particles, etc going on.

60 pc games use GPU physx?

shankly1985 · 24 Dec 2013 at 03:18

Panos said:
Those ~60 games that support PhysX are absolute eye candy. And not talking about smoke, but particles, flow etc. Its superb and you can see the difference.

So why the rest gazilion of games that do not support PhysX do not come close to it by using CPU? Because the games will be a slideshow, and even an overclocked 4700K will be crippled.

See TW Rome 2. How slideshow fest is for the majority of the systems. Latest versions have cut quite a lot the extra CPU physics to improve performance and you can see that at ultra settings.

On contrary, put the "old" TW Empire, that supported gpu nv physx, and while looks as good, see the particles on the battles, from cannon balls hitting everything, to musket fire, mortars, head on collision of cavalry, etc. Ten times more stuff going on those scenes than on Rome 2, however the game runs better and looks better.

Is shame that PS2 has deactivated the PhysX. It was the best looking game ever with all these explosions, and particles, etc going on.

If games that Run Physics on the CPU run like a slide show then why do games like Next Car Game run fine? Red Fiction another with great Physics.
I do agree when PhsyX is done right it looks great Borderlands 2 for example, What I dont agree with, is all that in Borderlands 2 can't be run on the CPU if they really wanted to am sure it can easy be done. They is no way that can only be done just on the GPU only.

I just disagree that most PhysX games staying only on Nvidia is kinder wrong and if really wanted AMD could very well also run it, but because Nvidia pay good money for the game to have it then well yeah.

Final8y · 24 Dec 2013 at 06:26

Orangey said:
For physics effects to be meaningful they have to be worked into core gameplay mechanics, that won't happen with PhysX as you could only sell the game to half the market. Therefore PhysX will never win and just keep being added as an aesthetical afterthought. We may as well forget it and make something better than PhysX and open.

End of!

+1

almighty15 · 24 Dec 2013 at 06:51

MjFrosty said:
As above when you realise what is involved with physics calculations you understand why putting it on the CPU just isn't as effective. It is volumetric effects such as smoke and water that are much better off on the gpu. Makes me laugh when people mock smoke in Physx as it's a relatively simple effect yet in realtime requires a lot of processing power.

And yet STALKER Clear Sky has interactive volumetric smoke, and it's all done on the CPU.

Gregster · 24 Dec 2013 at 09:08

PhysX or PhysicS, the game looks good and a greenlight game to boot. I will be getting this.

Rroff · 24 Dec 2013 at 09:11

shankly1985 said:
If games that Run Physics on the CPU run like a slide show then why do games like Next Car Game run fine? Red Fiction another with great Physics.
I do agree when PhsyX is done right it looks great Borderlands 2 for example, What I dont agree with, is all that in Borderlands 2 can't be run on the CPU if they really wanted to am sure it can easy be done. They is no way that can only be done just on the GPU only.

I just disagree that most PhysX games staying only on Nvidia is kinder wrong and if really wanted AMD could very well also run it, but because Nvidia pay good money for the game to have it then well yeah.

As I was saying, those games use a custom, highly tuned physics engine that it optimised purely for their game and nothing else, physx is middlewear with a huge generic feature set designed to be used in many different games - not every developer has the resources and/or requirements to design or customise their own physics engine.

Silent_Scone · 24 Dec 2013 at 09:21

shankly1985 said:
If games that Run Physics on the CPU run like a slide show then why do games like Next Car Game run fine? Red Fiction another with great Physics.
I do agree when PhsyX is done right it looks great Borderlands 2 for example, What I dont agree with, is all that in Borderlands 2 can't be run on the CPU if they really wanted to am sure it can easy be done. They is no way that can only be done just on the GPU only.

I just disagree that most PhysX games staying only on Nvidia is kinder wrong and if really wanted AMD could very well also run it, but because Nvidia pay good money for the game to have it then well yeah.

Because Car Game has blocks falling down and aesthetic destruction in a small sandbox. Things that PhysX gets shot down for constantly. Can't win an argument with people who are (rightfully mind you) just peeved that their AMD card can't use the same effects because they're locked out.

"lol Batman smoke ;>"

And Stalker, seriously?...

Volumetric smoke in Stalker is implemented in environmental effects only, therefore it's static and isn't used in things such as explosions and the like. Randomly generated scenarios at any point in time which could put any real load on the CPU. That's not to say that similar effects in Batman are that much better, but that is the real argument.

Next Car Game's physics effects aren't anything ground breaking. We've seen 'fall down' destruction in Crysis sandbox and other things for years. There isn't any real in game scenarios where these effects are used at all. Least of all on the CPU. In Next Car Game you're talking about, again, a small sandbox environment with very minimal workloads. Mesh colliding and a few blocks. The best example of particle and volumetric physics is Borderlands 2, but examples like this are gold dust for the reasons Orangey rightfully pointed out.

I think we can all agree that in the right hands PhysX could be better than what it is, but if people think that the moment it became open source we'd be seeing amazing effects they're asking to be backhanded by developers as they're opening up a whole can of worms for them. You can't please everyone.