Physx is it used much ?

bloodhunter · 4 May 2014 at 13:15

I have used Nvidia 3D Vision using the red/blue glasses as I don't have a 120hz monitor

The gameplay is not too bad and just appears a bit dark.

If you have any of those red/blue glasses give it a try.

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 13:17

Tonester0011 said:
Have you used 3DVison Tommy?

Just had a few plays with it, easier to pick up and use, works very, very well, but so does Tridef, my Sammy lenses are Lightboost the exact same tech as Nvidia 3D vision 2 lenses, quality is on a par.

You can play about a hell of a lot more with tridef it is highly configurable direct to the end user and you can make your own profiles straight from the off the day a title launches if there is no profile.

If you don't know how, go to the forum and pick one up almost instantly, you don't have to wait for 'official' support from Nvidia/Tridef.

opethdisciple said:
You sure?

Nope.

It's MLAA not MSAA I should have said.

RavenXXX2 · 4 May 2014 at 13:17

TXAA sucks, blur vision when that is turned on.

Gregster · 4 May 2014 at 13:19

tommybhoy said:
For the life of me I don't know why you presented all that to me, I never/haven't ever said it was going to die, that's other folks words.

Don't be a drama queen and I was just showing how we will never get the truth about what nVidia and AMD did or didn't do. Of course you can lean whatever way suits your argument though

As for the rest of it, it wasn't aimed at you and I was pointing out the extra bits that PhysX brings to its users.

James J · 4 May 2014 at 13:19

When its barely used, its not really worth it. When its fully implemented though, like in Alice, its game changing, in a good way!

Tonester0011 · 4 May 2014 at 13:27

tommybhoy said:
Just had a few plays with it, easier to pick up and use, works very, very well, but so does Tridef, my Sammy lenses are Lightboost the exact same tech as Nvidia 3D vision 2 lenses, quality is on a par.

You can play about a hell of a lot more with tridef it is highly configurable direct to the end user and you can make your own profiles straight from the off the day a title launches if there is no profile.

If you don't know how, go to the forum and pick one up almost instantly, you don't have to wait for 'official' support from Nvidia/Tridef.

My opinion of Tridef was based on i guess pretty early implementation. I tried it ages back when i first got my 750D (amazing monitor, miss it!!) and i wasn't overly impressed, trying and using 3DVision the difference was night and day, easy to setup and the effect was fantastic

PhysX though, not my thing

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 13:28

Gregster said:
Don't be a drama queen and I was just showing how we will never get the truth about what nVidia and AMD did or didn't do. Of course you can lean whatever way suits your argument though

It's simple, straight down the line-'Nvidia offered'-isn't what fanboys portray it to mean, you don't need to ask anyone anything if it's 'OPEN SOURCE', I don't know how many times you/others need to go there.

Gregster said:
As for the rest of it, it wasn't aimed at you and I was pointing out the extra bits that PhysX brings to its users.

Try being more clear then.

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 13:31

Tonester0011 said:
My opinion of Tridef was based on i guess pretty early implementation. I tried it ages back when i first got my 750D (amazing monitor, miss it!!) and i wasn't overly impressed, trying and using 3DVision the difference was night and day, easy to setup and the effect was fantastic

PhysX though, not my thing

Can understand it not being all that much then, it's not for everyone and there are preferences/dislikes both ways-plenty happy nvidia users using it too in the Tridef forums.

Gregster · 4 May 2014 at 13:36

tommybhoy said:
It's simple, straight down the line-'Nvidia offered'-isn't what fanboys portray it to mean, you don't need to ask anyone anything if it's 'OPEN SOURCE', I don't know how many times you/others need to go there.

My point stands. You can read those articles and sway them to your own argument. I could do the same but shan't bother, as that would be very childish.

/end

PhysX is something that does add to the game when it is done well and I like it and would hate to miss out. Playing Batman AO with and without is night and day and looks rather dull without IMO (after playing with it of course).

Phixsator · 4 May 2014 at 13:38

PhysX can do a lot of awwsome stuff, there is no doubt. Some of the tech demos are pretty darn cool. I love the one with water balloons filled with water perfectly simulated when torn. The issue is the exclusivity, as no developer out to make money would want to alienate 30-40% of the potential buyers.

Many goes to Borderlands 2 for what physx can do but the truth of the matter is that most of it would be as easily done on Havoc, i mean come on, swirling flags? Sure the liquid, if not a little too gooey, is kinda awwsome but its not gameplay changing and it cant be because that would mean AMD users couldnt purchase the title at all.

I feel that nVidia is truly wasting what could become awwsome tech. Thats why i dont give 2 flying ducks about it and why i strongly believe that nobody should factor it in when choosing a graphics card, as it is mostly just stripped eye candy that could have been done on an AMD gfx using other means.

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 13:39

Gregster said:
My point stands. You can read those articles and sway them to your own argument. I could do the same but shan't bother, as that would be very childish.

LOL, it's always the same with brand defenders, the funny part is I haven't once said in my time here that PhysX is **** and how it's good when done right.

If you want to be of simplistic nature and believe Nvidia to be the good guys when it comes to PhysX adoption, that's your prerogative, I'll just debunk the fallacy with a crash down to reality every time I here such bs.

Gregster said:
/end

That's about the best bit you have backed up=nothing.

Gregster · 4 May 2014 at 14:23

tommybhoy said:
LOL, it's always the same with brand defenders, the funny part is I haven't once said in my time here that PhysX is **** and how it's good when done right.

If you want to be of simplistic nature and believe Nvidia to be the good guys when it comes to PhysX adoption, that's your prerogative, I'll just debunk the fallacy with a crash down to reality every time I hear such bs.

That's about the best bit you have backed up=nothing.

Get down from that pedestal and stop reading things how you want, just to suit your argument. I never accused you of anything but you have got yourself all wound up over something you can't use. If it means so much to you, spend an extra few quid next time and buy nVidia.

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 14:31

Not me bud, I'm finding this hilarious, you can't accuse presenting truth lol.

I already explained that I go for way, way more power for the monies, I'm not one for paying over the odds for something I can get considerably cheaper elsewhere, the day Nvidia offer better value for money, is when I have to make that decision, until then it's Amd all the way baby.

MOOGLEYS · 4 May 2014 at 14:31

Nvidia purchased Physx and made it exclusive to Nvidia cards so they can offer something AMD cannot to make Nvidia cards more attractive.

Shock horror a company doing this.

Gregster · 4 May 2014 at 14:37

tommybhoy said:
LOL, it's always the same with brand defenders,

tommybhoy said:
Not me bud, I'm finding this hilarious, you can't accuse presenting truth lol.

I already explained that I go for way, way more power for the monies, I'm not one for paying over the odds for something I can get considerably cheaper elsewhere, the day Nvidia offer better value for money, is when I have to make that decision, until then it's Amd all the way baby.

Enough said.

ubersonic · 4 May 2014 at 14:38

MOOGLEYS said:
Nvidia purchased Physx and made it exclusive to Nvidia cards so they can offer something AMD cannot to make Nvidia cards more attractive.

Shock horror a company doing this.

Isn't this basically the same thing AMD did with Trueaudio?

shankly1985 · 4 May 2014 at 14:45

Phixsator said:
PhysX can do a lot of awwsome stuff, there is no doubt. Some of the tech demos are pretty darn cool. I love the one with water balloons filled with water perfectly simulated when torn. The issue is the exclusivity, as no developer out to make money would want to alienate 30-40% of the potential buyers.

Many goes to Borderlands 2 for what physx can do but the truth of the matter is that most of it would be as easily done on Havoc, i mean come on, swirling flags? Sure the liquid, if not a little too gooey, is kinda awwsome but its not gameplay changing and it cant be because that would mean AMD users couldnt purchase the title at all.

I feel that nVidia is truly wasting what could become awwsome tech. Thats why i dont give 2 flying ducks about it and why i strongly believe that nobody should factor it in when choosing a graphics card, as it is mostly just stripped eye candy that could have been done on an AMD gfx using other means.

1+
The PhysX in batman AC don't need GPU and other software physics engine could have easy done.
If it would be optimized better on the CPU I would get better performance but why would nvidia want to do that? They want you to believe all what use seeing is only possible on a GPU.
From playing AC my total CPU usage was just 70%

ubersonic · 4 May 2014 at 14:50

I do love the hypocrisy on this forum sometimes

AMD decline to use PhysX (despite Nvidia saying the licence fee would be "less than pennies per GPU shipped") = Nvidia are the devil.

Nvidia then decline to use Mantle = Nvidia are the devil.

Rroff · 4 May 2014 at 14:56

Phixsator said:
PhysX can do a lot of awwsome stuff, there is no doubt. Some of the tech demos are pretty darn cool. I love the one with water balloons filled with water perfectly simulated when torn. The issue is the exclusivity, as no developer out to make money would want to alienate 30-40% of the potential buyers.

Many goes to Borderlands 2 for what physx can do but the truth of the matter is that most of it would be as easily done on Havoc, i mean come on, swirling flags? Sure the liquid, if not a little too gooey, is kinda awwsome but its not gameplay changing and it cant be because that would mean AMD users couldnt purchase the title at all.

I feel that nVidia is truly wasting what could become awwsome tech. Thats why i dont give 2 flying ducks about it and why i strongly believe that nobody should factor it in when choosing a graphics card, as it is mostly just stripped eye candy that could have been done on an AMD gfx using other means.

Some of that stuff was on flex rather than PhysX - but from what I've seen with the latest generation of ingame physics possibilities you need both in an advanced game engine for realtime viable performance - one handles the wider physics - the more numerous instances of primitive physics RBs, etc., one the more detailed stuff (softbody, etc.) and then the 2 systems talk as needed - a more convoluted version of broad phase filtering.

Saddens me to see not only nVidia locking it out but the stuff that can really be done by PhysX not seeing the light of day and people being happy with the primitive physics that stuff like Havok handle.

tommybhoy · 4 May 2014 at 14:57

MOOGLEYS said:
Nvidia purchased Physx and made it exclusive to Nvidia cards so they can offer something AMD cannot to make Nvidia cards more attractive.

Shock horror a company doing this.

It's their tech, I don't have any issue with that, it's the stupidity presenting the fallacy that they would give it to AMD when history shows they took steps to block it.

Gregster said:
Enough said.

ROFL, if you think that's brand defending, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for others now.

It's wallet defending pure and simple, I don't get issues to note with either, cheapest performance wins every time, I don't pull 6 foot shafts out the rear each time I make a purchase, I leave that for others, I don't encourage driving pricing skywards.