• 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.

AMD and NVIDIA butt heads over physics

Rroff said:
Its one of the first mainstream games to use rigid body physics throughout the gameworld, its one of the better implementations but its nothing that couldn't be done - probably with better performance - with PhysX. But its still fairly primitive compared to whats possible with physics.
Click to expand...

I think this where the problem is with you banging on about what could be all the time when people only really care about what is happening & buy in accordance.

Because i have seen allot of physx hardware pass under the bridge including the PPU which people bought because of the what you could have crowed banging on over the years but yet very little has come of it & some people are most likely on to there 3rd or 4th physx capable hardware still waiting on what could be if physx is used to its potential & none has been able to say when.

And with it only running on one make of GPU it will be never.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Its one of the first mainstream games to use rigid body physics throughout the gameworld, its one of the better implementations but its nothing that couldn't be done - probably with better performance - with PhysX. But its still fairly primitive compared to whats possible with physics.
Click to expand...

Dude, that really made me LOL!! :D

How on earth can you say that with a straight face when the poster boy for fizzx was batman with it's floaty paper! Man, that's embarrassing for NV. :o

They'll never use it for anything worthwhile, as per BC2, because devs won't want to have physics effect that are important to the game play but restricted to NV cards. All physx will ever be is a glittery addition with no substance.

They need to stop wasting their time on this lame duck, and get back to making decent graphics cards.
 
wolvers69 said:
Dude, that really made me LOL!! :D

How on earth can you say that with a straight face when the poster boy for fizzx was batman with it's floaty paper! Man, that's embarrassing for NV. :o

They'll never use it for anything worthwhile, as per BC2, because devs won't want to have physics effect that are important to the game play but restricted to NV cards. All physx will ever be is a glittery addition with no substance.

They need to stop wasting their time on this lame duck, and get back to making decent graphics cards.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Rroff's world. :p
 
I m with open. Work on any hardware, being with Nv or ATI just like the consles are
 
Miss the point? ignore the specific designer implementation the API is just as capable of doing the kinda physics in BC2 but with potentially better performance and soft body effects.
 
Sorry, I thought I made the point quite clear. Apologies. I'll try again.

No one cares what it CAN do, but what it DOES do........which is bits of paper floating around in a fairly dull game. It will never reach the heights of what we get from BC2 for the reasons I have already stated.
 
Rroff said:
Miss the point? ignore the specific designer implementation the API is just as capable of doing the kinda physics in BC2 but with potentially better performance and soft body effects.
Click to expand...

No I didn't miss the point, that video was awful, those physics were horrendous.

Did you not see how the cloth behaved while getting shot? Did you not see how the wall fell apart in OBVIOUS blocks? I'd rather no desctructable environment than that sad excuse.

As Wolvers said, who cares what tech demos you link to us, it's about what's being done in games.
 
Last edited:
Physx will always be bolted on to games usually late in development because the developer take a nice wedge from nvidia to have it put in, so you will never see a physx game along the lines of BC2. This will be the downfall of physx, developers will go with an open physics standard that benefit all consumers, rather than NV's enclosed POS.
 
I actually think the cloth in that video looks OK in the way it moves etc but the walls being blown apart just looks really unnatural, no?
 
wolvers69 said:
I actually think the cloth in that video looks OK in the way it moves etc but the walls being blown apart just looks really unnatural, no?
Click to expand...

The movement was quite rigid, the non GPU PhysX cloth in Mirror's edge looks FAR better.

The way the cloth was being shot up was ridiculous, it wouldn't rip and tear like that at all.

The walls were just a joke.
 
wolvers69 said:
Sorry, I thought I made the point quite clear. Apologies. I'll try again.

No one cares what it CAN do, but what it DOES do........which is bits of paper floating around in a fairly dull game. It will never reach the heights of what we get from BC2 for the reasons I have already stated.
Click to expand...

Thats purely down to how the developer implements it - not how good or bad the API is.

kylew said:
No I didn't miss the point, that video was awful, those physics were horrendous.

Did you not see how the cloth behaved while getting shot? Did you not see how the wall fell apart in OBVIOUS blocks? I'd rather no desctructable environment than that sad excuse.

As Wolvers said, who cares what tech demos you link to us, it's about what's being done in games.
Click to expand...

See above. Also BC2 and RF:G the destruction is also just blocks of geometry grouped together, the video final8y posted is the same - just a little more fine grained in the developer implementation.
 
Rroff said:
Thats purely down to how the developer implements it - not how good or bad the API is.



See above. Also BC2 and RF:G the destruction is also just blocks of geometry grouped together, the video final8y posted is the same - just a little more fine grained in the developer implementation.
Click to expand...

If you want to be pedantic, all it ever will be is blocks of geometry grouped together, the other video was MUCH better implemented AND it was running on the CPU.

I still don't get your point.
 
I really don't see what all the fuss is about Physics, the only game I've played where it's made a difference to the gameplay is Half Life 2 and that was nearly.........(wait for it)..........6 years ago and that was with the Havok engine.

What is there to get excited about Bullet or PhysX? Most developers prefer to use their own physics models rather the licence a 3rd party engine so the idea that either Bullet with it's open licence or PhysX done on the GPU or Havok with Intel's cash behind it will end up as the dominant player in the market is a not going to happen. And if it did happen it doesn't matter since it makes bugger all difference to the games, it time to move on and look at other developing other technologies such as advanced AI.
 
i think you would find bullet is actually more like havok and there are games I know were the physic (havok powered) affect the game play *cough red faction* half life 2...is but it has awsome game play anyway as normal for a valve game
 
Unless it's free to all GPUs or completely and efficiently CPU driven what is the point in this argument?

Physics obviously isn't mature enough to stand alone, and nobody other than nVidia really cares, so why keep annoying everyone with it?

At the end of the day it's just pouring more hate on an already struggling company (fanboy disclaimer: struggling to compete on value/performance level) and making ATI more rational by the second.

BFBC2 is amazing on the eye and I'd be more than happy if the physics in it were used for the next 5 years in all games and companies focused on the real meat of the GPU market.
 
manufacturers own physics implementation will always be superior to an open source based approach when it comes to performance.

so id expect stream or cuda based physics acceleration to be more efficient than an opencl method.

but from what iv seen in bad company 2, who needs gpu based physics acceleration? bet next year with the 6core cpus comming down in price the cpu based physics implementations will be even better than they are now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom