Last edited:
-
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: Devs only use PhysX for money
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
Firstly, I actually meant when making games software for the windows platform and secondly, a mac user CAN use it if they install windows.
That comparison is however quite poor as directx is part of windows.
What you probably mean is that Mac OSX can't run direct X, but that's like complaining that you can't play Wii discs on the playtstation 3.
Sucks for nVidia then they are getting muscled out the console GPU market... but if another console does come out with a new nVidia GPU you can bet it will support GPU PhysX... guess what developers would code physics for... guess what games ported to the PC would use for physics... if nVidia can get their head in the game they can pretty much write PhysX's meal ticket.
Except that it would have to be an exclusive title for that console to use PhysX extensively for meaningful physics & not just for some added eye candy & you will not see many of them.
Last edited:
RobertN said “thing is software is made with consoles as the development platform these days
neither of which use physx so it will always be a bolted on extra for the pc “
Last time I looked PhysX was part of the default PS3 SDK and was also used a lot in Xbox and Wii games.
PhysX is the most used physics engines in console games when I did a count up a year back. The main difference is the PC is way faster at PhysX due to GPU PhysX.
neither of which use physx so it will always be a bolted on extra for the pc “
Last time I looked PhysX was part of the default PS3 SDK and was also used a lot in Xbox and Wii games.
PhysX is the most used physics engines in console games when I did a count up a year back. The main difference is the PC is way faster at PhysX due to GPU PhysX.
And then have Nvidia decide what other hardware can be included in your system.
As long as it's only supported by one company PhysX is a bit pointless. It just wont get mainstream support. The whole DX vs OpenGL thing is different for two reasons:
Another example of this is x86-64, if it was only supported by AMD it would have been a hard sell for many, despite the known advantages; because Intel was free to implement it as well (instead of developing a competing standard) it is now the standard.
1) Different markets - The former is focused on games and the latter is aimed at professional 3d although, admittedly, they have some overlap and
2) All GPU makers are free to implement both. DX was successful because it was so easy to implement even when it was (at the time) technically inferior.
2) All GPU makers are free to implement both. DX was successful because it was so easy to implement even when it was (at the time) technically inferior.
Another example of this is x86-64, if it was only supported by AMD it would have been a hard sell for many, despite the known advantages; because Intel was free to implement it as well (instead of developing a competing standard) it is now the standard.
I wonder what the chances are of those said games really using physx?
Even the nVidia website lists games as "physx" titles when they actually use havok.