“if i buy a 2nd gfx card considering 99% of games I'll be using sli/crossfire, I wouldn't ever remotely bother to switch it to PPU mode and lose framerate and the expense of playing a couple crap levels and some ridiculous and not realistic effects.”
That is just so wrong. You don’t lose FPS you gain FPS. It’s not a couple of levels it every single level in almost every Physx game. Take UT as an example.
Not turning it on is stupid as you gain FPS form it and you dont have to have any new effects if there are some. Take GRAW 2 you can choose to run the same effects as normal only faster as its on the GPU/PPU. Or you can turn extra effects on which do look better and is still faster then none GPU/PPU.
Anyway just like normal I bet as soon as your asked to prove anything you vanish from the thread. Like last time and time before. You always come out with rubbish then disappear.
”Every single useful thing you can do with real physics, you can do with estimated cpu friendly physics.”
You have been proven wrong about that time and time again. Why do you keep going on about it? Look at Crysis and how it turns to a slide show with the CPU doing lots of tress falling down at once. So intread they made it so large explosions dont knock tress down. Look at liquids and cloth which fail to work on the CPU with estimated physics at playable speeds. Can you show me any of these being down decently with estimated physics on the CPU. Anyway if you use estimated physics its still better on the PPU/GPU. The same estimated physics on the CPU run far, far faster on the PPU/GPU.
Estimated physics that slow a CPU down to 1fps run at 30fps+ on a PPU/CPU.
“Every wall that can be destroyed must be designed to do so, a wall that explodes in 5 pieces takes 50 times as long to design as a wall that doesn't destruct,W”
Again totally wrong. It just goes to show your complete lack of understanding of game development. Placing the 2nd destructible wall takes the same amount of time as the 2nd normal none destructible wall. Meaning the maps dont take much longer to make. 50x as long is just you making stuff up again.
“Levels are fully destructable as games would take 5 years rather than 2-3 to make. This is why we've only ever seen 1-2 "physx/highly destructable" levels per physx supported title, there is no time to make more.”
Just so wrong. Proven by the fact that highly destructible physx games come with more than just 2 levels and people who make their own maps up don’t take forever. Yes it takes a little longer but not that much longer. Physx isnt just about highly destructable levels anyway.
“even if its never used getting ATI or anyone else to buy a licence still means money in their pocket,”
It’s free for ATI to use and others to use. In fact it’s already working on ATI cards and Nvidia said they dont have to pay.
“Nvidia bought out Physx to let them die, rather than spend 10 times the cost competing with them for the next decade. Business wise its much much cheaper, its as simple as that.”
Why do you make stuff up? That just a complete lie. Just look at what Nvidia have done and are doing with Physx and its clear they are not killing it off but makeing it a major part of there line up.
“How walls blow up has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICS ENGINE.”
Keep going your only making yourself look more stupid.
“Frame rate crawls to a halt with or without PhysX hardware?“
Without the hardware as with a GPU or PPU doing the physic work it runs fine.
“I ran UT3 with the Ageia PhysX map pack installed and the levels are rubbish.”
Those 3 map pack levels are pretty boring but the normal levels are not. Physics wise those extra levels are not rubbish it’s just the bad layout are no fun to play. That and the levels took a stupid amount of time to load.
“Eh? Sorry? The only PhysX games I can think of are UT3, CellFactor, WarMonger and Ghost Recon.”
Either you don’t play many games or like most people you don’t pay attention to the physic engine used.
“hen are we going to see a Call of Duty game where the environment is as destructable as it would be in real life?”
You mean like Warmonger? There are other PhysX games like that.
That is just so wrong. You don’t lose FPS you gain FPS. It’s not a couple of levels it every single level in almost every Physx game. Take UT as an example.
Not turning it on is stupid as you gain FPS form it and you dont have to have any new effects if there are some. Take GRAW 2 you can choose to run the same effects as normal only faster as its on the GPU/PPU. Or you can turn extra effects on which do look better and is still faster then none GPU/PPU.
Anyway just like normal I bet as soon as your asked to prove anything you vanish from the thread. Like last time and time before. You always come out with rubbish then disappear.
”Every single useful thing you can do with real physics, you can do with estimated cpu friendly physics.”
You have been proven wrong about that time and time again. Why do you keep going on about it? Look at Crysis and how it turns to a slide show with the CPU doing lots of tress falling down at once. So intread they made it so large explosions dont knock tress down. Look at liquids and cloth which fail to work on the CPU with estimated physics at playable speeds. Can you show me any of these being down decently with estimated physics on the CPU. Anyway if you use estimated physics its still better on the PPU/GPU. The same estimated physics on the CPU run far, far faster on the PPU/GPU.
Estimated physics that slow a CPU down to 1fps run at 30fps+ on a PPU/CPU.
“Every wall that can be destroyed must be designed to do so, a wall that explodes in 5 pieces takes 50 times as long to design as a wall that doesn't destruct,W”
Again totally wrong. It just goes to show your complete lack of understanding of game development. Placing the 2nd destructible wall takes the same amount of time as the 2nd normal none destructible wall. Meaning the maps dont take much longer to make. 50x as long is just you making stuff up again.
“Levels are fully destructable as games would take 5 years rather than 2-3 to make. This is why we've only ever seen 1-2 "physx/highly destructable" levels per physx supported title, there is no time to make more.”
Just so wrong. Proven by the fact that highly destructible physx games come with more than just 2 levels and people who make their own maps up don’t take forever. Yes it takes a little longer but not that much longer. Physx isnt just about highly destructable levels anyway.
“even if its never used getting ATI or anyone else to buy a licence still means money in their pocket,”
It’s free for ATI to use and others to use. In fact it’s already working on ATI cards and Nvidia said they dont have to pay.
“Nvidia bought out Physx to let them die, rather than spend 10 times the cost competing with them for the next decade. Business wise its much much cheaper, its as simple as that.”
Why do you make stuff up? That just a complete lie. Just look at what Nvidia have done and are doing with Physx and its clear they are not killing it off but makeing it a major part of there line up.
“How walls blow up has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICS ENGINE.”
Keep going your only making yourself look more stupid.
“Frame rate crawls to a halt with or without PhysX hardware?“
Without the hardware as with a GPU or PPU doing the physic work it runs fine.
“I ran UT3 with the Ageia PhysX map pack installed and the levels are rubbish.”
Those 3 map pack levels are pretty boring but the normal levels are not. Physics wise those extra levels are not rubbish it’s just the bad layout are no fun to play. That and the levels took a stupid amount of time to load.
“Eh? Sorry? The only PhysX games I can think of are UT3, CellFactor, WarMonger and Ghost Recon.”
Either you don’t play many games or like most people you don’t pay attention to the physic engine used.
“hen are we going to see a Call of Duty game where the environment is as destructable as it would be in real life?”
You mean like Warmonger? There are other PhysX games like that.
Last edited:
