No problem, there's not much to say really, although it does put physX to shame(not starting anti physX, I personally like it!) as the explosion effects are better than anything I have seen physx do.
I don't knock physx, its a good library of decent physics modelling, the issue is NO game will EVER need the level of accuracy physx tries to produce, and physx libraries of super accurate things don't do a whole heck of a lot when crap dev's implement it badly.
The most awesome application of physx wouldn't come through physx being great, or accurate, but through good game design, and that takes time, nothing less.
Physics in games come down to game design, the engine to run it doesn't NEED to be super accurate. As I always mention, you CAN'T possibly know if that one particle would fall half an inch to the left, or half an inch to the right. simplifying equations massively cuts out power required, MASSIVELY, and the end user couldn't possibly ever tell.
BF3 is good in that regard, not because Frostbite is great, but simply for the time and effort they put in and the company/project managers deciding it was worth putting that time in.
physx isn't rubbish, it never has been, its just pointless for gaming, that won't ever change.
In terms of physics in games, there is very very little that is hard to implement, we're not talking quantum physics there, most of the things are incredibly basic but every time you add one item that can interact with 20k other items in a game, you're massively increasing the workload.
