Crysis - Mass Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4p
  • Start date Start date
Pottsey said:
“In UT3 hardware physics on my system does not have the little white in the box meaning its off, and I can gaurantee my fps never goes down to 12fps, its always up there 50+, I'm not lieing, I dont have hardware physics on, I dont think anyone has it on.”
You said 26fps average is unplayable and that if you turn hardware physics off you get a nice 59.7fps which is playable. Only if you’re getting 26fps with hardware physics you’re getting 12fps without hardware physics.

There is no way you turn hardware physics off and go from 26fps to 50+fps on the same map.




”You're trying to say no mater what UT3 has low fps for all?”
No, I am saying hardware physics is always faster then the CPU.
Click to expand...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/thehub/ut3hp.jpg

Thats how I have it set, and its always over 40fps, perhaps physics is off, because its smooth and I would never buy a physx card for UT3 or any game since the difference is minimal and not worth the hit in performance I would rather have no physics untill something better comes along that does the job fine.
 
“UT3 or any game since the difference is minimal and not worth the hit in performance”
What hit in performance in UT? There is no hit in performance. You only get a performance boost. How is your FPS going up from a PPU classed as a performance hit?
 
Pottsey said:
“UT3 or any game since the difference is minimal and not worth the hit in performance”
What hit in performance in UT? There is no hit in performance. You only get a performance boost. How is your FPS going up from a PPU classed as a performance hit?
Click to expand...

Its a performance hit using a PPU or even a CPU to do the physics, its too slow for my liking either way, so I turn it off and I get 50+ all the time.
 
“Its a performance hit using a PPU or even a CPU to do the physics, its too slow for my liking either way, so I turn it off and I get 50+ all the time.”
You’re not making any since. Turning hardware physics off gives the performance hit. Haveing it on boosts FPS if I go from 50+ to 60+ with the PPU how is it a performance hit? There is no way you can turn it off and gain FPS like you are saying. If your turning hardware physics off and getting 50+ then turning hardware physic on will be faster. What you’re saying should be impossible and goes against everything we know about hardware physics.

What do you mean performance hit using a PPU or even a CPU to do the physics. Those are your only two options. You cannot turn both off the PPU and CPU for physics. There is no 3rd option to use something else.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
“Its a performance hit using a PPU or even a CPU to do the physics, its too slow for my liking either way, so I turn it off and I get 50+ all the time.”
You’re not making any since. Turning hardware physics off gives the performance hit. Haveing it on boosts FPS if I go from 50+ to 60+ with the PPU how is it a performance hit? There is no way you can turn it off and gain FPS like you are saying. If your turning hardware physics off and getting 50+ then turning hardware physic on will be faster. What you’re saying should be impossible and goes against everything we know about hardware physics.

What do you mean performance hit using a PPU or even a CPU to do the physics. Those are your only two options. You cannot turn both off the PPU and CPU for physics. There is no 3rd option to use something else.
Click to expand...

Look at the damn benchmarks there is 3 different readings in that chart, I'm telling you I never get down to 12 silly fps in UT3, Physics must be turned of or something, I'm not going to buy a Physics card for a 10fps boost.
 
Look at the damn benchmarks there is 3 different readings in that chart, I'm telling you I never get down to 12 silly fps in UT3, Physics must be turned of or something, I'm not going to buy a Physics card for a 10fps boost.
Yes you do go down to 12fps on the high physics maps. Look at the chart again you notice there are 2 maps on the same chart. The bottom two lines are from map A, the top line is map B. If they use hardware physics on map B there would be a 4th line above the CPU score. So your comment on hardware physics slows down UT is wrong. As both map A and B are faster with hardwere physics.

This isn’t about you buying a Physics card for a 10fps boost. This was about you saying the PPU slows down UT with a performance hit, which isn’t true.
Its also about without the PPU the high physics maps are unplayable at 12fps. With the PPU the maps are playable. I see no reason why Crysis wouldn’t be the same if it supported the PPU.

The unplayable video in this thread could well become playable. You used UT as an example of how the PPU couldn’t solve the Crysis physics as you said the PPU slows UT down. But in fact the PPU speeds UT up. UT shows that the PPU could solve the Crysis physics problem in the video.
 
willhub said:
Look at the damn benchmarks there is 3 different readings in that chart, I'm telling you I never get down to 12 silly fps in UT3, Physics must be turned of or something, I'm not going to buy a Physics card for a 10fps boost.
Click to expand...

why dont you just benchmark it and proove it :rolleyes:
you two can do the "to me, to you" routine all day neither of you are prooving anything meanwhile :p
However pottsey is more credible as he has posted some benchmarks
 
Willhub might have the same problem as me. He has no idea how to run a benchmark.

I have been asking around how to benchmark a timedemo but no one can answer.
 
I dont want to run a benchmark, all the maps I go on ONLINE have never dropped below 40fps.

Tell me what the physics maps are.

If there are 2 physics maps that drop down to 12fps whatever then I dont want to even play them, the only maps I've been playing are never going under 40fps and I have been on quite a few maps.

Chronictank said:
why dont you just benchmark it and proove it :rolleyes:
you two can do the "to me, to you" routine all day neither of you are prooving anything meanwhile :p
However pottsey is more credible as he has posted some benchmarks
Click to expand...

I know he's posted benchmarks, but I never seen a map name in them. I never knew there was 2 maps for Physics, but I dont want to be playing them if you need a Physx card, certainly wont be getting one at the rip off price they are to play a physx map at still unplayable frame rates, yes its obviously faster than a CPU, but its still not playable.

I dont need to post any benchmarks, I thought all maps used some sort of physics and I thought pottsey was trying to say in every map I lag and I thought you could turn the physics off.

I know one thing, that benchmark shows the PPU is not worth the price though, no point, if it can bring framerates up in crysis to 30+ all the time then it may be worth it, but to be worth it there needs to be more games and the price reduced to around £30-£40.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
“Tell me what the physics maps are.”
http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html
I wansnt trying to say the PPU is worth buying. I was more trying to get across the point that A, the PPU doesn’t lower FPS. B, perhaps a PPU if supported would turn the unplayable Crysis video to playable.
Click to expand...

I was saying it looks like the PPU also lowers the fps but the CPU does aswell when doing the physics as I was thinking it was something to do with all maps.
 
Doesnt matter if the ppu improves performance - its still below par. 20 odd fps is just unacceptable for a fast paced game like this. I bet most people would rather have more fps and 'advanced' physics disabled.
 
“its still below par. 20 odd fps is just unacceptable for a fast paced game like this.”
Its 60+ or 70+ on all but two maps which is not below par. If you’re not CPU limited with a quad core its 30+ which is no unacceptable. Lots of people happily play the maps like that.
 
Pottsey said:
“its still below par. 20 odd fps is just unacceptable for a fast paced game like this.”
Its 60+ or 70+ on all but two maps which is not below par. If you’re not CPU limited with a quad core its 30+ which is no unacceptable. Lots of people happily play the maps like that.
Click to expand...

So in these 2 physx maps were is it 60+ or 70+? I dont believe that for one second if a CPU is only doing 12fps, and there is no benchmarks which proove this.
 
“So in these 2 physx maps were is it 60+ or 70+?”
I said it was 60 or 70+ on all but two maps. The two physics maps are the exception.
 
Pottsey said:
Its 60+ or 70+ on all but two maps which is not below par. If you’re not CPU limited with a quad core its 30+ which is no unacceptable. Lots of people happily play the maps like that.
Click to expand...

So even with a physx card I would still need a quad core cpu to achieve 30fps? Lol @ that.

So much for the card doing all the work.
 
Last edited:
Boring Physx arguements aside, did that remind anyone of a Sony Bravia esque advert? Good music too. Really scary that if you consider 10 years ago Half Life was being praised for its 'realistic' object interaction... which was basically pushing and pulling stuff around, and now here we are.

[EDIT] Oh and, while trying my best not to start a crysis debate, i find it amazing that software coding has so utterly broken beyond the scope of current day hardware. I can't think of a single time when elements of a game were so beyond what the hardware of the time was capable of. I wonder if we will still be using the same sort of physics engines in 10 years as we are today, because they clearly care capable of so much more than hardware will allow as is shown in that video.
 
Last edited:
The video isnt real time tho. It would take some power to run that in real time.

Edit: sorry totally misread what you said :)

I think a proper PPU is still the way forward, but needs be a hell of a lot better than what Ageia offered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom