• 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.

PhysX + Cellfactor = great fun.

mashie

mashie

mashie

Associate
Joined
28 Apr 2003
Posts
60
Location
EVE-Online
It is quite unfortunate GRAW was available before the CellFactor Demo because this is what physics accelleration really is about...


cf_10.jpg



More images:

The playground
Explosion 1
Explosion 2
Explosion 3
Explosion 4
Explosion 5
Explosion 6
Explosion 7
Explosion 8

Screenshots taken at 1024x768, no AA, 8xAF, HDR on, dynamic shadows on using a single x1900xt.


Considering still pictures doesn't make it right here are a few videos as well...

Video1 (7MB)

Video2 (23MB)

Video3 (23MB)

Video4 (4MB)

Video5 (6MB)

Video6 (3MB)

Video7 (4MB)


Recorded with fraps at 1024x768, no AA, 8xAF, HDR on, dynamic shadows off using a single x1900xt.
 
Well well, the first GOOD remark about the PhysX card I've seen.

What happens when you increase the resolution and/or add AA and higher AF??
does it slow to a crawl?? :confused: .
 
Magnum_Force said:
Well well, the first GOOD remark about the PhysX card I've seen.

What happens when you increase the resolution and/or add AA and higher AF??
does it slow to a crawl?? :confused: .
Click to expand...
At 2560x1600 I get 5-10fps just walking around not shooting anything...

AA can't be enabled in game and forcing it in the ATI drivers makes no difference.

The fps during the 0.5s things were detonating got that low thanks to dynamic shadows being enabled for the hundreds of objects created. When I recoded the videos the dynamic shadows were disabled producing a nice speed boost.
 
cant AA be used then with physX? pretty crap if thats the case... :rolleyes:
and the fact a x1900 with another expensive piece of hardware performs badly is a joke to be honest, can you imagine a large screen tft user at 1024x768 :eek:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, same here, all those real time shadows that need to calculated on the fly when and object "breaks up" I think is really hurting the fps. Although, the "pausing" when a grenade blows up a stack of objects doesn't fill me with confidence. The same thing happens on the CryEngine (FarCry) when shooting a big stack of objects. I've made stacks of some hundreds of barrels, shot at them with an uber up'ed weapon, and the thing will "pause" just like that before everything springs to life and the several hundreds of barrels go flying. Just like that game.

All without a PPU (infact, all on a AMD64 3000+ not overclocked :confused: ).
 
mashie said:
I would blame the videocards for not being able to handle all the objects created though...
Click to expand...

So we're all going to need X1900XTXs in Crossfire to be able to use PhysX properly... Does seem a bit of a poor implementation. Instead of using PhysX to add loads of extra stuff into scenes, it should be taking the existing physics work off of the processor to increase framerates.
 
Street said:
So we're all going to need X1900XTXs in Crossfire to be able to use PhysX properly... Does seem a bit of a poor implementation. Instead of using PhysX to add loads of extra stuff into scenes, it should be taking the existing physics work off of the processor to increase framerates.
Click to expand...
Considering how little CPU currently implemented physics (HL2) use I don't see the need for a PPU to offload that. The PPU is designed to take physics to the next level and yes, more realistic enviroments/explosions will require a lot more powerful videocards. Today when things blow up it is particles and sprites used for the bits flying around. With the PPU you have enough power to calculate real 3d objects to fly around, however the videocards are a lot faster drawing sprites...

So yes, to max out a PPU you will definately need the most powerful videocards you can find.

Also in CellFactor, you have to be careful where you drop grenades since the debris flying about WILL get you killed. Effect physics (GRAW) in all glory but this is the way I prefer it. Now I just need to get my second x1900xt replaced. ;)
 
To my mind, this still looks awfully like a CPU or maybe even a PPU bottleneck. Sorry to bring it up again, but when using the FarCry engine, when lots of physic based actions are happening, the fps drops to around 10-15fps and kinda stays there, similar to this case.
 
Seeing as you do have a very high end machine - what the hell are the CellFactor lot thinking ?
I mean WHO is expected to be able to run this game? Will it be the Lamborghini of the PC game world - something that very few can afford?
Also begs the question - how the hell did they make their bloody video of the game that we have all been drooling over for the last month ? (Maybe Ageia might give them a prod to answer that one)
Damn - I was really looking forward to this game too :(
 
I expected that to go at 100+ fps.

The graphics arent exactly groundbreaking (textures, shadows etc).

What exactly is that physx doing? (calculating physics slowly by the looks)

Tom
 
welshtom said:
I expected that to go at 100+ fps.

The graphics arent exactly groundbreaking (textures, shadows etc).

What exactly is that physx doing? (calculating physics slowly by the looks)

Tom
Click to expand...

i think its more to do with the fact improving physics puts a lot more workload on the cpu and gpu, and remember it EARLY DAYS, give it a while, i mean, think how far graphics cards have come, to a comodity (sp?) to essential
 
I thought it looked pretty good tbh... obviously with all the stuff being new (the card, the drivers and the game is a demo) its not going to be lightening fast.
Great potential - but not a winning situation for early adopters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom