TRESSFX: A NEW FRONTIER OF REALISM IN PC GAMING

[Rroff]

None of that gets in the way of overcoming PhysX, PhysX doesn't have a lifespan because it's locked to nVidia.

Same was said about CUDA, yet its faster growing than any of the competition.

One of two things may happen, Nvidia concede and simply use the same engine, which is what developers would want them to do given that they would like to port from PC to Console or the other way... without having to deal with multiple engines.

Or Nvidia get pig headed about it, refuse to change, and developers ignore Nvidia's engine, much like they do today.

It has to be said, AMD are really cranking it up.

Good, its about time!

For anyone to concede first takes a viable alternative and that simply doesn't exist and AMD or anyone else have a long way to go to prove they can provide and support one... and then catch up with where PhysX is now. You only have to look at say bullet to see what a sad state things are in in that regard - AMD made them a lot of promises and delivered on... well pretty much none of them. (read all the "change of plans", etc. headlines).

The only thing thats likely to have any impact in this regard realistically is the shape of things physics wise on the next xbox.

 

[Diagro]

Same was said about CUDA, yet its faster growing than any of the competition.



For anyone to concede first takes a viable alternative and that simply doesn't exist and AMD or anyone else have a long way to go to prove they can provide and support one... and then catch up with where PhysX is now. You only have to look at say bullet to see what a sad state things are in in that regard - AMD made them a lot of promises and delivered on... well pretty much none of them. (read all the "change of plans", etc. headlines).

The only thing thats likely to have any impact in this regard realistically is the shape of things physics wise on the next xbox.

And the PS4... if AMD have a Physx version of their own then tbh its plainly clear that it will be used far more than physx is.

 

[spoffle]

Same was said about CUDA, yet its faster growing than any of the competition.

We're not talking about CUDA though, we're talking about PhysX, very different things and not at all comparable.

For anyone to concede first takes a viable alternative and that simply doesn't exist and AMD or anyone else have a long way to go to prove they can provide and support one... and then catch up with where PhysX is now. You only have to look at say bullet to see what a sad state things are in in that regard - AMD made them a lot of promises and delivered on... well pretty much none of them. (read all the "change of plans", etc. headlines).

In the real world, hardware physics wouldn't take off properly until the lowest common denominator could utilise it, as known as the consoles.

So whether AMD came out with a "viable alternative" makes no difference at all, it would have been used to introduce token features in to multiplatform games at best, and PC exclusives, well it wouldn't have been enough.

Additionally, you have no idea what's being worked on, no one does so to say it doesn't exist as if it's fact is ridiculous as well as conjecture.

The only thing thats likely to have any impact in this regard realistically is the shape of things physics wise on the next xbox.

That's not the only thing, and all AMD hardware is in the next Xbox too, PhysX just isn't going to be on the consoles in a hardware accelerated form at all, and I doubt software only would make an appearance.

And the PS4... if AMD have a Physx version of their own then tbh its plainly clear that it will be used far more than physx is.

It won't be a "PhysX version of their own". Whatever hardware physics is used on the consoles will run in OpenCL on the PC, and be available for anyone to use regardless of manufacturer. A thing such as PhysX is no good being owned and controlled by a company like nVidia, ie, one that's making the products that it runs on.

 

[Rroff]

Course its comparable.

I don't think the ps4 has enough clout these days to change the nature of physics use on its own, devs won't bother with something specific to it in this regard.

 

[Klo]

Course its comparable.

I don't think the ps4 has enough clout these days to change the nature of physics use on its own, devs won't bother with something specific to it in this regard.

Of course we don't know the Xbox specs, but if that has it and PC's?

 

[Rusty0611]

This further cements my thoughts that PhysX has been given its death sentence. No chance will it last to any extent now, barely anyone used it before, now it's going to be nobody.

What developer in their right mind would bother with PhysX when they could use something like this that works on any manufacturer's GPUs?

I can tell you can't wait .

 

[Rroff]

Of course we don't know the Xbox specs, but if that has it and PC's?

If anything the next xbox is more likely to be a game changer, devs at the moment are wary of dedicating time to features that are specific to a console and can't easily be ported to the xbox or PC. (There are exceptions like Dust 514).

 

[Suarez7]

I see the red and green handbags are out again.

I thought you AMD boys didn't care about physics much anyway? A lot of you said it adds nothing to games, lemme guess AMD's version is gonna be like OMQWTFBBQROLLS lets look at her hair flow around in the wind like a L'Oreal advert while I'm getting shot at in the head.

 

[humbug]

Same was said about CUDA, yet its faster growing than any of the competition.



For anyone to concede first takes a viable alternative and that simply doesn't exist and AMD or anyone else have a long way to go to prove they can provide and support one... and then catch up with where PhysX is now. You only have to look at say bullet to see what a sad state things are in in that regard - AMD made them a lot of promises and delivered on... well pretty much none of them. (read all the "change of plans", etc. headlines).

The only thing thats likely to have any impact in this regard realistically is the shape of things physics wise on the next xbox.

Roff, stop over complicating things to make it look like something it is not.
CUDA is OpenCL, PhysX is OpenCL, these are not exclusive Nvidia features, Nvidia had simply taken what is a shared and free communal programing language, locked every one out of it and then called it their own.
what you can do with CUDA and PhysX you can do with OpenCL, because its exactly the same thing.

OpenCL is NOT controlled by AMD, its up to developers to do with what they want, AMD are simply the hardware who drive whatever developers want to do and AMD's hardware will do is 3 times better than Nvidia.

So AMD are not in a position of needing to prove anything, OpenCL IS already proven.

 

[seabiscuit]

can you give some examples? i'd really like to see the hair thing in a game.

I think that Alice Madness Returns had some sort of PhysX hair thing for the main characters hair, but I'm not certain of it.

 

[Suarez7]

I think that Alice Madness Returns had some sort of PhysX hair thing for the main characters hair, but I'm not certain of it.

It did and it looked very good, but because it isn't an AAA title nobody cares.

 

[Rroff]

Roff, stop over complicating things to make it look like something it is not.
CUDA is OpenCL, PhysX is OpenCL, these are not exclusive Nvidia features, Nvidia had simply taken what is a shared and free communal programing language, locked every one out of it and then called it their own.
what you can do with CUDA and PhysX you can do with OpenCL, because its exactly the same thing.

OpenCL is NOT controlled by AMD, its up to developers to do with what they want, AMD are simply the hardware who drive whatever developers want to do and AMD's hardware will do is 3 times better than Nvidia.

So AMD are not in a position of needing to prove anything, OpenCL IS already proven.

With all due respect you don't really seem to know what your talking about and none of this is about Open CL itself anyway. Open CL on its own provides absolutely no physics processing. (Open CL btw is designed to be able to compute on a wide variety of platforms whether its CPU, GPU or whatever tho you need specific compilers for specific targets, CUDA is very focused on compute on GPUs and nVidia GPUs specifically).

I put CUDA in there as like PhysX its another nVidia tech along with 3D Vision, etc. that time after time people make comments along the lines of "its limited to nVidia it will dissapear soon" and yet months and years later its the still there, still getting supported and still growing to some degree or other.

Meanwhile the touted headline feature from AMD - regardless of whether its proprietary or ATI/AMD putting their weight behind an open standard is often exactly what has in the past has dissapeared. So I'm not going to get excited by a headline AMD feature until I see tangible evidence of it and laugh at the suggestions that X nVidia feature is about to see its demise when theres no tangible evidence of such.


EDIT: To be a little more specific this isn't about what Open CL is capable of or can/can't do this is about providing the layer on top of it that supports features relevant to the GPU, especially gaming focused ones, including processing physics on the GPU. TressFX may not even use Open CL anyway.

 

[humbug]

With all due respect you don't really seem to know what your talking about and none of this is about Open CL itself anyway. Open CL on its own provides absolutely no physics processing. (Open CL btw is designed to be able to compute on a wide variety of platforms whether its CPU, GPU or whatever tho you need specific compilers for specific targets, CUDA is very focused on compute on GPUs and nVidia GPUs specifically).

I put CUDA in there as like PhysX its another nVidia tech along with 3D Vision, etc. that time after time people make comments along the lines of "its limited to nVidia it will dissapear soon" and yet months and years later its the still there, still getting supported and still growing to some degree or other.

Meanwhile the touted headline feature from AMD - regardless of whether its proprietary or ATI/AMD putting their weight behind an open standard is often exactly what has in the past has dissapeared. So I'm not going to get excited by a headline AMD feature until I see tangible evidence of it and laugh at the suggestions that X nVidia feature is about to see its demise when theres no tangible evidence of such.

No, your wrong, 3DFX is where Nvidia got CUDA and PhysX from, it is not Nvidia tech. 3DFX used OpenCL just as Havok do now. And Nvidia under a different name.

OpenCL is the language used to create what Nvidia call PhysX and CUDA.

Almost every game already uses it, what you see in BF3 for example is OpenCL physics, the same today with Crysis 3, same goes for Bloom, illumination, shadowing..... All Nvidia do is go to developers and say "here add these extra little things and use this software to do it" and then stick our PhysX logo on it.

Any developer can do exactly the same, replicate exactly the same effects using the OpenCL SKD's already available to them. If they had thought of it, or if Nvidia had not said to them "do this"
You don't need any of Nvidia's version of OpenCL, which they simply call CUDA and PhysX, all Nvidia have done is developed their own distinct brand and stile with it.

Absolutely nothing to do with AMD, its all with the developers and what they chose to do with it.

 

[Suarez7]

All Nvidia do is go to developers and say "here add these extra little things and use this software to do it" and then stick our PhysX logo on it.

LOL, oh dear oh dear.

 

[wolvers]

I see the red and green handbags are out again.

I thought you AMD boys didn't care about physics much anyway? A lot of you said it adds nothing to games, lemme guess AMD's version is gonna be like OMQWTFBBQROLLS lets look at her hair flow around in the wind like a L'Oreal advert while I'm getting shot at in the head.

There's a difference between in game physics that drive the narative and gameplay and the kind of visual physics effects that GPU driven fizzx adds to a small number of games.

Consider the possibility of BF3 style destruction physics but on a much bigger scale, a smaller performance overhead and available on a red handbag with green straps pockets. That's what fizzx will never be able to achieve in it's current state.

If consoles push open GPU physics it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Nvidia open up fizzx.

 

[Rroff]

No, your wrong, 3DFX is where Nvidia got CUDA and PhysX from, it is not Nvidia tech. 3DFX used OpenCL just as Havok do now. And Nvidia under a different name.

OpenCL is the language used to create what Nvidia call PhysX and CUDA.

Almost every game already uses it, what you see in BF3 for example is OpenCL physics, the same today with Crysis 3, same goes for Bloom, illumination, shadowing..... All Nvidia do is go to developers and say "here add these extra little things and use this software to do it" and then stick our PhysX logo on it.

Any developer can do exactly the same, replicate exactly the same effects using the OpenCL SKD's already available to them. If they had thought of it, or if Nvidia had not said to them "do this"
You don't need any of Nvidia's version of OpenCL, which they simply call CUDA and PhysX, all Nvidia have done is developed their own distinct brand and stile with it.

Absolutely nothing to do with AMD, its all with the developers and what they chose to do with it.

Seriously?

HINT: Open CL/CUDA utilise shader processors, 3DFX were the last bastion of fixed function render pipelines.

PhysX was the work of Ageia who aquired the novodex physics library, its never seen Open CL in its life - it was later ported on top of CUDA by nVidia.

Also I don't think the version of Havok in BF3 is using Open CL tho I could be wrong on that - the number of games using Open CL is possibly even less than those using PhysX.

 

[Martini1991]

No, your wrong, 3DFX is where Nvidia got CUDA and PhysX from,

No it wasn't.
It was Ageia for PhysX.

 

[Suarez7]

Seriously?

HINT: Open CL/CUDA utilise shader processors, 3DFX were the last bastion of fixed function render pipelines.

PhysX was the work of Ageia who aquired the novodex physics library, its never seen Open CL in its life - it was later ported on top of CUDA by nVidia.

Also I don't think the version of Havok in BF3 is using Open CL tho I could be wrong on that - the number of games using Open CL is possibly even less than those using PhysX.

Quick google search shows BF3 doesn't use Open CL. Seems like humbug has just made stuff up or just doesn't know what he's talking about here :/

 

[Dom86]

I'm amazed at how petty some people are on here, is there no way of keeping the Nvidia and AMD argument out of anything, I was sure at one point in this thread that it was just about a new tech AMD were coming out with.

 

[Rroff]

Quick google search shows BF3 doesn't use Open CL. Seems like humbug has just made stuff up or just doesn't know what he's talking about here :/

There was talk of using Open CL in BF3 for the radiosity frontend but no idea if its used in the implementation ingame or not. Doesn't appear to be used for the physics tho.