Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,750
- Location
- Derby
Dont think so but they mostly run games at 720 so the performance hit wouldnt be dramatic. Batman AA looks amazing on my 46" LCD.. 
Turn physX on in BATMAN AA
- Thread starter Robert1986
- Start date
IIRC the PS3 has a scheduler that allows it to accelerate certain physx commands in the spec - tho not sure if its in production models or not... and its nothing like the performance of a dedicated PPU or physx on a GPU.
Don't think the 360 has any physx hardware acceleration capabilities.
Don't think the 360 has any physx hardware acceleration capabilities.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yes, basically they just ripped out perfectly easy to do things, fog, oooo, and stuck them in the physx hardware, and made the software version run incredibly slowly so ATi users essentially can't use it.
Its amazing what Dev's will do when handed a bit of money, if it genuinely offered things other games can't do at all, but this is horsecrap, fog, and minor enviroment destruction, I mean really minor. Its truly pathetic and should be illegal in terms of anticompetitive actions.
Same with the AA, the demo was a simple .exe but wouldn't enable AMD to use AA, there was a simple work around so the final release was changed with a launcher which opened another file which opened the game .exe , just so tampering/work arounds were that much harder for AMD to enable AA for the game.
Its becoming a joke, a level playing field for everyone is the only fair option, considering now AMD's financial baking dwarfs Nvidia's and Intel are joining the gaming arena and can also dwarf Nvidia's financial "rewards" to dev's for favouring them and outright sabotaging the competition.
I also find it embarassing how Phsyx/nvidia go on about realism and accuracy, yet every time I see not realistic looking crap, just more of it. For instance in the vid the papers flying around, well, he walks through paper on the floor, so they go all over the shop(not the ones being swirled around from the "dream" but the bits he's kicking as he walks), likewise they go in and out of his legs/torso/cape at will. Realistic, accurate, not even close, incredibly basic scripted "physics" which we've had in games for, well, a decade, theres nothing powerful or accurate being done here, its not so incredibly advanced it needs that power, its basic stuff we've seen in hundreds of games running so slowly its painful.
Phsyx's new slogan should be "Physx, needed since Nvidia have started paying dev's to do 5 year old effects so badly you'd have to pay for their hardware to fix it".
Last edited:
While many of the effects on their own are fairly easy to do... physx allows the developer to implement them with a small number of commands - alternative routines for other non-physx systems would tie up a programmer or 2 a modeller and a graphic artist for another month or 2... and while it would be possible to make cleverly opptomised fog/smoke that flowed and interacted with the environment like that in batman... that would take a reasonable amount of dedication on its own... and then apply that to half a dozen other effects they use... so you can see why on non-physx they simply aren't present at all.
Also "realistic" physics are one thing... but theres 2 issues here... (A) those physics are a lot more realistic than traditional physics - once you notice the subtlties you'll never want to see the old stuff again (B) "realistic" physics don't always work too well in a game environment without being annoying or distracting, sometimes you need to implement things a little more arcadey so it doesn't detract from the game.
These effects are nothing like the scripted physics we've had in games for years and if you can't notice the difference you seriously need to to take a closer look.
Its not a simulation its a frictional comic character game & nothing about the physics parts of that game impresses me so they have wasted there time.
You should not need to look closely as that implies that the differences are not obvious & that the scripted physics did the job good enough.
Next you will be advocating for extreme precision physics in MarioCart
Last edited:
I thought it looked pretty impressive. If I had the choice between the paper flying around, the cloth movement, the smoke and fog effects etc, or having none of these. I think I would choose the physics.
Scripted physics generally do their job, but they are quite quite limited and when you do notice the difference - its a bit like FSAA you will never want to go back.
All of that has been done before without physX.
The part that people are missing is that the gfx are not there at all more than the so called precision movement as if you look around the web, the comments are not that its move better with physX than before but that things are just plan missing without it.
So its lack of gfx on screen candy that everyone notices & is no different from many games that have an FX level setting in the menu that takes stuff out, but everyone likes to have it turned up full if they can.
Now NV is making you buy there cards if you want full Eyecandy as they will take it out if not run on there cards as they have paid Devs to do so.
NV could not just get way with blatantly getting some gfx disable so they need an excuse which is physX which is being used for nothing more than an eyecandy enabler.
Last edited:
Its not like they are actually removing features from the game...
Take sparks as an example - traditional sparks are just a simple sprite given a movement vector maybe some simple gravity code and have no collision detection... takes maybe 4-5 functions and 100 or so lines of code to implement. Prolly about a couple of days alone initially - but you'd have to continue tweaking and testing the code as your engine developed... if you want to have your sparks interact with the environment, maybe bounce around a little - your looking at a couple of weeks of initial work and a massive increase in the performance hit.
Sparks done through a physics library whether hardware or software will typically take 3-4 lines of code and for the most part be fire and forget, with maybe the odd small tweak/test as you go along... they will interact with the environment bouncing off stuff, not clipping through walls, etc. if your running them on hardware you can get away with 100s of instances and still get playable performance.
Take sparks as an example - traditional sparks are just a simple sprite given a movement vector maybe some simple gravity code and have no collision detection... takes maybe 4-5 functions and 100 or so lines of code to implement. Prolly about a couple of days alone initially - but you'd have to continue tweaking and testing the code as your engine developed... if you want to have your sparks interact with the environment, maybe bounce around a little - your looking at a couple of weeks of initial work and a massive increase in the performance hit.
Sparks done through a physics library whether hardware or software will typically take 3-4 lines of code and for the most part be fire and forget, with maybe the odd small tweak/test as you go along... they will interact with the environment bouncing off stuff, not clipping through walls, etc. if your running them on hardware you can get away with 100s of instances and still get playable performance.
No one cares how its done, people only care that they can use it.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Good god you're easily pleased if you think thats great, pmsl
Fail.
Anywayz, if they want to slap in GPU specific SFX it's their own loss.
A GPU is for years and much more varied use than a single game. If they're happy with making it look cheap for ATI customers then so be it.
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 23,162
- Location
- stat city
:/ It doesn't really bother me not having but it does look cool when its on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nice to see more cores being used, even if it is with a hack!
