Why isn't PhysX used more?

Rroff said:
Technically its developers who aren't using it properly (ignoring nVidia done implementations like Batman) the API itself is fully functional, available to use and matured theres nothing to stop a developer fully utilising it other than the issues like making use of GPU PhysX potentially chops off a large proportion of your potential audience which no developer/publisher likes.
Click to expand...

And who do you think is pushing them to use it in such a manner?

It's not the developer's advantage if they employ shoddy implementations of PhysX in their games, they will have to have some form of motivation to do so.

It's no secret that PhysX as an API is completely gimped to make sure it runs poorly on the CPU to give the notion that an nVidia GPU is NEEDED some credibility.

Otherwise, why would a developer do that? "I know, let's make sure the games run bad on non-nVidia hardware on purpose just for fun" right?
 
Rroff said:
Thats not all the API is capable of tho when actually used properly rather than just to add some incidental effects that don't break the game when they aren't running.
Click to expand...

and it'll never be used properly in any game changing way will it? Devs aren't going to want to completely break a game for people who don't own nVidia hardware/
 
Rroff said:
Depends how you look at it - advanced physics simulations themselves are no gimmick and PhysX is fully capable of processing them. Unfortunatly until people actually see it for themselves they tend to rubbish stuff like this.
Click to expand...

They rubbish it because what PhysX is capable of, and what they generally use it for are two completely different things.

It doesn't matter what it's theoretically capable of if it's used as a gimmick.

That's the issue, and you seemingly have a hard time seeing past the fact that "PhysX" and nVidia are being criticised.
 
pooley said:
Do you think it's a good idea for me to go green for this then?
Click to expand...

I'm not certain. I personally will go green most likely but if the AMD keep their stonkingly good prices (in comparison with Nvidia) it will be a hard choice.

Nvidia cards seem to run better than AMD in arma. Or at least certainly did in the past.

Hard call :/ may be worth while yeah particularly if you want every bell and whistle in arma3 (which I personally do.)
 
spoffle said:
That's the issue, and you seemingly have a hard time seeing past the fact that "PhysX" and nVidia are being criticised.
Click to expand...

I've been more critical than probably anyone of nvidia's handling of physx - the posts are all there in the GPU forum to prove it, so careful assuming my stance.
 
There isn't a single game I've played that has used PhysX for more than fancy visual effects. The best physics implementations relative to their era has been in HL2 and BF3 (strictly BF:BC2). Those games used physics to great effect within the gameplay to make things more realistic and more immersive, and they didn't require some fancy proprietary technology.
 
When is PhysX 3.0 being released? Not anytime soon I guess? If Nvidia really pushed this properly it could make a drastic difference to a lot of games, if it were utilised properly. It's really added to the game with batman imo!

NVIDIA y must u gimp everything!
 
illuz said:
Finally tried my first game using Nvidia's PhysX engine, Batman Arkham City. Wow, the level of realism and depth this adds to the game is crazy.

Why isn't PhysX used more in games? If done correctly it's amazing! :eek:
Click to expand...

Play a few more games and you'll realise it's just the same stuff over and over.... Sparks and flappy flags in exchange for hitchy, stuttering fps...

Bored of it.
 
illuz said:
When is PhysX 3.0 being released? Not anytime soon I guess? If Nvidia really pushed this properly it could make a drastic difference to a lot of games, if it were utilised properly. It's really added to the game with batman imo!

NVIDIA y must u gimp everything!
Click to expand...

What it did for Batman though, doesn't require a GPU to process those physics effects. That's where the gimmicky comes from.

PhysX on the GPU is always included at the expense of those who don't have nVidia cards.
 
Rroff said:
I've been more critical than probably anyone of nvidia's handling of physx - the posts are all there in the GPU forum to prove it, so careful assuming my stance.
Click to expand...

Careful? :confused:

I'm responding to things I've read from you. I notice that you make claims on things you've said but often they are in stark contrast to the type of posts you make.

I can't say that I buy your claims.
 
Confirmation bias - you see me make what you perceive (rightly or wrongly) as a slight towards ATI/AMD and you see me as black and white nVidia fanboy, AMD hater and every post I make that backs that up you see as confirmation and filter out the other posts possibly without even realising it... (sadly seems to be some people here with the same mindset).

One such post on PhysX here - I'm hardly very complimentary of nVidia...

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14639869&postcount=4

theres plenty more to where I'm critical of nVidia or conversely praise ATI/AMD (tho thats not so common) tho I'm not going to pretend to be neutral but I'm a lot more objective than you or a handful of others will ever give me credit for.
 
physx is a gimmick real physics can easily be done on the cpu..

you know what games have the most advanced physics simulations ? racing sims..

simulating gearbox , weather , wind , friction , suspension geometry , suspension movement , wheel angle slip , and everything else very realisticly on a cpu
 
I think PhysX is really nice, especially in Mirrors Edge i really noticed the difference.
 
I swapped in my previous Nvidia card to replay Batman just for all the supposedly amazing PhysX effects and I was really disappointed. There were a few bits of eye candy here and there but I was so disappointed compared to what I'd been told about how much better it made the game. I really didn't notice much and I was specially looking out for it.
 
arknor said:
physx is a gimmick real physics can easily be done on the cpu..

you know what games have the most advanced physics simulations ? racing sims..

simulating gearbox , weather , wind , friction , suspension geometry , suspension movement , wheel angle slip , and everything else very realisticly on a cpu
Click to expand...

Simple rigid body physics can be done easy enough on the CPU, theres a lot of physics effects that really can't be done with feasible realtime performance on a CPU but can be done on a GPU, anything simulating fluid volumes, complex soft bodies, etc. will bog even the latest CPUs down. Tho as I mentioned before the recent versions of Bullet are pretty impressive at what they can do on the CPU these days - bullet can now do some soft body effects while holding 60fps in a typical game environement on the CPU that previously would have dropped framerates into single digits.

While some driving games use fairly complex physics simulations for your typical driving game currently your generally fairly limited in the number of instances that you have to be simulating and working under fairly predictable environment conditions without having to take into account unexpected foreign objects interacting with the simulation, etc. while the maths can be complex its not the most CPU time demanding in your typical driving game scenario. For other game types you simply can't lock down the simulation as well and it takes a lot more processing.

These are pretty good videos to watch to get a taste for what advanced physics can bring to gaming but even these are short of what is fully possible when you don't have to worry so much about the performance impact (which the CPU imposes to a far greater level when you use physics game world wide).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppTmsNFneg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JPDtDfxf6w



While fortunatly the projects I've worked on have had their own dedicated physics programmers and I'm no expert on it myself I've had a dabble with physics coding to familiarise myself with the basics and work better with people who do the real grunt work on the physics side i.e. this tiny little test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSPm5d8GwLI
 
Last edited:
the old physx was quite bad and took a axe to frame rate even on multi gpu top of the line systems, didnt scale well either.

also only half? of the pc market has nvidia, even less would have powerful enough systems to run it well, so you cant really use it for anything vital because your just killing your potential market, as if you include consoles then physx viable market share is 2%. maybe.

nvidia stopped pushing the older physx because it was rubbish, the newer version they say is better, but i havent looked into it.

nvidia wont licence it to amd one way or another, and few people are using opencl or paying for it to be shoved in stuff (nvidia paid devs for physx stuff)
 
Gimpymoo said:
Because Nvidia are a bunch of ***** and the cost of adding to a console port are not viable for some.
Click to expand...

The popularity of consoles could be a problem for Nv wanting to promote physx. Especially since it looks like both the PS4 and Nextbox are using AMD GPU tech. This being the case will perhaps keep physx on the gimmick bench rather than being utilised for any gameplay improvements.
 
Squark said:
Because nVidia can be idiots and seem to purposefully want to screw over AMD owners
Click to expand...

I don't see why NVIDIA are being idiots tbh. It's the developers who choose to utilize the sdk in their games, which when you look at the backlog of games we have there aren't many. :)

Heck not even BF3 uses it and that game was meant to be NVIDIA optimized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom