Comic Book Guy Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 At the Recent Keynote event at QuakeCon 2009 John Carmack answered a question on hardware PhysX . It turn?s out John is not a big fan of PhysX. He believes that Ageia along with PhysX was just made to be a start-up in hopes to get acquired. Eventually Nvidia did just that and John ?hopes that Nvidia didn?t pay a whole lot of money for it?. Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I agree with him, the PhysX card ordeal was probably the biggest gimmick since that "Killer NIC" card. Even from the very beginning, they had very little support and what they had to show was barely half a step in front of the current generation of possibilities. What puzzled me was the fact nVidia bought them - Saw it as a major waste of money. What do we have today, a select few titles supporting bog standard physics features now handled by the GPU alone, activated even on older hardware through a driver update? PhysX implemented into games is specifically coded to work with the PhysX software and nVidia cards, meaning it will "kill" performance on non-PhysX enabled hardware despite the physics not being anything special nor hard to process by any current-generation GPU - They are purposely cockblocking users to 'force' them to buy nVidia hardware that is the ONLY reason behind the purchase. So ATI users, despite having a card perfectly able to run "PhysX physics" are being left out due to 'exclusive coding' - It's sad. At least Havoc is still the main physics 'engine' which doesn't cockblock users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I agree with him completely this is how I saw PhysX when it came out as-well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toadeater Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 At least Havoc is still the main physics 'engine' which doesn't cockblock users. Console hardware is what cockblocks users. Yeah, you have Havoc, but it's never going to be utilized because AAA games are required to be cross-platform these days and consoles can't handle it. All you're going to get is the same basic effects. It is the same reason that AI hasn't improved much, consoles don't have the CPU power and RAM for this stuff, they're so graphics-centric and limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekrosoft13 Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 So ATI users, despite having a card perfectly able to run "PhysX physics" are being left out due to 'exclusive coding' - It's sad. ATI was given the oportunity to add physx support to their drivers, they decided to decline. For current lack of hardware support on ATI cards, ATi is the only company to be blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted August 22, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted August 22, 2009 Console hardware is what cockblocks users. Yeah, you have Havoc, but it's never going to be utilized because AAA games are required to be cross-platform these days and consoles can't handle it. All you're going to get is the same basic effects. It is the same reason that AI hasn't improved much, consoles don't have the CPU power and RAM for this stuff, they're so graphics-centric and limited. While good AI may be CPU intensive (every game has a different scope on what it's "AI" is), that's a pile of nonsense, the AI is more about the developers, consoles can do good AI just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 ATI was given the oportunity to add physx support to their drivers, they decided to decline. For current lack of hardware support on ATI cards, ATi is the only company to be blamed. Do you have a source handy? I'm not doubting you ( Well, I am by asking but you know ) but I have never heard about ATI declining PhysX implementation. And honestly, screw PhysX, screw Havoc - Give me Eurporia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted August 22, 2009 Veteran Share Posted August 22, 2009 I agree with Carmack. PhysX was a bad idea from the start. It's ironic that NVIDIA acquired PhysX because they rendered the physics card obsolete with their CUDA-enabled GeForce video cards. Anyway, I think Havok Physics is where it's at. I'm glad Intel purchased the company in '07. Do you have a source handy? I'm not doubting you ( Well, I am by asking but you know ) but I have never heard about ATI declining PhysX implementation.And honestly, screw PhysX, screw Havoc - Give me Eurporia. Euphoria is an animation engine. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Euphoria is an animation engine. :p Which basically adds the best 'human' physics available, which is the bread and butter of physic engines. Doing environment physics has pretty much reached its peak, a barrel can only fall in so many ways before it gets boring. Edited August 22, 2009 by Sethos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanManIt Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I don't really like the PhysX either; it doesn't seem to offer any "huge" benefit. I think that it is just an extra thing that Nvidia can add on to the spec list on their cards to make them seem better than the ATI equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvme Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 carmack has been saying this for years at quakecon. someone askes him every year and he always answers pretty much the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero_Rising Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Console hardware is what cockblocks users. Yeah, you have Havoc, but it's never going to be utilized because AAA games are required to be cross-platform these days and consoles can't handle it. All you're going to get is the same basic effects. It is the same reason that AI hasn't improved much, consoles don't have the CPU power and RAM for this stuff, they're so graphics-centric and limited. halo 2 and 3 uses havok so I don't know what you're talking about care to give some sources to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comic Book Guy Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 ATI was given the oportunity to add physx support to their drivers, they decided to decline. For current lack of hardware support on ATI cards, ATi is the only company to be blamed. Source, or it didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManMountain Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008...hysx-will-die/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoDEAN Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I'm not a fan of PhysX either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 On the plus side, it offloads stuff from the CPU. On the minus, can't chunks of game code run on CUDA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I agree with him, the PhysX card ordeal was probably the biggest gimmick since that "Killer NIC" card. Even from the very beginning, they had very little support and what they had to show was barely half a step in front of the current generation of possibilities. What puzzled me was the fact nVidia bought them - Saw it as a major waste of money. What do we have today, a select few titles supporting bog standard physics features now handled by the GPU alone, activated even on older hardware through a driver update? PhysX implemented into games is specifically coded to work with the PhysX software and nVidia cards, meaning it will "kill" performance on non-PhysX enabled hardware despite the physics not being anything special nor hard to process by any current-generation GPU - They are purposely cockblocking users to 'force' them to buy nVidia hardware that is the ONLY reason behind the purchase. So ATI users, despite having a card perfectly able to run "PhysX physics" are being left out due to 'exclusive coding' - It's sad. At least Havoc is still the main physics 'engine' which doesn't cockblock users. Well with MS being strict about what hardware can and cannot do since DX10 and up you can expect future DX to include GPU physics in future versions, specifically to avoid one company to get market dominance by providing hardware features others can't access. This was the reason for the more stricter control and cooperation between MS and the ATI/NVidia afteral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Which basically adds the best 'human' physics available, which is the bread and butter of physic engines. Doing environment physics has pretty much reached its peak, a barrel can only fall in so many ways before it gets boring. Euphoria isn't so much about physics. ragdoll physics are there, yes, in fact the best you'll find. But it's really an engine to calculate natural human(and non humanoid, not sure) animation and reactions. which has little to do with physics itself. the thing it does that is most noticeable, it natural walks, avoiding feet sliding, and what seems really simple, but shows it of the best, foot placement, like when a character steps of a slightly higher ledge, instead of the feet standing out in the air untill he staps far enough out to drop down, he naturally steps down. first time I saw this was in SW:TFU then in Protoype. It seems really simple but really it's only in recent games with euphoria game characters have been able to properly step of ledges or walk stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Mazza Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 PhysiX is more marketing than anything else. Why do I have a quad core processor for a game if not for physics? What are poweful processors like core 2 duos and quads for, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 PhysiX is more marketing than anything else. Why do I have a quad core processor for a game if not for physics? What are poweful processors like core 2 duos and quads for, then? They may be powerful, but they are really inefficient for phsyics, they just can't do that type of calculations well, GPU's can, without even breaking a sweat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManMountain Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 I just recently installed my 275 but prior to that I had an ATI 4870 and from the released demo of the PC version of Batman Arkham Asylum, I can draw a direct comparison and imo, the use of PhysX in this title enriches the games atmosphere. I wouldn't say it alters the gameplay in any way, just adds that bit more realism to the Batman world. I'm quite sure that most if not all of these effects could have been implemented without the need of PhysX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Euphoria isn't so much about physics. ragdoll physics are there, yes, in fact the best you'll find. But it's really an engine to calculate natural human(and non humanoid, not sure) animation and reactions. which has little to do with physics itself. the thing it does that is most noticeable, it natural walks, avoiding feet sliding, and what seems really simple, but shows it of the best, foot placement, like when a character steps of a slightly higher ledge, instead of the feet standing out in the air untill he staps far enough out to drop down, he naturally steps down. first time I saw this was in SW:TFU then in Protoype. It seems really simple but really it's only in recent games with euphoria game characters have been able to properly step of ledges or walk stairs. So basically a convoluted way of prancing around the point and actually not saying anything I didn't know - It does physics, animations and human mimicking stunningly good and that is the point I made and it's a point that is hard to argue. Well with MS being strict about what hardware can and cannot do since DX10 and up you can expect future DX to include GPU physics in future versions, specifically to avoid one company to get market dominance by providing hardware features others can't access. This was the reason for the more stricter control and cooperation between MS and the ATI/NVidia afteral. One of DirectX 11's major selling points is GPGPU meaning developers can finally take real advantage of the GPU and off-load tasks previously done by the CPU which in terms also means physics. Problem is, I don't believe there is any form of restrictions among the two GPU manufactures when it comes to applying 'exclusive' physics handling, it's basically a race between whoever has a take in physics development to release the first piece of kit that truly takes advantage of the DX11 GPGPU features, first one's the winner and then either company can stand on the sideline and wave their money at them. I'm quite sure that most if not all of these effects could have been implemented without the need of PhysX. Oh believe me, they could. They just want us to think it's the amazing work of the glorious PhysX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Which basically adds the best 'human' physics available, which is the bread and butter of physic engines. Doing environment physics has pretty much reached its peak, a barrel can only fall in so many ways before it gets boring. I thought the idea was to make interaction realistic, not exciting? On the plus side, it offloads stuff from the CPU. On the minus, can't chunks of game code run on CUDA? Theoretically yes, but running game code on CUDA, and other GPGPU implementations would reduce the amount of graphical processing power available to deal with the actually gaming graphics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I thought the idea was to make interaction realistic, not exciting? Why can't it be both? Mowing down pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto IV kept me playing for hours, it was hilarious to see the thousands of ways they would 'interact' with the car. Yes, it may be realistic but also exciting! A Win - Win situation :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comic Book Guy Posted August 23, 2009 Author Share Posted August 23, 2009 I am just surprised MS hasn't built physics into DirectX yet, it would be a logical step seeing as how widely supported DirectX is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts