notuptome2004 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Eugh, PhsyX :x what is wrong with phsyx if it works well in a game then ther is nothing wrong and it seems the Mafia II developers worked long and hard to make sure physx in ther game works as it should and is not just a novelty factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 what is wrong with phsyx if it works well in a game then ther is nothing wrong and it seems the Mafia II developers worked long and hard to make sure physx in ther game works as it should and is not just a novelty factor Because it's cheap cockblock attempt from nVidia to crowbar their very underwhelming physics engine into games, most of which can be done just as easy as the global alternatives ( Like, Havok ). So not only does it remove a massive part of the players from using it, namely ATi users, it still requires ATi users to install their crappy software to even start the game. PhysX is a pile of steaming dung they needs to take a ferry out of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Well it is up to the Developer on what works best for them and they must have felt nvidas physx Platform / Cuda was the way to go and couple of years ago nvida offered ATI a chance to program for cuda as cuda was an open structure that could easily be adapted but ATI turned them down . and this is not an attempt anyways by nvidia to gain anything since this game is also gonna be on the console systems but toned down . and at the end of the day Nvidas GPUs do a really good job at physx calculations and other non graphics jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 *Hugs my 5750* (And you 5800 and 5900 owners don't be hatin' on my midrange card, she gets offended very easily) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Well it is up to the Developer on what works best for them and they must have felt nvidas physx was the way to go and couple of years ago nvida offered ATI a chance to program for cuda as cuda was an open structure that could easily be adapted but ATI turned them down . and this is not an attempt anyways by nvidia to gain anything since this game is also gonna be on the console systems but toned down . Are you kidding me? There was no choice, believe me when I say a fat cash deal was involved. That's how it works, either company offer up cash to get their "Works best with X" or "Optimized for Y" in the games and adding PhysX, blocking out ATi users is not something developers do willingly because that can only be seen as a negative. Money was involved and it's big-business. And want to know something? Patches are available to make PhysX run in certain games on ATi hardware. So yes, they may have turned down the offer but nVidia are purposely cockblocking ATi users at every turn by adding time bombs and detection methods to pester us. Fine ATi don't want to use CUDA but no need to play ATi users for a joke. PhysX offloaded to the GPU isn't an exact science and all nVidia's fancy names for that process are hilarious. ATi cards can do it out-of-the-box, nVidia just want the general public to think their cards are special. ( I don't mean to sound rude, notuptome - Just think this entire PhysX ordeal is a joke :) ) *Hugs my 5750* (And you 5800 and 5900 owners don't be hatin' on my midrange card, she gets offended very easily) We're all one big family :wub: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiB3R Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 *kicks my 8800 GTX* :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 *kicks my 8800 GTX* :hmmm: maby time for an upgrade then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 *kicks my 8800 GTX* :hmmm: Don't be hatin' :laugh: Got the 8800 Ultra when it was released, brilliant card and served me well. Was even able to flex its muscles in newer titles - I miss that card (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Don't be hatin' :laugh: Got the 8800 Ultra when it was released, brilliant card and served me well. Was even able to flex its muscles in newer titles - I miss that card (Y) Was thinking about getting a Mac Pro computer soon. I wonder if I will be able to put any of these bad boys in that tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Gotta love my 5850 :p Anyway thanks for the article! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorwing Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 I love how I started a trend of hugs. :D HUG TRAIN! lol. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Are you kidding me? There was no choice, believe me when I say a fat cash deal was involved. That's how it works, either company offer up cash to get their "Works best with X" or "Optimized for Y" in the games and adding PhysX, blocking out ATi users is not something developers do willingly because that can only be seen as a negative. Money was involved and it's big-business. And want to know something? Patches are available to make PhysX run in certain games on ATi hardware. So yes, they may have turned down the offer but nVidia are purposely cockblocking ATi users at every turn by adding time bombs and detection methods to pester us. Fine ATi don't want to use CUDA but no need to play ATi users for a joke. PhysX offloaded to the GPU isn't an exact science and all nVidia's fancy names for that process are hilarious. ATi cards can do it out-of-the-box, nVidia just want the general public to think their cards are special. Actually they don't need to offer moneys. They spend a lot of time helping devs optimize their work. (Amounts to the same thing, though.) The sad thing about PhysX is that it blocks ATI users and apparently is optimized to only use a single core. Lame. I'm hoping people who've used it in a project are now smart enough to never use it again. Same with CUDA which the bokeh effect was done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 i like physx and want to see more of it in games. it's fairly small things overall, but i think they're a nice touch. nvidia cockblocking ati users? no ati cockblocked their own customers on physx when they refused to play ball with nvidia on it. you don't give away a technology that you paid money for and paid money to develop. and yes these API's cost dev's money. havoc costs money to put in a video game along with physx. for dev's it's more an ease of implementation issue, along with how well the game is going to run on as wide a hardware selection as possible(most of the time). for me it adds value to the nvidia product lineup. and i have played few hardware physx games. but i do plan on buying more physx games just because they have physx in them. as for dx11, well i really hope it catches on better than dx10. it's definitely more noticeable visually than dx10. although i have to admit it's not as big a step as dx9/shader3.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+shift. MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 i like physx and want to see more of it in games. it's fairly small things overall, but i think they're a nice touch. nvidia cockblocking ati users? no ati cockblocked their own customers on physx when they refused to play ball with nvidia on it. you don't give away a technology that you paid money for and paid money to develop. and yes these API's cost dev's money. havoc costs money to put in a video game along with physx. for dev's it's more an ease of implementation issue, along with how well the game is going to run on as wide a hardware selection as possible(most of the time). So let me clear this up....NVIDIA releasing PhysX to market their own video cards and limiting it to NVIDIA only is ATI's fault because they didn't adopt PhysX for their own cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironman273 Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 So let me clear this up....NVIDIA releasing PhysX to market their own video cards and limiting it to NVIDIA only is ATI's fault because they didn't adopt PhysX for their own cards? As much as I like my ATI card, I think what he's saying is that Nvidia bought PhysX so why should they just give it away to the competition. It's an added incentive to purchase an Nvidia card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 So let me clear this up....NVIDIA releasing PhysX to market their own video cards and limiting it to NVIDIA only is ATI's fault because they didn't adopt PhysX for their own cards? Not to mention PhysX in its current form DOES work in ATi cards, NVIDIA just added code to the PhysX drivers to basically block anything ATi. Various games has received patches that allows you to enable PhysX on ATi cards with a very nice result, believe it ran better on the ATi card in some cases. So yes, ATi said no because they are working with Intel which owns Havok that is ALSO working on a GPU rendering solution, of course you don't start working with the competition. So all in all, it's cockblocking by NVIDIA big-time. This type of Cockblocking should not be allowed on the already turbulent PC scene where GPUs alone cost the same, double or even triple that of a gaming console does - Then manufactures have to be a bit more open ( Yes, that goes for ATi as well ). Now ATi users will probably see some pathetic physics because it's just software rendered for 'us'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 So let me clear this up....NVIDIA releasing PhysX to market their own video cards and limiting it to NVIDIA only is ATI's fault because they didn't adopt PhysX for their own cards? according to an admin on the nvidia forums(and no i'm not going to dig it up) nvidia appraoched amd/ati about nvidia and nvidia was rebuffed. ati basically wanted it for free which is ludicrous in this industry. amd/ati doesn't have any tech to trade for physx licenses, so obviously they would have to pay money. ati did not want to pay for physx, so nvidia locked them out. ati therefore locked out their own customers by not adopting this technology. obviously ati felt it would not catch on or something, which is strange considering they adopted dx10.1 afterall. and yet there is a fair number of games that use software physx, far more than havoc physics engine in fact iirc. but just a few games that use hardware physx. now let me put it another way. i have a product that already holds the most market share. iwant to make that product even better by adding functionality i think will be important in the undustry my product is used for. so i spend money to buy the feature. develop and integrate it into my product. my competitor sells a similar product that might not have ass many features. my competitor does not want to pay me for the feature i added to my product. do i: a) give it to my competitor for free? b) ignore the fact that people are engineering the feature to work with my competitor's product? c) lock out my competitor from being compatible with my feature. now one might argue that ati owners might go out and buy nvidia cards to use as PPu's if they were allowed to, but then nvidia and their partners would have to spend extra money and resources and time learning how to troubleshoot ati hardware in addition to nvidia hardware, in order to support this tech on both brands' products. this is open source and i'm not sure why people expect it to be as such. especially considering this whole topic is not exactly on the same level as apple's practices. to sum it up: nvidia bought physx developed it ati didn't want to license it ati customers suffer. ati customers blame nvidia(because it's popular right now to hate the green team). it's like if amd refused to pay for x86 and decided to develop their own machine code etc for CPUs, and their customers then blamed intel for locking out amd customers from x86 applications and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+shift. MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 As much as I like my ATI card, I think what he's saying is that Nvidia bought PhysX so why should they just give it away to the competition. It's an added incentive to purchase an Nvidia card. But he said ATI cockblocked their own customers which isn't the case. ATI isn't blocking ATI card users from running another NVIDIA card in PhysX, it is NVIDIA blocking ATI users from running the PhysX driver in conjunction with an ATI card in the form of a code written into the driver itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Oh and the old PhysX standalone PPUs, like the reference and the one BFG doesn't work when an ATi card is present, any manufacture card for that matter - Even onboard! If that isn't a douchebag move, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+shift. MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 ... NVIDIA could make just as much money allowing ATI users to run PhysX with an NVIDIA card. Hell I would be one of their customers, I'd get a 9800GT just to run it in PhysX if not for the code NVIDIA has put into their drivers. So why am I not allowed to run PhysX if I go out and buy a 9800GT for the purposes of running the PhysX driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 "In response to these latest events, AMD has announced a joint open physics initiative with Pixelux Entertainment. ?Proprietary physics solutions divide consumers and ISVs, while stifling true innovation; our competitors even develop code that they themselves admit will not work on hardware other than theirs,? said Eric Demers, chief technology officer for graphics at AMD. ?By working with Pixelux and others to enable open support of physics on OpenCL and DirectX 11 capable devices we are taking the exact opposite approach.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Not to mention PhysX in its current form DOES work in ATi cards, NVIDIA just added code to the PhysX drivers to basically block anything ATi. Various games has received patches that allows you to enable PhysX on ATi cards with a very nice result, believe it ran better on the ATi card in some cases. So yes, ATi said no because they are working with Intel which owns Havok that is ALSO working on a GPU rendering solution, of course you don't start working with the competition. So all in all, it's cockblocking by NVIDIA big-time. This type of Cockblocking should not be allowed on the already turbulent PC scene where GPUs alone cost the same, double or even triple that of a gaming console does - Then manufactures have to be a bit more open ( Yes, that goes for ATi as well ). Now ATi users will probably see some pathetic physics because it's just software rendered for 'us'. i don't think you know what you are talking about here. using an nvidia card as a ppu with an ati card as gpu does occasionally work until it's patched out and then hacks are written etc. an ATI card itself does not have the hardware written into the GPU chip to run physx itself. just like an ATI card cannot run CUDA. you really have to design the chip itself to do these things. just like you can't take a dx10 card chip and magically add dx11 to it. these things are at the HARDWARE level. and i haven't seen any news or rumours saying that havoc will be using gpgpu (ioe using the gpu to calculate it) anytime soon. no why bc2 locks up and stutters for a second or two when there are many explosions? that's havoc eating up cpu time. now if ati really did choose to work with intel for havoc over taking on physx in their hardware, again that's ATI's choice, not nvidia's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Even if ATI had a chance to license it, the fact that PhysX isn't optimized for processor use is retarded. I expect the bigger devs will ditch it now that its come out that its optimized for x87 single core rather than SSE2 or multiple cores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Try to put a bit more effort into your posts, it's a nightmare to read and understand. And what kinda rubbish example is that, turning a DirectX 10 card into a DirectX 11 card? That's different technologies on a hardware level - Enabling software level calculations on hardware isn't even in the same league, you know why? Because it HAS been done, PhysX HAS been enabled on ATi cards and has been confirmed to work as it improved performance and allowed for PhysX physics. And BC2 locking up, that's probably your terrible computer - Haven't even heard or had that issue before. ATi are actually entering an OPEN physics project. NVIDIA have proven they want to cockblock the competitor and even their own customers because they have some competition hardware. So NVIDIA are the douchebags here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 Great Article Rip :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts