Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 13, 2010 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2010 DirectX 11 is impressive and all but it doesn't mean squat when developers refuse to take advantage of it. The popularity of console gaming and lack of DX11 hardware are, in my opinion, two main reasons why we aren't seeing a surge in DX11 titles. It seems as though only a handful of developers actually care about this technology or, conversely, have the resources to implement it in their games. A company like Crytek comes to mind. They've developed an engine that takes advantage of DX11-specific features. I just hope Valve, Blizzard, BioWare (and more) do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 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. it was ATI's choice not to license this tech. why should nvidia and it's partners spend money on supprting ati hardware? 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. nvidia dropped support for the old physx hardware completely. they no longer work at all with newer drivers last i heard. though tbh you will see performance drop using them anyway. 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. 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? and spending just as much on support for ati hardware. "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.? it'll be interesting to see if this catches on. a 3rd competitor on the physics API front. and just so we're all clear here, nvidia cards support OpenCL as well. 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. software physx implementations are so lightweight they barely impact the processor. when they're hardware only, they take about 10-30% of the gpu time, like on max(in games out so far). they've made physx to work on gpu's. i don't see why they should write it to work on CPUs well as well when they're clearly trying to add value to THEIR product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+shift. MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 Great Article Rip :whistle: If you are referring to the OP he sourced the article to Gizmodo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 it was ATI's choice not to license this tech. why should nvidia and it's partners spend money on supprting ati hardware? They are ADDING code to block our ATi hardware, they are spending money on man hours to cockblock the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 software physx implementations are so lightweight they barely impact the processor. when they're hardware only, they take about 10-30% of the gpu time, like on max(in games out so far).they've made physx to work on gpu's. i don't see why they should write it to work on CPUs well as well when they're clearly trying to add value to THEIR product. I don't see why I should ever buy a game using it, knowing that it's intentionally crippled on basically every current gaming machine that doesn't have an NV card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 If you are referring to the OP he sourced the article to Gizmodo. Yes he sourced it, but gave nobody any reason to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster 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. /facepalm. link to something that says physx can run on an ati card alone? and i hear about bc2 stuttering all the time from ati users all over the net. the compalint nvidia customers tend to have is the fact that load times are still quite long. and how are businesses douchebags? the businesses ffs. you like their product you buy it. you don't meet them for lunch on wedensdays or have their children. DirectX 11 is impressive and all but it doesn't mean squat when developers refuse to take advantage of it. The popularity of console gaming and lack of DX11 hardware are, in my opinion, two main reasons why we aren't seeing a surge in DX11 titles. It seems as though only a handful of developers actually care about this technology or, conversely, have the resources to implement it in their games. A company like Crytek comes to mind. They've developed an engine that takes advantage of DX11-specific features. I just hope Valve, Blizzard, BioWare (and more) do the same. i have to agree. i hope you are wrong but time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Yes he sourced it, but gave nobody any reason to go there. That is rude, true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Yes he sourced it, but gave nobody any reason to go there. And that happens 200 times a day here, why complain now Mr. warwagon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 They are ADDING code to block our ATi hardware, they are spending money on man hours to cockblock the competition. which do you think costs more? I don't see why I should ever buy a game using it, knowing that it's intentionally crippled on basically every current gaming machine that doesn't have an NV card. then don't buy them. that's your right as a consumer. in fact i hope they put in very easy to read text on game boxes for titles like batman AA "requires nvidia video cards for physx" so there are no misunderstandings. me personally i wouldn't buy nvidia for physx alone. it's just icing on the cake for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 which do you think costs more? What will make ATi lose more money, doing a free open sourced physics project or buy into NVIDIA's scheme and be their puppets? Same thing. Thank GOD most developers have enough sense to use a globally available alternative and most of the games that use PhysX, it's just added rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted July 13, 2010 MVC Share Posted July 13, 2010 And that happens 200 times a day here, why complain now Mr. warwagon? just because it happens 200 times a day doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 then don't buy them. that's your right as a consumer. in fact i hope they put in very easy to read text on game boxes for titles like batman AA "requires nvidia video cards for physx" so there are no misunderstandings. me personally i wouldn't buy nvidia for physx alone. it's just icing on the cake for me. Look, here's the point. If you're making a game, you want it to actually perform well on everyones system. If you could have a physics engine that uses all cores and SSE2 code and performs roughly the same as hardware PhysX on everyones system, or use one that performs like absolute **** on 30-40% of them, which would you pick? NVIDIA is either making a power play that will erode public opinion in a major way, or their team was stupid and thought nobody would notice. Either way, they're making people very unhappy. The PC market does not like being locked in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 What will make ATi lose more money, doing a free open sourced physics project or buy into NVIDIA's scheme and be their puppets? Same thing. Thank GOD most developers have enough sense to use a globally available alternative and most of the games that use PhysX, it's just added rubbish. so they're supporting an open sourced project. they save money on dev time assuming the open source community gets behind it. and physx is in quite a few games, you might not even realize. GamesThe following games feature PhysX support:[20][21] * 2 Days to Vegas * Adrenalin 2: Rush Hour * Age of Empires III (Mac version only) * Alpha Prime * APB * Army of Two * Auto Assault * Alliance of Valiant Arms * Batman: Arkham Asylum * Backbreaker * B.A.S.E. Jumping * Bet on Soldier: Blackout Saigon * Bet on Soldier: Blood of Sahara * Bet on Soldier: Blood Sport * Beowulf: The Game * Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War * Blur * Borderlands * Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway * Captain Blood * CellFactor: Combat Training * CellFactor: Revolution * City of Villains * Crazy Machines 2 * Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason * Dark Physics * Dark Void * Darkest of Days * Desert Diner * Dogfighter * Dragon Age: Origins[22] * Dragonshard * Dusk 12 * Empire Above All * Empire Earth III * Entropia Universe * Fallen Earth * Fat Princess * Frontlines: Fuel of War * Fury * Garshasp * Gears of War * Race Driver: Grid * Global Agenda * Gluk'Oza: Action * GooBall * Gothic 3 * Gunship Apocalypse * Heavy Rain * Helldorado: Conspiracy * Hero's Journey * Hour of Victory * Huxley * H.A.V.E. Online * iFluid * Infernal * Inhabited island: Prisoner of Power * Joint Task Force * Kran Simulator 2009[23] * Kuma\War * Aura of Wisdom * Mafia 2 * Magic Ball 3 * Mass Effect * Mass Effect 2 * Medal of Honor: Airborne * Metro 2033 * Mirror's Edge * Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire * Monster Madness: Battle for Suburbia * Monster Truck Maniax * Myst Online: Uru Live * Need for Speed: Shift * Nights: Journey of Dreams * Nurien * Odd Blox * Open Fire (and its successor, Open Fire Gold) * Overlord 2 * Parabellum * Paragraph 78 * Pirates of the Burning Sea * Prince of Persia * Point Blank * PT Boats: Knights of the Sea * Rail Simulator * Red Steel * Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends * Risen * Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Conspiracy * Roboblitz * Sacred 2 * Shadowgrounds (Only on the Linux version) * Shadowgrounds: Survivor * Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened * Showdown: Scorpion * Silverfall * Sovereign Symphony * Sonic and the Black Knight * Sonic and the Secret Rings * Speedball 2 * Stoked * Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien * Switchball * Trine * The Hunt * The Stalin Subway * The Void * Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter * Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 * Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas * Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent * Tortuga: Two Treasures * Turok * Two Worlds * Ultra Tubes * Unreal Tournament 3 * Unreal Tournament 3: Extreme Physics Mod * Valkyria Chronicles * Velvet Assassin * Warfare * Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction * W.E.L.L. Online * Winterheart's Guild * X-Men Origins: Wolverine * WorldShift * Zombie Driver [edit] Other software * Futuremark's 3DMark benchmark is able to take advantage of PhysX.[24] * DarkPHYSICS upgrade to DarkBASIC Professional (A BASIC-like game building language) uses the PhysX SDK.[25] * DX Studio, an integrated development environment for creating interactive 3D graphics.[26] * Esenthel Engine, an advanced 3D game engine supporting unlimited sized worlds.[27] * PhysX is integrated into Emergent's Gamebryo engine.[28][29] * Open source rendering engine OGRE can use Ageia PhysX through the NxOgre wrapper.[30] * The Physics Abstraction Layer can use PhysX,[31] and provides COLLADA and Scythe Physics Editor support for PhysX. * Microsoft Robotics Studio[32] * Unity Technologies' Unity, an integrated 3D authoring tool[33] * Epic Games' Unreal Engine 3 uses PhysX.[34] This may offer physics that are not possible on a normal CPU core in real time. * 4A Games' 4A Engine uses PhysX. This was most recently demonstrated in their game, Metro 2033. [edit] See also source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX Look, here's the point. If you're making a game, you want it to actually perform well on everyones system. If you could have a physics engine that uses all cores and SSE2 code and performs roughly the same as hardware PhysX on everyones system, or use one that performs like absolute **** on 30-40% of them, which would you pick? NVIDIA is either making a power play that will erode public opinion in a major way, or their team was stupid and thought nobody would notice. Either way, they're making people very unhappy. The PC market does not like being locked in. do you really need multiple cores to use just physx? i'm sure physx operations take a small footprint on cpu core as it is. and software physx implementations are pretty lightweight anyway. on my 3 year old PC i was running STO on i never had any stutter or anything when physx was in play. and yes STO has software physx. it's popular to hate nvidia right now for silly reasons imho. i've seen it time and time again. even on nvidia's forums and their partner's forums. i get. you guys are mad at a company for some silly reason. perhaps because ati actually came out with new tech first for once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm sorry, take a second look at that list and then pick out the AAA games. Barely heard about half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 And in the vast majority of those games the "physx effects" are pointless and lame at best and just rape your fps for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 do you really need multiple cores to use just physx? i'm sure physx operations take a small footprint on cpu core as it is. and software physx implementations are pretty lightweight anyway. on my 3 year old PC i was running STO on i never had any stutter or anything when physx was in play. and yes STO has software physx. it's popular to hate nvidia right now for silly reasons imho. i've seen it time and time again. even on nvidia's forums and their partner's forums. i get. you guys are mad at a company for some silly reason. perhaps because ati actually came out with new tech first for once? The point is not just to run PhysX, but for it to run reasonably. Why would I pick that physics engine if it gives no benefits whatsoever? I doubt most developers opting for the engine even realized it. http://www.realworld...RWT070510142143 I'm not mad at NVidia. I respect them. I just think right now they're being dinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Try the PhysX effects in GRAW2, it's just some ugly rocks that come off explosions ... that's it :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm sorry, take a second look at that list and then pick out the AAA games. Barely heard about half. /facepalm. did you read the list? there's a fair number of AAA games on there. hell i don't even think the list is complete as STO isn't on there and i read it straight from a dev that STO has physx. just because not every game that uses physx is AAA isn't bad thing. i don't see any AAA games using flash 10.1 now do i? OMG FAILED TECH. ADOBE IS LOCKING US OUT BECAUSE IT DOESN"T WORK ON IPAD!!! that's what you sound like. seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 /facepalm. did you read the list? there's a fair number of AAA games on there. hell i don't even think the list is complete as STO isn't on there and i read it straight from a dev that STO has physx. just because not every game that uses physx is AAA isn't bad thing. i don't see any AAA games using flash 10.1 now do i? OMG FAILED TECH. ADOBE IS LOCKING US OUT BECAUSE IT DOESN"T WORK ON IPAD!!! that's what you sound like. seriously. Did you read the list? You just copied it from Wikipedia after you saw 2-3 AAA games. And how old are you, it's impossible to read your posts with those 12-year-old-rage-attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solid Knight Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 STALKER. They put effort into using new features of DirectX but they can't even model a gun properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The point is not just to run PhysX, but for it to run reasonably. Why would I pick that physics engine if it gives no benefits whatsoever? I doubt most developers opting for the engine even realized it. http://www.realworld...RWT070510142143 I'm not mad at NVidia. I respect them. I just think right now they're being dinks. the problem with that is that article primarily uses cryostasis. the other problem with that article is they turned off hardware physx, which in turns disables it in game(iirc). when you turn off hardware physx acceleration in nvcp, it simply turns off hardware physx in any games that use it, it's not magically rerouted to the cpu. so basically the article says that cryostasis and the other game they use are badly coded. guess what? anyone who's actually played them will not be surprised by this news. Did you read the list? You just copied it from Wikipedia after you saw 2-3 AAA games. And how old are you, it's impossible to read your posts with those 12-year-old-rage-attacks. i scanned through the list. i saw a few AAA titles and afew more i've heard about here and there., and what are you talking about with 12 year old rage attacks???? lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos mage Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 the other problem with that article is they turned off hardware physx, which in turns disables it in game(iirc). when you turn off hardware physx acceleration in nvcp, it simply turns off hardware physx in any games that use it, it's not magically rerouted to the cpu. Of course they turned it off. The article was to measure the performance on the CPU, not on the GPU. Wow, I'm beginning to agree with Sethos. I'm leaving this conversation while I still have my sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treemonster Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Of course they turned it off. The article was to measure the performance on the CPU, not on the GPU. Wow, I'm beginning to agree with Sethos. I'm leaving this conversation while I still have my sanity. then they should've picked a better game to do it with? have you actually played cryostasis? it needs a i7/480 based system to run without stutter. it's a joke in the nvidia community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 13, 2010 Veteran Share Posted July 13, 2010 Simply put, the future of DX11 physics acceleration lies in DirectCompute and OpenCL. I don't know what NVIDIA is doing with DirectCompute in terms of physics acceleration, but I know ATI (AMD) is working on both OpenCL (with Pixelux Entertainment) and DirectCompute for GPU-accelerated physics. Best of all, they're working on an open solution. That means games that support ATI physics could potentially run the same physics on NVIDIA hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts