bit-tech.net | Bioware integrating PhysX into new engine

M4RTIN 7th November 2006, 13:51

still not an argument for buying an overpriced physx card. still not enough support for it atall

infact, interesting point, a big physx game was graw, i had a look around for info on both splinter cell double agent and ranbow six vegas and neither use the physx card. if that isnt a backwards pedal i dont know what is, similar to the very same publisher and starforce

Bladestorm 7th November 2006, 14:44

I wouldn't have thought that RPG fans were the group most likely to go bananas over a physics card ? And I doubt they will implement anything that really effects gameplay in any way since they would alienate too many players .. so .. still not really seeing the point to be honest.

So, lets see to date we have to the best of my knowledge :

Cell Whatsit demo : runs without a PhysX card, just lose the cloth and more advanced water effects (which don't effect the gameplay anyhow) albeit it hammers processors a bit.

GRAW : better looking explosions, effects but lower frame rate due to increased graphical need.

CoH/CoV : objects in the environment get knocked about, leaves get blown off trees etc .. none of which actually requires a PhysX card (I can run the "ultimate" mode that says it highly reccommends PhysX without topping out my CPU)

Is that it ?

Tyinsar 7th November 2006, 15:17

So, Bastila forgot to get dressed before going out?

Are you one of those Guild Wars players who creates female elementalists just to watch them dance (without "armour")?

P.S. I too would not have picked RPG games to push this but why not?

A dedicated PPU makes more sense then trying to get an already taxed GPU to do more but the cost ... Just put the load on my quad core (when I can afford that).

oasked 7th November 2006, 15:58

AGEIA should be trying to get some kind of licensing going on, because as I see it all physics is going to be put on a CPU core or several soon.

Unfortunately I only have one CPU core. :p

Veles 7th November 2006, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by oasked
AGEIA should be trying to get some kind of licensing going on, because as I see it all physics is going to be put on a CPU core or several soon.

Unfortunately I only have one CPU core. :p

It always was on the CPU untill the PhysX card. I think using one core in a multi core system is much better than having to buy an extra add in card.

The takeup for the PhysX card is awful really, there is only really one big game where it makes any difference (GRAW).

A PPU isn't needed, at lease not a dedicated PPU, using one of your cores as a PPU is a much better idea IMO. Yeah it requires people to buy a multi-core processor, but I'd much rather buy a kentsfield than a single core and a PhysX card, since a multi core CPU does more than just make GRAW look prettier.

DXR_13KE 7th November 2006, 16:54

Isnt AGEA dead yet?
PhysX cards are as usefull as "killer NIC" these days and in the multiple core future of computers.

sandys 7th November 2006, 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladestorm
Cell Whatsit demo : runs without a PhysX card, just lose the cloth and more advanced water effects (which don't effect the gameplay anyhow) albeit it hammers processors a bit.

but surely thats the point to add in more effects and calculate the physics that the CPU couldn't handle alone? The game itself is interesting, I think CF:R could be good when released if this early tech demo is anything to go by, it will live and die by how good it is to play without a Physx card though :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladestorm
CGRAW : better looking explosions, effects but lower frame rate due to increased graphical need.

It does add to the explosions but its pretty weak really, I do enjoy it though, more stuff everywhere, it could have done with being more realistic though, you can't expect to add more objects to render without impacting fps though, it will be the same for any other solution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladestorm
CCoH/CoV : objects in the environment get knocked about, leaves get blown off trees etc .. none of which actually requires a PhysX card (I can run the "ultimate" mode that says it highly reccommends PhysX without topping out my CPU)

In this case Physx does seem to work well increasing fps but over 35% even when running an x6800, if I was someone who played that game it would be great.

Perfomance evalution in CoV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladestorm
Is that it ?

unfortunately it seem so, great waste of £150, might have felt justified if I played that MMO but hey I liked the idea I thought it had potential, which it has, just not much has shown it, ah well, I have bought worse things in the name of gaming

Narvi 7th November 2006, 17:36

Yeah, but if a developer like Bioware decides that PhysX is a required card to play its games, I can see the card getting rather popular. Of course, if it isn't necessary to actually play the game, you can bet that most people will just be happy to let their quad core take care of the physics.

Fozzy 7th November 2006, 18:04

I wanna see physics put on the extra cores of cpu's. I don't really want to see them on graphics cards but I wouldn't mind them all that much. If physx cards were $100 instead of $250 then they would be plausible. They should also ENHANCE performance. Instead of hindering it. I mean jesus, it doesn't do a whole lot besides dropping the frames by 2-6

Veles 7th November 2006, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narvi
Yeah, but if a developer like Bioware decides that PhysX is a required card to play its games, I can see the card getting rather popular. Of course, if it isn't necessary to actually play the game, you can bet that most people will just be happy to let their quad core take care of the physics.

No, I see BioWare becoming VERY unpopular if they require you to spend an extra £150-£200ish on a PhysX card just to play thier game. I know people spend hundereds on upgrading graphics cards already, but it's just one game, a high spec graphics card will see alot more use than a PhysX card.

They won't make the card a requirement though, they arn't that stupid, so it just adds one game to the list thats what, 3 games long, wow.

sandys 7th November 2006, 20:38

I think some people forget that when a game developer uses physx they don't necessarily mean its only going to run on the hardware card, physx is also the API ( like what directx is for graphics cards ) a physx accelerator card accelerates the physx routines in the same way a 3d graphics card does graphics routines, you can still run this stuff on your CPU and in fact the physx API seems quite well positioned for multiple processing units whether they are extra CPUs or PPUs but for physics routines a PPU is more powerful than a CPU as it specialized hardware for that task much like how a 3d accelerator can push polygons much faster than your CPU when used for its specialized task.

Veles 7th November 2006, 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandys
I think some people forget that when a game developer uses physx they don't necessarily mean its only going to run on the hardware card, physx is also the API ( like what directx is for graphics cards ) a physx accelerator card accelerates the physx routines in the same way a 3d graphics card does graphics routines

Yeah but it's obviously gonna have some advantages if you have a PhysX card like extra sparkley bits in your spells or whatever. I'd just prefer it if I didn't have to intall yet another program that takes up resources yet hardly ever gets used.

Tyinsar 7th November 2006, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veles
... I'd just prefer it if I didn't have to intall yet another program that takes up resources yet hardly ever gets used.

When not being used the only resource it should take is storage space.

Grinch123456 7th November 2006, 21:04

Slap the phrase "Gaming" onto it, add a heatsink or spreader, paint it some weird colors, give it some lights, add a couple chips of ram, and price it 200 more dollars than the regular version. That's what the Killer NIC and PhysX were (except the PhysX only had 1 version, the overpriced one). With multicore, all physics should be offloaded to additional CPU(s) and that's final. We're already out of PCI slots.

sandys 7th November 2006, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyinsar
When not being used the only resource it should take is storage space.

Indeed, it does give you a tray icon that takes up 2Meg but you can switch it off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grinch123456
Slap the phrase "Gaming" onto it, add a heatsink or spreader, paint it some weird colors, give it some lights, add a couple chips of ram, and price it 200 more dollars than the regular version. That's what the Killer NIC and PhysX were (except the PhysX only had 1 version, the overpriced one). With multicore, all physics should be offloaded to additional CPU(s) and that's final. We're already out of PCI slots.

What do you need more than 3 PCI slots for?

KillaH 7th November 2006, 22:54

i prefer valve's solution, you don't need to buy extra stuff and it works superb

Cthippo 8th November 2006, 21:24

Personally I think PhysX is a dead end, but I wish it wern't. I personally would rather have dedicated hardware for these sort of specialized functions (NIC, sound card, etc) than have them been on-board or shared. As the wise man once said, anything designed to do more than one thing usually doesn't do anything well. Computers are the exception to that in general, but I have noticed that the more things my system tries to do, the slower all things happen. Case in point is downloads. When I'm downloading a large file and then squirting it to the fileserver, everything on my computer slows to a crawl. One fairly monor process can draw down the entire system.

Log in

Bioware integrating PhysX into new engine

Related