Nvidia demonstrate physx in hawken

[WhiteLightning]

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvi...in_hawken.html

not interested in the game myself, but it sure looks awesome!

[Darren Hodgson]

Is that this year's solitary hardware PhysX game then?

Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.

[ricardonuno1980]

Originally Posted by Darren Hodgson

Is that this year's solitary hardware PhysX game then?

Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.

Yes, this game has hardware PhysX (for NVIDIA users only).

[naike]

I don't care about PhysX.
Sure it looks awesome but I just don't like the idea that all this would be possible for all cards but just isn't.
It also holds games back in my opinion.

[k1net1cs]

Originally Posted by naike

It also holds games back in my opinion.

How and in what way?

[naike]

Originally Posted by k1net1cs

How and in what way?

Why bother when half of the people can't even use it, and some of those 50% or whatever won't have the card to enable them anyway.

[The Michael]

I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.

[Redemption80]

Not overly impressed with add on GPU PhysX effects anymore, can't help feeling it looks tacked on and slightly distracting and over the top.

Waiting more for PhysX 3 games where the GPU enhances the engine, rather than trying to force modern features onto an old physics engine.

Not that i believe they shouldn't bother, 50% is actually alot when you consider that only 10% of gamers see any PC specific effects, and i doubt many would say there is no point creating high res textures would they?

[thatguy91]

Originally Posted by The Michael

I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.

That's because the Physx ran on the CPU, not GPU. The Physx effects level may have been set lower.

Physx was deliberately designed to run poor on CPU to highlight the advantages of GPU Physx. This has been partially rectified with Physx 3 because Nvidia got caught out by using pure unoptimised code for CPU, but I doubt even with Physx 3 that it is highly optimised (SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, FMA4, XOP) etc, since Physx 3 is only SSE2).
FMA4, XOP are AMD only on Bulldozer and later CPU's
AVX2, FMA3 are upcoming instruction sets on the Haswell processors

Physx on GPU means you are taking GPU time away from actual graphics, so the benefits of GPU based Physx depends purely on how the game utilises the CPU. A properly designed game should realistically be GPU oriented, and in this case highly optimised CPU based Physx wouldn't be bad for performance.

But to answer the question why AMD doesn't have Physx, it is two-fold. AMD did have the chance, but they would have had to have the Nvidia logo on their boxes etc when sold... something very bad considering it is a direct competitor! The other reason is licencing costs, it would have cost AMD a lot of money just to support Physx.

The other point is Physx isn't the only option out there, it is just one of the more developed optioned. You also have OpenCL (cross platform) and Directcompute (Microsoft). I have a small suspicion that at least some level of physics processing will be available on the next gen Xbox using Directcompute, meaning that for Windows games Directcompute will be the future.

The closeness of the next gen Xbox to a PC could have both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be, supposedly, that all Xbox games will be available on Windows. The negative effect will be direct ports, such that there really won't be any graphical improvement etc for the PC version. The latter would be very bad! but if the platforms are similar, it should make it easier for developers to make the PC version even better.

The reason why this is relevant is that if it is the case, basically no game developed for the next gen Xbox and ported will utilise Physx.

[Redemption80]

Not Nvidia as they never developed the PhysX, it was Ageia/NovodeX.

The last line is based on what though?
UE4 if anything like UE3 will likely be the most used engine on next gen consoles, so alot of next gen Xbox games will utilise PhysX, and that is just from one engine alone.

[-Tj-]

I installed it and its kinda ok, but i didnt see any turbulence fx .. Only regular destruction fx.

About performance well its not so good, again lower gpu usage due to physx 2.8.4 inefficiency, especially in capture the point levels

[ViperXtreme]

some of the effects are overly done just for the sake of showing it :\

[Redemption80]

That is what puts me off.
The best thing about GPU PhysX is that it can take advantage of a game that might not be that GPU heavy, but so far that has not been the case, in any game.

Assuming the fact that Cuda is essentially emulating a PPU is the reason, but i really thought this would of been sorted years ago.

ViperXtreme, i agree i think it would look better if it was toned down abit.

[-Tj-]

Yes.. Destruction particles looked ok, not overdone, but optimization is still not it.

Physx3 is also a bit questionable.
For example in Warframe (Scifi coop game) it uses apex turbulence, but again its not so groundbreaking like nvidia said it would be - multi core, sse2 and all that fancy talk (maybe its ~10-15% faster compared to physx2)



btw, Hawken started ok, avg. ~55-65fps (ultra setting, 1080p, gpu usage ~ 80-90%), but every respawn it went lower and lower to min ~ 30-40fps at end (gpu ~ 50-60%). Same thing in DM, although it wasn't so bad like in capture the points.

I guess its beta for a reason, o yeah its U3E dx9 game.

[Cronik]

Originally Posted by ViperXtreme

some of the effects are overly done just for the sake of showing it :\

It's a gimmick..

[Spets]

Makes the game look better, I like the real-time twirling with the particles on the energy collectors, although the embers could have been done better. Would of been nice to see sph fluids for oil leaks though.

[Cronik]

Originally Posted by Spets

Makes the game look better

I don't think out of place and overdone particle affects makes a game better.

PhysX will forever be a gimmick and a waste of performance.

[naike]

Wasn't the original idea by ageia to use a dedicated physics card or something?
I think that would be a pretty nice idea, if the majority of games supported it and the cards weren't that expensive.

[Spets]

Originally Posted by Cronik

I don't think out of place and overdone particle affects makes a game better.

PhysX will forever be a gimmick and a waste of performance.

Right, like better shadows, AA, AO and other effects in video options within games. I'll take real-time simulations over scripted anytime.
The destruction looks good, you have a point with the turbulence though it does seem overdone.

@Naike, iirc Ageia's PPU's cost as much as graphics cards did.

[Redemption80]

Most PC specific visual features are considered gimmicks by most people, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored.

I will admit i'm not a fan of the overdone particle stuff, but physics in games needs a kick up the arse, everything else visually has progressed alot over the years, physics on the other hand is still all over the place, and it's still the scripted stuff being the most impressive looking.

Not saying PhysX is what will take it forward, but it's better than nothing.

[ViperXtreme]

Originally Posted by Cronik

It's a gimmick..

not that i hate physx, some of the effects looks just weird (could have been better/believable)

Spilling dynamically simulated oil (with matching fire with it) could prolly look more interesting matching it with dynamic/volumetric smoke that reacts with the environment.

[Zenoth]

Why do they exaggerate the effects and then think that by doing so it'll look "cool"?

The effects would be much better if only made subtle, rather than being all over the place and distracting. I don't need a thousand pieces of concrete debris catapulted left, right, up and down with each one of my Mech's steps. Instead of making debris fly all around the screen seemingly out of nowhere as if something bad happened to gravity, instead use PhysX to crackle the ground or form a subtle crater the size of the Mech's foot based on its shape. And instead of making a million particles fly on a shield bubble just because you fire at it, instead use PhysX to create something more subtle such as water-ripples like effects onto the shield itself (similar to the visual effect in Independence Day when the missiles hit the shield of the alien ship).

That's what I don't like about PhysX, is its implementation made only to advertise and seemingly create a "oooooh! and "aaaaaah!" moment, when in reality most of us looking at it have the feeling that it's just too much of it for no particular reason and may only contribute to slow general performance down. It reminds me of the high PhysX setting in Borderlands 2, it's just exaggerated. Grab a vehicle and shoot at the ground, and then exit and look at all the debris. Ten lure in some mobs, use Maya's phase-lock ability and watch all them debris fly up in the air and start spinning around the phase-lock bubble. And then thrown some corrosive grenade and watch the acid flow around it, and then all of that falls back down and scatters everywhere after the phase-lock effect stops.

That's under an arranged, controlled condition that you would have provoked. The worst part is that during actual game-play I assure you sometimes it gets worse. I' had co-operative games which I hosted that made me lag like hell when all four of us created too much debris around and made things explode and barrels, grenades and particles... it filled up the screen and the game was a slide show for half a minute. I had to crouch away from the action and look away from it with my camera on several occasions to let the FPS go back up.

I lowered the setting since, but even lowered the actual effects themselves aren't "convincing", it's still just small sized debris flying around, it's not like there's a huge chuck on concrete flying away from a wall (with the wall's physical shape changed afterwards) and then breaking in smaller size chunks when hitting the ground, from a building or something. When I hear PhysX I immediately think "A wall suddenly hit by a missile that happens to magically let a thousand pieces of debris fly away from it without any traces of actual impact on the wall itself". I mean look at the video, at some point it shows the Mech shooting at concrete above it, you see like 100+ pieces of concrete flying away from the structure, even though the structure itself remains completely intact. It feels completely artificial.

The original Red Faction with the Geo-Mod technology did "physical effects" in a much more plausible, believable way and that was more than a decade ago. The technology of PhysX itself has a crap load of potential, my issue, to reiterate, is that it is badly implemented... of course that is in my opinion. If some of you guys around actually like that type of effects exaggeration, then cool for you. I have yet to see PhysX effects that seem "spot on" and fitting and not blatant "show-off" material that ultimately only serve to show-off how you can slow down your game's performance.

[ViperXtreme]

heh i remember the original Red Faction and i also remember how deep ive been digging in the test section lol

[Noisiv]

It would be really nice if Nvidia had ANY kind of strategy when it comes to PhysX.

Like... role of PhysX, near and long term goal. Or by NVIDIA's own words:

• Promote defend your productivity mentality
• Define a long-term direction
• Pick the most important near-term investment(s)
• Ensure every project does something to improve your company's methodology
• Explicitly allocate budget for methodology staffing
• Involve the product engineers
• Keep the lights on by maintaining your old flow while rolling out a new tool flow rather than suddenly cut over.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...s?pageNumber=1

[SLI-756]

So you fellas are unawares that Arma3 is gonna have PhysX?
Thanks for vid WhiteLightning!
PhysX = best graphics effect ever. (imo of course).