Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by SlazsH, Feb 26, 2011.
Former Ageia co-founder and Nvidia CUDA VP Manju Hegde is now a VP on AMD's Fusion team...
AWesome, so OpenCL on ATi will support PhysX, hopefully that'll get it a bit more supported / used in games.
Havok is really nice...but we need something new.
Looking forward to this. With physics go open-source and game developers able to adjust the API, I think we would see many game could use Physics optimally in the future. Really nice
They've been talking about it for quite some time now. Hopefully we'll actually see some games that use it within the next 5 years.
I want an open source solution so all games have better physics. But until it is in games that I own. It is vapourware.
finally some info on this, I didnt know the original physx guy works for amd lol
Good news,hope it sees the light
Unless AMD actively pushes this onto developers it's never going to take a footing. Why would a developer want to hire/train people to use OpenCL when they can get the same thing out of PhysX, DirectCompute?
Or if developers could learn to properly code a Quad core cpu we wouldn't really need to worry about this anyway...but I'm just saying. There is a lot of power sitting there and no one uses it.
because if they're writing games, they can port it to other hardware? I won't be surprised that in the future phones would have GPU powerful enough to support OpenCL as well. The market for phones is dominated by Androids, Blackberries, iPhones, and etc. Microsoft has a really small portion of the market.
Both PhysX and DirectCompute only works on Windows (though I think there might be a PhysX client for Linux, not sure).
Cause physx is a dead horse, no game developpers will deal with it, for different reason, but they do if Nvidia pay well.. And when we see the result in the game who are using it, you understand how much they pay, as the enhanced feature in games are just too poor for even be called features
OpenCL is a standard, an open standard, it's not a physic engine, it's a software language, OpenCL is used and pushed in a variety of domain, going from HPC ( computing ), to video encoding accelaration and the domain is just infinite. Developper will or allready deal with OpenCL. OpenCL is not new and is not AMD. OpenCL = Microsoft, Apple, Intel, IBM, AMD, Nvidia, and a quantity of peoples... it's like the HTML5... all industry leading company are working on it and developp it.
About what is doing AMD for push this technology, aka Bullet and DMM2 in OpenCL? Well nearly all game developper have now the bundle "DMM2+Bullet" in their hand. developp a game don't take 6 months, and maybe we will see then Games using it with accelerated by gpu version. But developper like use their own engine for games if they can... EA/Dice use their frostbite engine, codemaster his own one, Crytek have his own engine include in Cry engine, etc etc...
There's allready numerous game who use Bullet as physic engine or some code from Bullet ( by software ), you just don't know it. The point is as Bullet is completely open, you can use some part of it and mod them as you want, use it as you want... Bullet is used too in a quantity of movies but again, you rarely know it ( 2012, Hancock and so many more etc ).
Bullet has already been used in games....and movies.... So, it's far from Vaporware...
no one said its gonna be ported to opencl, yet., but yea i agree with amd it would be the only thing to save this dead end "physics standard".
lol.. did you actually read the whole article? its Bullet:nerd:
Did you? The guy said AMD's OpenCL will support PhysX.
No, he said that most CUDA stuff ( including PhysX ) will probably end up being ported to OpenCL.
He never said that "AMD's OpenCL" will support PhysX ( as it is now ).
And there is no such thing as "AMD's OpenCL". OpenCL is... OpenCL.
If PhysX comes to OpenCL, it will be automatically supported by anything that runs OpenCL. Of course.
But he is mainly talking about Bullet as the future of GPU accelerated physics. As it provides lower level API instead forcing Devs to adopt an SDK.
And in the same article they say Bullet is a pipe-dream and not happening. This guy was the former owner of PhysX...so..prob going to go down that root.
He don't say it's not happening, he say it's just starting. it's the jurnalist who said for now it's not widely supported.
You need to understand AMD don't push only bullet, but bullet is DMM + Bullet. this is at start 2 different softwares, made by 2 different company ( one in switzerland and the other in US if i am right ), it was not easy to make the 2 work together ( the software, not the companies ). Outside of this Opencl is a standard, directed by Khronos group, but OpenCL is rather new and if it work, it's developped in a same way is HTML5. so they can't accelerate the developpment of it only for their gpu's physic software, it's not the 1st use of this language. It's one use of it... So you need to wait it's released and ready for the public. and then you can use the last version available for your software. you can't use an OpenCL 2.4, only for your use, if OpenCL is only released on the 2.0 version.
Anyway about happenning, he say exactly the invert: they try now to push physic (or bullet ) as an open standard. What he said his: he want see Physics as a standard, he said too he have make a bad choice at start with PhysX, to proprieatary the hardware who can run it, but at this time, for then it was necessary to use an additional processor for it in term of performance ( Ageia cards )...... same error was made by Nvidia then ( one of the reason he have leave Nvidia ).
If you want physics to be a feature for games, same as shaders, lights, shadow, Bumpmapping etc.. you need to give the choice to developpers, and the choice for the custommers... you can't do a standard by forcing peoples and industry to adopt your hardware. your sdk, your vision, your price and your cost.
You can't get the butter and the money of the butter. You can't push physX as a standard for games physics and at same time, use it as a marketing gimmick for push peoples to adopt your hardware.
The idea of Nvidia was easy. more games use PhysX, more peoples will buy Nvidia cards, and so more games will support PhysX and so more peoples will again buy Nvidia cards. PhysX become a standard, and so Nvidia gpu's too..
But this is the opposite vision of the creator of Ageia PhysX, he want physic for games become as common as is the HDR or other graphics features, exactly the opposite of what can happend with PhysX made by Nvidia.
About DMM, DMM is certainly the future of physic by itself, by no more consider the object as object, but by real and true mass at atomic level. it's allready widely used on design industry with 3Dmax, Maya, Autocad, inventor cinema4D and so on. cause the digital material is "real", you can't and you don't need to cheat with it for make the physic interaction look real, they interact the same in the reality.
Lane. NVIDIA offers PhysX to AMD completely free, no strings. They offered to make it open source. AMD refused. No royalties, no payments for it, completely free of any negative effect.
AMD is being stubborn, and is the one REALLY holding Physics back.
yes i did, that's why i asked you because you said such a foolish thing
what UnrealGaming and Lane said.
and no AMD refused physx because its a dead end standard and a coding nightmare to port into AMD language, besides they cleared this issue out in that article.. They would have gone backwards if they took physx under their hood. Bullet is where its at.
Yea you should read all of it, not just first page or that stuff where they mention physx.. because now you sound like a nv fanboy nothing else :nerd:
^ yep this, amd must have known that physx was a dead project due to the propietry nature of it, plus physx has never really been about physics, its allways about eye candy and lots of it, lol amd would have been stupid to take up such garbage imo.
Ive used physx in every physx title and theres nothing game changing about a few sparks or rustling paper, mostly its just bad performance for the end user and best to be turned off or down lmao.
I totally agree, bullet is where its at for PHYSICS.
Sorry for my ignorance, but whats the difference between Havok and Bullet Physics? Neither are hardware/amd/nvidia dependent like physX is. Is amd just pushing for bullet to make a new open source standard?