PhysX

[dotted 0]

Last I spoke with Erwin Coumans he stated that GPU support wouldn't come untill bullet SDK 3.x.

I would like to se your source for GPU acceleration in SDK 2.x?

http://bulletphysics.org/Bullet/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=5681

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Document this..or I will call you the fanboy..and put your ramblings on ignore.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/05/19/quadgpu_performance_review_nvidia_vs_amd

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/28/nvidia_geforce_3way_sli_radeon_trifire_review/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/21/amd_radeon_hd_6990_video_card_followup_review/6

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/24/asus_geforce_gtx_590_video_card_review/9

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way-scaling,2865.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6990-antilles-crossfire,2878.html

If you need any more, just let me know. There are half a dozen other reputable tech sites that have posted the same results.

[WackyIraqi 2]

fyi Bullet SDK 2.77 and 2.78 supports OpenCL on both NVIDIA and AMD afaik ...

first integration tries started around 2.74/2.75 if i remember correctly

Care to provide some insight for the rest of us on (I'm assuming) Suma's rationale for implementing PhysX instead of an OpenCL compatible (ie: bullet) physics library?

I'm sure there had to be some criteria he wanted each to meet and the pros / cons of each library inside of ArmA3 :)

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Oh no...not a Capulet and Montagues war over video cards :(

:D Ok, I'll stay on topic now, promise.

[AnimalMother92 10]

This seems like a poor decision, but I'll wait until more info is available before actually getting angry.

[dotted 0]

Care to provide some insight for the rest of us on (I'm assuming) Suma's rationale for implementing PhysX instead of an OpenCL compatible (ie: bullet) physics library?

I'm sure there had to be some criteria he wanted each to meet and the pros / cons of each library inside of ArmA3 :)

I think the main thing is that Bullet GPU support isn't as mature as PhysX is.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

I knew that FUD would come.

It's been debunked ages ago:

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/physx-an-easy-target/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30102764&postcount=46

And is not true anyone (even if it was debunked):

http://physxinfo.com/news/5671/physx-sdk-3-0-has-been-released/

So you've quoted (1) blogger, who was angry because his biased and combative article wasn't published on a real technology portal. And you've quoted another (1) unverified random forum poster on anandtech, who fails to show the results in any real meaningful way. And who also uses base SSE, the earliest SSE instruction set from 1999, instead of SSE4 or SSE5 for his comparisons.

Then you quote the physX info site, making an SDK 3.0 announcement, which doesn't address the instruction set issue at all.

So what are you actually trying to say there?

You think simple rigig bodies physics will impress me?

Come back when Havok does this (tearable cloth):

Or this:

Or this:

You've posted three videos. One is particle based fluid physics. This would present no meaningful addition to a military simulator. Then you posted a particle based smoke demo, which agreeably looks very nice. But realistically, was possible on base DX10 hardware in 2006/2007, along with the fluid simulations above.

Then a resistance cloth demo? Havok and bullet both have had that capability for quite some time now. And tearing cloth simulation? Entirely up to the developer, and again, absolutely no meaningful addition to a military simulator.

Ignorance is a bad foundation.

Please don't waste my time with more ignorance.

And why exactly are you so combative? What's the issue here?

Like I figured...ignorance and lies are the opponents of PhysX.

Nvidia purchased PhysX purely with the intention on making the GPU graphics industry more and more proprietary. No matter which way you look at it, it IS anti consumer behavior, and translates into poor experiences for PC gamers who are already being bombarded with one shitty console port after another.

PhysX itself is a fantastic technology. And before Nvidia bought Aigea, I was a huge fan of their work and what they were doing for the industry. But the fact of the matter is that PhysX CAN be ported to OpenCL. PhysX boosting Nvidia GPUs CAN be used in tandem with ATI GPUs, and actually are curtousy of a community hack via Guru3d.com's forums. And PhysX CAN run on ATI hardware, and currently would be, had Nvidia not threatened the developers working on a solution with a hefty lawsuit. And it absolutely could run better on CPU hardware, if it wasn't purposely being hobbled.

Ignorance and lies aren't the opponents of PhysX. PC gamers who want a non-proprietary, inter-compatable gameplay experience in the games they play are the real opponents. PhysX is holding the industry back significantly in that regard.

Edited May 19, 2011 by TheCapulet

[nodunit 397]

Does anyone know if this may mean that vehicles would inherit vehicles with velocity IE driving high speeds then slamming on brakes requiring necessary distance to stop.

Or better yet a possible differentiation between terrain and weather types such as great grip on dry pavement and hydroplating on wet road, and poor control on snow etc.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Does anyone know if this may mean that vehicles would inherit vehicles with velocity IE driving high speeds then slamming on brakes requiring necessary distance to stop.

Or better yet a possible differentiation between terrain and weather types such as great grip on dry pavement and hydroplaning on wet road, and poor control on snow etc.

I don't think any of that is really dependent on PhysX calculated vehicle control, and dependent instead on developer effort. I imagine if it means enough to the developers to actually include that level of detail, then it will be included.

[dotted 0]

Does anyone know if this may mean that vehicles would inherit vehicles with velocity IE driving high speeds then slamming on brakes requiring necessary distance to stop.

OFP and ARMA(2) already does this

Or better yet a possible differentiation between terrain and weather types such as great grip on dry pavement and hydroplating on wet road, and poor control on snow etc.

Doubt it

this is PhysX

[vfn4i83 0]

This seems like a poor decision, but I'll wait until more info is available before actually getting angry.

same here

[W0lle 1052]

And I just bought an ATi card some weeks ago. :mad:

[bangtail 0]

What about the majority of us who have ATI cards, with we not be able to use the new Physics? Since it uses NVidia's PhysX?

You'll have to play using CPU PhysX (or disable PhysX altogether).

Further, I dont see Nvidia allowing PhysX to run on AMD hardware any time soon so whoever thinks that is on the cards (no pun intended) better be prepared for a disappointment.

All I ever hear is AMD users banging on about how useless PhysX is and how it isn't a selling point etc.

Guess that only applies when it's games they don't care about :rolleyes:

Edited May 20, 2011 by BangTail

[froggyluv 2136]

Nvidia 460gtx are pretty decent cards and can be picked up for $170.00 US now -they should be pretty damn cheap a year from now. Hell -I'll probably offer up my two as gifts before Arma3 comes out to reupgrade myself.

[Smurf 12]

5KHakdkKQH4

If Physx off don´t means no ragdoll and fancy physics for vehicles, I don´t mind to have it off.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

All I ever hear is AMD users banging on about how useless PhysX is and how it isn't a selling point etc.

Guess that only applies when it's games they don't care about :rolleyes:

PhysX is awesome in nearly every aspect. It's an awesome achievement for the guys who made it. It's a free, full featured CPU/GPU Physics SDK. And in an alternate world, it would be an awesome addition to the industry and market.

What people really should be banging about is that it's not only used as a selling point, but also (And much more effectively) as market extortion. Nvidia gives developers money, top level support, and bucketloads of Nvidia cards to put in dev machines, as long as they include certain specific instruction sets and run their middleware.

Then when the games that could potentially be freakin awesome come out, we're getting a message from nvidia reading, "Buy our Cards or your game is going to suck". Mafia 2 is a prime example (Granted it sucked anyways, but that's another story).

This sucks for everyone, not just ATI users. Not because you get to play the game with higher frames than we do because of proprietary middleware, but because as long as the industry is divided on physics, it will never advance in that aspect.

I have a 9800GT that works perfectly with the hacked drivers to get it working along side my crossfired ATI cards. So really the only thing bad I get out of the deal is a higher power bill (I leave it out because of this). But idealistically, I want nothing to do with PhysX, just simply because of what it stands for. There are so many comparable alternatives, it just makes no sense to use it, outside of selling out.

[bangtail 0]

The usual flawed AMD user argument.

/yawn

Although, as you said, you want nothing to do with it so I guess it works out for everyone :)

Edited May 20, 2011 by BangTail

[Bulldogs 10]

In the end it comes down to not, "why use Physx?", but instead "why not use Physx?"

Physx is a physics engine, like every other physics engine out there. The bonus of Physx is that it grants nVidia users bonus features, those features being disabled if you don't use an nVidia card.

But AMD/ATi users still get standard CPU based physics and minor GPU faced physics (ie; grass movement).

NVidia users get bonus features. If any other physics engine was used then it would be standard CPU based physics without the extra features to nVidia users.

So basically saying that using Physx is unfair because of the nVidia advantage is like saying that it's unfair for one kid to starve while another eats, then solving the problem by taking the food away so they both starve.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I do feel a pang of symapathy for ArmA fans with ATI cards, but any argument about it here is gong to be flawed because.

1. BIS have already had to weigh up thier options and would have taken into account probably more than we know about.

2. They have advertised thier decision and that stance is unlikely to change.

In my experiance so far I found that switching PhysX on does little more than improve the particle effects and eye candy for those that have time to take note. And although it would be good to see it do more , I hope not for ArmA3.

All I can say to those sitting on the ATI side of the fence, is don't despair. If your an ArmA fanboy/girl you still have 12 mths to save for an Nvidia upgrade.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

I'm pretty certain that the main reason they're going with PhysX are: they've already implemented it into the engine for VBS2, it's a well documented and mature library. The competing libraries that run on OpenCL (and thus, both sides GPU's) is still in development and has yet to be proven.

If it's possible to build the game in such a way that you can swap out the physics engine being used without a massive rewrite of the source code, I'm sure BIS will do this so it leaves them open to implement a better supported engine at some point in the future. I don't see this happening however.

Maybe by the time the first expansion pack is on the cards the competing brand agnostic library will have been released, be proven and be mature enough for them to implement this instead, then charge us for it, which I'm sure people will be happy to pay for if it benefits a good number of the community.

On another note. The people complaining in this thread about something we've been asking BIS to do for over a decade now is the main reason I really lost interest in the community. Back in OFP days everyone helped each other and took what we got graciously and gave constructive feedback. Now it's turned into a bunch of entitled snobs who question everything we get given with suspicion and then demand something else, or just complain for the sake of complaining.

[nodunit 397]

Pretty much, we want X, then Nooo why! it's not perfect!...take what you get guys yeesh. personally I'm looking forward to seeing what can be done by both the developers and the community, this could open a whole new door in addons.

[Steakslim 1]

Nod, your poor Apache is gonna need to be updated not long after you and Franze get it finished and released. :(

[msy 22]

Can someone confirm that which physx mode will ARMA3 use? a CPU-PHYSX mode or GPU-PHYSX mode or both mode?

I don't want to see I have to earn only 19 FPS if I use any kind of AMD card thanks to NVDIA's wiles.

I like BIS' game, I also like AMD card...

[nodunit 397]

Nod, your poor Apache is gonna need to be updated not long after you and Franze get it finished and released. :(

Depends on how quickly we'd move from A2 to A3, if render to texture is there when we'd probably be all over it otherwise it would be more of a 'when we get around to it'. But I look forward to the day I can take off and tilt too much recklessly, thus rolling into a hangar and cause my blades to break off, already getting ideas.

physX shouldn't bring your game to a halt just becuase you have an ATI card, I've used it before with an ATI card and my computer didn't turn into a slide show, it probably didn't function as effectively and possible that I may have been missing out on a few things but overall I still got it.

Edited May 20, 2011 by NodUnit

[demonized 20]

I myself like nVidia, and in 12 months time im pretty sure i will have to buy a whole new computer to run Arma3 anyway, so buying a Nvidia instead of a ATI or whatever does not bother me at all.

The intense discussion on this topic is somewhat strange so early, still a year to go before a potential release, thats 12 months of technological progress, wich is like virus, we will probably see next generation CPU´s and GPU´s before launch of Arma3.

i11´s, 4GB 8GHz GPU´s and 4800 MHz DDR6.