PhysX

[zooloo75 834]

Imo Arma doesnt need physx, for the character they can use just animations. since we dont going to have terrain or building destruction, I dont see any other aplication for a physx feature. Even the vehicles, we use them to transport units, not to make some rally races. Bullets with physx? no need either. although this could simplify the work of the CPU making the game with better performance with more AIs (?)

Also, anyway, it would be good to see some walls destruction, or maybe some trees and bushes when you need to clear the way of your vision or a landing zone, fire base, etc.

Maybe physx for the smoke and dust, I dont know

I don't know either. ArmA is just fine the way it is.

The lack of physics, predefined death pose of a guy floating in midair because his toe is touching a ledge, and a flying man in a standing animation from an explosion are all natural and give ArmA the realistic tone we all desire.

So yes, there shouldn't be PhysX or physics, because it just downright makes no sense to have our GPU's do the work instead of our CPU's. Why lower the workload on the CPU to calculate AI rather than physics?

Silly people.

/sarcasm.

[Sky999 10]

Imo Arma doesnt need physx, for the character they can use just animations

Yes let's just not improve the next installement at all....

In fact, let's just simply make this ARMA2 with new models.

How someone can argue against character physx is beyond me...

[LJF 0]

We finally get rid of proprietary sound tech (EAX) and go for an open one and now it all starts again with physics :( Very good move by Nvidia though, shows what you can do with a heap of money.

Still, I'm interested to see what they do with the tech.

[Leon86 13]

Guys, they only said they were going to use it for the vehicle simulation. That's because they've already made it for vbs2, so they only need to copypaste (ok, maybe a little more work :) )

Using physX does not automatically mean other physics modules like bullet are not used and it doesnt mean it's used for characters as well. Maybe they've made their own ragdolls, who knows.

[SPC.Spets 21]

Yes let's just not improve the next installement at all....

In fact, let's just simply make this ARMA2 with new models.

How someone can argue against character physx is beyond me...

having a ragdoll physics is not a important improvement, if they going to use physx I preffer it for building/terrain/vehicle destruction. ragdolls physics makes weird things sometimes. And I did not say I dont want it, I say, that its not really necesary in this game

[Militant1006 11]

Yeah maybe, although the current death animation system where it plays differently for every person in a multiplayer game, and when they have awkward looking death animations anyway, it is a real pain, it definitely needs to go, don't know if they will use ragdoll or not, but at least some better death animations (which are hopefully quicker if animations can cancel halfway through in Arma 3) for direction of bullet etc. and also a very important thing would be to put some 'wounded' animations in, so if you shoot someone while running and don't kill them, instead of running as if nothing touched them, having them fall over or limp or slow down or something would be great, and easily possible.

[hamm 10]

Guys, they only said they were going to use it for the vehicle simulation.

What? No they didn't.

From the arma3.com website:

"Take advantage of PhysXâ„¢ supporting the vehicle simulation, in-game interactions and the revamped animation system."

So PhysX is used for vehicle simulation, interaction and the new animation system (possibly ragdolls when they choose to confirm that).

[zooloo75 834]

having a ragdoll physics is not a important improvement, if they going to use physx I preffer it for building/terrain/vehicle destruction. ragdolls physics makes weird things sometimes. And I did not say I dont want it, I say, that its not really necesary in this game

Opinions :rolleyes:

EDIT - And bad grammar.

If you really think it isn't necessary, then go put a bunch of infantry somewhere and set off an explosion. What do you see? Either they are all laying down dead in the same place, or they are all flying in the air with the standing animation.

I would rather see a ragdoll flying in awkward ways than see an unrealistic standing pose of a guy flying through air from an explosion.

Edited June 4, 2011 by zooloo75

[instagoat 133]

I think BI would be stupid to limit physics simulation to something like half their customer base, and straightout exclude the rest. People with Nvidia cards will benefit from physX, but people with ATI cards should still get physics simulation even without physX.

If that´s not the case, I´ll facepalm from here to new jersey.

[purepassion 22]

let me try to dig up that post....

hmm sadly cant find it anymore.. but to sum it up it was a dev saying that ATI users will also be able to fully benefit from a new physic simulation.

Just remember that it is BIS. They are smart and would never completely leave ATI users out ( unlike many other studios :( )

What interests me is what you mean by

Physical simulation & improved animationsTake advantage of PhysXâ„¢ supporting the vehicle simulation, in-game interactions and the revamped animation system.

This could basically mean everything.

( except building destruction physics, because this was already denied by Damu via the "15 ARG questions")

So this is the interesting aspect

Edited June 4, 2011 by PurePassion

[hamm 10]

I think BI would be stupid to limit physics simulation to something like half their customer base, and straightout exclude the rest. People with Nvidia cards will benefit from physX, but people with ATI cards should still get physics simulation even without physX.

If that´s not the case, I´ll facepalm from here to new jersey.

What if HW acceleration isn't even an option for nvidia? Will you still facepalm?

[Daniel 0]

I can assure you both Nvidia and ATI (including others) will be supported. No panic, please. :) Nothing is going to be changed, except the world. :D

Cornerning E3:

Yes, there will be some presentation of PhysX too, but note we have almost a year to do much more/better. :)

I guess we'll know more in a few days.

[froggyluv 2136]

Strange how people are up in arms over a possible need to pick up an Nvidia card to run as dedicated PhysX (tho unlikely). By that time next year, the cost would be pretty small as compared to the many who probably don't have the required CPU setup -a far costlier upgrade.

[purepassion 22]

ahh daniel ninja found the post :)

[bangtail 0]

Wow, people still aren't getting it I see.

Everyone will be able to use PhysX - AMD users will not be able to use hardware PhysX (if it is implemented).

That is all.

[wamingo 1]

I would rather see a ragdoll flying in awkward ways than see an unrealistic standing pose of a guy flying through air from an explosion.

I'd say, do the easiest thing and just make them fall to the ground -- like they ought to.. short of a more gory solution that is, which I have to say I don't favour.

[Daniel 0]

ahh daniel ninja found the post :)

Daniel-san remembers Master Damu's teachings.

[Steakslim 1]

Maybe the thread title should be "PhysX: For both ATI and Nvidia" with an edit to the first posts with Damu's quotes before more of this "hurp derp nvidia sucks, physx sucks" bullshit continues on for another 22 pages.

[Richey79 10]

Question is... generated by the game engine, or just pasted 3D resources?

[chris64 0]

Question is... generated by the game engine, or just pasted 3D resources?

Knowing BIS I would be very surprised if it was not done ingame.

[Seitan 8]

Flying boxes in a game! Woah! :p Better late then never i quess.

[max power 21]

Question is... generated by the game engine, or just pasted 3D resources?

While I appreciate your skepticism, let's look at this in detail.

The screen looks like all of the other screenshots BIS has posted

BIS talks about Physx for vehicles and world interactions

BIS is showing a screenshot of vehicles portraying physical interactions.

What do you think?

[LJF 0]

Wow, people still aren't getting it I see.

Everyone will be able to use PhysX - AMD users will not be able to use hardware PhysX (if it is implemented).

That is all.

I suppose you haven't tried using PhysX on an ATI then? :D Lag is a serious understatement.

[Scubbo 10]

I guess because none of the calc is offloaded to the videocard with ATI kit... still if ATI supported devs then maybe devs would support ATI :)

[max power 21]

PhysX is an open physics library that can be accelerated by specific hardware. It can't be accelerated by just any old graphics card. The aegia (nVidia) chip is apparently the only one on the market right now, but nVidia says anyone is free to come up with their own solutions. I don't necessarily trust that, but in this instance, it's not devs supporting ATI or the other way around. It's simply that ATI aren't developing their own hardware for PhysX.