PhysX

[max power 21]

Right. The argument I thought I understood was that anyone was free to develop hardware for that api, so nVidia wasn't being anticompetitive when they disabled their physx functionality when someone was running a low end nVidia card with a high end ati card to get physx + ati graphics.

[ziiip 1]

Around 50 fps with i5 750 @ 2.67 GHz, Radeon 5700 and 4 GB od RAM :icon_twisted: Thats not any NASA computer.

Well, I can run ArmA2 fairly well too with my 2 year old rig if theres just a few stuff on the island, shit only hits the fan when I rack up AI/object count.

[LJF 0]

Well, I can run ArmA2 fairly well too with my 2 year old rig if theres just a few stuff on the island, shit only hits the fan when I rack up AI/object count.

I still want to know how that guy managed 1800 AI lol :D

[maddogx 13]

I still want to know how that guy managed 1800 AI lol :D

An insane (and unstable) overclock, apparently. Nowadays it may actually be more feasable. I haven't OC'ed my 2600k yet, but it may be worth giving it a try. :D

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Right. The argument I thought I understood was that anyone was free to develop hardware for that api, so nVidia wasn't being anticompetitive when they disabled their physx functionality when someone was running a low end nVidia card with a high end ati card to get physx + ati graphics.

Nope, that's not even close to accurate. In fact, there was a modding crew not long after Nvidia bought out aegia, who had made some real progress in building homebrew ATI drivers that enabled hardware physX, and Nvidia threatened to sue the pants off them.

Before Nvida made the driver changes, running Nvidia and ATI hardware together on vista and 7 worked flawlessly. They never even put out a public statement on reasoning, they just flat out disabled the possibility and swept it under the rug, hoping it'd go away.

[odjob 0]

I dont know if it has been mentioned but PhysX 3.0 sdk promises multi-core support. Witch (should) mean better performance for Ati/Amd users.

Previously i belive only 1 core was used for PhysX.

"In generally, SDK 3.0 will automatically take advantage of however many cores are available, or the number of cores set by the developer, and will also provide the option of a “thread pool†from which “the physics simulation can draw resources that run across all cores“. – adds THINKQ.co.uk"

http://physxinfo.com/news/3414/physx-sdk-3-0-automatic-multi-threading/

[4 IN 1 0]

The PhysX implantation seem still need a lots of tweak to make it realistic, but atless thats a start.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I have tried PhysX in A3 on an ATI and framerate steadily holds its ground :icon_twisted:

Yeah but if you had taken a physics engine wich would allow HW accelaration on both Ati and nVidia hardware you could have done much more fun things with the physics, instead of just playing with a dozen or so crates. :p

[bangtail 0]

Before Nvida made the driver changes, running Nvidia and ATI hardware together on vista and 7 worked flawlessly. They never even put out a public statement on reasoning, they just flat out disabled the possibility and swept it under the rug, hoping it'd go away.

Why should Nvidia offer the full functionality of something they use to promote their products to a competitior? As it stands, AMD users can use PhysX, just not GPU accelerated PhysX (and as someone already pointed out, they are enhancing it further for multiple CPU cores).

Also, as I've said before, that would effectively force Nvidia to offer support to AMD users on a hardware level.

I still don't understand why you (and other AMD users) are getting so upset about this. It's just business. If you're that unhappy with the lack of GPU accelerated PhysX, sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it.

Edited June 9, 2011 by BangTail

[NeMeSiS 11]

I still don't understand why you (and other AMD users) are getting so upset about this. It's just business. If you're that unhappy with the lack of GPU accelerated PhysX, sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it.

I understand why nVidia does it, but i dont understand why BIS chose for PhysX if there are other alternatives out there. Currently nVidia users also wont see it being used to its full potential because BI is held back by AMD users.

Edited June 9, 2011 by NeMeSiS

[bangtail 0]

Because it is an exceptional Physics API which everyone can use.

A dev has already stated that it was playable on AMD hardware so I really don't see what the problem is.

[roberthammer 582]

ATI users are pissed ,because they wanted Havok instead Physx

Anyway it will work for both , so no idea why they are still whining

Edited June 9, 2011 by RobertHammer

[vfn4i83 0]

Why should Nvidia offer the full functionality of something they use to promote their products to a competitior? As it stands, AMD users can use PhysX, just not GPU accelerated PhysX (and as someone already pointed out, they are enhancing it further for multiple CPU cores).

Also, as I've said before, that would effectively force Nvidia to offer support to AMD users on a hardware level.

I still don't understand why you (and other AMD users) are getting so upset about this. It's just business. If you're that unhappy with the lack of GPU accelerated PhysX, sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it.

Buying a lesser VGA 'cause they deliberately sabotage the competition and finance everyone to do so. Thats the way to go, lets buy more NV and be not ready to play ArmA3.

I just remember when Crysis came out, all the winning and complain about the game never launching on NVidias High Ends, I LoLed hard at the "NV fanboys", and I might do it again back in W8.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Ugh...

Currently, when BI designs the game they have to design it around the (s)lowest denominator, which when it comes to physics, are Ati's. The result of this is that nVidia owners will get the same experience as Ati owners, with a somewhat higher FPS, but still the same features build around physics that are calculated on the CPU.

Now, if BI had chosen a physics engine which allows HW acceleration on both nVidia and Ati GPU's then the slowest would be so much faster that it would allow for new/better features.

EDIT: Seriously, what has PhysX given nVidia users so far? A neglible amount of extra rubble around explosions and a bunch of extra smoke. Developers will not use it to its full potential because then they would lock out a large part of their userbase, so instead its a gimmick with no influence on gameplay and a small increase in graphics.

[bangtail 0]

I feel your pain Nemesis but what's done is done so it's really a case of 'no use crying over spilled milk'.

[4 IN 1 0]

The answer for the question "Why BI choose PhysX instead of others?" will never be answer I am afraid, but I am quite sure there is some of those "just business" involved.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I feel your pain Nemesis but what's done is done so it's really a case of 'no use crying over spilled milk'.

Your comment about Ati users did annoy me somewhat, if i had a nVidia gpu i would still be just as dissapointed as i am now.

EDIT: I guess i would be even more dissapointed if there where no physics upgrades at all, but still. :p

[bangtail 0]

The answer for the question "Why BI choose PhysX instead of others?" will never be answer I am afraid, but I am quite sure there is some of those "just business" involved.

It's always about the dollars bud.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Your comment about Ati users did annoy me somewhat, if i had a nVidia gpu i would still be just as dissapointed as i am now.

What comment?

I just stated facts - People (AMD users) are annoyed. I understand why, but it won't change anything, so best just to accept it and move on.

Edited June 9, 2011 by BangTail

[NeMeSiS 11]

It's always about the dollars bud.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

What comment?

sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it.

Seeing as my dissapointed comes from the now lost potential (which is just as much a problem for nVidia users as it is for Ati users) instead of 'omfg nvida are azzholez!'. But dont worry about it. :p

[bangtail 0]

Well, not that I want to niggle but you've misquoted me there.

I said "If you're that unhappy with the lack of GPU accelerated PhysX, sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it."

The first part is integral to the whole statement. I didn't say everyone should run out and buy Nvidia, I merely pointed out that if you have to have GPU accelerated PhysX, you should buy an Nvidia card.

Sorry if I wasnt clear :)

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well, not that I want to niggle but you've misquoted me there.

I said "If you're that unhappy with the lack of GPU accelerated PhysX, sell your AMD cards and buy Nvidia cards, otherwise, get over it."

The first part is integral to the whole statement. I didn't say everyone should run out and buy Nvidia, I merely pointed out that if you have to have GPU accelerated PhysX, you should buy an Nvidia card.

Sorry if I wasnt clear :)

Like I said, dont worry about it ;)

(Though technically, in a world where everyone has an Nvidia gpu PhysX would work fine, though such a lack of competition will eventually give us other problems. :p )

[bangtail 0]

Yah but you have to remember that they are constantly improving the API. 3.0 had significant improvements for CPU based acceleration.

Personally, I think it is going to run fine on AMD hardware.

[nodunit 397]

ATI users are pissed ,because they wanted Havok instead Physx

Anyway it will work for both , so no idea why they are still whining

As an ATI user all I have to is, glad we get some form of physics than NO physics.

[bangtail 0]

Yah, I agree Nodunit. I may well have AMD cards by next summer depending on which is better in the next round (or 2) so believe me, I'm not here trying to piss on AMD users.

Physics are necessary for ArmA at this point and it's great that we are finally getting an implementation.

[vfn4i83 0]

Yah but you have to remember that they are constantly improving the API. 3.0 had significant improvements for CPU based acceleration.

Personally, I think it is going to run fine on AMD hardware.

Yah, they're finally catching Havoc/ Bullet/ ODE/ . . . oh, wait!