BasileyOne 10 Posted December 2, 2011 physx easy to use and look good on paper, but bogus and buggy. sorry if thats offend anyone [from developers of both]. basically ANY kind of 3-rd party code in project lead to severe drawbacks. and PhysX not very scalable. so for BF3-sized or CoD-sized stuff with low-res/low-frequency physics its more or less work, but for something serious ? not with nowdays generations of hardware :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neokika 62 Posted December 2, 2011 physx easy to use and look good on paper, but bogus and buggy.sorry if thats offend anyone [from developers of both]. basically ANY kind of 3-rd party code in project lead to severe drawbacks. and PhysX not very scalable. so for BF3-sized or CoD-sized stuff with low-res/low-frequency physics its more or less work, but for something serious ? not with nowdays generations of hardware :/ Then I guess you will be very surprised... Care to base your thoughts with actual facts? _neo_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted December 2, 2011 physx easy to use and look good on paper, but bogus and buggy.sorry if thats offend anyone [from developers of both]. basically ANY kind of 3-rd party code in project lead to severe drawbacks. and PhysX not very scalable. so for BF3-sized or CoD-sized stuff with low-res/low-frequency physics its more or less work, but for something serious ? not with nowdays generations of hardware :/ Yay armchair specialists Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted December 2, 2011 Yay armchair specialists That's Captain Armchair Specialist you're referring to! You shall address him thusly. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BasileyOne 10 Posted December 2, 2011 Then I guess you will be very surprised...Care to base your thoughts with actual facts? _neo_ how many products with PhysX you made ? you already tired enough to check some PhysX-related gamedeve threads in Nvidia-related forums. nothing is free so picking something in hope "now we're spend shitload of money on this magical, "silver bullet product" all us problems was suddenly disappear" ? no, its won't work this way. as well as PhysX won't frequently[as advertised]. but im really welcome BIS efforts and enthusiasm on improving physics ingame, whatever they use for that. as well as other aspects of game. p.s. i wish i was wrong. and some time ago, PhysX was [suddenly!!]become flawless product. until that moment, i will keep My opinion, if you not have anything against. ie until Arma3 release, at least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neokika 62 Posted December 2, 2011 "now we're spend shitload of money on this magical, "silver bullet product" all us problems was suddenly disappear" Now if BIS did something like that, wouldn't be very smart would they? :) You are very wrong if you think that, they obviously did their homework, including in-house tests with the PhysX software. Probably they even tried different possibilities/softwares and they have realised PhysX would be the best option. How can you say otherwise? _neo_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted December 2, 2011 how many products with PhysX you made ?you already tired enough to check some PhysX-related gamedeve threads in Nvidia-related forums. nothing is free so picking something in hope "now we're spend shitload of money on this magical, "silver bullet product" all us problems was suddenly disappear" ? no, its won't work this way. as well as PhysX won't frequently[as advertised]. but im really welcome BIS efforts and enthusiasm on improving physics ingame, whatever they use for that. as well as other aspects of game. I don't think people generally think that way, in absolute "all our problems will go away" terms. It's a physics solution, that's all. p.s. i wish i was wrong.and some time ago, PhysX was [suddenly!!]become flawless product. until that moment, i will keep My opinion, if you not have anything against. ie until Arma3 release, at least. No need to wait until ArmA3, VBS2 already uses it. You could see for yourself how effective (or not) it is right now :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted December 2, 2011 physx easy to use and look good on paper, but bogus and buggy.sorry if thats offend anyone [from developers of both]. basically ANY kind of 3-rd party code in project lead to severe drawbacks. and PhysX not very scalable. so for BF3-sized or CoD-sized stuff with low-res/low-frequency physics its more or less work, but for something serious ? not with nowdays generations of hardware :/ Every physics solution out there is based on 3rd party code, being it havok, bullet or physix. Surely, there are issues and limitations to every technology ever made or released. That said, if your opinion is based solely on things you have read around the web, nvidia development forums or not, the point is moot: you still have the same limited first hand experience with the product. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted December 2, 2011 The problem with PhysX is that it is extremely dependent of fps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minoza 11 Posted December 2, 2011 The problem with PhysX is that it is extremely dependent of fps. And doesn't like big fast moving objects, they are usually applied at some scale to prevent issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted December 2, 2011 The problem with PhysX is that it is extremely dependent of fps. If you have the physical simulation tied to the render loop, sure. There is such a thing as multithreading though, and I doubt very much that PhysX cannot utilize it. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4600 Posted December 2, 2011 The problem with PhysX is that it is extremely dependent of fps. That is not really true And doesn't like big fast moving objects, they are usually applied at some scale to prevent issues. all physics engines are limited by size and speed, for its calcs to work. that said, the only time when i had issues with physix simulations in my work was when i forgot to setup my unit's scene correctly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted December 2, 2011 Well that's at least what I got from ":icon_twisted:" :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tekgun2 0 Posted December 4, 2011 Hey all, so I understand that ATI users will be able to run PhysX on the CPU, but am I right in thinking that an nVidia card will be better for performance due to it being able to run PhysX on the GPU? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted December 4, 2011 Hey all, so I understand that ATI users will be able to run PhysX on the CPU, but am I right in thinking that an nVidia card be better for performance due to it being able to run PhysX on the GPU? All comments from BIS so far say that physX will be CPU only. No one will be better or worse off than anyone else with different gfx brands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tekgun2 0 Posted December 4, 2011 Ah okay thanks for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4 IN 1 0 Posted December 4, 2011 That is not really trueall physics engines are limited by size and speed, for its calcs to work. that said, the only time when i had issues with physix simulations in my work was when i forgot to setup my unit's scene correctly Or when you try to creat a solar system using it.:p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BasileyOne 10 Posted December 5, 2011 All comments from BIS so far say that physX will be CPU only. No one will be better or worse off than anyone else with different gfx brands. yup, basically PhysX is easy to use tools to introduce physics into you products. all-hardware, except CPU, including NVidia/SGI/Elvis/Macron-made was irrelevant to practical implementation and was just reason of desperate attempts to use lockout to extract monetary profits from "helping" gamedevs introduce PhysX in game. and after you learn and collect some experience with PhysX you notice slone imperfections, flaws, unsuitable or capping you projects, eventually. so sooner or later you grow-out of PhysX. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted December 5, 2011 Oh look, its you again... yup, basically PhysX is easy to use tools to introduce physics into you products. Yup. was just reason of desperate attempts to use lockout to extract monetary profits from "helping" gamedevs introduce PhysX in game. Except that the physX library is FREE, all you have to do is add the physX splash to your loadscreens... and after you learn and collect some experience with PhysX you notice slone imperfections, flaws, unsuitable or capping you projects, eventually. so sooner or later you grow-out of PhysX. To ask you your own question: how many games have you added physX to, or are you just talking out your ass? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BasileyOne 10 Posted December 5, 2011 Oh look, its you again...Yup. Except that the physX library is FREE, all you have to do is add the physX splash to your loadscreens... To ask you your own question: how many games have you added physX to, or are you just talking out your ass? "Priceless"/"Free of charge" not equal to "Free" in developers meaning of Freedom. before asking people their own questions make sure to expect from them to wait from you answer 1st. point is you had no point, nor content in you message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted December 5, 2011 I smell a fire burning. Quick, someone grab the popcorn! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobcatBob 10 Posted December 11, 2011 I know we've all heard about the new physx, but all the news relating to it so far has been about vehicles on the ground or boats on the sea, but what about the air? Can/will there be any added simulation to planes and helicopters while in-flight or even when taking off/landing? This would be great to know... Thanks BI! (copied from my earlier locked thread) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neokika 62 Posted December 11, 2011 I know we've all heard about the new physx, but all the news relating to it so far has been about vehicles on the ground or boats on the sea, but what about the air? Can/will there be any added simulation to planes and helicopters while in-flight or even when taking off/landing? This would be great to know... Thanks BI! (copied from my earlier locked thread) What do you mean when flying or taking off/landing? Probably all the collisions will be handled by physX, but it is not a fixed wing library if that's what you mean. _neo_ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted December 11, 2011 Can/will there be any added simulation to planes and helicopters while in-flight or even when taking off/landing? This would be great to know... Thanks BI! (copied from my earlier locked thread) Not related to PhysX but Arma 3 will make use of the Take On Helicopters flight model :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobcatBob 10 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) Not related to PhysX but Arma 3 will make use of the Take On Helicopters flight model :) Yeah that is nice (I already knew :p) but I was wondering like if when a helicopter say "collides" with the ground in a rough landing type of way, will these "rough landings" be better simulated due to phsx HELPING the advanced flight model, like maybe the helicopter will "bounce" abit on the ground before settling and take light damage instead of hitting flatly and exploding into flames:) edit:@OnlyRazor, don't you mean gasoline?:):):):):):) Edited December 11, 2011 by BobcatBob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
