PhysX

[dragon01 903]

It has physics, but it doesn't have PhysX. Perhaps it's physics system wasn't fit for getting a separate thread, but PhysX certainly is.

[carlostex 38]

As long as BIS uses the latest SDK, i think there won't be a problem since CPU PhysX now uses SSE if i'm not mistaken.

Nevertheless they (Nvidia) could be doing a lot more. They're just not in a big hurry to develop for the newest and fastest instructions. AMD FX users could benefit from XOP/FMA4 optimizations and Intel from AVX.

[Dwarden 1125]

read http://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk-v31

think outside the old boundary box of previous software problems :)

[NKato 0]

My biggest gripe?

PhysX is still nVidia-exclusive. Damn those Ageia bastards for not considering a licensing scheme to sell the tech to both nVidia and ATI...

Which means my ATI video card, despite supporting DirectX 11, will not support actual PhysX processing because nVidia purposely locks it out.

[Nicholas 5]

My biggest gripe?

PhysX is still nVidia-exclusive. Damn those Ageia bastards for not considering a licensing scheme to sell the tech to both nVidia and ATI...

Which means my ATI video card, despite supporting DirectX 11, will not support actual PhysX processing because nVidia purposely locks it out.

And that's why Bohemia Interactive is forcing PhysX to run on the CPU. So NVIDIA users would not get an unfair advantage.

[NKato 0]

And that's why Bohemia Interactive is forcing PhysX to run on the CPU. So NVIDIA users would not get an unfair advantage.

Wow, going the extra nine yards, eh, Bohemia? You just earned your $60 from me.

[Pyronick 21]

And that's why Bohemia Interactive is forcing PhysX to run on the CPU. So NVIDIA users would not get an unfair advantage.

Well I do hope that - if PhysX will remain locked down and not follow the conjuncture of technology - that Bohemia Interactive is capable to replace PhysX with more capable, better suited and/or better performing physics middleware. Or even their own physics engine.

They probably chose PhysX because it's already implemented in VBS2, which due to it's nature can be optimized to run on specific hardware.

[Defunkt 431]

It seems to me that PhysX processing is an ideal candidate for having its own thread/core. My CPU is never more than 25% utilised when playing ArmA2 (last time I checked anyway...) which suggests to me that there are unused/underused threads/cores.

That occurred to me also but if anything was crying out to run on separate cores it is surely AI decision making. You'd think it could run all the time based on a trivial amount of positional data updates and the main thread could seek a "what should this unit do next" as and when it has time. And yet we still have one core crushed and hardly any load on a second core.

[bigsam656 10]

And that's why Bohemia Interactive is forcing PhysX to run on the CPU. So NVIDIA users would not get an unfair advantage.

I'm not sure how some extra particles and slight performance increase would be considered an unfair advantage.

[PuFu 4600]

I'm not sure how some extra particles and slight performance increase would be considered an unfair advantage.

BIS won't use (as they don't use for VBS2 either) physix particles, or apex or anything alike.

Get it right once and for all. In ALL the others game where physix is used for actual physix instead of debris, particles and cloth simulation, those are handled by CPU!!!, not GPU...

This is the Nth thread about the same thing...And it has nothing to do with BIS being politically correct either

[Cripsis 10]

Am I correct in my assumption that PhysX will only be used for infantry ragdoll simulation and vehicle collisions (for example when vehicles roll-over or crash into trees, rocks, houses, other vehicles, sandbag fortifications, etc.)

Are there any other features I haven't mentioned that PhysX might be used for?

[Nuke1st 1]

Nvidia do make good technologies, but god they annoy me with their lockouts, they are just like apple.

[PuFu 4600]

Am I correct in my assumption that PhysX will only be used for infantry ragdoll simulation and vehicle collisions (for example when vehicles roll-over or crash into trees, rocks, houses, other vehicles, sandbag fortifications, etc.)

yes

Are there any other features I haven't mentioned that PhysX might be used for?

no, or at least up to this point there is no official word saying physix will be used for more

[Cripsis 10]

Thanks PuFu.

[Nicholas 5]

It will also be used to tow vehicles.

Some vehicles are sparse in the area of operation; if they break, tow them to a repair station.

From the details provided, i believe the ArmA III campaign will incorporate even more RPG elements than ArmA II did.

[Guest]

Threads merged!

[PuFu 4600]

It will also be used to tow vehicles.

Towing vehicles feature is related to the IK implementation rather than physix. If physix is to be used for collision, surely it can be used here as well. But overall, it has little to do with towing...(check VBS2)

[Nicholas 5]

Towing vehicles feature is related to the IK implementation rather than physix. If physix is to be used for collision, surely it can be used here as well. But overall, it has little to do with towing...(check VBS2)

IK implementation? Why is it then when PhysX was released for VBS2, they were able to tow trailers? And VBS2 is using RV2, ArmA III will use RV4. Maybe they have changed?

[dm 9]

But overall, it has little to do with towing...(check VBS2)

Actually the VBS implementation is based entirely on physX...

[PuFu 4600]

Actually the VBS implementation is based entirely on physX...

my bad then, i stand corrected

[BobcatBob 10]

Since collision models were mentioned is it safe to assume that they will be improved from when we saw them last, because when they were showing the ships/tanks/cars colliding with stuff there was a clearly visible space between the objects when they started colliding. It really looked bad.

[Cripsis 10]

I think PhysX will also be used to simulate shock waves, like when the grenade blew the four guys over at E3. I wonder if this will also apply to vehicles, for example will large explosions close to vehicles have an effect on the vehicles.

[Whirly 1]

I know Arma3 uses a different engine than Carrier Command but I would expect that the teams work in close association with each other and that the aquired experience of working with physics on Carrier Command will be passed on to the Arma3 team. If parts of Arma3 vehicles are blown off the main chassis similar to the physics in Carrier Command (for example if a humvee it hit by a powerful I.E.D) I will be fapping...real hard.

2LcBWh-3-38&list=UU-XIaIPDFfrNRBfKqzKtaFg&index=1&feature=plcp

v8xonQd47Zc&feature=autoplay&list=UU-XIaIPDFfrNRBfKqzKtaFg&lf=plcp&playnext=1

[froggyluv 2136]

Damn thats like candy crack for the brain! I was hum-ho bout CC but thats pretty much a sure buy now.

[antoineflemming 14]

I know Arma3 uses a different engine than Carrier Command but I would expect that the teams work in close association with each other and that the aquired experience of working with physics on Carrier Command will be passed on to the Arma3 team. If parts of Arma3 vehicles are blown off the main chassis similar to the physics in Carrier Command (for example if a humvee it hit by a powerful I.E.D) I will be fapping...real hard.

2LcBWh-3-38&list=UU-XIaIPDFfrNRBfKqzKtaFg&index=1&feature=plcp

v8xonQd47Zc&feature=autoplay&list=UU-XIaIPDFfrNRBfKqzKtaFg&lf=plcp&playnext=1

What engine does Carrier Command run on? It looks like UE, but I saw somewhere that someone said that wasn't the case.