PhysX

[Wen 10]

The basic PhysX engine is always handled by the CPU, in any PhysX game. Only some special parts of PhysX are intended to be GPU accelerated (cloths, liquid simulation etc.), so if the game does not use these features, it won't use hardware simulation.

Oh. i see. Nice #post BTW.

[maddogx 13]

Actually, it turns out that my post wasn't entirely correct. NVIDIA apparently developed a new module for the PhysX SDK called "GRB" (GPU Rigid Body) last year which enabled normal rigid body collision calculations on the GPU (Geeks3D.com article).

I can't find much information on this though, except that it was supposed to be used in Batman Arkham Asylum.

[PuFu 4600]

yeah, but bar the Physix GRB, all other physics engines (havok, bullet etc) handles the ragdolls and other things like dampers and alike CPU side. Don't tell me you have seen your CPU strugle with those in ANY other game(that would be 90% of the current game market today) that has the minimum physics (ragdolls).

There won't be any sort of particles and/or cloth simulations in A3 anyways, so i really don't see what is all the fuss about: "Oh noes, Y You Don't Get GPU physix on Gpu, i own an nvidia card etc etc..." (this is not related only to the OP)...

[dmarkwick 261]

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.

[frostwyrm333 1]

Remember that Arma 2 also has physics. (although most people wouldn't call it that, but since tanks don't jump I am happy enough with it)

[dragon01 902]

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