PhysX

[ghost101 10]

BI still has NOT confirmed that A3 will even use GPU acceleration for its physX implementation.

You just flip the "enable GPU support for NVidia customers" switch in the PhysX SDK. Why would they NOT have GPU acceleration?

[dm 9]

You just flip the "enable GPU support for NVidia customers" switch in the PhysX SDK. Why would they NOT have GPU acceleration?

Because its not that simple?

[dmarkwick 261]

You just flip the "enable GPU support for NVidia customers" switch in the PhysX SDK. Why would they NOT have GPU acceleration?

Because then they would be crippling half of their loyal fanbase? Not aiding half, oh no, crippling the other half.

[ghost101 10]

Well, if used, GPU enabled PhysX will certainly put NVidia A3 players at an advantage. Not because AMD/ATI cards are incapable of matching the performance of NVidia GPU based physics but simply because PhysX is a software strategy developed by NVidia to artificially put their cards at an advantage. It's basically BS.

As to whether or not BIS will actually buy into NVidia's PhysX plan and enable GPU processing is speculation. I just do not see them resisting the temptation as once you use the PhysX SDK for software processing, it is but a small step to enable many GPU based enhancements for NVidia A3 players. And as someone else in this thread has already mentioned, there are "incentives" offered by NVidia to do just that.

But we will see.

[dmarkwick 261]

I don't get what the big problem is. I can't see what MP advantage anyone might have, and if half the customers get a possible fps boost, what of it? You might as well wail about those with faster CPUs or faster hard drives. What's the beef exactly? If bullet/havoc were used instead, there would still be a CPU overhead, flipping that imaginary PhysX switch could enable some people to use a part of their chosen hardware... It would be like moaning at people who have SSD drives because BIS's chosen technology favours them.

I think this subject is about all dried up for me. BIS have stated that no hardware advantage exists, but that doesn't seem to stop this recreational moaning. And even if it WERE to happen, so what?

[froggyluv 2130]

And even if it WERE to happen, so what?

Because BI are supposed to be unbiased or better yet, underdog AMD/ATI lovers you fool! To side with Nvidia is to side with Da Man (Thats the Po-Po/ Gov't types)

j/k :p

Capulet & Montague warfare continues...

[ghost101 10]

DMarkwick: Personally, this "debate" extends far beyond whether just BIS use it in their game. If they did, you're right, it's not the end of the world - I could simply choose not to buy that particular game. However, if it became the "norm" for developers to use the PhysX system in their games, that would be a problem. For any single company to have even a near monopoly on such an intrinsic part of future gaming (physics) is something to keep an eagle eye on and voice your disapproval of if you see your favourite games beginning to use it.

PhysX is not just a technology, it's a strategic business plan and, believe me, you would not be a happy-bunny consumer if NVidia were to ever totally dominate the gfx-card/physics processing market.

It's very good for all of us that both NVidia and AMD are in healthy competition.

Just use Havok, Bullet or any of the other OPEN SOURCE unbiased engines available and leave the business of attempting to dominate the market to the hardware manufacturers. It's not the business of software developers to enter that competition by helping one company or the other.

AMD (particularly recently) have been making VERY good hardware which has been out performing NVidia both in terms of price-cvalue for customers AND performance. It's a bit cheap to NVidia to attempt to cull their progress by encouraging the use of proprietary software in games. They should focus on making better hardware at a price people are willing to pay instead.

but yes, it's a dead-end topic for a forum thread. I just think people, generally, should think more strategically about their support certain products - for their own future benefit as a consumer. Short-term selfish ("well, I have an NVidia card so I'm ok") will turn around and bite you.

[froggyluv 2130]

For any single company to have even a near monopoly on such an intrinsic part of future gaming (physics) is something to keep an eagle eye on and voice your disapproval of if you see your favourite games beginning to use it.

.

You mean like Windows? When I first started gaming,MS was a small developer and you didn't need any additional OS to run games.

Times have changed.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Pong? :D

[ghost101 10]

You mean like Windows? When I first started gaming,MS was a small developer and you didn't need any additional OS to run games.

Times have changed.

Yes, times have changed. In "the old days", developers were forced to favour a limited hardware setup (usually a soundblaster audio card and a small number of gfx chips) out of practical necessity but the invention of hardware abstraction changed that (which Microsoft/Windows helped foster). Suddendly there was a multitude of hardware vendors creating audio and gfx cards. Prices plummeted and advances in the technology rapidly increased (because of the competition) You no longer have to bind your games to specific hardware, which is what NVidia are trying to encourage companies to do with PhysX.

Granted, Windows is the dominating OS for games, but thanks to opensource APIs (such as OpenGL, Bass, OpenAL, etc) even the OS can be abstracted, companies are free to dev games which can be compiled for many different platforms (MacOS, Linux, Win32) and many games, mainly non-commercial, do just that.

That is the future. Abstraction. So why would we want to take a step back in time and willfully accept the demands of a single hardware manufacture?

THAT is stupidity.

Edited July 6, 2011 by ghost101

[froggyluv 2130]

Well I was a bit surprised to see PhysX as opposed to say Bullet, but my elation over seeing BI finally getting real about physics surpasses that surprise.

And yes I'm lucky to have an Nvidia card I suppose, but I generally switch brands depending on which one is providing best bang for buck at time. My last card was a Radeon 4870 and the fan got wonky after only 4 months so i decided to go 460 gtx.

The dev's have stated that it won't matter so I trust them. More so I'd be curious to hear from VBS2 users and see if there is indeed any real advantage or disadvantage between brands.

[dmarkwick 261]

DMarkwick: Personally, this "debate" extends far beyond whether just BIS use it in their game. If they did, you're right, it's not the end of the world - I could simply choose not to buy that particular game. However, if it became the "norm" for developers to use the PhysX system in their games, that would be a problem. For any single company to have even a near monopoly on such an intrinsic part of future gaming (physics) is something to keep an eagle eye on and voice your disapproval of if you see your favourite games beginning to use it.

Speaking personally I don't think we should be keeping an eye on any particular company for choosing a hardware solution (even though, yet again, they have stated not) it's entirely a business choice for them. I'm not aware of any big-brand games that use PhysX HW so if BIS decide to do so I don't see a problem. I see far more Havoc titles still. Getting all bent out of shape because one, single company uses PhysX sounds like overkill to me :)

But, in any case, the entire discussion is moot.

[bangtail 0]

Yes, times have changed. In "the old days", developers were forced to favour a limited hardware setup (usually a soundblaster audio card and a small number of gfx chips) out of practical necessity but the invention of hardware abstraction changed that (which Microsoft/Windows helped foster). Suddendly there was a multitude of hardware vendors creating audio and gfx cards. Prices plummeted and advances in the technology rapidly increased (because of the competition) You no longer have to bind your games to specific hardware, which is what NVidia are trying to encourage companies to do with PhysX.

Granted, Windows is the dominating OS for games, but thanks to opensource APIs (such as OpenGL, Bass, OpenAL, etc) even the OS can be abstracted, companies are free to dev games which can be compiled for many different platforms (MacOS, Linux, Win32) and many games, mainly non-commercial, do just that.

That is the future. Abstraction. So why would we want to take a step back in time and willfully accept the demands of a single hardware manufacture?

THAT is stupidity.

If you had read far enough back, you would have known that we discussed how PhysX has been (and continues to be) optimized for multi core CPUs.

Nvidia does more than they are obliged to do, ensuring that PhysX works across all platforms.

They are obviously not going to implement PhysX on AMD (or any other GPU manufacturer's) hardware as that would obligate them to provide support for a competing product. They are competitors, not friends.

BIS have chosen PhysX. It's not going to affect your ability to play as an AMD user.

Even if BIS did choose to implement hardware PhysX, it wouldn't affect your ability to play and since hardware PhysX has only been used to any great effect in around 2 titles (lately), I really don't see what all the little red sword waving is about.

Edited July 7, 2011 by BangTail

[maddogx 13]

A question regarding PhysX has been floating around in my head since the announcement of Arma3, so I guess I'll just go ahead and ask it:

Should we assume that BIS is dropping the old RV physics engine entirely in Arma3 and running the entire physical world simulation through PhysX?

I ask this mainly because the little first hand experience I have with 3D and physics engines (some dabbling with Ogre+Bullet) tells me that mixing up two different physics simulations could get quite complicated, yet people here keep asking questions like "will PhysX affect aircraft?". This seems strange to me.

So far I've assumed that the entire physics simulation would logically be moved to PhysX now, but it seems this isn't as obvious as I thought. Would anyone with a little more experience on the subject care to comment? Perhaps mixing up different physics simulations isn't as complex as I thought?

[dmarkwick 261]

I kind of assumed that PhysX is a library of procedures that you can call at will. At it's most flexible, you call a collision algorithm upon detection of a collision and PhysX will calculate the result. (Kind of how I imagine Euphoria to work, I don't expect Euphoria to be responsible for casual walk-cycles they would be standard animation, but once a collision is detected then Euphoria is called to handle the result.) At it's most complete you use PhysX to handle everything.

*edit*

I will imagine that PhysX contols everything contact-based, like ground vehicles. And I imagine that a simpler method is employed for flying vehicles, up to the point it becomes a falling object :)

[maddogx 13]

Actually, PhysX is a whole engine, just like Havok, Bullet, ODE etc. I don't believe that you can just call certain PhysX features from a completely different engine. Either your engine is PhysX or it's something else - or you are somehow running two at the same time.

This is really the whole reason for my question. As far as I know, using PhysX means that every collidable object in the world must be present in the PhysX simulation, otherwise PhysX would not be able to work with it. But this would mean that in order to use PhysX it in combination with some other physics sim (like the one in RV), both engines would need to be run in parallel and all collidable objects would have to be mirrored between them. As a result, only one simulation could be actively controlling an object at any one time, because otherwise you might end up with two different forces fighting for control over the same object.

This seems unnecessarily complicated to me, and it's the point where I start wondering why anyone would go to such trouble. Why not just use PhysX?

Perhaps one of the devs will step in and shed some light on the subject. :D

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Should we assume that BIS is dropping the old RV physics engine entirely in Arma3 and running the entire physical world simulation through PhysX?

My guess it will just be added on as another layer. Certain objects will probably be PhysX enabled, while others will probably use default or no physics simulation. Vehicles specifically have probably received a PhysX treatment too, but I'm not really sure how that works.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[froggyluv 2130]

Yeah I would doubt that it's a complete abandonment/transfer of the RV engine - VBS2 has had PhysX features and still runs RV no?

[maddogx 13]

Yeah I would doubt that it's a complete abandonment/transfer of the RV engine - VBS2 has had PhysX features and still runs RV no?

No one said anything about abandoning the whole RV engine. :) Just the physics part. ;)

But that's a good point about VBS2. I wonder if that uses a kind of mish mash between the old physics and PhysX.

[Zipper5 74]

Up until a recent update VBS2 had both PhysX and non-PhysX variants of the vehicles, so they didn't replace RV's physics processing. I believe said update made all vehicles only PhysX.

[pettka 694]

Up until a recent update VBS2 had both PhysX and non-PhysX variants of the vehicles, so they didn't replace RV's physics processing. I believe said update made all vehicles only PhysX.

Negative, sir, VBS has all the non-PhysX vehicles in game for backwards compatibility of missions, just under different scope.

[Zipper5 74]

I stand corrected. :)

[maddogx 13]

Negative, sir, VBS has all the non-PhysX vehicles in game for backwards compatibility of missions, just under different scope.

So it really is a mix, interesting. :)

Is it going to be the same in Arma3, or will that be pure PhysX?

[Smurf 12]

So it really is a mix, interesting. :)

Is it going to be the same in Arma3, or will that be pure PhysX?

Probably pure PhysX, since their are using it since day 0, unlike VBS2.

[maddogx 13]

Probably pure PhysX, since their are using it since day 0, unlike VBS2.

Yeah, I guess and hope so too.

I'd like to know how they are running and synchronizing two different physics simulations in VBS2 though (I assume that's what is happening, anyway). :)