PhysX

[KeyCat 131]

Just curious about PhysX and wonder if there are a technical/logical reason why we don't have an option to run it on the GPU - besides that AMD users would probably cry :nerner:

Any ideas?

/KC

Edited May 3, 2015 by KeyCat

[PuFu 4600]

because there is nothing to be run on GPU... The basic calcs (which what physx is used for) is run on CPU (read here - https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk). Only things to be run on GPU are things like cloth simulation, particles, flex system, destruction and the likes.

[fareast 20]

yea theres no particles and destruction physx so kinda useless if u ask me..bi should've use havok physics imo its more optimized and can run on both amd and nvidia using opencl

[I give up 152]

because there is nothing to be run on GPU... The basic calcs (which what physx is used for) is run on CPU (read here - https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk). Only things to be run on GPU are things like cloth simulation, particles, flex system, destruction and the likes.

Actually you are wrong.

Nvidia PhysX Technology allow the GPU to process "things" like destructible environment (shattered glasses, trees bend in the wind or water flows).

Theoretically with a game engine that has support for Nvidia PhysX Technology, Nvidia card have performance advantages since allow the GPU to process these "things", while with a AMD card these "things" have (need) to be processed by the CPU.

Still, I doubt that Nvidia PhysX Technology can make much of a difference with Arma 3 no matter with which gpu. To realize that we just need to look the needed game engine architecture in order to benefit of Nvidia PhysX Technology.

[windies 11]

Actually you are wrong.

Nvidia PhysX Technology allow the GPU to process "things" like destructible environment (shattered glasses, trees bend in the wind or water flows).

Theoretically with a game engine that has support for Nvidia PhysX Technology, Nvidia card have performance advantages since allow the GPU to process these "things", while with a AMD card these "things" have (need) to be processed by the CPU.

Still, I doubt that Nvidia PhysX Technology can make much of a difference with Arma 3 no matter with which gpu. To realize that we just need to look the needed game engine architecture in order to benefit of Nvidia PhysX Technology.

How is he wrong....? He literally just said that.

[KeyCat 131]

because there is nothing to be run on GPU... The basic calcs (which what physx is used for) is run on CPU (read here - https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-sdk). Only things to be run on GPU are things like cloth simulation, particles, flex system, destruction and the likes.

Doesn't vehicles use PhysX? They feel alot better to drive than the ones in A1/A2.

I thought PhysX could be used for more than particle effects etc.

/KC

[ProfTournesol 956]

Actually you are wrong.

Nope he isn't. He said that with the use of PhysX in ArmA3, it runs on the CPU.

[I give up 152]

Oh, my bad.

Thought he was saying that the "Only things to be run on GPU are things like cloth simulation, particles, flex system, destruction and the likes", with Nvidia PhysX Technology.

And if was that the case, obviously Nvidia chips would perform better.

But this raise some other question, Is Nvidia PhysX Technology a placebo in Arma 3?

[Degman 73]

Arma engine needs a huge change in order to adapt to modern gaming standards. Like this, it even fails in implementation of 2005. technology (A51 PC had better physx than Arma3). Hey, let's not even mention Source engine. BIS is missing alot of it.

[calin_banc 19]

Not sure how PhysiX is implemented in ArmA 3, but newer versions do seem to be better multithreaded compared to the dreadful beginning - http://physxinfo.com/news/11327/multithreaded-performance-scaling-in-physx-sdk/

Of course, for large, more complex stuff, just like AI, best is on GPU, but only when it can be done on AMD GPUs will actually take of.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Nvidia Physx is engine middleware. Its the same as Bullet Physics only Physx can make use of CUDA.

You could literally do the exact same thing with Bullet physics and OpenCL.

Imagine the gaming industry as a giant pristine lake surrounded by plants and wild life. Now imagine NVIDIA dumping alot of toxic waste into it.

Thats basically is what happening with their BS proprietary misinformation like CUDA/PHSYX/GSYNC/"The way its meant to be played" a.k.a "We pay unreal 3 engine money/support so they can only optimize for our chipsets"

Edited May 3, 2015 by defk0n_NL

[PuFu 4600]

Actually you are wrong.

Nvidia PhysX Technology allow the GPU to process "things" like destructible environment (shattered glasses, trees bend in the wind or water flows).

Theoretically with a game engine that has support for Nvidia PhysX Technology, Nvidia card have performance advantages since allow the GPU to process these "things", while with a AMD card these "things" have (need) to be processed by the CPU.

Still, I doubt that Nvidia PhysX Technology can make much of a difference with Arma 3 no matter with which gpu. To realize that we just need to look the needed game engine architecture in order to benefit of Nvidia PhysX Technology.

I'm hardly ever wrong...moreso, unlike some, i never post unless i really know what i am talking about, and not about things i read on the internet without hands on experience...

Doesn't vehicles use PhysX? They feel alot better to drive than the ones in A1/A2.

I thought PhysX could be used for more than particle effects etc.

Yeah, but all that is used run on CPU. In fact, for what it does (or doesn't), there is really no reason to be run on GPU...Even OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2 had a phisics system they were using. It wasn't called Physx or Bullet or Havok or whatever else, but was still an phisics engine nontheless (vehicles still used to have gears, mass friction etc).

But this raise some other question, Is Nvidia PhysX Technology a placebo in Arma 3?

why would it be?

Not sure how PhysiX is implemented in ArmA 3, but newer versions do seem to be better multithreaded compared to the dreadful beginning - http://physxinfo.com/news/11327/multithreaded-performance-scaling-in-physx-sdk/

ArmA3 is using SKD 3.0. which is multi-threaded indeed. But again, there is really no performance issues with Physx in its current implementation afaik.

Of course, for large, more complex stuff, just like AI, best is on GPU, but only when it can be done on AMD GPUs will actually take of.

why would AI computations be best on GPU?

[Zogrim 10]

Just curious about PhysX and wonder if there are a technical/logical reason why we don't have an option to run it on the GPU - besides that AMD users would probably cry :nerner:

Any ideas?

/KC

As mentioned in this thread, there are no physics calculations in ARMA 3 that can be GPU accelerated effectevely (or can't be calculated on GPU at all, like vehicle physics or ragdolls). But that's ok. Hundrets of games are using PhysX SDK on CPU only, and there is nothing "bad' or "disadvantageous" about it.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Physics or, PhysX in Arma 3... Hmmm. Driving vehicles use them, crates, oil barrels, water barrels, Greek Pillars, sports balls, sling load, explosive particles. All of those things have physX. So does the man class, and rag-dolls. However, PhysX could use a larger presence. As of current, there is little that catches the eye in terms of physx.

[[evo] dan 79]

Physics or, PhysX in Arma 3... Hmmm. Driving vehicles use them, crates, oil barrels, water barrels, Greek Pillars, sports balls, sling load, explosive particles. All of those things have physX. So does the man class, and rag-dolls. However, PhysX could use a larger presence. As of current, there is little that catches the eye in terms of physx.

**cough** walking on vehicles using physx simulation?

[I give up 152]

I'm hardly ever wrong...moreso, unlike some, i never post unless i really know what i am talking about, and not about things i read on the internet without hands on experience...

I see it now, I am sorry for thinking that you could be wrong. I confess, I use the internet to become more elucidated, that's what I am doing now. Learning.

Yeah, but all that is used run on CPU. In fact, for what it does (or doesn't), there is really no reason to be run on GPU...Even OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2 had a phisics system they were using. It wasn't called Physx or Bullet or Havok or whatever else, but was still an phisics engine nontheless (vehicles still used to have gears, mass friction etc).

You mean Physx or phisics? If you wanted to say "phisics", myself I am using now while posting this message. If you wanted to say Physx, then is the ability that the tecnology provides for the GPU to compute some "stuff" (you know) using some concepts like multithreading or parallel computing (you know), saving the CPU from some workload.

Yes, it is a fact NVIDIA PhysX Technology can be used by the GPU or the CPU, but where it really shines (with applications that have support for it) is when we have multiple GPUs and when we dedicate the first GPU for graphics render and the second GPU for PhysX computation (you know, the complex stuff that we are talking).

why would it be?

Well, if the reason for the existence of NVIDIA PhysX Technology is for the GPU to have the ability of computing some complex "stuff" in order to save the CPU from some workload and if cant be used, what is the purpose for having it? (you said it cant).

ArmA3 is using SKD 3.0. which is multi-threaded indeed. But again, there is really no performance issues with Physx in its current implementation afaik.

Hardly NVIDIA PhysX Technology will give performance issues.

[calin_banc 19]

why would AI computations be best on GPU?

Because we could have

instead of a handful.

[KeyCat 131]

As mentioned in this thread, there are no physics calculations in ARMA 3 that can be GPU accelerated effectevely (or can't be calculated on GPU at all, like vehicle physics or ragdolls). But that's ok. Hundrets of games are using PhysX SDK on CPU only, and there is nothing "bad' or "disadvantageous" about it.

I was under the impression that it could potentially increase the performance by offloading stuffs to the GPU.

Physics or, PhysX in Arma 3... Hmmm. Driving vehicles use them, crates, oil barrels, water barrels, Greek Pillars, sports balls, sling load, explosive particles. All of those things have physX. So does the man class, and rag-dolls. However, PhysX could use a larger presence. As of current, there is little that catches the eye in terms of physx.

Interesting, any links confirming that or are just assuming/guessing?

/KC

[PuFu 4600]

I see it now, I am sorry for thinking that you could be wrong. I confess, I use the internet to become more elucidated, that's what I am doing now. Learning.

No, you are using data from all over the place and use them as facts in your posts.

You mean Physx or phisics? If you wanted to say "phisics", myself I am using now while posting this message. If you wanted to say Physx, then is the ability that the tecnology provides for the GPU to compute some "stuff" (you know) using some concepts like multithreading or parallel computing (you know), saving the CPU from some workload.

I meant physics in video games, not a specific proprietary middle-ware solution (as in Physx).

As i previously said - there is NO reason for BI to force or even allow current implementation of Physx on GPU for nvidia users. There is no benefit for it. Don't believe me, go read more yourself:

https://developer.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/akamai/physx/Manual/TaskManager.html

http://docs.nvidia.com/gameworks/content/gameworkslibrary/physx/guide/Manual/GPUTaskManager.html

https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX - you need to be logged and accepted in Nvidia's program to access it.

Yes, it is a fact NVIDIA PhysX Technology can be used by the GPU or the CPU, but where it really shines (with applications that have support for it) is when we have multiple GPUs and when we dedicate the first GPU for graphics render and the second GPU for PhysX computation (you know, the complex stuff that we are talking).

did you read KeyCat's question? There is no question about ways to use a sli setup with dedicated card for physx.

There is no complex computation stuff in the current physx implementation. It was used because at that point in time the sdk allowed more for military type vehicles than other available solutions, besides, VBS has been using it for some time.

Well, if the reason for the existence of NVIDIA PhysX Technology is for the GPU to have the ability of computing some complex "stuff" in order to save the CPU from some workload and if cant be used, what is the purpose for having it? (you said it cant).

You keep talking about complex stuff? We still talking about arma here? What fucking complex stuff is current physx implementation handling requiring to have those moved on a dedicated GPU?

Hardly NVIDIA PhysX Technology will give performance issues.

so still don't get it...

Because we could have

instead of a handful.

hmmm, those AI are give a single task, and the set of variables is pretty low. Besides, are you sure all AI calcs are offloaded on the GPU, or is it shared?

I was under the impression that it could potentially increase the performance by offloading stuffs to the GPU.

yeah that is true, but the bottleneck is not physx.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Physics or, PhysX in Arma 3... Hmmm. Driving vehicles use them, crates, oil barrels, water barrels, Greek Pillars, sports balls, sling load, explosive particles. All of those things have physX. So does the man class, and rag-dolls.

particles are not handle by physx in arma. The rest it is yes.

However, PhysX could use a larger presence. As of current, there is little that catches the eye in terms of physx.

Larger "catchy" presence how?

Edited May 4, 2015 by PuFu

[I give up 152]

No, you are using data from all over the place and use them as facts in your posts.

Interesting, however is you who keep posting web links to back up your facts.

Now a serious question, do you know what is NVIDIA PhysX Technology?

[calin_banc 19]

hmmm, those AI are give a single task, and the set of variables is pretty low. Besides, are you sure all AI calcs are offloaded on the GPU, or is it shared?

Well...

AMD gives some high numbers when speaking of pathfinding: 10 million Polygons per second and the A.I. required a calculation power of 0.9 Teraflops - a Radeon HD 4850 delivers one Teraflop. 3,000 Froblins are en route collecting or eating, without bumping into or blocking each other.

To achieve this AMD uses the Eikonal solver, a formula that usually is used for calculation light rays. From their staging area the Froblins walk to a tower in the middle of the map and drop stones. AMD sets no great story by realism; the pile of stone isn't growing - in this demo the focus is on the A.I.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10612/amd_releases_dx10_1_tech_demo_froblins/index.html

The Froblins demo is designed to showcase many of the new techniques for character-centric entertainment made possible by the massively parallel compute available on the ATI Radeon HD 4800 GPU series. In our large-scale environment with thousands of highly detailed, intelligent characters, the Froblins (frog goblins), are concurrently simulated, animated and rendered entirely on the GPU. The individual character logic for each froblin creature is controlled via a complex shader - 3200 shader instructions for each froblin. We are utilizing the latest functionality available with the DirectX® 10.1 API, hardware tessellation, high fidelity rendering with 4X MSAA settings, at HD resolution with gamma-correct rendering, full HDR FP16 pipeline and advanced post-processing effects.

In this interactive environment, thousands of animated, intelligent characters are rendered from a variety of viewpoints ranging from extreme close-ups to far away "bird's eye" views of the entire system (over three thousands characters at the same time). The demo combines state-of-the-art parallel artificial intelligence computation for dynamic pathfinding and local avoidance on the GPU, massive crowd rendering with LOD management with high-end rendering capabilities such as GPU tessellation for high-quality close-ups and stable performance, terrain system, cascaded shadows for large-range environments, and an advanced global illumination system.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10612/amd_releases_dx10_1_tech_demo_froblins/index.html

3000AI plus Global Illumination, tessellation, 4xMSAA@720p all on a HD4850 + a dual core CPU of those times, seems quite good, isn't it? Even if some tasks are done on the CPU, if that "ancient" dual core could keep up with 3k AIs plus other threads, a modern quad core or more, CPU, should be more than able to feed a modern GPU. A stand alone card, just for AI and complex physics calculation would probably be required if you want to go overboard, however the results will actually give a new meaning to "next gen". For example, R290X is capable of 5.632TF vs. 1TF for HD4850.

The Froblins are doing the same stuff like ArmA: performing tasks while avoiding danger, dynamically avoiding danger and updating their tasks, etc. You could have this for the civilian population (so finally we're not playing some make believe scenario) and the soldiers.

[KeyCat 131]

yeah that is true, but the bottleneck is not physx.

...

particles are not handle by physx in arma. The rest it is yes.

I show my lack of knowledge here but since A3's bottleneck is currently the CPU then aren't PhysX as implemnted in A3 doing anything to help the performance if stuff is offloaded to the GPU????

BTW: Thanks for the links, gonna read up when I get more free time slots...

/KC

[PuFu 4600]

@bradwurst: i obviously have no idea.

@keycat - it is cpu yes, but mainly because of limited parallel computing implementation. the second bottle neck is the way data is streamed more or less directly of the hdd, without a real preload and buffered data. Was A2 bottleneck by it's physic's engine? It wasn't. Why would A3 be then?

@calin - yeah looks good, ty for the info but i would asume there is a reason why all current ai computation is still handled by cpu (especially considering the fact that all consoles are running amd hardware)

Edited May 4, 2015 by PuFu

[calin_banc 19]

I think it's a safe bet to assume that it's a state of affairs alike the one of physics accelerated on the CPU and not the GPU: it's a virgin territory that requires R&D and while you can already sell what you're making, why bother? Of course, the old consoles and cross gen titles do not help either.

TressFX is free for anyone to use and it works on both AMD and nVIDIA, why it hasn't been used more and why CDPR used nvidia hair instead? Why dynamic, volumetric fluids aren't in current games although smoke/fog was available since

, works on every card and you don't need nvidia? In ArmA 3, smoke is only affected by wind and helicopter blades (at least to the extend I've tested some time ago) and it passes through everything, including vehicles and walls.

We have euphoria or custom physics/animation engines like the one from

, build by 1 guy, but still the animations in ArmA when you get or you see someone get hit are hilarious - it's happening in other games, of course. More so, since Metro 2033, the series has used PhysX for body armor (and works on the CPU as well), so that you have to carefully aim your shot if you go for the head shot silent kill or do the heavy lifting and throw everything at the enemy. Metal plates fall of the NPC when shooting at them exposing the body. Is this in ArmA? Nope.

You don't even need to go that deep into the matter, it's enough to see what's the extent to which DX11.x capabilities have been or are used in current games - ArmA included. They spent millions upon millions on marketing and people still buy, although much hasn't changed. Look at the ArmA community, they've been supportive, enabling the Bohemia's addiction to release barely working or lacking content. Sadly, what would most likely make things better for ArmA, is for the series to move to consoles. After all, Dean has said that DX11 is a thing in Day Z thanks to PS4. At least we'll get DX12 on all products since they can't hide in the sand anymore.

[x3kj 1247]

Metal plates fall of the NPC when shooting at them exposing the body. Is this in ArmA? Nope.

What does that have to do with physx? They just create an object that falls to the ground in specific conditions. Wow. I have never seen plates falling actual body armor. If you want arcade shooter the 6108962409th with pointless eyecandy, then yes, physx on GPU is beneficial.

I can also start waving tech demos around that existed several years ago and yet are still not in any game... show me a game with the features that are in those tech demos, then we can talk.