Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KeyCat

PhysX

Recommended Posts

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

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

/KC

Facts, gathered by actually utilizing such assets in the game myself. From what i can tell, the only things that aren't PhysX enabled are Air class vehicles. Well, they might have patched that in when Sling loading came, as there is the ability to lift aircraft such as the MH-9 and Buzzard, through scripting. But things like static objects (static as in certain un-movable props), are not PhysX enabled, as they are just objects that are require to be still all the time. In fact, the Static weapons, Mortar, HMG/GMG, are all PhysX enabled too. You can knock them over if placed on a steep hill and such. There's no way i could compile a list of all the PhysX enabled things, so it's probably best to try them out yourselves. You find some interesting things as well, maybe some things i haven't found myself. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Lol, I've said it was a feature that didn't required GPU PhysX and made perfect sense in that game world - low quality ammo didn't have enough punch to go through, so you "dispose" of some if you could not hit the expose areas. Could it be done in some other way with Havok? Perhaps, it's just a "thing", doesn't need to be tied with PhysX. Compared to the "box" that goes around the characters in ArmA, it's miles ahead.

Examples: RDR, GTA,

, Max Payne 3 for
, Sui Generis has it's own. SWTFU also had DMM. Dynamic volumetric smoke on DX was done by Stalker CS. TressFX was in Tomb Raider, will be in Deus Ex and Star Citizen at least. Advanced physics you have in Red Faction - BF it's just prebaked. And of course Sniper Elite with its nicely done body x-ray stuff or how the circulatory system was represented in The Witcher 2 while using Cat potion, both good ways to start from, an own proper medical and anatomical system. Edited by calin_banc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Looking at the scale of that game, the first question I would have is: Would that code scale well on Arma 3 proportions? And my second question would be: Would it work without performance issues on multiplayer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Euphoria most definitely works since GTA online and Max Payne 3 prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

good luck with that. this engine is 15 years old and has code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code going on. Removing anything implemented early on is impossible without totally breaking everything else because thats the bottom of the stack. You can't knock out the first floor of a building unless you want the whole thing coming down.

source engine is much newer and doesn't have the disadvantage of being over 15 years old with many things stacked on the pile. PhysX also isn't very deeply rooted in, probably also has limited ability to get to the stuff below it to make it more effective.

Edited by austin_medic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good luck with that. this engine is 15 years old and has code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code stacked on code going on. Removing anything implemented early on is impossible without totally breaking everything else because thats the bottom of the stack. You can't knock out the first floor of a building unless you want the whole thing coming down.

source engine is much newer and doesn't have the disadvantage of being over 15 years old with many things stacked on the pile. PhysX also isn't very deeply rooted in, probably also has limited ability to get to the stuff below it to make it more effective.

Hasn't there been a bunch of refactoring going on with Arma 3?

Besides, this whole premise isn't even true. Source has probably been almost completely rewritten, but it is based on an engine older than Arma's.

Source distantly originates from the GoldSrc engine, itself a heavily modified version of John D. Carmack's Quake engine. Carmack commented on his blog in 2004 that "there are still bits of early Quake code in Half-Life 2".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28game_engine%29#History

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Thanks for clarifying so even I get it :)

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Facts, gathered by actually utilizing such assets in the game myself. From what i can tell, the only things that aren't PhysX enabled are Air class vehicles. Well, they might have patched that in when Sling loading came, as there is the ability to lift aircraft such as the MH-9 and Buzzard, through scripting. But things like static objects (static as in certain un-movable props), are not PhysX enabled, as they are just objects that are require to be still all the time. In fact, the Static weapons, Mortar, HMG/GMG, are all PhysX enabled too. You can knock them over if placed on a steep hill and such. There's no way i could compile a list of all the PhysX enabled things, so it's probably best to try them out yourselves. You find some interesting things as well, maybe some things i haven't found myself. ;)

Thanks for clarifying DSSO, I've noticed it on the object you mention but I thought you meant that those PhysX was offloaded to the GPU.

The Witcher 2 while using Cat potion....

I better not try that game :p

/KC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you need physx for that? you only need some basic glow shaders which already exist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the post he quoted from. I was talking there about an anatomy system that could use that game and what Sniper Elite has as a start point, plus some interaction with the body armor to truly take it to the next level. It wasn't quite all the way off the subject, but rather using some different systems that work together, including this one (PhysiX), to actually make something new an closer to the idea of what ArmA is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasn't there been a bunch of refactoring going on with Arma 3?

Besides, this whole premise isn't even true. Source has probably been almost completely rewritten, but it is based on an engine older than Arma's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28game_engine%29#History

Completely rewritten being the keyword. If it's completely rewritten then it's only the Source engine in name and nothing else. Through BI developers own admissions we know that a lot of the problem with RV is that the engine is largely undocumented and very very hard to rewrite because of that. RV probably has never been rewritten on the scale that most engines are. Most of what changes through revisions are things that can be "added" for the most part and little of the foundation has changed between revisions. His statement really isn't far off the truth.

"Refactoring" != low level revisions to the existing code base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely rewritten being the keyword. If it's completely rewritten then it's only the Source engine in name and nothing else. Through BI developers own admissions we know that a lot of the problem with RV is that the engine is largely undocumented and very very hard to rewrite because of that. RV probably has never been rewritten on the scale that most engines are. Most of what changes through revisions are things that can be "added" for the most part and little of the foundation has changed between revisions. His statement really isn't far off the truth.

"Refactoring" != low level revisions to the existing code base.

But it hasn't been completely rewritten or there wouldn't still be Quake code in HL2. But either way, the point was that implying that it would be too hard to make huge changes to RV because it's too old, unlike Source, doesn't make sense if Source is based on an even older engine that underwent huge changes.

And wouldn't the fact that RV probably hasn't been rewritten on the scale that most engines are be more reason that it needs a huge change, not less?

Edit: I mean, I guess you could argue that they just need to start from scratch, but that doesn't seem like a great alternative and it's not going to happen, anyway.

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are already working to meld two engines for Day Z. Most likely it will be the same engine that they'll use from that point on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it hasn't been completely rewritten or there wouldn't still be Quake code in HL2. But either way, the point was that implying that it would be too hard to make huge changes to RV because it's too old, unlike Source, doesn't make sense if Source is based on an even older engine that underwent huge changes.

And wouldn't the fact that RV probably hasn't been rewritten on the scale that most engines are be more reason that it needs a huge change, not less?

Edit: I mean, I guess you could argue that they just need to start from scratch, but that doesn't seem like a great alternative and it's not going to happen, anyway.

You can still have bits and pieces of legacy code in an engine but still basically completely rewrite it. I guess it's kind of an argument in semantics but personally I see a difference between simply adding things and "tweaking" existing systems in an engine and completely redesigning said systems while still maintaining any working legacy code.

Anyways I'm not trying to say source is or isn't really completely rewritten, just that there's a difference between defining an engine rewrite as tweaking versus optimizing and redesigning.

RV needs huge changes, but they can be done to the existing engine. It's just going to take time. The problem really is that it should have began a long time ago. I never said it doesn't. It does. I just said Refactoring isn't the same as rewriting on the scale of most game engines in the business.

The really big thing is they need to start caring how their game runs as much as if you can stick a .50 on someones head as a hat. Usability just as important as modding.

---------- Post added at 04:17 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

They are already working to meld two engines for Day Z. Most likely it will be the same engine that they'll use from that point on.

If it makes it's way to ArmA, hopefully it a marked improvement. I think I remember reading somewhere that the intent for Enfusion was mainly for DayZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are putting a lot of work into it, including 64bit servers, better physics, dx12, console compatible, I don't think it's gonna be a one time thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are putting a lot of work into it, including 64bit servers, better physics, dx12, console compatible, I don't think it's gonna be a one time thing.

Yes the engine is getting a lot of stuff. Even the scripting will be different/new. There's only zombie and animal AIs but maybe it's a new chance to build a whole new AI in the engine that utilizes hardware way better than the current RV. And new animation system will likely be freaking big improvement for some famous Arma animation cases.

Edited by St. Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are putting a lot of work into it, including 64bit servers, better physics, dx12, console compatible, I don't think it's gonna be a one time thing.

lol...

can you put down the source of that information ? (64bit, dx12 at least?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol...

can you put down the source of that information ? (64bit, dx12 at least?)

According to the status report the target is dx11 "with DirectX 12 support following eventually".

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/223250-quarterly-status-report-quarter-1-2015/

"64-bit Server

This is now fully compiling and ready for test deployment."

http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/page/4

"However as we are moving to 64-bit on the server side, this reduces any potential issues with memory."

http://dayzdev.tumblr.com/post/85919354781/the-challenge-and-saga-of-zombie-pathfinding

(I thought all the servers have been 64bit for some time now, by the way)

"(we have x64 server/client internaly)"

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/222231-exp-update-055126884-discussion/page-7#entry2232667

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol...

can you put down the source of that information ? (64bit, dx12 at least?)

Like the colleague said above. 32bit is at its limits according to the team and if they want advanced physics and other stuff, that's a must. Also a guy from Bohemia tweeted about DX12 in ArmA 3 and Day Z.

It's their chance to move on since they have the resources now to pull such a move. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't imagine PhysX with the Arma engine. Not that it wouldnt be awesome but they engine already destroy's high end rigs.

What the heck are you talking about? Real Virtuality 4 which is what ArmA 3 is using currently, already uses PhysX. It has been using it since Alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking about PhysiX - https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/367qav/mark_my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/

Developers really need to stop doing this c**p!

Wow... Un believable... Why would NVidia believe they had to do something like that? Profit? They already get a good portion of consumers, but to try and destroy the competition in the most un-sportsman like ways possible? That's twisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

You can use your Nvidia control panel to change the physx to just the GPU and it did give me more FPS by a pretty good amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can use your Nvidia control panel to change the physx to just the GPU and it did give me more FPS by a pretty good amount.

As far as I know that is not supported in A3 so if you had more FPS you probably did something else.

/KC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×