bit-tech Richard Huddy Interview - good Read

[jimmyjames123]

You might want to take a look at some of the stuff done in Force Unleashed.

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/star-wars_the-force-unleashed_physics-dev-diary

Interesting, because apparently LucasArts initially opted not to release a personal computer version of The Force Unleashed, stating that doing the game well would be too processor-intensive for typical PCs and that scaling down the game's procedural physics for the PC platform would "fundamentally" change The Force Unleashed's gameplay......until they changed their mind and decided to release a PC version one year after the console version. And this Havok game ended up being critically panned by almost all reviewers (although it was a sales success on the consoles), whereas the PhysX game Batman Arkham Asylum has opened to rave critical reviews, and the developers are not complaining about the game being "too processor-intensive for typical PCs". Go figure.

 

[Ninjaprime]

Interesting, because apparently LucasArts initially opted not to release a personal computer version of The Force Unleashed, stating that doing the game well would be too processor-intensive for typical PCs and that scaling down the game's procedural physics for the PC platform would "fundamentally" change The Force Unleashed's gameplay......until they changed their mind and decided to release a PC version one year after the console version. And this Havok game ended up being critically panned by almost all reviewers (although it was a sales success on the consoles), whereas the PhysX game Batman Arkham Asylum has opened to rave critical reviews, and the developers are not complaining about the game being "too processor-intensive for typical PCs". Go figure.

Other than cheerleading with green pom-poms, whats your point there?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Interesting, because apparently LucasArts initially opted not to release a personal computer version of The Force Unleashed, stating that doing the game well would be too processor-intensive for typical PCs and that scaling down the game's procedural physics for the PC platform would "fundamentally" change The Force Unleashed's gameplay......until they changed their mind and decided to release a PC version one year after the console version. And this Havok game ended up being critically panned by almost all reviewers (although it was a sales success on the consoles), whereas the PhysX game Batman Arkham Asylum has opened to rave critical reviews, and the developers are not complaining about the game being "too processor-intensive for typical PCs". Go figure.

The reason why it was a success on the console and panned on the PC is because it was a console game ported to the PC, and the PC guys have much higher standards. This is especially true coming from long line of Jedi Knight games that were head and shoulders above Force Unleashed in many, many ways.

It wasn't because of Havok that PC gamers didn't like FU. It wasn't because of Physx that people liked Batman: AA. You're trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

 

[John Reynolds]

Not to mention that the tech behind a game and the game's design and gameplay are just about totally separate. Batman: AA is just a damn good game, regardless of what physics middleware it uses.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Interesting, because apparently LucasArts initially opted not to release a personal computer version of The Force Unleashed, stating that doing the game well would be too processor-intensive for typical PCs and that scaling down the game's procedural physics for the PC platform would "fundamentally" change The Force Unleashed's gameplay......until they changed their mind and decided to release a PC version one year after the console version. And this Havok game ended up being critically panned by almost all reviewers (although it was a sales success on the consoles), whereas the PhysX game Batman Arkham Asylum has opened to rave critical reviews, and the developers are not complaining about the game being "too processor-intensive for typical PCs". Go figure.

Next you're going to predict that Diablo 3 is going to get panned and fail due to Havok.

Not to mention the long long list of PhysX games that have been utter trash and panned, through no fault of PhysX but just the fact the games were rubbish.

Regards,
SB

 

[willardjuice]

:facepalm:

Alright let me make this a little bit more broad/clear: I would appreciate if we had a separate thread that compares physics engines/middlewares. I feel that we often have the same argument over and over again in various threads. Having one unified thread would go a long way consolidating these arguments (I hope ). I'd rather not split the thread as I wouldn't even know where to begin; thus I think it's best if we start fresh (so again, someone should start a new thread). Thanks!

 

[Sontin]

[PREVIEW] PhysX Simulation on a 16-Core CPU: http://www.geeks3d.com/20100304/preview-physx-simulation-on-a-16-core-cpu/

 

[MfA]

So, is this fine grained multithreading or is he simply running 16 separate simulations? (AFAIK fine grained multithreading only exists on the console editions of PhysX.)

 

[Arnold Beckenbauer]

http://physxinfo.com/news/2390/new-physx-fluidmark-1-2-first-tests/

“# of CPU cores” is used specify number of CPU cores dedicated to simulation (up to 32 in current version), however this option is no so transparent as it looks – increased number of cores adds additional fluid emitters to the scene (one emitter per core or two in general), and with equal number of particles, various number of emitters can affect performance.