AMD: "[Developers use PhysX only] because they’re paid to do it"

Lonbjerg said:
All I see is the same CPU physics as always, simple rigid boides that dissaper in time...with a lot of clipping isusses?
Click to expand...

It might be same CPU physics as always... but I do not recall many games if any at all that allowed buildings to collapse under mechanical stress due to a portion, but a key one, of the building being heavily damaged or destroyed. I do not recall destroyed buildings disappearing after a few seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNlDuyvM1jU

I think they did bring something new to the table with their new GeoMod engine, but if they really have not as you said... well... it just shows that sometimes it is better for devs to find a good use for physics rather than go for more and more complex simulations and object persistence.
 
Panajev2001a said:
It might be same CPU physics as always... but I do not recall many games if any at all that allowed buildings to collapse under mechanical stress due to a portion, but a key one, of the building being heavily damaged or destroyed. I do not recall destroyed buildings disappearing after a few seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNlDuyvM1jU

I think they did bring something new to the table with their new GeoMod engine, but if they really have not as you said... well... it just shows that sometimes it is better for devs to find a good use for physics rather than go for more and more complex simulations and object persistence.
Click to expand...

Then it is half assed physics. Why did they even bother.
 
XMAN26 said:
understandable, but I really dont think it would have added much more complexity to it to add a bit more variance to it so that it doesn't look the same when you blast a wall down from a 45 degree angle as it does head on.
Click to expand...

Yes. It would of added absolutely pointless complexity and work.
 
aaronspink said:
All physics in games is half assed. If you want useless physics, there is always Physx!
Click to expand...

Quite true. At least the rigid body physx that XMAN is railing against can actually be used IN the game, as it alters the "real state" of the game world. Meaning, you can actually hide behind the rubble created to avoid fire, and that rubble is now in the pathing calculation for AI.

"PhysX physics" are entirely non-interactive, as they change nothing about the real state of the game world. Nothing calculated on the GPU is capable of actually affecting the world geometry so far.
 
Cellfactor ? How many multiplayer people did it support at one time ?

Found a great interview

The tech-demo game was pretty much LAN-only, since it assumed that the server would have very high bandwidth, reliable messaging, and low ping.
Click to expand...

Those adjustments aren't a problem, but Internet servers with low bandwidth won't be able to send that much real-time physics synchronization data (for thousands of simultaneously moving objects) over the Internet, no matter what we do. So to make the game playable under a wide variety of network conditions, Revolution includes a "physics density" slider for servers, which scales down the number of objects and destructive potential of the environment to accommodate servers with less bandwidth.
Click to expand...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/c...ates&tag=updates;title;5&mode=previews&page=2
 
Albuquerque said:
Quite true. At least the rigid body physx that XMAN is railing against can actually be used IN the game, as it alters the "real state" of the game world. Meaning, you can actually hide behind the rubble created to avoid fire, and that rubble is now in the pathing calculation for AI.

"PhysX physics" are entirely non-interactive, as they change nothing about the real state of the game world. Nothing calculated on the GPU is capable of actually affecting the world geometry so far.
Click to expand...

Sorry to dissapoint, but destructable architech used as wepons was the key element in Cellfactor (year 2006)?
 
Lonbjerg said:
Don't worry, I am not expceting you to say anything positive about anything NVIDIA does :p
Click to expand...

nvidia has done plenty of positive things, I've owned several of their cards, unfortunately not a whole lot of positive things lately and I've never been a fan of physx stretching all the way back to the ageia days. Proprietary lock in software is proprietary lock in software.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Most I have tried was 8 people...canno remember the limit.



Well, welcome the previous posts? :oops:
you know, 56K needs to die...SHDSL (2ms to gateway) ect...are you trolling...or just short term memory problems?
Click to expand...


Sweet How many Game Servers have you seen running on 56k in 2006 when he was interviewed ?

Personaly I've never seen a server on 56k even way back in 1999.


You can keep trying but you will keep failing.
 
eastmen said:
Sweet How many Game Servers have you seen running on 56k in 2006 when he was interviewed ?

Personaly I've never seen a server on 56k even way back in 1999.


You can keep trying but you will keep failing.
Click to expand...

back in 99 I used to run a UT server on 1.5MB SDSL ;)
 
aaronspink said:
nvidia has done plenty of positive things, I've owned several of their cards, unfortunately not a whole lot of positive things lately and I've never been a fan of physx stretching all the way back to the ageia days. Proprietary lock in software is proprietary lock in software.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd rather have something proprietary than nothing free :p

FrameBuffer said:
thats ok we don't expect you to say anything less than absolute positives about Nvidia.. :p
Click to expand...

I think tehy should get off their asses and relase some cards.
But on the GPGPU front, I can hardly blame them..as AMD is nowhere to be seen in comparision.

EDIT:
Infact I emailed NVIDIA some time ago and suggested a physics demo in 3 stages:
1) Singlecore CPU
2) Multicore CPU
3) GPU mode

Never got a reply back *L*

eastmen said:
Sweet How many Game Servers have you seen running on 56k in 2006 when he was interviewed ?

Personaly I've never seen a server on 56k even way back in 1999.
Click to expand...

I never tlaked about servers...I talk about the lines that you and I sit on.
You caould have a server running on a 1G line...but if the clients use 56K...it would be wasted.


You can keep trying but you will keep failing.
Click to expand...

You mad? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What FPS hardcore gamer uses 56k .

Do you ahve stat numbers on that ?

Aside from that you can require broad band connections. You don't have to cater to 56k
 
aaronspink said:
All physics in games is half assed. If you want useless physics, there is always Physx!
Click to expand...

I'd argue Havok and teh others are far moer "useless' Than PhysX is. Atleast with PhysX it adds a more realistoc feal to a game rather than crap prerendered/scripted that never changes.

aaronspink said:
No more a jab at all the examples people give for physx's "greatness" which are effectively entirely non-interactive.
Click to expand...

Right, being able to interact with the environment around you in a multitude of different ways with different results depending on the former is non-interactive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top