So?
I'm more interested in the physical environment (and interactivity with it) than the underwear of my character.
Printable View
So?
I'm more interested in the physical environment (and interactivity with it) than the underwear of my character.
You mean like bumping into chairs or tables and having them move? Or picking up chickens ( a la Crysis) and throwing them at people? Yeah thats really exciting, and not to mention, really old :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Physically accurate clothes and hair effects on the other hand, have been pretty much unattainable....until now.
This is the first game thats using this kind of technology, so it's revolutionary in that aspect.
No, hes saying he want to feel it like lifting a heavy box should feel like lifting a box not a piece of paper.Physics will play a important roll when VR helmets become standard.:shocked:
1) but it still looks better than Mafia 2 as the end result is what counts & not how you went about doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
2) Yep i know
3) i didn't say it was worthless but as the same as 2) its not something that i would make a big deal about either.
Eye candy Fanboy :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
So, in reality.. a game based on physx would be idiotic.
PhysX = everything fragments into tiny tiny bits the more you shoot at it.
ATi dropped Brook because it was no good and Havok was pulled out from under them by the Intel acquisition. There is absolutely no comparison to CUDA/PhysX. ATi being some sort of benevolent, open standards loving firm is pure fantasy. They're doing what they're doing out of necessity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
The label doesn't matter. Whether you call it a feature or a gimmick it doesn't change the fact that it's something people want and only Nvidia has. Which is the whole point of a competitive advantage. Why is it that the company doing something (albeit proprietary) is getting more grief than the one doing nothing?Quote:
But I say that unless they do it is going to remain nothing more then a gimmick - a point that many Nvidia supporters apparently want to ignore.
i must say... you guys have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this game.
Right. But instead of developing another proprietary replacement for brook they support OpenCL and instead of developing a proprietary physics library they support Bullet. They are no more obligated to support those open projects then Nvidia is, but they are anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Bullet is directly comparable to PhysX, simply at an earlier stage of development.Quote:
There is absolutely no comparison to CUDA/PhysX.
I can't peer into the mind of every AMD employee and determine how they feel about open source. But we can see their actions. Between the AMD/Nvidia/Intel triad, AMD is the only one supporting open physics.Quote:
ATi being some sort of benevolent, open standards loving firm is pure fantasy. They're doing what they're doing out of necessity.
As for them being benevolent, who would think such a foolish thing? They are a business and they are doing what they think makes the most sense to generate greater profits. But helping yourself, helping the competition, and helping the market as a whole isn't always mutually exclusive. An open software ecosystem helps everybody, even if your motives are selfish.
You are right, the label is not important. What is important is that until an open physics solution comes to market GPU physics will remain a largely untapped resource. Between Intel, AMD, and Nvidia the only one supporting such an open solution is AMD. But instead of being happy that somebody is working towards that goal some people are actually claiming that AMD is doing nothing. :rolleyes:Quote:
The label doesn't matter. Whether you call it a feature or a gimmick it doesn't change the fact that it's something people want and only Nvidia has. Which is the whole point of a competitive advantage. Why is it that the company doing something (albeit proprietary) is getting more grief than the one doing nothing?
Did you see the size of the glasspane fragments from when they were shooting from inside to outside, they didn't get very small at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
It's not a matter of being a fanboy. It's a matter of acknowledging the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Interaction with the physical environment, while important, has already been done. Crysis gave players unprecedented interaction with the open game World, and I'm sure Crytek will build upon that with Crysis 2.
Realistic hair and clothing however, has remained elusive over the years, despite the complaints of gamers.
Don't know if you realize this but Bullet is CUDA based, the OpenCL version is still in its infancy. AMD is tagging along cause they have nothing of their own and it's much cheaper/easier to put out some press releases about supporting Bullet than to actually do something. Those press releases seem to be having the desired effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Btw, "Nvidia removes hybrid PhysX blockage?"
http://www.ngohq.com/news/17916-nvid...-blockage.html
I hope it's true so the whining can stop. Though I doubt it would even then.
Reflecting on this, I think it's for the best......at least for Nvidia. ATI's own initiative will likely suffer though.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Doing this will not only increase Nvidia's GPU sales, but it will strengthen PhysX's position as the physics API of choice for game development.
By the time OpenCL/Bullet is available, PhysX might become so prevalent as to be very difficult to replace.
Great video, this game looks sweet :D GOTY easily...
No reason to comment....What? FAIL... How is an ATI user running a dedicated physX card different than say, a Nvidia user running a 470 with a dedicated physX card? Does the nVidia user get to comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
OUt of curiosity, how are you running physX? If your sig is correct you're using a 3870...it's no wonder you're concerned about FPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
EDIT *
BTW you need to work on your grammar, i don't understand what you're sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Bullet is NOT cuda based, I don't know where you got that idea but it is dead wrong. They only added experimental support for certain types of CUDA acceleration in version 2.71. And support was added by the main author, Erwin Coumans. It was not added nor has it been supported by Nvidia. OpenCL support in the v3 branch is already farther along then that.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Considering that the author of Bullet has thanked AMD in forum posts and his GDC presentation for their collaboration and support, I'll take his word for it over your contemptuous interpretation. And even if you want to take the cynical view, compared to what ATI is doing Nvidia isn't even tagging along.Quote:
AMD is tagging along cause they have nothing of their own and it's much cheaper/easier to put out some press releases about supporting Bullet than to actually do something. Those press releases seem to be having the desired effect.
Is that going to allow developers to add GPU accelerated gameplay physics without fear of cutting out half their market? Oh wait, no it's not.Quote:
Btw, "Nvidia removes hybrid PhysX blockage?"
http://www.ngohq.com/news/17916-nvid...-blockage.html
I hope it's true so the whining can stop. Though I doubt it would even then.
Point is that Bullet has had CUDA implementations since 2008. Which means two years working on GPU acceleration - no thanks to Nvidia right? OpenCL support is under development and had nothing to do with AMD. I must say I like AMD's approach - hang your coat on other people's work and get credit for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
They will simply adjust to the new environment if/when there's actually competition to PhysX. Until then it's just a lot of hot air.Quote:
Is that going to allow developers to add GPU accelerated gameplay physics without fear of cutting out half their market? Oh wait, no it's not.
Crysis? Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
1) The reply in to a person who is claiming that ATI users are crying because they don't get to run physX when in fact if an ATI user does want to run phyx then they just use an ATI card as well a NV for physx, so ATI users are no worse off than other users who are using 2 NV cards, one for gfx & one for dedicated physX.Quote:
Originally Posted by texasreefer
So the point is that there is no reason to cry like he was claiming.
2) I don't run physx & i have no desire to buy a GPU for physx, a PPU maybe but not a gfx card.
3) you don't understand because your not following the context of what i'm replying to.
instead of me saying open source i just said open, but if you look at what i was replying to then you would know what i meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
If it has already been done^ , and passé' as you make it, then why is there not one PhysX that makes use of it?
Again (and again..) the use of PhysX for Nvidia is marketing tool... Once Nvidia removes their artificial limitations (inevitable) due to trying to compete as a proprietary solution in an open market... then you may have a point.
Until then, you are a lemming for Nvidia reciting their marketing verbiage, over and over...!
The "no reason to be commenting" part was what I was confused about....sorry if i mis-understood.
Point is, Bullet is not CUDA based. And what CUDA acceleration there is wasn't developed by nor is it maintained by Nvidia. Some prototype code came from one of the CUDA API demos. But all of the work adapting it to Bullet and all the subsequent development was done by other parties. Nvidia deserves credit for putting that code under a liberal enough license that an open project could make use of it - I generally give credit for a company's open projects :rolleyes:. But do they deserve credit for for OpenCL support (or CUDA for that matter) in Bullet? No, not unless they are helping. As you say, why should they get credit for the work of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
As for OpenCL, it may have been started before AMD got involved. But subsequent work on that branch has been in collaboration with AMD - the author says so himself.
What should they do according to you? Develop another proprietary solution and keep GPU accelerated physics in the age of triviality?Quote:
I must say I like AMD's approach - hang your coat on other people's work and get credit for it.
You have a nice little conspiracy theory going here. Somehow AMD, Pixelux, and the author of Bullet all are saying that AMD is helping with OpenCL support in Bullet. But what is really happening is that they are just issuing some press releases to make Nvidia look bad and win points with the handful of open source geeks paying attention. Never mind that any sort of PR "win" along these lines would be shallow, short lived, and ultimately backfire if no product eventually turns up.
The more logical explanation is that they actually want their customers to have accelerated physics on their GPUs and thus are supporting Bullet in the usual way companies do when they want to help with an open source project - with funding, hardware, and/or code.
I'm sure they will. In the mean time they are going to let others do all the heavy lifting to bring open physics solutions to market.Quote:
They will simply adjust to the new environment if/when there's actually competition to PhysX. Until then it's just a lot of hot air.
I heard the new Duke Nukem will use PhysX as well. :rolleyes:
NukeX