Printable View
But game developers are getting money to use physx and nvidia is spending money to implement it. If it makes my game experience better im going to go with it. Though the only game's physx that has been a little impressive is Mirrors Edge, only recently started playing it and the bullets through the cloth bit really caught my eye. Batman Physx wasnt all that great didnt impress me all that much.
Fixed. Makes perfect sense, no? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
Eh what?!Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
Cuda accelerated PhysX is only being used by game developers because Nvidia is directly paying them for it. How does this not have something to do with the war over game developer subsidies by the IHVs like in the case of Crysis2?
How do I know that? Well I have been involved in this process. So stick your wiki in your butt.
at first i thought you were gong down the same old "physx is only used in games where nvidia pays the dev... bla bla bla", rather you're talking about gpu accelerated physx, which i doubt very much this game has as it's main target is the console crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzenschleuder
so, let me get this straight, because nvidia is spending money to help game devs incorporate tech that provides a benefit to nvidia's customers, that makes them bad? i for one appriciate the TWIMTBP program because when i see that badge on a game i know my gpu will be able to rock all the extra features without issue. nvidia spends money on game devs in many ways, none of which are bribes. they have a full testing lab for debugging, they give devs every type of gpu (even unreleased eng samples), they give them programmers... all for the purpose of seamless integration with their hardware.
now, if crysis2 is using the standard physx physics engine, then i can see why crytech is reaching out to nvidia. the standard physx engine will run on everything from the wii to an i7 which makes it ideal for a multi-platform game, and no-one knows how to implement that better than nvidia.
I see a lot of moderation happening, but then again i'm a mod and get to see the inner workings. :shrug: Really I think us mods/admins are overly relaxed in our attitudes. Thats probably why you see a rash of bans given out every now and then.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
As to attacking, he attacked me once (I ignored it), and his argument of getting what you pay for was flawed because it was biased and ignorant (argued ATi wanted everything free) and made in an inflamitory manner. I also ignored it for this reason.. that and it was just bait.
Lets also not forget his deconstruction method for arguments never seemed to take whole points and rather made them into whatever he wanted to hear as being said.
I really dont see any good points, at all. :shrug:
im an nvidia user and i dont want gpu accelerated physix...
even if i can disable it im against is cause they could use their time and money on doing something better than that...
h3ll, even another sexy girl dancing around demo would make more sense in my opinion than this stupid gpu accelerated physix nonsense... it looks like cr4p and stutters like h3ll... at least so far... who knows, maybe crytec actually managed to make something useful based on physix... but id be surprised...
I'd be REALLY surprised if Crysis 2 used physx.
Unlike most eastern europe game devs that have actively courted PhysX whateverthingmagic, Crytek actually has 1. programmer resources, 2. artistic integrity, not to mention 3. Free Havok licenses thanks to EA's likely overarching licensing.
Not that they'll use Havok though, the guys at Crytek seem to prefer doing everything themselves. However most accomplished studios use Havok because it is way more than just physics. Havok maintenance contracts would likely give very good pricing to the whole suite- AI, Animation/IK, Physics and extensions in cloth/destruction... plus proper support and help.
It's slightly ironic in fact to note that nVidia needs to actively endorse developers (heavy marketing) to use PhysX while developers would pay for Havok, and Havok still gets more use. If that doesn't speak something about the solutions, I don't know what does (Igor Stanek maybe? :p: )
You are right Crysis2 will most likely not use physx. From what i remember it has its own implementation. Also it remains to be seen if this optimization for better tessellation will be anything significant. I hope it bring some what better IQ but we will have to compare screenshots in order to establish that. And that's a while away eh.
I did not :mad::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rai
Slightly off topic but for those wanting an even better Crysis experience... Try Real Lifesis or Natural Mod :yepp:
From techreport: http://techreport.com/articles.x/19934/8
Quote:
Above are some images, provided by Nvidia, that reveal the sort of geometric complexity involved in this scene. The lower shot, in wireframe mode, gives us a sense of the polygon sizes. Unfortunately, these images were obviously resized by Nvidia before they came to us, so we can't really estimate the number of pixels per polygon by looking at them. Still, we have a clear sense that many, many polygons are in use—more than most of today's games.
Is this an egregious overuse of polygons, as AMD contends? I'm not sure, but I'd say it's less than optimal, for a few reasons. One oddity is demonstrated, albeit poorly, in the image on the right. Although everything is turned at a nearly 45° angle, what you're seeing at the center of the picture is something important: essentially flat ground. That flat surface is covered with large number of polygons, all finely subdivided into a complex mesh. A really good dynamic tessellation algorithm wouldn't find any reason to subdivide a flat area into so many triangles. We've seen such routines in operation before, or we wouldn't know to point this out. And there's a fair amount of flat ground in the HAWX 2 benchmark map, as shown between the mountains in the image below.
as far as i can tell hawx isnt using any dynamic tessellation and i dont see much use of LOD. a higher quality screenshot would help.
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/806-...x-580-sli.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Quote:
Dernier né chez Codemaster, F1 2010 reprend le même moteur que DiRT 2 et supporte ainsi DirectX 11, via le patch 1.1 que nous avons bien entendu installé. Ce patch ayant été développé en collaboration avec AMD, Nvidia nous a indiqué ne l’avoir reçu que tardivement et ne pas encore avoir eu l’opportunité d’optimiser ses pilotes pour ce jeu en version DirectX 11.
Pour mesurer les performances, nous poussons toutes les options graphiques à leur maximum et utilisons l’outil de test intégré sur le circuit de Spa-Francorchamps avec une seule F1.
AMD/nVIDIA that's the same ... ;)Quote:
Latest from Codemasters, F1 2010 features the same engine as DiRT 2 and thus supports DirectX 11 via the patch 1.1 that we have of course installed. This patch was developed in collaboration with AMD, Nvidia told us not to have received only late and have not yet had the opportunity to optimize its drivers for this game version of DirectX 11.
To measure performance, we push all the graphics options to their maximum and use the testing tool built on the circuit of Spa-Francorchamps with a single F1.
very well said... then again just look at the best physix vs the best havoc implementation and the worst havoc vs the worst physix implementation... and you know why havoc is preferred :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
about crytec doing their own physics, yes, they actually talked about it and showed it off... although it looked pretty cr4ppy... it was on an xbox360, so supposedly for a console its good... it still sucked though :P
so, it COULD be that crytec wasnt happy with their own physics stuff, or it was about as good as physix... and they ended up takigg physix and thats what nvidia paid them for?
idk, physics isnt that easy i think, and physix is already available and somewhat tweaked for all consoles and pc... so IF crytec had issues with their own physics stuff, it would have made sense to go physix...
well i hope im wrong... or that they at least use physix via opencl... we will see...
I don't mind having the option but I wouldn't cry if NVdia cancels PhysX development and support today. If NVidia develops a technology where you can turn off your 3D card and switch to your low power, low noise secondary card for 2d applications, now that would be the day of days. Imagine the flexibility of using the secondary card for browsing on the net + physix + hyrid SLI :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
i dont see the part where ati/amd blocked nvidia from using anti aliasing or the latest dx11 version...Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Very, very beautiful mountains:shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Or even GDDR-5, which AMD and Qimonda jointly developed.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Fixed!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
On a side note, when Qimonda declared bankruptcy in 2009, they did so in a way to screw thousands of employees out of agreed upon severance packages, cash in lieu of their vacation balance, and in many cases.... cut and run without giving employees their final paycheck.
Talk about sh*tty business practices. At the very least, Infineon (parent company of Qimonda) should have given those employees their final paycheck.
When this all went down, I recall some "colorful" employee protests including one guy taking down the Qimonda flag which flew at corporate HQ, adding a "jolly roger" flag to the top, and flipping the Qimonda flag upside down, before raising them back to the top of the pole! hehe.
http://www.richmondbizsense.com/imag...ndapirate2.jpg
http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009...-over-qimonda/
Urban legend with absolutely no prof. UE3 did not support AA by default. And it wasn't Nvidia it was developer that left it out for ATI. Does not matter if you repeat lies 100's of times, it wont make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Dowload the benchmark, it's on Nzone.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
GDDR5 didnt come out in 2009, it came out in 2007 (so was likely developed 2005-6), so you didnt "fix" that quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Quimonda does suck, though.
How could Ati/Amd block nVidia from using Anti-aliasing when the first graphics cards to utilize Anti-Aliasing were way back in the 3dfx days? And we all know who ended up with all those patents when 3dfx went under.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
But to be fair, Anti-Aliasing was around long before 3dfx... just not in 3d rendered environments. And no, it's not an ATi technology.
Also, DX11 along with all DirectX versions are property of Microsoft last I checked. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
They went bankrupt in early 2009, and it was May, 2008 when Quimonda began volume production of GDDR5. Only a few months later in December, 2008, ALL production at the Dresden and US plant for GDDR5 were HAULTED.
And within a year of the first available chips.... they declared bankruptcy.
Oh.... and the very first samples of GDDR5 were shown off in 2007, but it wasn't until a year later that they actually got the process right and began shipping in mid 2008 for some of the HD4xxx cards.
Regardless, GDDR5 standard was already a fixed standard put forth by JEDEC who create "Open industry standards" of memory and allow any manufacturer to develop efficient ways to make production of these standardized memory types.
Yes, Quimonda was the first to develop a viable GDDR5 design, and their chips hit market in mid 2008. by January 2009, they had gone bankrupt, sold their production patents, and screwed their employees.
Now back to my point from earlier. AMD/ATi had no possible way to restrict nVidia from using GDDR5 because by the time nVidia did use this memory, Quimonda was already Bankrupt and the patents were sold off.
Oh yea.... and I never said it came out in 2009. I said they went BANKRUPT in early 2009, and had ceased production in late 2008. Only a few months after the first production GDDR5 modules which were put on ATi cards, which was mid 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Only white papers and some samples ever saw the light of day in 2007. It took a full year of R&D to get the design properly working (developed in 2007-2008) so they could put these chips onto ATi cards in mid 2008 when production actually began.
The fact of the matter is... the comment earlier about how ATI could have blocked nVidia from Gddr5 but didn't is PURE FANTASY.
Are you playing with words here or are you missinformed even though it was discussed way more than 100 times on many forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
It was NVIDIA who made such agreement with Eidos to block ATI cards from using the in-game antialiasing in Batman. Eidos had nothing to gain from blocking the ATI cards except from the money they received from NVIDIA.
The problem is some developers are like whores, they can be bought. If there was not such agreement, Eidos would not have any worries about being sued by NVIDIA.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991
NVIDIA: The Way It's Meant To Be Gimped.Quote:
AMD received an email dated Sept 29th at 5:22pm from Mr. Lee Singleton General Manager at Eidos Game Studios who stated that Eidos’ legal department is preventing Eidos from allowing ATI cards to run in-game antialiasing in Batman Arkham Asylum due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter.
It’s also worth noting here that AMD have made efforts both pre-release and post-release to allow Eidos to enable the in-game antialiasing code - there was no refusal on AMD’s part to enable in game AA IP in a timely manner.
I trust that you will also confirm that no similar activity will take place on any other games?
Richard Huddy, Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division