Printable View
You clearly don't understand whats happening with the physics.you think more eyecandy, but what is happening w/ said candy is what you fail to see.
Example: A piece of rubber falls 50 feet and bounces two or three times and rolls w/ direction of the wind and so on,in a dynamic manner.
Not another one of those "you don't understand" replies. Look, it's been touted that GPU physx can do what the CPU can't or doesn't do well enough. In this title we clearly see the need for a higher CPU in order to use 2 gpus for physx which clearly debunks such claims regarding the "little importance" of the CPU. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
A highend cpu is needed for multi gpu anyway,what are you talking about.
Ferrari's are not needed either,you don't have to buy one,But don't hate on people that do and enjoy driving them.The people who have experience w/ them will tell you they are better,and you will say it take 3x much gas to get to destination and they will say but my driving experience was better and worth the price.:up:
Physx is a luxury.You can chose to have it or not,so why all the complaining anyway.
Not a good analogy. Remember, it was said that one GPU would be enough to do physx. However in this game you need 2 high end GPUs and a high end CPU. Which debunks the notion of the the alleged importance of GPU physx as a whole. Strange a single 480 won't do that. Something many thought would be able to handle physx effects for a game like this. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
The more we use physics the more demanding it will get,@least it's not like dx updates where it's more demanding but doesn't look that much better.:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
Another bad analogy. So what you are implying is that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
-one high end gpu (480) would be enough to run physx in a game (apparently the 480 isn't enough :D)
-gpu physx was supposedly better then cpu
-etc
were all fabricated I take it. The truth of the matter is that for this title you need a high end CPU and you will need more then 1 GPU in order to see sporadic, sparse effects that only happen when triggered for certain aspects of the game. Pending that those effects simply wasn't removed from being used on the CPU. :up:
Of one thing I'm sure about this game: I will not be able to really enjoy the physics from the game because i don't have an Nvidia GPU.
And I know that didn't happen to me with Half Life 2, Crysis, Red Faction Guerrilla, and many others.
That's why i hate Physx and will keep doing so until the day they make it work decently on CPUs like other physics implementations, or open the API for other GPU architectures. Or until the day it dies.
I'm saying crysis is more demanding than past titles,metro more than crysis and so on.Dedicated ppu is for speed of calculations,okay and it is calculating more than software = more particles = more realistic moving smoke and fog also more particles makes it look more believable.Don't forget this is dynamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
That really doesn't relate to what I'm saying. The point is that GPU physx was tauted (thus misinforming the community) that it was better then the CPU. To later find out in this title that you need higher end CPU just to use physx. Not only that but you need 2 video cards just to use it. Something many warned about for a sometime now. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
And next year you will need a higher end cpu get it,we will not stop pushing forward,so the hardware has to as well.@ the intro time for gpu physics all you needed was a single gpu to do both,that has change,we are trying to simulate the physical properties of earth.One thing @ a time ,wind,smoke etc etc.The more we simulate the more power needed.
There is a thing as pushing forward and being efficient in pushing forward. As we look at the GPUs today vs a couple a generations ago we see that die getting smaller and overall power requirements decreasing, etc while becoming more powerful. That's pushing forward. Not the example you mentioned. As your example clearly shows more higher end hardware just to show a few effects (which maybe seen from the CPU). That's going in the opposite direction and not pushing forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
physics in HL2 are great, and not very taxing.
if there was a survey of how much someone enjoys something, vs how much effort was put into the physics, before cost was even associated i bet it would be clear that super high physics are not required.
but its been the black and white option where you get nothing, or pay to get it all with physx, that has really brought these issues up.
think about how much technology we have no and we cant have a game that runs a benchmark and figures out what settings should be at? why cant we have 500 particles instead of 1000 if you run a quad vs dedicated ppu? why cant the game realize its time to sacrifice some of the eye candy when it knows alot of processing power is about to be used for something like a really big bomb about to go off.
isn't that drawback of physx anyway ? the newer game is the more demanding becomes api :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
That's what closed platforms (consoles) are for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
No it's not. Why? Because those physx effects are triggered at certain points of the game. Not something going on all the time. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
The goal would be to simulate a entire environment,but you wouldn't be able to see all of whats happening because you cant see the weight of the glass breaking,what velocity it's moving @ etc etc,so people will complain about harsh requirements for something they can't see.
look @ supercomps they require a lot to simulate what they want,what makes you think what you see is real physics in a source title.Because it is not it is what they believe to be a real representation of real physics.Collecting real physics data and creating a lib of said data has been done by ageia,who else has measured the movement of a cloth w/ varying degrees of wind.
The problem with this opinion is that physx in this title isn't simulating an entire enviroment. It's only making an attempt to provide physics when certain aspects of the game is triggered. Because of this, it by no means is doing anything in real time for the game in it's entirety. Because physx is providing itself in limited instances for this title is why the enormous amount of hardware (2 high end GPUs and a higher end CPU) is brought into question. And IMO clearly shows how inefficient physx is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
The SDK is not that old though compared to Havoc which has 10 year lead,it is efficient @ what it's trying to attempt,it will get better w/ time.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
It's called marketing, you have to be subjective about the requirements on games. They have to appeal to the lowest common denominator not vice-versa.
Guys, please stop feeding the PhysX trolls. There are only a few people who are convinced this tech is any good and they'll spout their BS without end. You can't outlast them or convince them to think. I think we're :horse: here.
I wonder if this will be the first game where I actually have to overclock my PhysX card, since the game recomments a GTX 285 for maxed out PhysX :rofl:
I think you'll be fine with your 250...
Carfax
The Ghostbuters still has more Rigid body physics on the CPU than any PhysX game on the CPU.Quote:
Ready my reply to Xoulz.
This is simply not true. Rigid body physics is the least demanding of all game physics.
Batman has much more rigorous physics effects such as cloth and fog/vapor, in addition to rigid bodies.
The fog got slated for not behaving like fog.
The paper went through batmans cape.
The scarecrow scene if purely triggered & none interactive physics.
Nice effects but behaving like the real thing, far from it.
Splinter cell had cloth physics on the CPU.
Soft bodies, Rigid body, particles are merely tools & its how you use them what counts & not the mere fact that they exist in a game but look & behave like crap.
DarkVoid, some of those physx effect i would of turned off in that game when i first seen the game in action & then later i read about a others feeling the same with one in particular case of a 14 year old playing the game on the console & then playing it on his Dads Physx enabled PC & then asking his if he could turn off the Physx as they were getting in the way of the action.
If this thing really happens to have such a high HW requirements than maybe it will ultimately replace now old Crysis for PC jokes with a new one : "Yeah,but can it run Mafia 2 on low??"
The game itself has pretty average requirements, so probably not...
The highest setting probably includes 3D Vision, cause I can't see it needing that much power just for PhysX.