FYI - Batman demo to download with PhysX...

None of which has anything to do with PhysX...

You simply want games fun to play. I do too.

Don't hold eye candy responsible for that.

I love UT3 by the way...

I am a firm believer that eye candy and fun games can work well together. :)

FYI - The boys want to have a contest to show the performance variance between the dedicated PhysX processors we select...

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...5&key=�

Stay tuned there for some numbers. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Well dude, is it that important to have stunning graphics and eye candy particles flying around, when those are used to draw moronic in game characters, that run into walls, behave like total idiots, tremble and shake and so on...

---

You make it sound like stunning graphics leads to moronic AI. The point is that supersmart AI is a lot more effective at improving the gaming experience if that AI operates in a dynamic, engaging environment.

Quote:

---

games 10 years ago, even 15 years ago had MUCH BETTER gaming experience.

---

That's because our expectations and standards 10 years ago were much lower. Don't let nostalgia get the best of you. I remember being blown away the first time I played Mortal Kombat II. I saw it again a few years ago and it looked like vomit to me, I couldn't enjoy it cause it looked so bad. It's not the game's fault, it's just that I've updated my expectations over time. This isn't unique to graphics, our expectations for gameplay have changed as well.

We don't have any fewer great games now than we had back then. I remember a lot of crap that came out for Nintendo and Atari back in the day. But people have a tendency to falsely think that every single game back in the 90's was a blockbuster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i finally got around to playing and look what i see
http://i27.tinypic.com/2nvdzrn.png
i need an NV gpu to use MSAA apparently, since u know how there is vendor specific MSAA. it also wont do physX on the cpu. i had really wanted this game but it looks like NV ruined this one like they did with doom3 back in the day.

---

My screen looks like this...
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/129/batmank.jpg

I had to click the Hardware accelerated physX one to the right from the Normal setting, to enable the High PhysX setting...

Looks like the program knows you better have a 9800GTX dedicated PhysX processor at least, for this setting. :p:

I think he was referring to the Nvidia only AA. Though his proclamation that he won't play the game as a result is strange. Adding AA for Nvidia didn't take anything away from AMD users, so missing out on the game just because of that is just sour grapes or some sort of silent protest I guess. Though most UE3 games don't have AA anyway so just rename to Bioshock.exe as you're used to doing and call it a day.

Opps... Good call.

But I am glad that me using a 280 for PhysX isn't a total waste for game performance like some think.

PhysX is demanding, and a 280 does serve me well. :)

Ok. I have a 8800GT With Physx on High I get no more than 5fps :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Dunno how long you are into gaming, I am not very keen on games today, but I was many years before, and let me tell you one thing - games 10 years ago, even 15 years ago had MUCH BETTER gaming experience. Today we have powerful hardware and nice graphics, but thats mostly an excuse for game devs to make CRAPPY yet good looking games. There is FAR MORE to a game than graphics and eye candy, there is something called STORYLINE, there is something called ORIGINALITY, and to me, a long time PC user and gamer, modern technology and high end graphics has actually taken more than it has given in terms of gaming experience.

---

I disagree. Mass Effect was good. Half Life 2 was good. Max Payne 2 was incredible.

.... and

that's about it.

When you turn off physx some of the effects gone are total bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. I mean did they really have to remove static fog? It doesn't have to move :/. Also the cloth stuff could still be there as static, and exploding tile can be done on cpu. Actually even the cloth can be done without physx: look at ghostbusters for 360/pc and star wars for 360 and soon to be pc. They both have great physics that are comparable to physx and they both run even on consoles. The ps3/360 version of batman has no physics either.

The same was with Mirror's Edge. Without PhysX, broken glass dissapears even before it hits the ground. C'mon, you think we are so dumb we don't know that every other game could render that better... 8 years ago... But with PhysX, the glass breaks like the one in game Red Faction. That was ironically made 8 years ago. Runing completely on CPU as far as physics are involved. Who's kidding who?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

...The problem is physics is just incorporated as eye candy, eye candy is not bad, but it would be MUCH better if physics was implemented into the gameplay and resulted in more interactive games. People were asking "where are the games" when the PPU was launched, that piece of hardware is LONG DEAD now, and what we see doesn't really require a PPU, it doesn't even really require nvidia hardware in particular, the only thing is it uses an API that is closed and owned by nvidia...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsegative

When you turn off physx some of the effects gone are total bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. I mean did they really have to remove static fog? It doesn't have to move :/. Also the cloth stuff could still be there as static, and exploding tile can be done on cpu. Actually even the cloth can be done without physx: look at ghostbusters for 360/pc and star wars for 360 and soon to be pc...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

The same was with Mirror's Edge. Without PhysX, broken glass dissapears even before it hits the ground. C'mon, you think we are so dumb we don't know that every other game could render that better... 8 years ago... But with PhysX, the glass breaks like the one in game Red Faction. That was ironically made 8 years ago. Runing completely on CPU as far as physics are involved. Who's kidding who?!

---

These statements are tough to counter. I recall back during Ageia's era that GPUs could do the same thing without a dedicated PPU card. My, how times have changed when they are doing the same but with video cards (to avoid the frame rate dips that many don't like).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

The PPU was wimpy to begin with, even compared to the old gpus available at the time. Thats why nvidia bought the software tech and killed the hardware, a modern GPU can do that workload on the fly without breaking a sweat.


The lame thing is that developers got s great new technology to toy with. So they asked themselves the question "we have the technology, should we do something nice and thoughtful with it, or should we just make some cheap eye candy to brag about and promote nvidia in return for the $$$ they gave us to use their exclusive technology that leaves half of the gamers without actuall possibility to enjoy those features"

Guess what they picked? Also people who own ati hardware will have to pay the same price and yet get LESS for their money, as physix games are limited beyond whats necessary, as some users noted... Is this fair? I don't think so. And I personally, as an nvidia user am not affected, I speak for all the people that are. Would it kill a person to think about something different than his/her own ass? Or profit for that matter?

---

What I was referencing is that you could not get the same level of performance with a single gpu'd video card (not with this gen of single gpu video cards). Which is why I find it funny that they are doing what Ageia already did, use dedicated hardware.

I just hope that developers will put PhysX on cold with DX11 Compute Shaders and OpenCL. As far as eye candy is concerned, DX11 CS is a perfect candidate. All hardware supports it (well, will support it), it's widely established standard (DX that is) and is not bound to only one hardware vendor on software vendor who is bribed by hw vendors like NVIDIA just to make it exclusive to them. In the end i really don't care if some third software vendor offers an OpenCL accelerated physics (like SDK that game devs can license) and takes Havok and PhysX off the face of the Earth. If it gets widely used by game developers and is not bound to only one hw vendor, i'm perfectly happy.

Why don't we just call it "Batman Arkham Asylum: Nvidia Edition"?

:shakes:

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

In the end i really don't care if some third software vendor offers an OpenCL accelerated physics

---

Patience man, it will happen. One thing I would say though is that it will probably come from one of the established players. It's not like there are a lot of people in the gaming industry with expertise in advanced physics simulation to begin with.

Well, it's not impossible. I've seen many cases where 2 guys that just finished university established a small but successful company. In fact thats how Google and Microsoft were formed. And they are now one of the largest corporations on Earth. But if Havok will finally offer something and game devs grab that like they mean it, i don't care either.
As long as it works on all graphic cards, so we can finally see physics to evolve from useless garbage simulations to something that actually affects core gameplay.
Half-Life 2 had neither of that and it managed to put physics to a better use than NVIDIA ever managed till now. In fact they still haven't. That alone is more than dissapointing.

Also not long ago i was thinking that only ATI Streams sucks. And so i bought NVIDIA GF8400 GS, just as temporar solution for my dead Radeon. And guess what, selection of CUDA powered programs is just as crappy as number of PhysX games. I couldn't find anything useful that was accelerated by CUDA. Apart from bunch of more or less completely useless programs on CUDA Zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Patience man, it will happen. One thing I would say though is that it will probably come from one of the established players. It's not like there are a lot of people in the gaming industry with expertise in advanced physics simulation to begin with.

---

tell that to the makers of HL2, where physics isnt about looking good, its about how you play the game. turning off physics in HL2 would cause you to get stuck in quite a few places. now im not saying its awesome physics, im just saying its not there for the eye candy. i could see a future HL episode using DX11 built physics that could look just as good as nvidias current offerings, but work on any gpu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

I couldn't find anything useful that was accelerated by CUDA.

---

The applicability of these technologies on the desktop is very limited to begin with. It's basically just video and image processing. The vast majority of GPU compute applications won't be mainstream applications (that's already the case today).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

tell that to the makers of HL2

---

HL2 used Havok.

if its not BF2 pr mod. its not even worth playing. God that game is amazing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

I think he was referring to the Nvidia only AA. Though his proclamation that he won't play the game as a result is strange. Adding AA for Nvidia didn't take anything away from AMD users, so missing out on the game just because of that is just sour grapes or some sort of silent protest I guess. Though most UE3 games don't have AA anyway so just rename to Bioshock.exe as you're used to doing and call it a day.

---

i didnt say that i woudnt play it i said that i wouldent buy it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i didnt say that i woudnt play it i said that i wouldent buy it

---

Haha, fair enough.

Am I the only person who enjoyed this demo?
I liked the Batman Films... to me this demo was quite fun, just a semi mindless punch and throw and do the cool tricks out of the films, comics and cartoons. In fact.. it was entertaining :)
Good to see Physx used too. What I do not understand though is how ATi cannot have FSAA too, I mean it is just a generic FSAA Direct3d 10 feature is it not?
Fair enough Physx (for now?) is nVidia only, but I assumed that on Vista and Windows 7 ATi DirectX10 GPU's are just as capable as nVidia DirectX10 GPU's for doing FSAA on the Unreal 3 Engine.. are they not?
Anyway, aside from that, and the restrictive camera and the non-remembering my control inversion preference it is a fun demo
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

i would rather see a game put all of my 8 threads to work. the day gamers use dual socket mobos would be awesome.

---

Practically impossible.