FYI - Batman demo to download with PhysX...

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-16-2009, 04:10 AM
Talonman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Your putting words into my mouth.
You assume far to much on this subject that everyone is saying something that they have not said.

People should not have to keep spelling it out to you every time they speak of physics on the CPU that the GPU is faster at it.

Your a though man to keep happy... :)

Peace brother.

When I see numbers like this:

physX lvl2 cpu
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
1613 115934 8 25 13.913

With level 2 PhysX, at a lower res than mine, with a fast CPU, one might consider that to be unplayable. Ave= 13.913 is probably hard to enjoy?

If a PhysX driver fixes that, good deal then... :up:
08-16-2009, 04:14 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

The best thing Nvidia can do for PhysX is let the advanced effects run on the CPU. It would reduce the amount of whining and it would let people directly see the performance improvements they claim to achieve with GPU acceleration. A lot of non-Nvidia users hate PhysX simply because they are completely blocked from accessing those effects. It would be wiser to let them run it slowly and maybe hook a few more people like that instead of generating all this bitterness.

It would likely increase sales for them.
But they will still have to live with that people will think the CPU path is deliberately performance crippled because of what they have seen with Havok.
08-16-2009, 04:27 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

The best thing Nvidia can do for PhysX is let the advanced effects run on the CPU. It would reduce the amount of whining and it would let people directly see the performance improvements they claim to achieve with GPU acceleration. A lot of non-Nvidia users hate PhysX simply because they are completely blocked from accessing those effects. It would be wiser to let them run it slowly and maybe hook a few more people like that instead of generating all this bitterness.

but think about it again. there must be a reason why nvidia isn't doing exactly that. maybe it's because physx wouldn't be that much of a performance hit in most games at all if it's integrated properly?
don't get me wrong, i do think computing stuff like physics on a gpu will result in better performance, no matter what, but on the other hand i think a quadcore where a core is dedicated for physics calculation could work out very well as well.
maybe that's exactly what nvidia fears and why they locked down physx for their gpus only.
08-16-2009, 04:39 AM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

It would likely increase sales for them.
But they will still have to live with that people will think the CPU path is deliberately performance crippled because of what they have seen with Havok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

but think about it again. there must be a reason why nvidia isn't doing exactly that. maybe it's because physx wouldn't be that much of a performance hit in most games at all if it's integrated properly?
don't get me wrong, i do think computing stuff like physics on a gpu will result in better performance, no matter what, but on the other hand i think a quadcore where a core is dedicated for physics calculation could work out very well as well. maybe that's exactly what nvidia fears and why they locked down physx for their gpus only.

Perhaps, but that's the thing. Havok doesn't do these things and it's the premier CPU physics library. All the examples of "impressive" Havok usage are simple rigid body effects that PhysX does on the CPU as well. So what are they afraid of? If Havok were to come out with a fast CPU solution for particle systems and cloth and fluid simulation they would have to beef up PhysX on the CPU anyway to compete. I can understand why they don't want to waste time optimizing for the CPU while there's no competition, but I don't see why they don't just let it run slowly instead of disabling it outright.
08-16-2009, 04:45 AM
JohnZS

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Perhaps, but that's the thing. Havok doesn't do these things and it's the premier CPU physics library. All the examples of "impressive" Havok usage are simple rigid body effects that PhysX does on the CPU as well. So what are they afraid of? If Havok were to come out with a fast CPU solution for particle systems and cloth and fluid simulation they would have to beef up PhysX on the CPU anyway to compete. I can understand why they don't want to waste time optimizing for the CPU while there's no competition, but I don't see why they don't just let it run slowly instead of disabling it outright.

Spot on, I agree with you, if anything low frame rates would "drive people to upgrade" instead of the blocked out closed shop whereby hacks can enable the technology and it is not...that slow (fair enough slower but not hideously slow).

IMHO nVidia went down this route because they know if they used very good physx effects it would require a dedicated GPU just for the physx alone. The "low/normal" details run fine on a GTX280 and I am sure they will also run fine on a QuadCore.

As I said above, it's like nVidia are pulling snake oil tricks ;)

John
08-16-2009, 04:50 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Perhaps, but that's the thing. Havok doesn't do these things and it's the premier CPU physics library. All the examples of "impressive" Havok usage are simple rigid body effects that PhysX does on the CPU as well. So what are they afraid of? If Havok were to come out with a fast CPU solution for particle systems and cloth and fluid simulation they would have to beef up PhysX on the CPU anyway to compete. I can understand why they don't want to waste time optimizing for the CPU while there's no competition, but I don't see why they don't just let it run slowly instead of disabling it outright.

Technically under the surface PhysX could do things on the GPU that Havok on the CPU could not do without a big hit, but on the surface PhysX does not seem to be doing anything that Havok on the CPU could not do because of the way that PhysX is being used ATM in games.
The same problem Vista faced with people only noticing the surface & not the under the hood work going on.
08-16-2009, 04:53 AM
JohnZS

Exactly Final8ty, if Physx wasn't a "closed shop" nVidia would make more sales as people without dedicated GPU's and say those of the ATi persuasion would enjoy the "low physx details", but when they up the details to high and experience low frame rates they might consider upgrading to an nVidia GPU
As it stands it is little more than snake oil tricks and a right old farce. As proven by the ini tweak, Zanzibar was able to play at the same Physx level as me and I have a GTX 280!
John
08-16-2009, 04:58 AM
trinibwoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

Technically under the surface PhysX is doing things that Havok on the CPU could not do with out a big hit, but on the surface PhysX does not seem to be doing anything that Havok on the CPU could not do because of the way that PhysX is being used ATM in games.
The same problem Vista faced with people only noticing the surface & not the under the hood work going on.

Yep, in the end what we see is what matters. Which is why it's in Nvidia's best interest to let everyone see what they're missing and judge for themselves. Right now, a lot of the "PhysX is crap" people have never even seen the thing in action for themselves and are basing their opinion on youtube videos or just lashing out in retaliation for being excluded.
08-16-2009, 05:09 AM
Talonman

I agree... :D
08-16-2009, 05:17 AM
Final8ty

Quote:

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Yep, in the end what we see is what matters. Which is why it's in Nvidia's best interest to let everyone see what they're missing and judge for themselves. Right now, a lot of the "PhysX is crap" people have never even seen the thing in action for themselves and are basing their opinion on youtube videos or just lashing out in retaliation for being excluded.

From what i have seen im not really missing out.

The problem is the tool that is PhysX is not being used to its advantage & is like a company advertising how good a steam roller is at fattening things by rolling over ants, when its capable of much more but people only see the ants being flattened all the time.

Only the demo game CellFactor made me go wow with the physics, everything after seems pale & not worth my investment
08-16-2009, 05:34 AM
trinibwoy

Yeah it's a whole different vibe if you already have a supported card. Then you just feel like you're getting something more for free that you can disable if you don't like it. Just like the AO option in the drivers or supersampling support. All minor in isolation but together they add up. But I can see people not letting that influence a buying decision. I'm just glad I'm able to play around with this stuff and see it in action for myself, whether it's lame or not.
08-16-2009, 06:44 AM
RPGWiZaRD

I just gave it a quick try, for me at the first fight with physx settings off I had 90~100 fps at the first fight with physx off and on normal around 50~60 FPS and same at high with no visuable difference.

Oh and those intro vids are annoying (nvidia logo etc), remove them by clearing this section in DefaultEngine.ini:

[FullScreenMovie]
+StartupMovies=esrb
+StartupMovies=baa_logo_run_v5_h264
+StartupMovies=UTlogo
+StartupMovies=nvidia
+StartupMovies=Legal
+StartupMovies=Install

Always brings me a smile when I find this comment in all the unreal3 engine games engine ini:

Quote:

; mostly copied from 2k4
[Engine.DemoRecDriver]

ie, copied from Unreal Tournament 2004. So much junk code left there that's not used or removed.

EDIT: Now here's a funny and weird one, applying 4x AA with physx off I get a FPS boost over no AA, FPS climbed from 90~100 FPS to 98~135 FPS! lol And yes AA is working nicely. Must be the first game I've tested that both looked better and ran faster after applying AA. :rofl:

Any1 else experiencing the same?
08-16-2009, 07:16 AM
mao5

Hey, anyone tried the method which was used to let ATi cards smoothly run physx in the Star Tales Benchmark?

-----------
go to the game dir/Engine/Config/BaseGame.ini
find
[Engine.Worldinfo]
MaxPhysicsSubsteps=5 modified to 1
bEnableChanceOfPhysicsChunkOverride=FALSE modified to TRUE
------------
wait for good news
08-16-2009, 08:14 AM
Talonman

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I just gave it a quick try, for me at the first fight with physx settings off I had 90~100 fps at the first fight with physx off and on normal around 50~60 FPS and same at high with no visuable difference.

EDIT: Now here's a funny and weird one, applying 4x AA with physx off I get a FPS boost over no AA, FPS climbed from 90~100 FPS to 98~135 FPS! lol And yes AA is working nicely. Must be the first game I've tested that both looked better and ran faster after applying AA. :rofl:

Any1 else experiencing the same?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...eply&p=3828946

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Nvidia's performance is very interesting these days. Their driver team seems to be really concentrating on performance improvements for high resolution / 4xAA scenarios. Meanwhile, at times I have found that lower resolution AA performance has suffered. A PERFECT example of this is Left 4 Dead.

In addition, Far Cry 2 uses the DX10.1 code path which makes ATI's cards that much more efficient when AA is turned on.

4X AA is my favorite selection.
08-16-2009, 09:30 AM
mao5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Due to on the page where I originally typed it, we were still saying things like:

and

I believe at that time, we were proceeding on lack of info, and my statement didn't seem to hold much weight with the boys.

Now in light of some actual CPU PhysX FPS numbers surfacing, it's looking to be more correct.

With the apparent huge performance difference we are seeing, I am now thinking it is more than just an CPU optimization issue. I think it's more of a hardware limitation issue.

GPU's are just way better at PhysX. (Sorry if the 3 lines in my quote took up too much screen space.) ;)
I will try not to let it happin again. :cord:

fine,would you show us some 1920x1200 VeryHigh 16xCSAA screenshoots with HighPhysX setting. thx.:clap:
08-16-2009, 10:27 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...eply&p=3828946

4X AA is my favorite selection.

I want to add I use a rather old 182.47 driver though (complains about it when I start the game but in reality the newer drivers perform worse for me, at least in other games) and UT3 for example takes a huge hit by AA (a bit bigger than most games), it's weird cuz they both use the same engine. I also tested AA2x and AA8x and found AA4x to be the optimal, AA2x wasn't faster at all, it was at least as fast, if not even slightly slower by like 3~5 FPS in avg and 8x was slower as well but not that much, stayed often 100~115 but sometimes had drops to 85~90.
08-16-2009, 10:36 AM
mao5

hey, http://vietnamglobalteam.org/images/smilies/BBP/16.gifTalonman, how's my physx fps on my shabby 4850CF and Q6600?

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...807a5bcfa7.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...838a37d24e.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...e8d0cd9fb4.jpg

:rofl::ROTF:
08-16-2009, 10:40 AM
mao5

nobody dares show the CPU PhysX screenshoots with fraps on ? I dare, haha! http://vietnamglobalteam.org/images/smilies/BBP/17.gif
08-16-2009, 10:47 AM
Talonman

Looks good... What res is that?

And when you say 16x CSAA, you do realize that isin't an in game setting correct? It does have 16XQ, and 16X. What did you select?
Do you also have Ambient Occlusion on or off? I keep mine on even thouigh there is a performance hit involved. I does look better.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/129/batmank.jpg

What PhysX level are you running?

Post up you options screen like mine, and I will match it exactly. :up:
08-16-2009, 10:53 AM
mao5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Looks good... What res is that?

And when you say 16x CSAA, you do realize that isin't an in game setting correct?

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/129/batmank.jpg

What PhysX level are you running?

1680x1050 VeryHigh set physxlevel to 1 in ini file, you can turn off AA in game option, and force 16xCSAA from foreware control panel, before Batman demo, nv fans always force AA from cp in UE3 games:ROTF:
08-16-2009, 11:03 AM
Talonman

Well heck, I don't know what ini file your talking about...

My BmEngine text file is currently at level 2?

PercentUnoccludedRequeries=0.125
MaxOcclusionPixelsFraction=0.001
MinTextureDensity=0.000000
IdealTextureDensity=13.000000
MaxTextureDensity=55.000000
PhysXLevel=2
bPhysXuseGRB=False
PhysXgrbSpacing=10.000000

But rest assured, I cut the level of PhysX down from High, and run at a lower res than 1920x1200, and turn Ambient Occlusion back off, you don't think I can beat 40, 56, and 91 FPS?
08-16-2009, 11:10 AM
mao5

fine, show me the difference between level1 and level2, pls.

you have 3GPU running together, so why cut the level down and lower the resolution? come on, show us the screenshoots at 1920x1200 16xQA VeryHigh and Level 2 PhysX, thx.
08-16-2009, 11:21 AM
Talonman

I still am not sure exactly how to set 16xQA...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8527/lookinga.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanzabar

yes it dropped to 22 minimum with frps i had the fraps fps going for lvl1, lvl2 was low i didnt bother with fraps since it lagged

XS users are not the same as other forums and i do have the fastest single gpu card and a good oc on the cpu

I can tell you zanzabar was getting 22 minimum with Level 1 PhysX...

Setting your CPU to level 2 PhysX, as I enjoy, would hurt your performance bad, even at your lower res.

Check this promo out when the game is released... :)

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/...uff-that-came/
08-16-2009, 11:53 AM
mao5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

I still am not sure exactly how to set 16xQA...

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8527/lookinga.jpg

I do mean 16xQ or 16x in your game video option, btw, anything wrong with my level 2?( I adjust level in the setting menu http://vietnamglobalteam.org/images/smilies/BBP/38.gif

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...e0ed7a48b5.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...263d264e97.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...0be4901796.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...7996159458.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...a469e1331c.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...db6da54abb.jpg

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...ca6a98e568.jpg
08-16-2009, 11:56 AM
mao5

I do see some difference between level 1 and 2, some sences fps actually raised after killed the monster.http://vietnamglobalteam.org/images/smilies/BBP/59.gif

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 AM.

XtremeSystems