FYI - Batman demo to download with PhysX...

Batman demo to download with PhysX...

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/49...s-Nvidia-PhysX

"Eidos Interactive, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and NVIDIA Corporation have announced that the PC version of Batman: Arkham Asylum will feature NVIDIA PhysX technology, which allows for the creation of realistic worlds with interactive materials and objects.

Hardware accelerated by supported NVIDIA GeForce GPUs, PhysX technology provides an even deeper level of engagement for players of Batman: Arkham Asylum by utilizing the processing power of the NVIDIA GPU to render stunning in-game physics objects in the environment that not only add to the overall look of the game, but create an immersive and believable world.

With PhysX technology enabled, players can explore darkened corridors packed with volumetric fog which reacts to Batman’s movement and cobwebs which tear with his passing. Combat becomes a maelstrom of motion as office papers are thrown into the air alongside soda cans and litter as Batman lands each punch upon The Joker’s henchmen. Throughout the game, the decaying gothic architecture is realized to an incredible detail with wall tiles chipping and breaking, stone pillars crumbling upon impact, and particles from breaking glass and debris shattering and falling down around Batman’s feet.

“Supporting NVIDIA PhysX technology has allowed us to add that little bit extra to the PC version of the game,” said Sefton Hill, Game Director at Rocksteady Studios. “As Batman interacts with the world, the aging asylum creates a more immersive, believable world which really draws the player in.”

Unfortunately the PhysX tech has also delayed the release the PC version of Batman: Arkham Asylum. It will now be available beginning September 15th, 2009, in North America, and September 18th, 2009, in Europe and Australia. The 360 and PS3 versions of the game will be available from August 25th, 2009, in North America and August 28th, 2009, in Europe and Australia."

Download links...

http://download.nvidia.com/downloads...BMDemo_v12.exe

http://www.fileplanet.com/198913/dow...am-Asylum-Demo

So it's more eye candy physics and still no gameplay physics..

Next.

Yep, just more of that darn eye candy... :shrug:

I think you should write a letter to the entire National Computer Industry, and tell them all 'NO MORE EYE CANDY', and get rid of AA too while your at it.

ToTTenTranz hates anything that represents a graphic enhancement of any kind. (Especially if ATI can't do it too.)

For the rest of the 'Eye Candy' lovin members, it does look pritty darn good... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI

FYI - It uses Apex destruction.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/apex.html

PhysX is getting more interactive all the time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Yep, just more that darn eye candy... :shrug:

I think you should write a letter to the entire National Computer Industry, and tell them all 'NO MORE EYE CANDY', and get rid of AA too while your at it.

ToTTenTranz hates anything that represents a graphic enhancement of any kind. (Especially if ATI can't do it too.)

---

I'm fairly certain ATI can do physics.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lockee

I'm fairly certain ATI can do physics.

---

Yes, currently on CPU's, until OpenCL and Havok.
Then we should see a GPU Physics engine on ATI.

well this sucks, there isnt anything thats supposed to be destructible in it other than that spray breaking slim thing. and im assuming that i will have to install the NV physiX and not the agea

Probably... I can't speak to that as I have never owned an Ageia card.

Another new PhysX demo to download...

Darkest of Days

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions...x?_cmpid=fp191

Download links...

http://www.gamershell.com/download_49398.shtml

Youtube Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BGYEOEQ3jw

Youtube Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdKL7z7i1Ts

FYI - It uses the Marmoset engine...
http://www.8monkeylabs.com/technology

As good tradition, comparison PhysX video for Darkest of Day demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfm_Qr6RP8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Probably... I can't speak to that as I have never owned an Ageia card.

...

---

i dont have an agea card but the NV drivers make UT3 lag a little

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zogrim

As good tradition, comparison PhysX video for Darkest of Day demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfm_Qr6RP8

---

lulz sry but wtf... they use physx for leaves in the wind and they dont use it to make volumetric fog/dust (1:24 and onward...)

jup just shows in which pockets this game is...

for the record, you can still play the game without hardware physics if you dont have an nvidia card, and it's physics is still above average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

for the record, you can still play the game without hardware physics if you dont have an nvidia card, and it's physics is still above average.

---

And you can get even more performance if you can fool the game into thinking your ATI card is an Nvidia card :p:

Anyhoo, I've seen the trailers, Physx won't have much to do with minute by minute gameplay other than perhaps Batman's cape which, in the original series, didn't move as much anyway :p:

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Yep, just more of that darn eye candy... :shrug:

I think you should write a letter to the entire National Computer Industry, and tell them all 'NO MORE EYE CANDY', and get rid of AA too while your at it.

ToTTenTranz hates anything that represents a graphic enhancement of any kind. (Especially if ATI can't do it too.)

For the rest of the 'Eye Candy' lovin members, it does look pritty darn good... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI

FYI - It uses Apex destruction.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/apex.html

PhysX is getting more interactive all the time...

---

Well you market it as "Xtreme News", but the first game to ever use PhysX for visual effects was GRAW 1 (one), which was launched more than 3 years ago.

And there are tens of games using PhysX for cosmetics, why would this be news?


Are you going to create a thread in a hardware forum everytime a game with cosmetics PhysX is launched?

Is the need to justify your GTX280 for PhysX that desperate? Do we really need to take with all this spam and marketing?


At least do it in the Games section..

Only thing is if u dont have a NV card u can still play the game as Grim stated you just will not be able to see the little extras like steam coming from ceilings. Also with physx enabled if u aim a batarang to the ground, the impact of the batarang will break up the floor. Without physx the batarang will just bounce off the floor with no damaged seen on the floor. Phys in Batman is not necessary to enjoy the game it just adds a bit. Physx or no physx demo is pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i dont have an agea card but the NV drivers make UT3 lag a little

---

Yea I heard UT3 favors Ati cards more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Well you market it as "Xtreme News", but the first game to ever use PhysX for visual effects was GRAW 1 (one), which was launched more than 3 years ago.

And there are tens of games using PhysX for cosmetics, why would this be news?


Are you going to create a thread in a hardware forum everytime a game with cosmetics PhysX is launched?

Is the need to justify your GTX280 for PhysX that desperate? Do we really need to take with all this spam and marketing?


At least do it in the Games section..

---

And you are out of here....

Threadcrap some other forum on your vacation.

Nice, another we-can-make-this-10-year-old-crappy-physics-on-the-CPU-but-instead-let's-use-hardware-PhysX-so-NVIDIA-will-give-us-a-good-amount-of-money game!

downloaded and played the demo. i don't know about the physx version of batman's cape, but the non-physx version of the cape does look crap lol. they way it moves etc... :p:

it's pretty cool though, didn't expect that tbh. the infights are fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

So it's more eye candy physics and still no gameplay physics..

Next.

---

Not much future for gameplay physics right now unless they devise a more precise calculation method and it is mandatory, it will be a different result every time, and have slightly different results on different machines, which means it will be relegated to single player functionality only.

Things like that are the reason TF2 spy didn't have feign death, the bodies physics ragdoll differently on every computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

downloaded and played the demo. i don't know about the physx version of batman's cape, but the non-physx version of the cape does look crap lol. they way it moves etc... :p:

it's pretty cool though, didn't expect that tbh. the infights are fun.

---

i thought that the cape was great when i was playing the demo at the game stop a month ago, im dloading it now for the pc to see if they ruined the game to get some bonus bucks from NV

and im really hoping that since i now have a quad now it can offload something, and it would be nice if they had multiple physX enhancement lvls but its just a tool to force NV gpus onto people as of now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

FYI - It uses Apex destruction.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/apex.html

PhysX is getting more interactive all the time...

---

Which is nice and all, but these "enhancements" could have been done on the CPU for all to enjoy, instead of the small percentage of people that have nVidia GPUs and PPUs.

Oh well, stupid developers wasting money.

For physics to become worth it, you have to have a dedicated GPU/PPU. You can do physics on the GPU alongside the actual graphics, but you'll sacrifice performance in the process. Aegea had it right in the first place. I'm not sure how far we are along to being able to properly support and use dedicated cards for physx, but when people are willing to go out and buy the hardware to make the game worthwhile, then it may happen. Of course that requires actual development from game developers, and then we get into the vicious cycle of "who will be first." The small stuff won't tax the cards too much currently, but I guarantee you that serious in-game physics will. You can quote me on that :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

i finally got around to playing and look what i see
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.

---

OH EM GEEE NVIDIA EATZ BABEEZZ@!@!!!

Do your homework. The game is UE3... deferred renderer, so you wouldn't have had AA built-in *at all* had NVIDIA not supplied a means to do it.

If you don't believe me, look at all other UE3 games.. no built-in AA, only hacky control panel AA which requires profiles from each vendor and tanks performance.

But I'm sure you can find a way to turn other features into atrocities too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xVeinx

For physics to become worth it, you have to have a dedicated GPU/PPU. You can do physics on the GPU alongside the actual graphics, but you'll sacrifice performance in the process. Aegea had it right in the first place. I'm not sure how far we are along to being able to properly support and use dedicated cards for physx, but when people are willing to go out and buy the hardware to make the game worthwhile, then it may happen. Of course that requires actual development from game developers, and then we get into the vicious cycle of "who will be first." The small stuff won't tax the cards too much currently, but I guarantee you that serious in-game physics will. You can quote me on that :)

---

Actually PhysX on the GPU especially makes sense in games where there is not much graphics work to be done.. CPU-bound games.

You don't need 300fps. Why not use a few cycles for something else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sr7

OH EM GEEE NVIDIA EATZ BABEEZZ@!@!!!

Do your homework. The game is UE3... deferred renderer, so you wouldn't have had AA built-in *at all* had NVIDIA not supplied a means to do it.

If you don't believe me, look at all other UE3 games.. no built-in AA, only hacky control panel AA which requires profiles from each vendor and tanks performance.

But I'm sure you can find a way to turn other features into atrocities too.

---

there is MSAA built into the UT3 engine but its MSAA only and needs the commute shader (dx10 cards and the 360), its just a brand only restriction. and im betting that it will have GFWL and securom with activation since it has DLC right from the menu. the game looks clean and dosnt need AA though but its BS that i cant enable it.

the demo is nice its got a free rome for a little bit that the old console one didnt have, but its 2GB for 20mins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

there is MSAA built into the UT3 engine but its MSAA only and needs the commute shader (dx10 cards and the 360), its just a brand only restriction. and im betting that it will have GFWL and securom with activation since it has DLC right from the menu. the game looks clean and dosnt need AA though but its BS that i cant enable it.

the demo is nice its got a free rome for a little bit that the old console one didnt have, but its 2GB for 20mins.

---

Even if there was that option (which there isn't), games that tweak the engine to be fully deferred or introduce other elements to the rendering loop make AA virtually impossible. What, did you think that UE3 game developers all conspired together to not include AA in any of their games? Or that it was coincidence?

The fact is, most of the time it can't be done without a considerable amount of hassle (if at all).

It's very likely that NVAPI is used which is why it's not trivial to make it work the same on ATI. It's not "just a brand only restriction".

Commute shader? *sigh* please don't post more of this nonsense.

I have no clue what were devs thinking when they designed ultra realistic graphics engines without FSAA support. That's like designing a car without wheels...

But then again i was able to use FSAA in BioShock using HD4850 and i can use FSAA+HDR in TES4:Oblivion on HD4870. Which both weren't suppose to be able to use FSAA...

but NV will still own the majority of studios and have no card so other than tech demos im not expecting any dx11 for atleast a year

and its not the in game optimization that bothers me from NV its when something is the same and requires no new code but its locked out (IE the super high/ultra setting on doom3 that was locked to NV only and when it came out NV was on the gforce FX and it could barely play the game) or when u get a game like crysis that was intended to only be maxed out on one architecture so the game dosnt play well at all with any hardware


edit- the game is perfectly smooth i have no idea on the frames but it had a feeling of over 60-75

I like how when PhysX came out, everybody was posting where are the games?

Now we have some good ones released... :)

As far as running the PhysX on the CPU, I don't think you could withought a large performance hit...

Take Darkest of Days...

I think it may be an ideal PhysX benchmark...

These are not my official numbers, but let me tell you why I am excited about this PhysX benchmark. You get to select your level of PhysX!! I love that...

Resolution @ 1920x1200
Ambient Occlusion On
Graphic Details - Very high
PhysX Details - High
Antialiasing 4X
Anisotropic 4X
It gave me an average of 30 to 32 FPS

Same settings except PhysX Details - Med
I believe my score was ave FPS=47

Same settings except PhysX Details - Low
I believe my score was ave FPS=84

This may be the ideal Test to shake out the performance difference between dedicated PhysX GPS?

FYI - I am doing my numbers from memory right now, but know we will see some good PhysX numbers from this test. The level of PhysX selected, directly impacts the test. Systems running a dedicated PhysX GPU should shine. :up:

I also set my Ambient Occlusion to ON in the Nvidia control panel.

Thanks for the heads-up Talonman, trying the DoD demo now. Btw, I don't think the cape in Batman is affected by PhysX - which is really weird since that would be the most obvious and visible use of cloth effects. Who knows what these devs are really thinking :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

The problem is physics is just incorporated as eye candy

---

When did that become a problem though? Everything our GPUs do is eye candy. I never got why "physics" eye candy was somehow second rate :shrug: And it's kinda hard to fault devs for using hardware PhysX, it's not like there's a competing solution out there. What I find fault with is how they're using it.

Only ironic thing is that all this physics crap could be done on CPU. I tried Mirror's Edge with full PhysX run on CPU. Back then i was using an overclocked E5200. It worked like crap. Today, equiped with i7 920 and the game runs just as bad with it. Don't tell me thats even virtually normal. Red Faction and Max Payne 2 looked just the same impressive half a decade ago. NVIDIA, you can lick my ballz. I'm not buying the "this can only be done on GPU" crap. Either the CPU code is intentionally full of garbage or they intentionally use some killer uber precision (that no one really needs) just to kill performance on CPU. I mean, give me a break, few cans and papers can fly around on a freakin AthlonXP 2400+ using Havok. You don't need an extra 200 eur gfx card to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

maybe you should read entire posts before quoting just the begging

---

The rest of your post doesn't disqualify your categorizing it as a problem so I didn't need to quote the rest in order to raise my question. Which you still haven't answered by the way :)

Rezjor, the proof is in the pudding. If all these things are doable on the CPU, why aren't they being done by other people? The easiest way to disprove the need for PhysX is to point to alternative CPU implementations of the same things.

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.

---

Left4Dead stresses all four of my cores, doesn't it scale to 8?

BTW, The demo seems a bit short for a 2GB download, runs fine on my system.

And who would "the other ppl" be? There is just NVIDIA with PhysX and Havok. And you can't just walk out into the scene and expect everyone to know your physics engine or even use it in developed games. The games that were using Havok just weren't developed with extensive physics in mind, they always used it in minimal possible way just so they could run even on crappiest dual core.

Just take Painkiller for example. All the physics affected debris and objects just fade away after 5 seconds. But when all the same objects are flying around i couldn't notice any slowdowns. So why not leave them there for 10 minutes so they are affected by any later rocket/grenade launcher or corpses? Or Doom 3 back then. All monsters just evaporated after a second. But when i used a no-evaporation mod, the monsters were flying around corridors, hanging on railways, sliding off slopes etc. Half-Life 2. Stuff faded away much later and i couldn't notice any slowdowns. Ever.

I wonder why they don't implement Havok with different levels of physics detail. So if you have crappy CPU, you can set it to Low. But if you have high end quad, you could set it to High and experience larger amounts of objects be affected by physics.
But now it's just always "ON" with no adjustable levels. So they just bog it down to a very minimum so it works on all systems, starting from crappiest dual cores).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

I like how when PhysX came out, everybody was posting where are the games?

Now we have some good ones released... :)

---

Like which?

Quote:

---

As far as running the PhysX on the CPU, I don't think you could withought a large performance hit...

---

You think wrong. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. CPU physics have been around for awhile. Look at Half Life 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

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.

---

You mean exactly like what Havoc and Apex destruction does...

Give it more time... These developers aren't sitting still. I am sure thay are trying to make their physics engines as interactive as possible. I think they are making progress.

I also love eye candy, so I don't hold that against them. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

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.

---

Actually to run PhysX does require more than just a CPU, if you want to run fast, have a decent amount of PhysX work implemented, and you plan on selling it to more than just the 2% of the market with the i7 boys....

Looking at my numbers posted above in Darkest of Days, I am convinced that a CPU would NOT do a good job for you calculating the extra PhysX work too. My dedicated PhysX 280 is faster than my Q6600 in both single and double precision calculations. Even with that, you can see PhysX is taxing to my system, depending on the level of PhysX I select.

I am unconvinced that my Q6600 could also do all the PhysX work, that my dedicated 280 is doing now, and not have a major performance issue...

It was the same story with Cryostasis. These new games are getting expensive on resources I think...
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...1&key=�

Bottom line is the extra eye candy would have to go. I don't want that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

It's a shame some developers gave in to the $$$ seduction nvidia offered and incorporated an exclusive technology into their engines, but unfortunately thats the way people act...

There is just NVIDIA with PhysX and Havok. And you can't just walk out into the scene and expect everyone to know your physics engine or even use it in developed games. The games that were using Havok just weren't developed with extensive physics in mind, they always used it in minimal possible way just so they could run even on crappiest dual core..

---

I am glad the developers are cutting their teeth on all physics engines, and think their method of incorporating them into the game will only improve. Sorry if there aren't enough effects for you in the games yet...

Using physics to be able to run on the crappiest dual core is exactly what I hope developers don't do. GPU physics is going to take us places that dual core CPU physics will only dream of. We are in for a good ride!! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

Just take Painkiller for example. All the physics affected debris and objects just fade away after 5 seconds. But when all the same objects are flying around i couldn't notice any slowdowns. So why not leave them there for 10 minutes so they are affected by any later rocket/grenade launcher or corpses? Or Doom 3 back then. All monsters just evaporated after a second. But when i used a no-evaporation mod, the monsters were flying around corridors, hanging on railways, sliding off slopes etc. Half-Life 2. Stuff faded away much later and i couldn't notice any slowdowns. Ever.

---

Are we talking about this game?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smgz66Q9bfU

I think if we left all destructed objects and corpses on the screen, for the entire game, it would be a resource hog. I am not against the idea, but for the tech options we have available to us right now, performance wins over keeping objects on the screen infinitely. Call it a trade off.

Nvidia has adjusted the length of time particles stay on your screen once already, from the way it was back in the ageia days. With more powerful GPU's getting made, they may bump it back up some day down the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

I wonder why they don't implement Havok with different levels of physics detail. So if you have crappy CPU, you can set it to Low. But if you have high end quad, you could set it to High and experience larger amounts of objects be affected by physics.
But now it's just always "ON" with no adjustable levels. So they just bog it down to a very minimum so it works on all systems, starting from crappiest dual cores).

---

They should have various PhysX effect levels in games to select from. I agree, but they probably figure the game will also run fine withought PhysX too, so the others can just run that way? Not sure myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RejZoR

And who would "the other ppl" be? There is just NVIDIA with PhysX and Havok.

---

Well you make it sound like anybody can do it. In any case Havok has been around forever but have you taken a look at their toolset lately? Ever wonder why they don't have support for SPH or physically simulated particle systems? If it was doable on a CPU it would've been done long ago!

Quote:

---

Just take Painkiller for example. All the physics affected debris and objects just fade away after 5 seconds.

---

That's because those "objects" aren't physically modelled at all, they're just the usual graphics tricks that fool so many people into thinking the CPU is actually doing something.

Quote:

---

I wonder why they don't implement Havok with different levels of physics detail

---

Because even the lowest level of detail of some effects will kill even the mightiest CPU. This stuff is all very well documented, no reason for guesswork.

Another that thinks PhysX, AA, and any other form of eye candy is a waste in games. :confused:

I wonder what developers should be working on for you? The Nintendo Wii?

It ENHANCE game INTERACTIVENESS and EXPERIENCE with crap graphics... Right up your alley.

Meh I watched the compero vids on youtube and frankly the differences were not that striking. Yey some cheese fog effects that will effect you but not the AI. Some :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty sparks and whoopdy to for a cape and some banners. Oh yeah you can scuff up the floor..

Waste of time.

I will never jump on the physix crap its still doesn't look or feel anything remotely close to RL. What I would pay for is an AI accelerator.

It is rather odd that on any related Cuda, or PhysX post, we have to re-hash the debate if PhysX is a good thing. The game, or main subject of the thread always seems to get bogged down by posts about what bad guys Nvidia is, for giving us PhysX for free.

I think both of these games look good, and at least Batman is fun to play. Darkest of Days will probably be too.

That should trump all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

Eye candy is not bad, but it is NOT essential.

---

Hmmmm somebody go tell Nvidia, AMD, Sony, Microsoft, iD, Epic, Crytek, Insomniac, InfinityWard, Naughty Dog, Codemasters and Co that they're wasting their time and millions of dollars on all those non-essential technologies that make games look better.

It's the images that communicate what's happening in the game to the user. What exactly is "gameplay" that I can't see? If I have AI that properly reacts to and makes use of shadows in the environment, it really helps believability if those shadows are actually there on the screen. If I want to get a sense of chaos on the battlefield it really helps to have smoke, debris and just crap in general flying everywhere....etc, etc. Don't really understand how you can separate what you experience from what you see. It's not like you're reading a book.

+1 :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

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

---

Yes, i love the Batman demo, and it is fun to play. (Looks good too)

I love this game :up: I can't wait for the full game ! too bad it was delayed :(

thx for the link talonman, gonna give it a try :toast:
where and how does batman use physix thjough? cant find any vids...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Nice, another we-can-make-this-10-year-old-crappy-physics-on-the-CPU-but-instead-let's-use-hardware-PhysX-so-NVIDIA-will-give-us-a-good-amount-of-money game!

---

yeah, it sounds suspiciously like that since the ps3 and xbox360 versions dont have physix... sounds like they glued it on afterwards for the pc version to get some money from nvidia...

we need nvidia cards to get msaa? 0_o
can you force it with the driver panel somehow or do they block msaa unless you have an nvidia card? :o

about darkest of days... where does it use physix?
i watched the youtube clips people posted here and i dont see any physix :confused:

the game looks really boring to me... reminds me a bit of call of juarez 2 which looks much better though... but coj2 gameplay is a bit... meh... :D still much better than darkest of days from those clips... looks reeaaallly boring and crappy imo... and the graphics... looks like dx7 (low polys, low quality textures) with nice pixel shader effects :P

Talonman and blaxtr3m3 are you playing with the XBox360 controller for Windows too?
Have you discovered the batring camera mode which you can access by pressing the Left Trigger to aim and the right shoulder pad to fire :)
Darkest Days isn't that bad saaya, granted it is not that good either, but it was quite fun to blat some people in the 1860's with an automatic machine gun from the future, those people with the one shot musket's did not stand a chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

Talonman and blaxtr3m3 are you playing with the XBox360 controller for Windows too?
Have you discovered the batring camera mode which you can access by pressing the Left Trigger to aim and the right shoulder pad to fire :)
Darkest Days isn't that bad saaya, granted it is not that good either, but it was quite fun to blat some people in the 1860's with an automatic machine gun from the future, those people with the one shot musket's did not stand a chance!

---

Sadly I'm Using the xbox360 controller on the xbox360 :(
I'm still waiting for the gtx295 to arrive so I can enjoy the game.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnZS

Talonman and blaxtr3m3 are you playing with the XBox360 controller for Windows too?
Have you discovered the batring camera mode which you can access by pressing the Left Trigger to aim and the right shoulder pad to fire :)
Darkest Days isn't that bad saaya, granted it is not that good either, but it was quite fun to blat some people in the 1860's with an automatic machine gun from the future, those people with the one shot musket's did not stand a chance!

---

I have the XBox360 controller... :)

I haven't tried it for this game yet, but I will...
Thanks for the tip. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

thx for the link talonman, gonna give it a try :toast:
where and how does batman use physix thjough? cant find any vids...

yeah, it sounds suspiciously like that since the ps3 and xbox360 versions dont have physix... sounds like they glued it on afterwards for the pc version to get some money from nvidia...

we need nvidia cards to get msaa? 0_o
can you force it with the driver panel somehow or do they block msaa unless you have an nvidia card? :o

about darkest of days... where does it use physix?
i watched the youtube clips people posted here and i dont see any physix :confused:

the game looks really boring to me... reminds me a bit of call of juarez 2 which looks much better though... but coj2 gameplay is a bit... meh... :D still much better than darkest of days from those clips... looks reeaaallly boring and crappy imo... and the graphics... looks like dx7 (low polys, low quality textures) with nice pixel shader effects :P

---

This is the best Batman video I found...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vINH6Z9kqgI

Darkes of Days is loaded with PhysX: Leaves, smoke everywhere...

It is prity good too, and also playable like Batman.

thanks for the vid talon, alot of pretty cool effects, the fog is a pretty new feature to games, i cant recall another that has fog that moves based on the player. however, its really such a joke how little they tried to add something decent for physics without a physx card. basically it looks like some objects like cloths and the fog can actually get in your way with physx on, depending on how they set up the maps. ill have to play the demo when i get a chance

Your welcome. :)

I think that the PhysX effects adds to the game.

Yeah, while it's not really that impressive overall it's a bit better in-game than it looks on the video comparisons. I thought the leaves in Darkest of Days looked pretty dumb at first but after playing the demo it does give you a sense that wind is blowing around you, something that you don't really experience in a game. It's only a matter of time before some developer does something really cool with the tech.

Surely there's nothing there that can't be done easily on a CPU, its almost as if they've taken effects out of the standard version just to make Nvidia happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minstadave

Surely there's nothing there that can't be done easily on a CPU, its almost as if they've taken effects out of the standard version just to make Nvidia happy.

---

thats what im thinking. and i cant blame them if nvidia gave them some kind of contract to go with the money for physx additions

I think its fair, since they made a lot of effort to get PhysX to this level and to give something back to their loyal customers.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_9.09.0814_whql.html

Version: 9.09.0814 WHQL
Release Date: 2009.08.14
Operating System: Windows XP 64-bit, Windows 7, Windows 7 64-bit, Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Vista 64-bit
Language: English (U.S.)
File Size: 39.3 MB



Optimized for best performance in the PhysX title: Batman Arkham Asylum.

Thanks!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blaxtr3m3

I think its fair, since they made a lot of effort to get PhysX to this level and to give something back to their loyal customers.

---

They have not given you anything in that game that you could not of had without PhysX.
So they have put allot of effort to get PhysX to a level that it gets used in away that could already be done with other techniques.
A solution to a problem that does not exist so they make a problem so that they can fix it.

Ill be right back just after i reinvent the wheel.

Just make sure it's a much slower wheel that takes your CPU resources, so your analogy fits... :)

Maybe we could put all GPU work on the CPU too, so we wouldn't even need a GPU any longer?

if the game is being gpu limited, maybe it would be smarter to move it to the cpu, but doubt the cpu could handle as many physics based objects.

whats the framerate with physx on vs. off? can someone test this on the demo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Just make sure it's a much slower wheel that takes your CPU resources, so your analogy fits... :)

Maybe we could put all GPU work on the CPU too, so we wouldn't even need a GPU any longer?

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DlPJ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtyIj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh8O...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJVkIHH21u8&NR=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DlPJ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtyIj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh8O...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJVkIHH21u8&NR=1

---

nice links, the funny part is my laptop is getting framerate issue from trying to decode the HD videos, it might be better if i were to just run the demos, lol.

another video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZoXzBGea0&NR=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DlPJ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtyIj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh8O...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJVkIHH21u8&NR=1

---

Rest assured I will check them out when I get home tonight. :)

I want to see what they are trying to say...

If we ever want to have a PhysX drag race, CPU -vs- GPU, count me in. :up:

I buy into the Nvidia perspective that we should let the CPU do what it does best, and let GPU's do what they do best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

Rest assured I will check them out when I get home tonight. :)

I want to see what they are trying to say...

If we ever want to have a PhysX drag race, CPU -vs- GPU, count me in. :up:

I buy into the Nvidia perspective that we should let the CPU do what it does best, and let GPU's do what they do best.

---

What the GPU does best is render.
My point is not what can do it the faster but using what is available to get the job done & not limit it to ether for the sake of it.

An i7 could playback my MP3 music & MPG movies faster than my AMD955 but its not required because my AMD955 is capable of playing them at the intended speed as it is.

Quote:

---

With all the talk about OpenCL and Snow Leopard together and how the spec will allow Apple's upcoming hotness to exploit graphics accelerators, it's easy to lose track of the place where the standard could make its biggest impact: gaming. Yes, OpenGL may have lost favor in that realm in recent years, but OpenCL looks to captivate the hearts and GPUs of gamers everywhere by applying some much-needed standardization to the physics acceleration realm, first shown in public at GDC running on some AMD hardware. Havok is demonstrating its Havok Cloth and Havoc Destruction engines, the former of which is embedded below, and we think you'll agree it's quite impressive. OpenCL allows such acceleration to switch between the GPU and CPU seamlessly and as needed depending on which is more available, hopefully opening the door to physics acceleration that actually affects gameplay and doesn't just exist to make you say, "Whoa."

---

As long as it's on the GPU via OpenCL or CUDA, I am on board with that. I only disagree when I get the impression that people think everything should be run off of the CPU, in the name of standardization.

To me, standardization is only a good thing if it dosent come at the cost of performance. When we are talking about any physics engine, I believe the GPU is better suited to run that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talonman

As long as it's on the GPU via OpenCL or CUDA, I am on board with that. I only disagree when I get the impression that people think everything should be run off of the CPU, in the name of standardization.

To me, standardization is only a good thing if it dosent come at the cost of performance. When we are talking about any physics engine, I believe the GPU is better suited to run that. ;)

---

I don't see people saying that everything should be run off the CPU, what i see are people saying that what they have seen in some games could of been run on the CPU.
PhysX is the exact mirror of your comment with everything should be run off the GPU even if it does not need to.

No one said that the GPU is not better suited but it should not be mandatory for physics that can be done on the CPU.