Quote Originally Posted by Xoulz View Post
LOL...


CPU physics are more powerful...! Where have you been? All that Nvidia's PhysX offers, is ancillary "fluff" (ie: glass breaking, tiles breaking, paper shuffling on the floor, etc), it's all superficial to actually whats going on in the game. Eye candy!
they have a demo showing very nice water movements, just cause one game only uses a few things, does not mean you cant do something
That^^ puffery is not the type of physics we are asking for and demanding in games. Batman's/Mirror's Edge overdone, superficial physx, is not what we are discussing in this thread. Carmack, DICE, etc all have been using real physical environments using the CPU for YEARS...! UNO? actual physical objects. Like a piece of fuselage being turn off a fighter from AA, and having that land on the road in front of you, as you run it over in the jeep, only to have it kick up and kill the other in the jeep behind you....!
not very uncommon. go play the last level of HL:2, ragdoll at its funnest.
We've had these real deformable objects in games for years. Developers just haven't been able to make heavy use of physics or the power to make full use of multi-threading yet. So that everything within a scene is basically it's own object.(bulldozer?). Just look at Battlefield 1943.. massive use of CPU physics! or (again) THIS video.


Nvidia can't touch that!


The reason nVidia is marketing flowing capes, ancillary paper, broken tiles and such, is because they know it would take quad-SLI to have real physics.

The Intel Core i7 920 is only $240 folks... less than a GTX285. Think on it!
that video used all 8 threads of the processor, expect the average person to be on duel cores or quads, and expect the game already takes up 50-80% (depends on cores and how cpu limited the game is and at what settings they play) and whats left is a cpu 2-4x weaker than an i7, using up 2/3 of its power before physics, and the result is a average person can do only about 1/10th of what was shown while playing a game.

PhysX is no different than Havoc, except Nvidia bought and started to support it minimally in their own video cards, so you didn't need a separate physics card... back when dual-core CPU's were just rumors. Now almost all of us have 8 threaded rigs...

You would need tri-sli to equal what the i7 can do. (ie: Velocity physic engine video)
so much miss information. not all of us have 8 threaded rigs, i7 was 1% of intels cpu sales last year. and how many of us have a 2P amd rig? like 3 or 4 of us? and where do you see a real comparison between cpu and gpu physics, where some unbiased party did the review? pls show us where this tri-sli statement comes from.

so far most of your posts are full of information with no sources and never backed up. go take a look at what real GPU demos can do.

for other points, they need to start making physics scale properly. at what point do i care about how cool a flag waves, vs having 60fps locked. a good physics engine should know how to load balance properly so we can decide its importance. weve been gpu limited, cpu limited, and now were gonna see physics limiting framerates and the only solution is to drop the quality and replay the map (unacceptable in my opinion)