Quote Originally Posted by Manicdan View Post
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

not very uncommon. go play the last level of HL:2, ragdoll at its funnest.

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.


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)
I think your missing the point mate. The thing with evolution of hardware and software is that you always try do the best. If developers did only things that can run perfectly on present hardware, we would have a stalemate, things would not evolve.

We, the users, want new cool things, things which push us to upgrade. Remember FEAR 1? Or oblivion? Or Doom3? Or Crysis. Those are aplication which barely run or have run on average joe hardware and they pushed hardware evolution.
I think it's safe to assume that doing really complex physics to really stress a CPU or GPU would only do good to this industry, but, doing it on a CPU guarantees that everyone can take advantage of those effects, while doing it in a closed API, like Physx, means only people with nvidia cards get to benefit.

I don't mind nvidia keeping it as a closed API, it's good for them to do that and kudos to them for that, but personally i like open standards, standards that do not force me to buy a specific hardware to enjoy them. That's the fun about PC's anyway, you have millions of configurations, but the software runs on all of them.