Quote Originally Posted by Carfax View Post
This cuts to the heart of the matter..

It's not a matter of technical unfeasability, but whether Nvidia should support a competitor's hardware using their own money and resources.

People don't understand that PhysX and video card drivers undergo lots of testing and validation before release. Supporting ATI's hardware would mean they would need to double their commitment and investment by making drivers specifically for their competitor's hardware, and then keeping pace with the release of new ATI drivers and hardware..

Why should Nvidia burden themselves with this?
the phsyX driver has nothing to do with the anything but NV's gpu and windows to do the cpu, the phsyX api returns the same values be it on a gpu or cpu. i could see if it did something were it talked directly to the rendering card or assisted it in any way but it isnt gpgpu phsyX is just returning the same values as the cpu would have to the api to feed to the game. its just using cuda so it in no way acts in a way that would be broken with something ati dose unless it would also break the cpu physX and if that were to happen NV would not be responsible anyways.

your point would be valid if say some1 made physX work on an ati gpu but that isnt happening. phsyX is working on a cpu or NV gpu no matter how u configure it ATM with or without the fix. phsyX also in way dose anything for rendering or image processing it just gives back values to plug into the reference geometry