|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
 Posted: Sat, 16th Mar 2013 20:21 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Mchart wrote: | | Ok? And again, none of those games you bolded besides Guerrilla and of course source engine games were memorable for their physics. Source only because it was the first to really implement *any* sort of physics so heavily into gameplay. Guerrilla because you could destroy entire buildings. Guerrilla had huge performance issues on even high-end CPU's though. |
What, are you implying that PS2's physics are more memorable than BC2 or BF3? 
Sorry, PS2 is pretty damn good, but it has nothing that hasn't already been done on Havok. Its physics are no better or worse than the last couple of BF games.
With Alice it's mostly the particle physics, which do indeed look awesome, but that's just one game. Cryostasis is the only instance of PhysX that is anywhere near memorable. The stuff in both Batman games doesn't add anything to the games.
Fact just is that PhysX does *nothing* in *any* game that we haven't seen elsewhere apart from the particles and fluids. Fluids are still too damn heavy, even on CUDA, which leaves particle physics. And I would not be surprised if Havok do that via OpenCL or DC in this new version.
Once again, all the ragdolls you see in most games are all Havok. Most games with any serious destruction (beyond particle explosion that is, Mafia 2 does not have destruction) use Havok. Quite simply because PhysX is too damn slow (at least pre-3.0, which is all we've seen so far). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Mar 2013 20:42 Post subject: |
|
|
PhysX has been born to sell additional hardware which otherwise you would not need. Sure, it's complicated, but nobody ever tried to optimize it for a pure CPU. Rendering, ray tracing, physics, are all complicated processes, even more complicated when it comes integrating those into the actual game engines. But how well they perform depends on the developers' effort. Optimization, choices, etc.
Ageia, and now Nvidia, didn't even need to optimize or simplify stuff - they only wanted to show how well their hardware performs those tasks.
Let's say, if CryEngine has been developed the same reckless way like PhysX, you'd see 5x or 10x times less fps in any Crysis. In a way, PhysX was somehow saved by consoles, in my opinion - Nvidia surely had to help developers to optimize the shit out of it to make it run on those 8 years old CPUs. But I doubt it is in a shape today to stand as a proper physics implementation for games.
Do you like realistic physics in games? Do you even want that? Why wouldn't you ask for realistic graphics then, like, using 10x times more polygons? Somehow people today think you need a good hardware to process physics in games, wtf?
PhysX needs too much of computing power due to bad implementation as a price, for that eye candy you see on display. Not to say it's Nvidia people who produce those effects and assets, in major cases, not the actual game studio artists.
Let's forget about how much effort can certain parts of game engine cost, or how easy it's to use some streamlined physics engine in your product - the bottom line is, PhysX was made for marketing only, not for innovation.
I salute any physics implementation that doesn't offer anything to vendor-specific hardware. And Havok seems to be the one of them.
| sanchin wrote: | | There's no way a CPU could run physics better than a GPU. The computations are not that demanding at all, but the sheer number of particles / shit that has to be calculated is the reason why CPUs suck at it - GPUs can fire many more simultaneous "threads" counting the same thing for different data. |
That's what I'm talking about. What's wrong with people today? Why even process that many particles, only to simulate how real dust or wind works? Game development is not rocket science presentation - nobody needs that level of realism. Gfx and particle effects only need to look and perform well. Not saying that hardware acceleration capability is bad - it's only bad when it's vendor-specific, and it is the case right now.
Next time, they tell you you need to buy additional hardware to simulate AI of your Sims... offline.  Spoiler: | Then you go and buy that crap to play SimCity... offline, right?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 00:18 Post subject: I have left. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 00:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Such gameplay based physics have been done in eg Trine with PhysX.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 15:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: |
Once again, all the ragdolls you see in most games are all Havok. Most games with any serious destruction (beyond particle explosion that is, Mafia 2 does not have destruction) use Havok. Quite simply because PhysX is too damn slow (at least pre-3.0, which is all we've seen so far). |
If a game has Havok based Ragdolls, it will have Havok in the splash screens. It's part of the license agreement to use Havok. Also those games that used Havok for destruction also ran at 2FPS whenever the destruction happened because Havok is slow and murders the CPU. As for PhysX being too demanding for dedicated CUDA cores, I wonder how you think Havok will work if it used OpenCL which doesn't use a dedicated core for computations and shares them with the GPU which is also rendering the scene.
Also, we've seen PhysX 3.0 for the last 2 years 
ARMA 3
Borderlands 2
Planetside 2
Natural Selection 2
All PhysX 3 titles.
Oh, and as for Half Life 2 using Havok, back then Havok was still really shitty looking with floaty ragdolls. Half Life 2 used a hacked up version of Havok that was modded to make the bodies feel less floaty. Havok didn't start employing these ragdolls til years later.
Last edited by nnyxx on Sun, 17th Mar 2013 16:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 15:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| nnyxx wrote: | Also, we've seen PhysX 3.0 for the last 2 years
ARMA 3
Borderlands 2
Planetside 2
Natural Selection 2
All PhysX 3 titles. |
Borderlands 2, no, it doesn't.
As for the others dunno but googling online seems you are right.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 16:19 Post subject: |
|
|
NS2 uses PhysX? Maybe that explains why it runs so bloody terrible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 22:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| nnyxx wrote: | | If a game has Havok based Ragdolls, it will have Havok in the splash screens. It's part of the license agreement to use Havok. |
There's a small logo in with all the other licenses, yes ("uses fmod bink havok etc"), but not like with Nvidia where you get a full screen logo.
| Quote: | | Also those games that used Havok for destruction also ran at 2FPS whenever the destruction happened because Havok is slow and murders the CPU. |
"Okay"
RF:G had frame drops on dual cores, yes, but never to the point where it was unplayable, not on my E8400 at least. And once again, with PhysX the performance hit is just as big for rigid body collisions if not bigger, because before APEX 1.2 that runs entirely on the CPU.
| Quote: | | As for PhysX being too demanding for dedicated CUDA cores, I wonder how you think Havok will work if it used OpenCL which doesn't use a dedicated core for computations and shares them with the GPU which is also rendering the scene. |
I was talking about PhysX' CPU side, which is not even half as efficient as Havok and like I've said many times now, most of PhysX -especially before 3.0- runs off the CPU, not the GPU.
As for your list of games:
- ARMA 3: in alpha, game's far from out.
- BL2: 2.8.6
- PS2: worked like crap in beta, was then disabled only to be put in about a month ago - it is 3.2 though
- NS2: 3.1 indeed
Heroes & General will also have it, but that's not out yet either.
So wow. What an amazing list of games. Either way, I still want something that's vendor agnostic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Mar 2013 22:45 Post subject: |
|
|
There's one reason why I won't be using Havok any time soon, and that's because PhysX is free.
| Spoiler: | Well technically Havok is free for PC-only titles. But that's not a limitation I'm willing to accept, nor are most developers. Limiting yourself to one platform is very risky.
Plus it says it requires a license for titles retailing over 10$, "at no additional cost" whatever that means. Which makes me think there are some special limitations included in that license. |
This doesn't say anything about quality of either of course.
@Werelds I'm interested why do you say Physx is not event half as efficient as Havok? I haven't tried Havok myself yet, for the reason stated, but I would be interested to read a performance comparison if there is one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 18th Mar 2013 00:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if there's ever been a head-to-head comparison (because like I've been saying, Havok and PhysX are identical feature-wise). Interesting point though, I'll scour some forums for one 
However, just look at most PhysX titles. Even those without particle effects run like dogshit on the CPU. Take Batman: AA for example (I haven't played AC with PhysX). It's hilarious how hard PhysX hits the framerate in that game, even though it does nothing super special - the stuff you see in the Scarecrow bits are cool, but nothing that we haven't seen with Havok before in tons of platform games. Reason: before 3.0 PhysX is a single-threaded beast that does not even use SSE extensions. Technically, 2.8.x can be multi-threaded...if the developers actually hack their way around it to do that, rather than letting the physics engine take care of..well, the physics.
The hit it gives when run via the CPU in Batman: AA is worse (well it was, they patched some things somewhere down the line, not sure what state it is in nowadays) than the strain RF:G puts on a poor old dual-core like my E8400. And noone can tell me that the horsecrap displayed in AA is more impressive than the proper rigid body collisions in RF:G.
The problem with PhysX is not PhysX itself per se. The problem is that it is a highly vendor-specific extension that COULD in fact be very good (and 3.0+ is not that bad actually, at least not from what I've seen other people test with it so far). The biggest problem is that Nvidia did nothing with it for years after acquiring it, quite simply because noone called them out on it.
In the end I don't give a shit which physics engine comes out on top, as long as it run acceptably well on whatever CPU/GPU you have. As it stands, Havok is much more widely used anyway and the majority of PhysX titles only do minor stuff with it, the number that do heavy things with it is probably still a single digit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 11:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 11:48 Post subject: |
|
|
404 if i try to visit their page:
http://www.havok.com/nextgen
Prolly because the video uploaded too early: http://www.havok.com/unlock
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere
Posts: 64932
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2013 02:54 Post subject: |
|
|
That's way more impressive than their usual demos, but I doubt that we'll see something like this anytime soon...unless they start optimizing their tech immensely. If some low-poly semi-static jello halves the framerate, I don't even want to imagine what could do something like that
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyb3r
Posts: 615
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2013 10:00 Post subject: |
|
|
idd ixi but i doubt that's gonna run smooth if multiple models are used on a larger scale view since this is pretty damn up close
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neon
VIP Member
Posts: 18882
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2013 11:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 24th Apr 2013 11:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah it's actually an advanced body animation system and more realistic than ragdoll physics. I'd like to see it in more games combined with Havok or PhysX.
We are the result of your laws.
We are the result of your democracy.
We are the result of your corruption.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 25th Apr 2013 04:51 Post subject: |
|
|
I wish Euphoria made a bigger splash......shit is amazing.
Oh, and Havoc > PhysX by FAR......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 25th Apr 2013 06:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Euphoria is the shit. I'm tired of seeing AI screaming to their deaths while ragdoll to the ground, it looks stupid.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34527
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 4th Jun 2013 16:43 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
