29 réponses à ce sujet

[Ashertron]

Bioware, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE add GPU physx support for DA2.  Some gpu exclusive effects would be great but all I really want to be able to offload the regular PHYSX to my dedicated PHYSX card .

PLEASE ADD GPU PHYSX BIOWARE!!!

BUMP if you want the same thing!

Modifié par Ashertron, 23 juillet 2010 - 05:43 .

[javierabegazo]

No bumping. Petitions will get locked Fast. This is a forum for discussion

[Ashertron]

Then lets discuss how you should pass this suggestion up the chain.

[Lord Gremlin]

Look, it's silly to discuss implementation of this one particular technology. There's a game called Lead and Gold, which uses PHYSX in both PC and PS3 version, but you know what? It didn't made it any better, really. And for a game like DA2 PHYSX is not important. Therefore people don't care.

[bzombo]

i'm so lost with this stuff i'm not even sure what physx does exactly. all i know is i have a video card that has physx, but i don't know anything about it.

[Lord Gremlin]

It's physics engine, essentially... Some videocards have it, also PS3 has it.

[Atranox]

As an NVIDIA fan and user....GPU-accelerated PhysX is complete and utter garbage.

Why would you want it? All that it does is segment the user base and isolate ATI users while providing sub-par physics. Why in the world would it make any sense for Bioware to add effects that only NVIDIA users could experience, when they can use CPU physics that are just as good that both ATI & NVIDIA users could have?

There are plenty of other physics engines that provide better physics for less of a performance hit. This is why throughout the entire life of PhysX, there have literally only been 13 games that have used PhysX acceleration on the GPU. Why? Because it sucks compared to other alternatives.

If you've noticed, the lead PhysX creator & developer left NVIDIA a few months ago.  NVIDIA also cancelled the devleopment of PhysX CPU's.  It's a technology that appears to be slowly fading, especially now that ATI has gained a huge market share & 2 of the top 3 NVIDIA manufacturers dropped them.  No game developer is going to invest time to implement a technology that only half of their userbase can use, when they can more easily implement one that everyone can use.

Modifié par Atranox, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:24 .

[Monstruo696]

Atranox wrote... 

Why would you want it? 

Why not, all games that have it so far have to option to turn it off.  There are also much simpler physics engines that only ragdoll a body until it stops moving for a second and then it locks it into place.  

Modifié par Monstruo696, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:25 .

[Atranox]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Atranox wrote... 

Why would you want it? 

Why not, all games that have it so far have to option to turn it off.  There are also much simpler physics engines that only ragdoll a body until it stops moving for a second and then it locks it into place.  

Because if you have it and turn it off, you don't get the physics effects.  Why implement GPU-accelerated PhysX and only allow NVIDIA users to see the physics, when you can use CPU-accelerated PhysX or Havok and allow all users to see the effects?  That makes no sense.

You can have...

1. GPU-accelerated PhysX.  NVIDIA users could see these effects but ATI users could not.
2. CPU-accelerated PhysX.  All users could see these effects.
3. Havok. All users could see these effects.
4. Other advanced physics engine. All users could see these effects.

Which one stands out as making no sense to you?  I know which one does to me.

Modifié par Atranox, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:38 .

[Mad Method]

Monstruo, that's not an acceptable response. Please read Atranox's post properly before you ask a silly question that's already been thoroughly answered.

Atranox, when you put it like that, it sounds like you could do #1 and fallback on #2 for people without the proper GPUs. This way you could offload the physics processing. But from what you've mentioned, other engines would have less of a performance hit, regardless?

And Ashertron, asking someone to use a different physics engine when they're in the latter stages of development is bad timing.

More importantly, do we even know what physics engine DA is on? Whatever it's using, it doesn't seem to be very advanced.

PS: For those of you who don't know, Havok is Half Life 2's physics engine.

Modifié par Mad Method, 04 décembre 2010 - 11:42 .

[Burdokva]

As an ATI user, and having experience from Mass Effect 2, I'll say no. I have nothing against PhysX, except that even when I do not own an nVidia GPU I am still required to install a third-party driver software to run a game; and the PhysX drivers are large, cumbersome, slowdown the Windows OS and are utterly useless if you don't own a PhysX card.



If there's a loop around that (no software installation necessary to run the game for ATI users), I'm all for it. Otherwise, please stick with the good old Havoc.

[Dubidox]

With the rise of 2, 4, and soon to be 8 core processors(and that's just physical cores not logical cores) having GPU implemented physics just seems pointless. Most games don't use enough threads to max out the cpu and that would really be the only time gpu physics starts to shine.



Physx was nifty and neat back when CPUs were advancing by increasing clockspeeds, now that the focus seems to be on making smaller more efficient cores and cramming as many as possible on to a single CPU I see it going the way of the dinosaur.

[Zhijn]

bzombo wrote...

i'm so lost with this stuff i'm not even sure what physx does exactly. all i know is i have a video card that has physx, but i don't know anything about it.

Its eye candy for a graphic enthusiast, thats about it.

[Monstruo696]

Mad Method wrote...

Monstruo, that's not an acceptable response. Please read Atranox's post properly before you ask a silly question that's already been thoroughly answered.

Speaking of reading, I never asked a question.

Good day.

Modifié par Monstruo696, 23 juillet 2010 - 07:53 .

[Loerwyn]

I would argue that BioWare drop PhysX. There's utterly no need for it in Dragon Age, and other systems exist which are "better". One of the best ones in the industry is the modified Havok engine that Valve use in their Source engine games (HL2, Portal, etc), and that's a software solution.

As a reluctant nVidia user, I think it'd be for the better if PhysX was dropped. It's just... not good.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, I'm still not hearing any real case for using PhysX.

[Monstruo696]

DA:O never used any kind of physics engine, I don't see what the problem is.

[Atranox]

Monstruo696 wrote...

DA:O never used any kind of physics engine, I don't see what the problem is.

DAO uses CPU-accelerated PhysX.

And again...what is your argument FOR GPU-accelerated PhysX?  I see plenty against it, but not a single argument for it.  Please tell me why GPU-PhysX would be better than CPU-PhysX, Havok, or any other physics engine out there.  It's the exact same engine except it requires an NVIDIA card.  Please tell me how that would be a good thing.

[Mad Method]

Monstruo696 wrote...

Mad Method wrote...

Monstruo, that's not an acceptable response. Please read Atranox's post properly before you ask a silly question that's already been thoroughly answered.

Speaking of reading, I never asked a question.

Good day.

"Why not?" constitutes a question.

Modifié par Mad Method, 24 juillet 2010 - 12:32 .

[Chuvvy]

Mad Method wrote...

Monstruo696 wrote...

Mad Method wrote...

Monstruo, that's not an acceptable response. Please read Atranox's post properly before you ask a silly question that's already been thoroughly answered.

Speaking of reading, I never asked a question.

Good day.

"Why not?" constitutes a question.

That he answered himself. lrn2 rhetorical question.

[Mad Method]

He did not answer himself. Go learn what rhetorical questions are yourself.

At any rate, I think this whole discussion about physics engines is kind of moot at the moment. Until they start actually making real use of physics, I'm not particularly inclined to care what they're using.

Modifié par Mad Method, 24 juillet 2010 - 12:52 .

[Chuvvy]

He lead off a statement with a question. It's just something people say. You can't honestly tell me that every time you heard some one say "Why not?" you thought they were actually asking a question. It's a rhetorical question that is used as an answer. **** I'm not having this discussion.

[Rubbish Hero]

3d vision support also please.

[Lord Gremlin]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

 
3d vision support also please.

You work for Sony? 
Seriously, why would you need it? You can't play with 3D for a long time, it's harmful for eyes.

[Rubbish Hero]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

 
3d vision support also please.

You work for Sony?

3d vision is pc not console.
Boiware crap nvidia support, practically none.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 24 juillet 2010 - 01:20 .