51 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebbe1337o]

There probably won't be since BW likes AMD-cards (many companies favor nVidia-cards and makes them run better with those, but BW has never done this)

And there won't be DX11 since UE3 can't implement it, it only uses DX9 since it's a "fairly old" engine. It was UE3 in ME1 too and I don't think DX11 existed back then. PLUS the ME-series has always been a console game, most people who play it does so on 360, so why would BW pour loads of money on something just 10-15% of the players will be able to use? Neither PS3 not 360 uses DX11, I think they use DX9 as well.



EDIT: Since I prefer AMD cards as well, I hope that they won't implement PhysX. Besides, that would only be available for PC users as well. (I believe neither PS3 nor 360 has PhysX)

Modifié par Sebbe1337o, 07 décembre 2011 - 04:38 .

[Fredvdp]

The PLC wrote...

All this talk about Nvidia and GPU and babble wabble makes my brain hurt... Makes me remember why I stopped playing games on PC.

Quality made you stop playing PC games?

[byzantine horse]

My GTX 560 Ti would be quite thankful for this. Nvidia based games run great on my comp.

[Harmless Citizen]

ME2 already uses PhysX. Isn't anything to write home about.

[PauseforEffect]

So long as giving them more time yields a much better game than if it had been released earlier, I have no problem waiting. Take your time, Bioware, but please do release ME3 eventually.

[Fredvdp]

Random Nobody wrote...

ME2 already uses PhysX. Isn't anything to write home about.

It doesn't use GPU accelerated Physx, which is what this topic is about.

[uzivatel]

Unless Nvidia pays them, I dont think there is much reason to implement vendor specific gimmicky "physics".

vejn wrote...

please, make ME3 possible to play on SSE processors Athlon xp 3000.

People use those to play games?

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 décembre 2011 - 07:45 .

[Beliar86]

What Uzi said. And I even have physX on my 2 year old laptop, lol 250m

Speaking of graphics cards, anybody know of anything with similar power consumption I can upgrade to?

[vejn]

uzivatel wrote...
People use those to play games?

I know, but yes we are. It's quite good for Unreal Engine games. Just this SSE issue with physx is annoying.
Please, can you tell me who is lead programmer in ME3 so I can sen a message to him for this issue ?
I'm most grateful.
Thanks

Modifié par vejn, 08 décembre 2011 - 12:56 .

[GreenSoda]

PhysX implementation so far (at least in any meaningful way) is only being done when NVidia "sponsors" a particular game release.

So I'm thinking, no.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 08 décembre 2011 - 10:58 .

[Walker White]

Actually, ME3 could use better physicx (no X). The lack of power in their physics engine is why singularity killed framerate in ME1. And it is why we cannot have the destructible terrain from the test build. All of these things affect gameplay, unlike high rez textures, which just look pretty.

However, as several people have pointed out, PhysX is not necessarily the thing to solve this problem. Indeed most of the problems with physics in games has to do with memory; GPUs can only parallelize pairwise interactions between bodies if they have a lot of memory. And the XBox has as much memory as an iPhone. This factor, more than anything else, is what is holding gameplay back on the consoles.

[Shepard the Leper]

Walker White wrote...

Actually, ME3 could use better physicx (no X). The lack of power in their physics engine is why singularity killed framerate in ME1. And it is why we cannot have the destructible terrain from the test build. All of these things affect gameplay, unlike high rez textures, which just look pretty.

However, as several people have pointed out, PhysX is not necessarily the thing to solve this problem. Indeed most of the problems with physics in games has to do with memory; GPUs can only parallelize pairwise interactions between bodies if they have a lot of memory. And the XBox has as much memory as an iPhone. This factor, more than anything else, is what is holding gameplay back on the consoles.

That isn't a strong argument. There are plenty of (console) games that use some form of physics - hardware isn't the main issue here. The impact it will have on gameplay is likely a much greater issue. When guns and powers can destroy and manipulate the environment it will be increasingly difficult to balance the game and to make it playable for the majority of gamers. With fixed levels (read fixed coverspots for ME) it's quite easy to guide players through (challenging) battles. When everything can be destroyed things will become increasingly complicated which is likely going to frustrate the "story driven" crowd.

I would love a more interactive environment and I think it would improve gameplay a lot, but unfortunately it aint going to be in ME3 though I would settle with more LotSB level design (ledges, storms, capacitors etc are really cool and add options in combat which is what matters most).

[Walker White]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

That isn't a strong argument. There are plenty of (console) games that use some form of physics - hardware isn't the main issue here.

Some form of physics != destructible terrain with real time gravitational effects on the remnants.  And no, particle systems do not count either, as those are largely cosmetic and do not effect gameplay beyond obscuration.

When guns and powers can destroy and manipulate the environment it will be increasingly difficult to balance the game and to make it playable for the majority of gamers.

This part of your argument is true.  However, recall that the level of environment manipulation we got in ME2 was less than in ME1 (which wasn't destructible, but still manipulative).  And this was because the hardware could not handle the framerate; the devs have admitted as such.

[Shepard the Leper]

@ Walker White,

Battlefield 2 and 3 use a quite impressive physics system (avaible on consoles and pc) and the (frostbite) engine used in both games is visually superior to the ME (Unreal) engine. My point is simple. It can be done without ruining framerates - but again, it will require a lot of work and unlike the Battlefield games, ME has more to offer than impressive explosions and destruction. I wouldn't want to trade a physics system at the cost of characters, story, special abilities and so on.

[someone else]

vejn wrote...

Please Bioware, use Nividia exture tools 2.0.3 like you did for ME2.
Some new Physx uses SSE2 instructions so SSE processros Athlon xp 3000 can't run it.
I think this is also the problem in Dragon age 2.
I don't mind adwanced physx. but
please, make ME3 possible to play on SSE processors Athlon xp 3000.
Thanks

Ho, Ho, Ho, Of course, we'll re-engineer the entire series just for you and we'll get it ALL done by March 12 - now have you been a good little boy?

[Tup3x]

It would be nice bit I would rather take proper DX11 support with tesselation, HBAO and high resolution textures (and proper antialiasing integration this time). That on case we can't have both. Another DX9 release would be a bit dissapointing.

Also on DX11 support on UE3 is bull ****. Support for it has been around quit some time and Batman: Arkham City has DX11 support for example.

Mass Effect has always been PC game too. Can't say the same for PS3 which lacks first Mass Effect and it is integrated on UE3. 99% of UE3 games use it. I can not remember one that would not. It is middleware and it has has console support for ages.

Also Mass Effect has used PhysX since first game. On fancy particle effects and cloth effects, but it. I

Modifié par Tup3xi, 08 décembre 2011 - 05:22 .

[someone else]

...posted by Vertigo_1 in an earlier thread:

Vertigo_1 wrote...

cgrimm54 wrote...

ME3 is using the Unreal Engine 3, just like ME2. They're using the March 2010 release, which is NOT DX11 compatible, unfortunately. Don't remember where I heard this, but it seems like it would be true, considering what we know.

Yeah, it was a question I asked Jesse Houston some time ago:

twitter.com/#!/gtez/status/71359093570412544
"Hey, I wonder if you can tell us which version of the Unreal Engine you will be using for ME3? I have started using UDK and it's fun!"

"March 2010 code drop the rest is custom-built."

Modifié par someone else, 08 décembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Tup3x]

Better to not expect DX11 support then.

[someone else]

yup - got a lecture from Hathur on the topic btw - basically to the effect the ME will be built to run as well as possible on xbox but anything beyond is a waste of resources from devs POV (pcs being too small a market segment to justify the extra effort - I can copy in his views if anyone is interested

[Jotamide]

I approve of this. Also, no 3D love ITT?

[Fredvdp]

Jotamide wrote...

I approve of this. Also, no 3D love ITT?

I don't mind 3D if it's without glasses. Right now the only gaming system that supports this is 3DS. I tested Star Fox in a store recently and while the effect is really nice, after a few minutes you don't even notice you're playing in 3D. However, once I turned off 3D I noticed I got worse at the game because of the lack of depth.

The problem with 3D is that it takes a chunck out of your framerate and I don't want them to compsomise the graphics quality just so the game can be rendered twice at 30 fps on consoles. PC shouldn't have those problems but ME2 on PC also suffered from some of the Xbox 360's limitations (two discs -> can't recruit squadmates whenever you want) and I bet ME3 will also only be as good as the least advanced gaming system allows it to be.

[DCarter]

Jotamide wrote...

I approve of this. Also, no 3D love ITT?

It's just a gimmick i'd rather they not waste time with 3D or the kinnect support they added.