PhysX vs PhysX GPU Particles

Discussion in 'Player Support' started by codeForge, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. Hyperz

  2. DonkeyDoodah

    If nv wasn't paying devs to use physx... it would die. Most companies have moved on to other engines.
    • Up x 3
  3. DonkeyDoodah

    The problem is that Physx would run on AMD if nVidia just let it ... Both AMD and NV cards use OpenCL which is all that is needed.

    nVidia actually stopped Physx working on AMD cards just after SoE agreed to us it in their games.
    • Up x 3
  4. DaninTexas

    This. Nvidia is strong arming AMD and the gamers just support it.
    • Up x 1
  5. Hydragarium

    Lets see - the first link is a "We want profiles to emulate this" for Wine. Yeah I feel so schooled.
    The second (and presumably the third one judging by the link address - it never loaded) are entirely flawed. The performance is NOT much better in Linux. Few days later they debunked the earlier story themselves - they were optimizations that was only applied to their Linux ports. Once they added the same to their Windows versions, the performance was back on par.
    • Up x 1
  6. Gaff

    I'd be pointing the finger more at ATi than Nvidia. It isn't Nvidia's job to modify their software and APIs so that it can run on hardware that they are not making a dime from selling.

    ATi had the chance to get in on this and said no. That is on them.
    • Up x 1
  7. Zmann966

    I got excited about the new Nvidia beta drivers and PhysX particle support (what was it, last week ish?) and did the process to force GPU physics using the .ini and tried to install the new driver.
    Long story short the new drivier didn't take, but the force of the GPU physics increased my FPS from 60-70avg to 100-120avg.
    I'm loving it, just trying to get these new drivers in and see what the particle systems will drop it down to, I think I could do with back down to 60~...
  8. Hyperz

  9. Hydragarium

    Oh totally - but lets be honest. Back when PhysX was a more open (and independent) platform, it was nothing but gimmicks. Windows that break realistically? Flags that wave in the wind and so forth. It was pointless to put that into your hardware.

    And it was - for a long while. But nVidia has managed to market it off as a "prettier" alternative to ye olde physics engines of the past.
  10. BenYeeHua

    You are saying Intel too.;)
    And AMD software library running better than it with Intel processor, but so bad it can only for linux...
  11. Gaff

    Certainly. I don't even think it needs to be flashy effects in every game. I actually liked the implementation in Borderlands 2, and there is was mostly just fabric twirling and flags interacting with the wind. I thought it was cool.
  12. SomeRandomNewbie

    Poor wording on my part, but by entity I meant the objects, players, and npcs producing the particles, not the number of particles themselves. To put this in perspective, as a TR player I have 200 rounds in the magazine of my minigun. Each round I shoot into the ground with gpu/physx on produces a dozen or more particles. Emptying my magazine has just created at least 2,400 new particles to track. But lets be conservative and say each player has 40 bullets for this hypothetical battle, with particles lasting just 5 seconds.

    Multiply that by the number of players in front of you you in typical fight, with 40 or more people duking it out. You're looking at a potential for 19,200 particles, and we're only up to 40 players in your field of view.

    In beta we didn't have the server side culling either, and from what's been said here in the forums there's testing to reduce the amount of culling. If we ever got back to beta's lack of culling, you could be looking at 600 people (those entities I mentioned earlier) fighting over the crown, for example.

    600 * 40 * 12 -> 288,000 particles. And this isn't counting the inevitable vehicle wreckage, dust trails cast up by tanks and low flying aircraft, smoke from destroyed turrets, particles from medi-guns, explosions, and indar's signature sandstorms, and the fact that 80% of the games population are heavies with larger magazines than that. all of these particles are testing for and reacting to force from those same explosions, bouncing off terrain, and so on and so forth.

    There's a huge difference in scale between PS2 and M2. But hey, if you want to compare apples and orangutans, be my guest.
    • Up x 2
  13. BenYeeHua

    Ya, we love it, just there are also other like bullet can be running on all GPU with OpenCL too.
  14. BenYeeHua

    I just want to eat some Apples.:D
  15. Hyperz

    Your claim was DirectX means it can only be used on MS OS's which is wrong because there are things like the Wine project to which I provided a link to. 2nd link disproves you "slow" argument: OpenGL + API translation = faster than a DirectX implementation which has been worked on for over 7 years. 3rd link are the technical details of their implementation. And yes, they found that one of the OpenGL optimizations they did can be ported over to the DirectX one. That doesn't change point #2 though. Troll on.
  16. Serpent808

    Personally, I think you guys need to stop glorifying PhysX. It's just added razzle dazzle to the game. It's nothing more than that...
  17. Hyperz

    Even a 7970 or 680 isn't gonna simulate that many particles + physics + game graphics at reasonable framerates so I'm 99% there is a hard (reasonable) limit set in the engine. From what I've seen on Youtube they're actually fairly conservative. I'd have to see the real numbers. Or better yet, have an INI setting that lets us force it to run it on the CPU and maybe even define the limit ourselves. I get your point though and I know that massive parallelism is much better suited for GPU's. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. The CPU can handle more than enough of these particles to make it worth it.
  18. Hydragarium

    No I didn't...

    It's hard to take anything you say very serious when you can't even read a post properly.

    Well yes and no - what people typically think of when they hear "PhysX" they think of the eye candy aspect (which is what it is being marketed as to consumers). It is much more than that though - everything that moves in the game has fundemental physics through the PhysX engine.
  19. Hyperz

    Just noticed that was the other guy's claim. Whoops? Still...
  20. BenYeeHua

    Are you sure?
    We are talking about DirectX and OpenGL
    And also why PhysX don't support OpenCL, as other like Bullet is supporting it and can be used for all graphic.:)
    Yes, as you don't watching the particles on the back, they can reduce it, except you are turning back and has a good eyes to see there are losing particles.