"I hope nVidia didnt pay alot for Ageia"

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.gamephys.com/2009/08/20/john-carmack-not-a-big-fan-of-physx/

Is this a knock on physx or ageia?
Or a promotion of havok/opencl?

 

[Helloworld_98]

I think it's a knock on PhysX.

Although he should have said "Why do Nvidia even bother with CUDA and PhysX, they'll have gone bust within a couple of years."

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thing is, my impression was, the HW approach, he didnt ever care for, and was always looking to a SW solution.
But another thing is, Ive seen great programmers who dont have a clue about HW, and vice versa

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Maybe nVidia saw something in ageias arch that needed hw implementation is my guess, and Carmack most likely doesnt have a clue when it comes to these things, tho, again, I may be wrong

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

You forgot the waving cloth and the busted exactly 10 pieces of glass each time heheh

 

[jimmysmitty]

I find PhysX belh really. Its not really going to be able to just bust in and take Havok out of the game. Havok has been doing it a long time and has their name in almost every game for its great realistic physics.

Of course a hardware approach to it using a GPU might be cool to see if it can do it while doing rendering, as long as the games performance does not go down.

Intel has Havok now which means it may be pointing towards CPUs or possibly LRB. We will see later.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

I don't understand why everyone puts so much stock into what carmack thinks. As smart as the man is, his games haven't really pushed the bounderies of game development since the original doom.

Personally I'll worry about the future of hardware physics when valve or even Ubisoft, have something to say about it.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I doubt Rage will have it

 

[invisik]

In my opinion nvidia physx has a future they just need to integrate it better. For example mirrors edge, ut3 etc physics adds nice visual effects to the games but cost to much of a performance hit. If they can add more visual effects and less of a performance hit i think they'll get far. As for what John Carmack thinks i could care less unless many more highly respectable devs admit its a useless feature.

Looks good to me.
http://www.gamephys.com/2009/08/23/new-cryostasis-physx-comparison-video-from-nvidia/

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I agree, they definately need to integrate it better, starting with allowing it on ATI and future Intel cards, right theres theyll have (after Intel and LRB) a 50% better integration into the market
To me, falling short of this, theyre killing off physx

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

To me, its walking the fine line alot of us do, turning down the eyecandy for better gameplay.
Eyecandy is somewhat immersive, but a overall better written game is still priority No.1
If anyone can put the eyecandy together with actual gameplay, its no brain winner, and so far, that hasnt come close to happening, and it never will, since nVidias approach is only towards 1/2 the available market

 

[djcoolmasterx]

I really would rather they release a game GPU accellerated Havok and stop bitching about Physx...

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

I agree that nvidia, ATI and Intel need to agree on how they handle hardware physics. However there really needs to be a bridge between the two, Just like the first days of 3D acceleration.

What really needs to happen IMO is a single API that can call on either the cpu or the gpu to do physics work. This way game developers can feel comfortable coding physics. As physics in game grows, GPU physics will become the norm and CPU solutions will be phased out.

 

[Upendra09]

the best game isn't just eyecandy and game play

It's RT+Physx+game playnow that is some teeth rotting eyecandy.