Hawken, holy gpu physx!

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
imho,

Made possible through advances in physics!

More advances in physics may improve fidelity, realism, immersion, interaction and hopefully the holy grail -- redefine game-play!

I admit, I love the extra eye candy (I always install a hack or just play on the nVidia rig for it) but after so many years, I can only take x-amount of flags waiving and thick water. This holy grail is long over due.

Batman AC, still the best PhysX game. Everything done added immersion and didn't take away. I wasn't blinded by a trillion debris from a cork wall/glass wall/concrete wall like in Mafia 2. BL2, the debris only really added if you had a siren in your crew, the liquid went with the world so kudos.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
If you want to play with the technology, feel free to program in PhysX. That has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is whether a game developer getting paid to leave out superior effects in favor of proprietary gimmicks is good for gaming.

If this was something for which only PhysX was suited, it would be different. But crappy debris effects and particle light effects? We've had that forever. Why do you now need a dedicated GTX 650 Ti for an inferior version?
You'd be screaming your head off if a developer left these effects out of the main game and then released it as day 1 DLC. Yet somehow it's ok to leave out if the "DLC" to get it is the purchase of a $150 dedicated card?


I think the physic effects look wonderful -- adds to the title -- polar opposite view of yours!

My constructive nit-pick? Desire less division so I can see more of these type effects but actually much more.

My view of proprietary is this:

Proprietary may bring division, fragmentation and chaos but it also may bring choice, innovation and improved gaming experiences, which hopefully creates enough awareness so standards may be forged to mature over time. Proprietary certainly isn't ideal but still offers some good and don't allow idealism to be the enemy of good over-all.

It's easy: Don't like the feature? Turn it off! Ignore the feature! By taking so much time and effort talking it down doesn't make much sense to me! I like the potential of improved physics and have been a vocal advocate of GPU physics back in 2006.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
EDIT: Oops, my fault I thought you were responding to me. Consider this a piggy back post. Haha.


EDIT: Since I took this out of context, spoilering it but feel free to read my gaff!
I think the physic effects look wonderful -- adds to the title -- polar opposite view of yours!

Where did I say I felt it didn't add to it? I too feel it adds to the title (as it did to all the titles PhysX was used in.)

My complaint at this point is - I expect more. They used the same effect on 4 different objects, two of which looked awful to me, and 1 which added no real value outside of "the shiney."

But, beggar's can't be choosers, right?

My constructive nit-pick? Desire less division so I can see more of these type effects but actually much more.

Division is good, as you explain in your following paragrpah.

My view of proprietary is this:

Proprietary may bring division, fragmentation and chaos but it also may bring choice, innovation and improved gaming experiences, which hopefully creates enough awareness so standards may be forged to mature over time. Proprietary certainly isn't ideal but still offers some good and don't allow idealism to be the enemy of good over-all.

It's easy: Don't like the feature? Turn it off! Ignore the feature! By taking so much time and effort talking it down doesn't make much sense to me! I like the potential of improved physics and have been a vocal advocate of GPU physics back in 2006.

I like innovation, and I'm all for it, even if I have to jump through hoops to experience it. However, this far in the game I'm starting to question the return value of this investment. No, I'm not one of the bleeding hearts saying PhysX is dead, dying, or in some state of death, but more so, dammit Jim - I'm a gamer not an investor, give me MORE!
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
If you want to play with the technology, feel free to program in PhysX. That has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is whether a game developer getting paid to leave out superior effects in favor of proprietary gimmicks is good for gaming.

If this was something for which only PhysX was suited, it would be different. But crappy debris effects and particle light effects? We've had that forever. Why do you now need a dedicated GTX 650 Ti for an inferior version?
You'd be screaming your head off if a developer left these effects out of the main game and then released it as day 1 DLC. Yet somehow it's ok to leave out if the "DLC" to get it is the purchase of a $150 dedicated card?

Why would I program to enjoy the effects when there are plenty of games to enjoy while gaming, that opening sentence really doesn't make any sense.

The current discussion is based on a falsehood, and has no reason to continue being discussed. As it is the foundation of your argument which you rely solely on to make a point where there is none to be made.

There hasn't been, and never will be anything presented showing that current PhysX titles exhibit a loss of coded effects because they would be replaced with better effects via PhysX.

Not one ounce of proof has been shown on this forum, within this thread or any other that suggests otherwise. It has been only that assumption of those who believe old effects that resemble what Nvidia is currently doing with PhysX were or would have been in place had they not gained access to PhysX.

However the simple, undeniable, easily shown proof of the matter is that those effects don't look amazing in their own right, which is why no decent modern title has them. Be it PhysX titles or none, less even Gaming Evolved, nobody is doing those effects through shader code.



Again it's not about the textures used for the PhysX effects. The fact that you still haven't grasped this simple concept speaks volumes towards what is wrong with your point of view and thus your agenda in this thread as well.

I wouldn't scream anything, the textures and effects themselves are not what I like, it's the physics part which is enjoyable. It's the fact that there is something "real" behind what they're doing that makes it what it is. Not the textures used, or the effects it creates. Sure we could code the same effect or something similar into the game and it would run on everyone's gpu but that would defeat the purpose of PhysX which you can't seem the grasp.
 
Last edited:

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
I like innovation, and I'm all for it, even if I have to jump through hoops to experience it. However, this far in the game I'm starting to question the return value of this investment. No, I'm not one of the bleeding hearts saying PhysX is dead, dying, or in some state of death, but more so, dammit Jim - I'm a gamer not an investor, give me MORE!

That's a very good point on return value -- try to garner value in many platforms -- including CPU PhysX and mobile?

PhysX on Tegra:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvaDtshLY8
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Right...phys can allow a certain degree of interactivity that is unavailable otherwise. Most titles don't really try to do this however

Looks like Dead Space provided more interactivity without PhysX than Hawken does with. Evaporating debris when Dead Space had kinesis projectiles?
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
Sure we could code the same effect or something similar into the game and it would run on everyone's gpu but that would defeat the purpose of PhysX

Which is to make Nvidia money at the expense of the gamer.
Me? I don't like backdoor deals that conspire to cost me money.
 

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Which is to make Nvidia money at the expense of the gamer.
Me? I don't like backdoor deals that conspire to cost me money.

Like anything else, the objective is to profit from it. However your assumption that is comes at the expense of anyone is as baseless as it was when you first said it.

I like it when a giant cooperation like Nvidia infuses a small, independent gaming studio with cash & exposure to make their dreams possible, glass half full vs half empty. :thumbsup:
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
That is because even Havok knew that the CPU isn't able to bring the next step.
what is this next step? MOAR floaty particles?

seriously, AVX-2 is just in the corner, more than half of the gpgpu code will be useless, and physics will be one of them...

actually, cpu physics is very good by iteslf, if used right
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Which is to make Nvidia money at the expense of the gamer.
Me? I don't like backdoor deals that conspire to cost me money.

Imho,

Cost benefit -- invest into creating tools and technologies for multi-platform and their family of technology product offerings and the market may reward them with a premium.

The market ultimately decides if nVidia can command a premium or not.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
what is this next step? MOAR floaty particles?

seriously, AVX-2 is just in the corner, more than half of the gpgpu code will be useless, and physics will be one of them...

actually, cpu physics is very good by iteslf, if used right

LOL....you linked to a debunked Kanter article:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2088022

Good to know the opposition towards PhysX comes from ignorance based on 2010 "ASSumpetions" ^^

Welcome to 2013.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Assumptions?

You would think someone trying to insult someone would use a spellchecker so they don't look like a dumbASS.

Why would I bother?
You didn't posts anything relevant, just the usual "go offtopic to steal focus".

No matter what I do...I seem to atttract tolls that care more about me...then the arguments.

So if I had spelled everything corretly...I would be using the "wrong" font or any other offtopic BS that this forum is ripe with in any thread were AMD isn't praised.
 

Bobisuruncle54

Senior member
Oct 19, 2011
333
0
0
Those physics effects don't really fit the game very well. The explosions look like nothing more than confetti and the turbulence effects don't really compliment the boxy mech aesthetic the rest of the game design veers towards. It should be beam based in order to fit in, but then again that would require some actual integration instead of just slapping tech demo on top of a game and claiming it enriches the immersion.

Why does a mech explode equally all over it's hull? Why aren't their multiple explosions as the damage causes ammunition stores and critical systems to explode? I'm curious as to why they chose a far too over-exaggerated "ember effect" (which it doesn't look like at all) when a mix of embers and physics based smoke would look great, and it's something that PhysX is perfectly capable of?

When a mech walks, why is the stomp effect behaving like a splash? The concrete would be crushed underfoot and when torque is applied to push the mech forward, some of it would be kicked up. The non-PhysX effect is actually far more realistic.

Turbulence looks great but it often has nothing to do with the environment around it. Why don't all the Turbulence effects have direction? The particles from the energy stations surround the player's mech but the health regens don't. The turbulence effects for the shield should show energy absorption by emanating from the weapons hit and then dissipating around the shield.
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126

yeah...with MOAR particles the gpu does better than a CPU... where is actually the next step?

LOL....you linked to a debunked Kanter article:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2088022

Good to know the opposition towards PhysX comes from ignorance based on 2010 "ASSumpetions" ^^

Welcome to 2013.

so?
your link say nothing about your claimed next step of physics...
MOAR particles? this is the next step?
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
yeah...with MOAR particles the gpu does better than a CPU... where is actually the next step?



so?
your link say nothing about your claimed next step of physics...
MOAR particles? this is the next step?


Destructable architechture for one...
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Advances in force fields, cloth, soft and rigid bodies, turbulence, fluids and smoke -- to name some -- more particles accelerated may translate into much more dynamics.
 

The Alias

Senior member
Aug 22, 2012
646
58
91
Those physics effects don't really fit the game very well. The explosions look like nothing more than confetti and the turbulence effects don't really compliment the boxy mech aesthetic the rest of the game design veers towards. It should be beam based in order to fit in, but then again that would require some actual integration instead of just slapping tech demo on top of a game and claiming it enriches the immersion.

Why does a mech explode equally all over it's hull? Why aren't their multiple explosions as the damage causes ammunition stores and critical systems to explode? I'm curious as to why they chose a far too over-exaggerated "ember effect" (which it doesn't look like at all) when a mix of embers and physics based smoke would look great, and it's something that PhysX is perfectly capable of?

When a mech walks, why is the stomp effect behaving like a splash? The concrete would be crushed underfoot and when torque is applied to push the mech forward, some of it would be kicked up. The non-PhysX effect is actually far more realistic.

Turbulence looks great but it often has nothing to do with the environment around it. Why don't all the Turbulence effects have direction? The particles from the energy stations surround the player's mech but the health regens don't. The turbulence effects for the shield should show energy absorption by emanating from the weapons hit and then dissipating around the shield.
quoted for mother effin truth
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
Sure it has -- particles collide and are effected -- much more dynamic!

Again it just for the sake of does not automatically better if the collide and the effected are out of kilter.
You seems ti have a hard time seeing things from other peoples perspective because you like the fact of having more particles and dynamics and it seems to be just that fact alone floats your boat no matter how they are represented i have no problem with you liking that but don't try to make out that i should and others should as well.

There are probably plenty people who like over the top bloom, DOF, motion blur, colour filters, blurry post AA.
 
Last edited:

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Again it just for the sake of does not automatically better if the collide and the effected are out of kilter.
You seems ti have a hard time seeing things from other peoples perspective because you like the fact of having more particles and dynamics and it seems to be just that fact alone floats your boat no matter how they are represented i have no problem with you liking that but don't try to make out that i should and others should as well.

There are probably plenty people who like over the top bloom, DOF, motion blur, colour filters.

I can understand some don't like the performance hit!

I can understand some don't like the feature!

I can understand some don't like proprietary!

It's easy -- don't use the feature -- buy AMD if proprietary bothers someone so much!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |