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!
oh...btw,Destructable architechture for one...
That is not the problem...some people would deny us those effects...either because AMD GPU's don't run CUDA....or because they.....well I can't think oof any other reason to stop Progress actually.
To those people that don't want the effects:
Turn them off in settings....problem solved!
But don't go around advocating that I shouldn't get the effects...that is just stupid.
At last.
Artistic options, everyone has their own.
"Beams" this isn't mechwarrior...
a software created to sell gpus :sneaky:
I've offered that countless times! One can disable PhysX in the control panel if one doesn't like it! The part I don't understand is why someone would spend time about a feature not worthy of using!
It is disappointing that PhysX remain a niche part of PC gaming because its implementation has never been taken seriously.
It is disappointing that PhysX remain a niche part of PC gaming because its implementation has never been taken seriously.
Again it seems you have gone off track, its was not about whether it can be turned off or not, it was about you telling me that's its better because its dynamic and interactive as if that's at that counts no matter how bad it looks to others.
There is difference between designing something to fit an aesthetic and adding effects on top for nothing but superfluous reasons, which perfectly describes the inclusion of PhysX in Hawken.
It is disappointing that PhysX remain a niche part of PC gaming because its implementation has never been taken seriously.
Imho,
That's not true and wouldn't be in nVidia's self interest based on bringing PhysX to ARM -- a robust CPU PhySX.
And NVidia have entirely done it to themselves.
yeah... Nvidia and ARM have nothing in common
oh...btw,
http://physxinfo.com/news/9425/borderlands-2-is-cpu-capable-of-handling-the-physx-effects/
not bad when the cpu uses half the power, and using the old SDK2.8.4...and a software created to sell gpus :sneaky:
To summarize: If you are playing Borderlands 2 in Single Player mode, carefully avoiding fluid emitting weapons/enemies and staying away from certain areas of the game you may find a CPU execution of PhysX effects sufficient. But if want really comfortable gameplay, without any compromises presence of NVIDIA GPU is still a mandatory.
There is difference between designing something to fit an aesthetic and adding effects on top for nothing but superfluous reasons, which perfectly describes the inclusion of PhysX in Hawken.
It is disappointing that PhysX remain a niche part of PC gaming because its implementation has never been taken seriously.
You're entitled to your opinion -- don't agree with it!
While I have no issues with the effects "fitting in", that's an objective opinion which you and everyone else is entitled to.
It's disappointing it's not more common, it's disappointing AMD won't get in on it, it's disappointing that games can't be built from the ground up around it, but mostly it's disappointing people still use superfluous reasons outside Nvidia's control to fault it.
I don't see others liking what i dislike as wrong, but if i say that the effects looks crap then that should be the end of that, it being dynamic and blah blah blah should not even come into it.
To be fair -- ATI was very bullish about GPU Physics with HavokFX. The tragedy to me was Intel swooping in buying Havok leaving ATI and nVidia empty handed.
Of course it should because that is the entire point of advanced physics, imho!
If it was THAT good it would be in a LOT more games and would have a lot more support from BOTH Nvidia and AMD.
My opinion is that it is resource hungry,unrealistic and tacky looking.
but you did let mine conclusion out... it's not really fair, yet the cpu does a heck of a good job...Lets not leve the conclusion out: