What do you think of PhysX?

Promilus · April 3rd, 2009, 09:11 AM

PhysX is far from perfect. Even body physx sucks sometimes (rubber like limbs). And just a few games uses GPU PhysX, like Sacred 2 (no big difference with on or off) and UT3 (well, here is quite good)...and of course Mirror's Edge (mixed feelings, gpu physx is visible but is just a cool addition, not something YOU MUST HAVE).

technogiant · April 3rd, 2009, 10:42 AM

Physx only provides eye candy as its not a universal standard and so couldn't be classed as a must have....only when a universal standard is achieved will we see worthwhile game altering physics.....the way it's going it looks more likely that Havoc rather than Physx will provide that universal standard.

That said I've got an original ageia ppu pci card in my ATi system.....I don't like to miss out.

dammit45 · April 4th, 2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Regardless of whether the wiggly bit of cloth hanging over there is accelerated or not, it still lowers FPS. And as such is a feature I don't want.

Couldn't agree more, and Nvidia physX games have a CRAP load of fps lost, so i dont support this physX crap either

blindartist · April 4th, 2009, 02:56 AM

i think physics in itself is cool in games, even if you take a small hit on the fps thats to be expected, but nvidia physx is, poorly implemented, crap api, shitty for developing on and just a waste of time plus you gotta run a nvidia card to get it which is a waste all in itself

Im hoping that soon physx will just be a bad aftertaste in the mouts of gamers as they enjoy havoc

lyla · April 4th, 2009, 03:56 AM

I think PhysX or similar APIs are just too early atm, it is a bit like when 3DFX went for quality over FPS, while Nvidia went for FPS > quality. So 3dfx were pushing AA/AF etc. for improving the look of your games while Nvidia were just pushing faster framerates at higher resolutions. Now Nvidia are making 3dfx's mistake all over.

Particularly as most games involve multiplayer or online content, to be competitive you want max FPS, resolution, detail. Not fluff that disguises content, or distracts the eye from the enemy. I don't believe the average consumers systems are up to delivering both detailed Physx animated fluff, plus the high resolutions and framerates we desire. I still barely play with AA enabled, as I prefer 1920*1200, than x2 x4 AA at lower resolutions or slower FPS at the same resolution. So the last thing I want is another effect sandbagging my system.

In 1-2 years time, perhaps then the average gaming system will be able to do both, but I still believe games have plenty to exploit in terms of extra polys/texture resolution, AI etc. before they need to worry about physx accelerated rubbish bags floating around the scene. Yes if you have multiple Nvidia cards etc. you can do it with little sacrifice. But we have to think about the average consumer. Which will be 1 card of a 7800 -> 275 or x2#### -> 4870, and as such it really isnt an essential part of gaming atm. When the average system is baseline 4870/275 or similar, with next gen Dx11 parts being the average perhaps then it will be more beneficial. But whilst over 90% of consumers cant support Physx(or similar), it will never be that major an element in the game as to be important to be there(hardware accelerated) or not.

saikamaldoss · April 6th, 2009, 01:44 AM

it would be nice to see it working on ATI card..

dammit45 · April 6th, 2009, 08:07 AM

agreed, saikamal

saikamaldoss · April 6th, 2009, 10:14 AM

blindartist · April 6th, 2009, 02:50 PM

id rather just see it dissapear, and hopefully soon it will

wow the nvidia employees sure are busy voting up the "must have it" category

Batman · April 6th, 2009, 04:32 PM

hi,

i have one single question.

can i use physix with my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT. I dont dare to install it.
i would need it for playing Two Worlds .. but it's my working pc ....