Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DXVK-NVAPI 0.5.2 Released With Entry Points For NVIDIA PhysX

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eyesore
    replied
    Originally posted by middy View Post
    just because the engine supports it doesn't mean its actually in use by the game. the developers have to enable it and use it with their game. for example, UE also supports raytracing, but most UE games don't have raytracing support.
    PhysX is (was?) the only physics engine Epic Games implemented into UE4. It's the core component of it. How do you think physics and collision detection was achieved without it? With cosmic stardust and Genie's magic fart?
    Ray-tracing on the other hand is entirely optional.

    Obviously games don't have to use it if devs don't want to and they can swap it out if they so choose (and some have), however, you miss the point here that PhysX has been THE physics engine which UE4 ships with (or at least was the only one up until some recent release IIRC) for all this time, and most game developers don't care, or perhaps few select don't even know what a physics engine is, and will make use of whatever is the default and take it as a any other self-evident feature of the engine. Up until recently PhysX was the default in the UE4.

    Leave a comment:


  • kylew77
    replied
    Originally posted by middy View Post
    me too but nvidia had to buy the company and make it that you needed a nvidia gpu for it
    Yeah some corporate acquisitions are great like AMD picking up ATI, others not so much like PhyX getting acquired by Nvidia. Really sucks for the ones that wind up sucking. Nothing will ever top the tragedy of Oracle acquiring Sun Microsystems for me though. Killing off OpenSolaris was a real punch in the gut. I liked OpenSolaris! Even used it in college some, it had a great future before it was murdered!

    Leave a comment:


  • middy
    replied
    Originally posted by eyesore View Post
    UE4 for one utilizes PhysX so that's quite a lot games out there that use it, assuming for a moment we can call most of the stuff that's being made with UE4 "games", of course.

    On the good (but old) side Metro games (4A Engine) used it, tho it wasn't really that impressive. Just few dozen miniature billboards trying to act like a debris. Nothing fancier. Not sure about the last game, or anything besides it really.


    Not sure if you're referring to that AMD and Intel users wouldn't want it or they couldn't run a program depending on it, because they can. besides GPU acceleration PhysX also has a CPU implementation too.


    Closest I can think of/remember is one of the Autodesk's softs but don't quote me on that.
    just because the engine supports it doesn't mean its actually in use by the game. the developers have to enable it and use it with their game. for example, UE also supports raytracing, but most UE games don't have raytracing support.

    not to many games use physx these days and honestly that's a good thing. being limited to only nvidia hardware for acceleration is extremely anti user. much like dlss being limited to nvidia hardware only.
    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
    I still remember when dedicated PhysX accelerator cards came out. Always wanted to get my hand on one and really thought they would become the "next big thing" in PC gaming- Windows or Linux having a dedicated second card for Physics processing would be required in the near future. Kind of a shame that didn't happen.
    me too but nvidia had to buy the company and make it that you needed a nvidia gpu for it

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by kiffmet View Post
    Besides, with people having more CPU cores, is there even a point in GPU accelerated physics in games anymore?
    If there actually was a strong need for that, a vendor agnostic implementation using Vulkan/DirectX/OpenGL compute capabilites or OpenCL would already have surfaced until now.
    The issue with GPU accelerated physics is that running it there takes power away from the actual rendering of the game graphics. So you really don't want to do anything too crazy on the physics side in order to make sure you aren't just slowing the game down - which means you can just run what you need on a background CPU core without any problems anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • kiffmet
    replied
    Unfortunately, PhysX without GPU acceleration is no better than Havoc or Bullet when it comes to games nowadays, as it isn't used to provide additional effects or fluid simulation anymore. Besides, with people having more CPU cores, is there even a point in GPU accelerated physics in games anymore?
    If there actually was a strong need for that, a vendor agnostic implementation using Vulkan/DirectX/OpenGL compute capabilites or OpenCL would already have surfaced until now.

    Leave a comment:


  • kylew77
    replied
    I still remember when dedicated PhysX accelerator cards came out. Always wanted to get my hand on one and really thought they would become the "next big thing" in PC gaming- Windows or Linux having a dedicated second card for Physics processing would be required in the near future. Kind of a shame that didn't happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • eyesore
    replied
    Originally posted by Vorpal View Post
    Is there any actual game (i.e. not a tech demo) that uses PhysX for anything except gimmicks (e.g. more realistic long hair)?​​
    UE4 for one utilizes PhysX so that's quite a lot games out there that use it, assuming for a moment we can call most of the stuff that's being made with UE4 "games", of course.

    On the good (but old) side Metro games (4A Engine) used it, tho it wasn't really that impressive. Just few dozen miniature billboards trying to act like a debris. Nothing fancier. Not sure about the last game, or anything besides it really.

    Originally posted by Vorpal View Post
    Is there any actual game (i.e. not a tech demo) that uses PhysX for anything except gimmicks (e.g. more realistic long hair)?​​
    Not sure if you're referring to that AMD and Intel users wouldn't want it or they couldn't run a program depending on it, because they can. besides GPU acceleration PhysX also has a CPU implementation too.

    Originally posted by Vorpal View Post
    What about non-game software though? Thinking maybe CAD or simulation software?​​
    Closest I can think of/remember is one of the Autodesk's softs but don't quote me on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vorpal
    replied
    Is there any actual game (i.e. not a tech demo) that uses PhysX for anything except gimmicks (e.g. more realistic long hair)?

    I'm guessing the answer is no, since then they couldn't sell it to AMD and Intel users.

    What about non-game software though? Thinking maybe CAD or simulation software?

    ​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Linuxxx
    replied
    Too bad I already played through it without PhysX, as this is what I missed out on:
    PhysX utilizes CUDA, thus nvcuda.dll must also be present in the Wine prefix. Wine-Staging ships a suitable CUDA implementation. Additionally, the latest PhysX runtime should be used. Winetricks (or Protontricks) allows installing a suitable PhysX runtime. Having both requirements fulfilled allows enabling "Interactive Paper Debris" and "Interactive Smoke & Fog" in "Batman: Arkham Knight".
    Not quite sure myself if I'm being sarcastic right now or not...

    Leave a comment:


  • DXVK-NVAPI 0.5.2 Released With Entry Points For NVIDIA PhysX

    Phoronix: DXVK-NVAPI 0.5.2 Released With Entry Points For NVIDIA PhysX

    DXVK-NVAPI as the open-source project implementing support for NVIDIA's NVAPI within the realm of DXVK is out with a new release, which is exciting for NVIDIA Linux gamers...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
Working...
X