Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PhysX SDK Support Comes Back To Linux

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

  • BlueJayofEvil
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    The company was a joke, but a hardware accelerated physics engine is not. See the realtime cloth and better looking bullet hits/glass breaking in mafia 2:
    http://physxinfo.com/news/2967/mafia...ects-hands-on/
    The first, the ?clothing module,? will realistically model flowing clothes on what are designated as ?primary characters.?
    This could be done via software and processed on a GPU without the need for PhysX. PhysX may help accelerate this processing but that doesn't mean it can't be done otherwise.

    The second APEX module, the ?destruction module,? models realistic damage and deformation on exploding objects, as well as the concussive force of a powerful explosion with an ?invisible force field? that realistically sends any sufficiently light objects (or characters) flying.
    This has been done before with and without PhysX. Again, it may help accelerate it and/or make it easier to program, but that doesn't mean it's necessary.
    For example, the MMORPGs City of Heroes/Villains implemented PhysX support shortly after AGEIA came to market. You can enable the effects without a PhysX card/Nvidia GPU and let the hardware you do have (CPU/GPU) do the work.

    It also offers Mafia II an enhanced particle system that creates discrete and unique, procedurally generated debris when you or other characters destroy any of the game?s deformable objects.
    (emphasis theirs)

    Many games have done this without PhysX or without need specifically for PhysX-enabled hardware. City of Heroes/Villains, Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 are just a few examples.

    I'm not going to bother quoting more of that article as I'd just be retyping my already made statements.

    As multi-core CPU and multi-GPU setups are becoming more common, I don't see the need for special hardware or vendor lock-in (Nvidia) for some added special effect acceleration. PhysX would likely do better in a console.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackshard
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    The company was a joke, but a hardware accelerated physics engine is not. See the realtime cloth and better looking bullet hits/glass breaking in mafia 2:
    http://physxinfo.com/news/2967/mafia...ects-hands-on/
    All things that a modern quad core processor can't do... can it?

    It's very funny to see that here, on a linux hardware/software prominent site, people still care about such a bunch of crippled and proprietary code.

    Go and give your support to opensource Bullet Physics, instead of celebrating this marketing-addicted x87-compiled blob...

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueJayofEvil View Post
    Even John Carmack stated that PhysX is just a gimmick that doesn't serve much purpose. Here's a video of him discussing that: link
    The company was a joke, but a hardware accelerated physics engine is not. See the realtime cloth and better looking bullet hits/glass breaking in mafia 2:
    http://physxinfo.com/news/2967/mafia...ects-hands-on/

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueJayofEvil
    replied
    Even John Carmack stated that PhysX is just a gimmick that doesn't serve much purpose. Here's a video of him discussing that: link

    I'm glad AMD decided against licensing PhysX from Nvidia. It would add unnecessary cost to their GPUs (however small it may be) and have minimal benefit.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    and it is pretty hard to force compilers to generate x87 code instead of sse....
    gcc -mfpmath=387

    Leave a comment:


  • md1032
    replied
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    VDPAU is most DEFINITELY proprietary. They may have released an API, but they have NOT released the necessary HARDWARE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTATION to actually implement it. As long as the secret sauce in their blob remains secret, VDPAU remains proprietary.
    You're right that NVIDIA's VDPAU implementation is proprietary, but that doesn't make VDPAU *itself* proprietary.

    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    As for APU's not having enough graphics horsepower... To do what exactly? All that they *NEED* to do to virtually WIPE NVIDIA OUT is DRAW THE SCREEN. To top that though, have you actually TRIED an AMD APU?
    I'm sorry, I should have clarified... people also like having games not be a slideshow. I haven't tried an AMD APU because I'd have to replace my whole computer, whereas I can just swap in a different GPU for a fraction of the cost. Also they don't exist yet.

    Really good physics processing absolutely does require a GPU, despite what you might read on SemiAccurate or wherever.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    physx is a bad joke anyway. Every decent CPU would be faster if NVIDIA did not cripple it - and it is pretty hard to force compilers to generate x87 code instead of sse....

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Knowing that Unreal Tournament 3 replies on PhysX for all its physics needs as well as has a map pack exclusive to those who have PhysX cards, it's a good sign.

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    I thought at one time Nvidia offered to let AMD use CUDA on their GPUs as well. I don't know if they wanted anything from AMD in exchange or if the offer is still open.
    Yeah, all they wanted in exchange for it was AMD's silicon specs... so that nvidia could build a blob to run it on AMD chips at a far lower level of performance than it runs on their own (and steal all the competitive advantages AMD has at the same time).

    Sound like a good deal to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • droidhacker
    replied
    Originally posted by md1032 View Post
    VDPAU is not proprietary. Also, combined CPU+GPU chips can never perform well; they'll barely have enough graphics horsepower to draw the screen, let alone process physics.
    VDPAU is most DEFINITELY proprietary. They may have released an API, but they have NOT released the necessary HARDWARE PROGRAMMING DOCUMENTATION to actually implement it. As long as the secret sauce in their blob remains secret, VDPAU remains proprietary.

    As for APU's not having enough graphics horsepower... To do what exactly? All that they *NEED* to do to virtually WIPE NVIDIA OUT is DRAW THE SCREEN. To top that though, have you actually TRIED an AMD APU?

    As for processing physics... you're missing the point. You don't NEED to process "physics". Especially not in the nvidia way! This is what we want to AVOID and is what they are TRYING to lock us in to. Either way though, its use will remain a fringe market.

    BTW: AMD's APUs are looking like they will seriously beat intel's parts to death -- at least in graphics power.... http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rocessors.html

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X