PhysX

[TheCapulet]

All I ever hear is AMD users banging on about how useless PhysX is and how it isn't a selling point etc.

Guess that only applies when it's games they don't care about

PhysX is awesome in nearly every aspect. It's an awesome achievement for the guys who made it. It's a free, full featured CPU/GPU Physics SDK. And in an alternate world, it would be an awesome addition to the industry and market.

What people really should be banging about is that it's not only used as a selling point, but also (And much more effectively) as market extortion. Nvidia gives developers money, top level support, and bucketloads of Nvidia cards to put in dev machines, as long as they include certain specific instruction sets and run their middleware.
Then when the games that could potentially be freakin awesome come out, we're getting a message from nvidia reading, "Buy our Cards or your game is going to suck". Mafia 2 is a prime example (Granted it sucked anyways, but that's another story).

This sucks for everyone, not just ATI users. Not because you get to play the game with higher frames than we do because of proprietary middleware, but because as long as the industry is divided on physics, it will never advance in that aspect.

I have a 9800GT that works perfectly with the hacked drivers to get it working along side my crossfired ATI cards. So really the only thing bad I get out of the deal is a higher power bill (I leave it out because of this). But idealistically, I want nothing to do with PhysX, just simply because of what it stands for. There are so many comparable alternatives, it just makes no sense to use it, outside of selling out.

[BangTail]

The usual flawed AMD user argument.

/yawn

Although, as you said, you want nothing to do with it so I guess it works out for everyone

[Bulldogs]

In the end it comes down to not, "why use Physx?", but instead "why not use Physx?"

Physx is a physics engine, like every other physics engine out there. The bonus of Physx is that it grants nVidia users bonus features, those features being disabled if you don't use an nVidia card.

But AMD/ATi users still get standard CPU based physics and minor GPU faced physics (ie; grass movement).

NVidia users get bonus features. If any other physics engine was used then it would be standard CPU based physics without the extra features to nVidia users.

So basically saying that using Physx is unfair because of the nVidia advantage is like saying that it's unfair for one kid to starve while another eats, then solving the problem by taking the food away so they both starve.

[Pathetic_Berserker]

I do feel a pang of symapathy for ArmA fans with ATI cards, but any argument about it here is gong to be flawed because.

1. BIS have already had to weigh up thier options and would have taken into account probably more than we know about.

2. They have advertised thier decision and that stance is unlikely to change.

In my experiance so far I found that switching PhysX on does little more than improve the particle effects and eye candy for those that have time to take note. And although it would be good to see it do more , I hope not for ArmA3.

All I can say to those sitting on the ATI side of the fence, is don't despair. If your an ArmA fanboy/girl you still have 12 mths to save for an Nvidia upgrade.

[Madus_Maximus]

I'm pretty certain that the main reason they're going with PhysX are: they've already implemented it into the engine for VBS2, it's a well documented and mature library. The competing libraries that run on OpenCL (and thus, both sides GPU's) is still in development and has yet to be proven.

If it's possible to build the game in such a way that you can swap out the physics engine being used without a massive rewrite of the source code, I'm sure BIS will do this so it leaves them open to implement a better supported engine at some point in the future. I don't see this happening however.

Maybe by the time the first expansion pack is on the cards the competing brand agnostic library will have been released, be proven and be mature enough for them to implement this instead, then charge us for it, which I'm sure people will be happy to pay for if it benefits a good number of the community.

On another note. The people complaining in this thread about something we've been asking BIS to do for over a decade now is the main reason I really lost interest in the community. Back in OFP days everyone helped each other and took what we got graciously and gave constructive feedback. Now it's turned into a bunch of entitled snobs who question everything we get given with suspicion and then demand something else, or just complain for the sake of complaining.

[NodUnit]

Pretty much, we want X, then Nooo why! it's not perfect!...take what you get guys yeesh. personally I'm looking forward to seeing what can be done by both the developers and the community, this could open a whole new door in addons.

[Steakslim]

Nod, your poor Apache is gonna need to be updated not long after you and Franze get it finished and released.

[msy]

Can someone confirm that which physx mode will ARMA3 use? a CPU-PHYSX mode or GPU-PHYSX mode or both mode?
I don't want to see I have to earn only 19 FPS if I use any kind of AMD card thanks to NVDIA's wiles.
I like BIS' game, I also like AMD card...

[NodUnit]

Nod, your poor Apache is gonna need to be updated not long after you and Franze get it finished and released.

Depends on how quickly we'd move from A2 to A3, if render to texture is there when we'd probably be all over it otherwise it would be more of a 'when we get around to it'. But I look forward to the day I can take off and tilt too much recklessly, thus rolling into a hangar and cause my blades to break off, already getting ideas.

physX shouldn't bring your game to a halt just becuase you have an ATI card, I've used it before with an ATI card and my computer didn't turn into a slide show, it probably didn't function as effectively and possible that I may have been missing out on a few things but overall I still got it.

[Demonized]

I myself like nVidia, and in 12 months time im pretty sure i will have to buy a whole new computer to run Arma3 anyway, so buying a Nvidia instead of a ATI or whatever does not bother me at all.

The intense discussion on this topic is somewhat strange so early, still a year to go before a potential release, thats 12 months of technological progress, wich is like virus, we will probably see next generation CPU´s and GPU´s before launch of Arma3.
i11´s, 4GB 8GHz GPU´s and 4800 MHz DDR6.