PhysX

[Westsailor]

i know nothing of Physx. My question is this:

Is Physx used only for the 'eyecandy' type effects (destructibility, explosions, water, etc.)?

Or can it be used for the more substantive elements like calculating bullet drop/deflection, penetration, hit mapping, etc.

[Liquidpinky]

They will be using it for proper simulation like actual ships sinking etc mentioned in the VBS2 Maritime Discussion Paper.
Maybe worth people actually reading it this time round to get an idea what is in store for A3
http://distribution.bisimulations.co...sion_Paper.pdf

[BangTail]

Oh wow, this is the most inane arguement I've seen here.

Did you read any of mine or other anti proponents of Physx arguements at all or are you just talking out of your ass? We're saying if you want to add physics to the engine, use a universal api that doesn't work only on one part of the market.

Your 'arguments' are the same ones I've been hearing for years.

Who would have thought that one company would want to offer incentives to encourage customers to choose their products over a competitors

I don't have a lot of sympathy tbh. Too many AMD fanboys telling me that PhysX sucks and it would never be a factor in determining which card they would purchase.

If it sucks so much and it wasnt a factor, why the sour grapes all of a sudden? It's not like you won't be able to play ArmA 3 or be prohibited from using the PhysX engine. The only limitation will be that you will not have GPU Physics.

If you're not happy with that, you can always buy an Nvidia card. It's not like ArmA 3 is releasing tomorrow.

[Bulldogs]

Oh wow, this is the most inane arguement I've seen here.

Did you read any of mine or other anti proponents of Physx arguements at all or are you just talking out of your ass? We're saying if you want to add physics to the engine, use a universal api that doesn't work only on one part of the market.

Yep, Physx works on all parts of the Market, just not every feature works outside of nVidia. I don't know of a physics engine that fully utilises hardware physics on ATI and nVidia based cards, but if you have one in mind that's easy to implement into the RV engine then feel free to let BIS know.

[Haystack15]

i know nothing of Physx. My question is this:

Is Physx used only for the 'eyecandy' type effects (destructibility, explosions, water, etc.)?

Or can it be used for the more substantive elements like calculating bullet drop/deflection, penetration, hit mapping, etc.

I would explain it to you, But Im waaaayyyyyy to lazy to type up an essay right now. Even to lazy to copy and paste from Wikipedia

But hey here is a link PhysX

Also, The "Bullet Drop","Deflection" and "Penetration" is already calculated by the CPU. Its pretty much part of the RV Engine if I'm not mistaken. So PhysX shouldn't have to calculate any of that.

Also, Its funny how mad ATI users are getting over here. If PhysX "Can Be" used then ATI users will have to us their CPU. Whats so bad about that? Oh wait I see the problem... You want to your game to be faster. You naughty gamers

[TheCapulet]

i know nothing of Physx. My question is this:

Is Physx used only for the 'eyecandy' type effects (destructibility, explosions, water, etc.)?

Or can it be used for the more substantive elements like calculating bullet drop/deflection, penetration, hit mapping, etc.

PhysX is an entire physics API. PhysX itself is the base standard for it, which runs the non-'eyecandy' stuff that you're talking about. Stuff like destruction calculations, vehicles, hit mapping, animations, ragdoll calculations, etc.
PhysX APEX on the other hand is a subsection of PhysX that deals specifically with the eycandy. It handles things like cloth physics calculations, 100,000+ particle effects, volumetric FX, and debris clutter.

Realistically, without APEX stuff turned on, Nvidia and ATI users will have identical experiences. It will all work the same, no matter what.
With APEX capabilities on though, Nvidia users will have much better graphics due to the fancy effects that APEX enables that I explained above. Gameplay will remain the same, but it will look even better.

----

I'm not really all that upset by this. I have the capabilities to continue to use my ATI cards while still taking advantage of GPU calculated PhysX. But that still doesn't change the fact that like someone said above, most ATI users won't go near the 'jerry-rigged' way of getting it to work like I have.

ATI recently overtook Nvidia in the discrete GPU marketshare, which indicates that despite the fact that Nvidia relies so heavily on PhysX and CUDA as sellingpoints for it's cards, consumers are definitely more interested in $erformance and efficiency than over advertised anti-consumer 'features' that alienate over half of a PC games potential user base.

Make no mistake; PhysX will drastically improve the Arma engine, even without the fancy effects. But it's still going to piss a lot of people off anyways, when there are comparable inter-compatable solutions out or coming out in the near future that could have been used instead.

[BangTail]

PhysX is an entire physics API. PhysX itself is the base standard for it, which runs the non-'eyecandy' stuff that you're talking about. Stuff like destruction calculations, vehicles, hit mapping, animations, ragdoll calculations, etc.
PhysX APEX on the other hand is a subsection of PhysX that deals specifically with the eycandy. It handles things like cloth physics calculations, 100,000+ particle effects, volumetric FX, and debris clutter.

Realistically, without APEX stuff turned on, Nvidia and ATI users will have identical experiences. It will all work the same, no matter what.
With APEX capabilities on though, Nvidia users will have much better graphics due to the fancy effects that APEX enables that I explained above. Gameplay will remain the same, but it will look even better.

----

I'm not really all that upset by this. I have the capabilities to continue to use my ATI cards while still taking advantage of GPU calculated PhysX. But that still doesn't change the fact that like someone said above, most ATI users won't go near the 'jerry-rigged' way of getting it to work like I have.

ATI recently overtook Nvidia in the discrete GPU marketshare, which indicates that despite the fact that Nvidia relies so heavily on PhysX and CUDA as sellingpoints for it's cards, consumers are definitely more interested in $erformance and efficiency than over advertised anti-consumer 'features' that alienate over half of a PC games potential user base.

Make no mistake; PhysX will drastically improve the Arma engine, even without the fancy effects. But it's still going to piss a lot of people off anyways, when there are comparable inter-compatable solutions out or coming out in the near future that could have been used instead.

Nvidia holds the performance crown so whatever but ATI sells more because they are cheaper.

That's the simple fact. If you're interested in pure performance (and things like PhysX) there is only one choice.

[Hamm]

Can you guys please cut the horrible fanboyism on both sides? As has been said before none of us know wether nvidia users will get the option to use their GPU for hardware acceleration of PhysX or not and since it seems PhysX isn't optional like other games but mandatory and used for essential areas such as vehicle simulation I'm assuming there won't be hardware acceleration until BIS advises further.

[BangTail]

There isn't much point in implementing PhysX at all if they aren't going to implement it through hardware (might as well just use a non hardware based solution at that point) so my money is on it being HW accelerated.

PS: I like AMD just fine but I have heard too many AMD users talking about how useless PhysX is and the fact that they are now going to complain because they can't use it doesn't fly with me.

Either it sucks or it doesn't.

[dunedain]

There isn't much point in implementing PhysX at all if they aren't going to allow it through hardware so my money is on it being HW accelerated.

PS: I like AMD juts fine but I have heard too many AMD users talking about useless PhysX is and the fact that they are now going to complain because they can't use it doesn't fly with me.

Either it sucks or it doesn't.

Exactly. Fanboyism is something I personnaly profoundly despise.

I'm not a Nvidia fan since as I usually buy the brand with the best value for money which has been ATI for quite a long time now... Still that since they are going to implement PhysX it would be retarded not to use Nvidia GPU's for hardware acceleration just so ATI fans won't whine...