PhysX

[Old Bear]

I am blaming nobody, you will get a playable game, whatever your GPU will be provided you get a powerful CPU.

Performances in ArmA were already quite CPU dependent due to the ways the game is built. You can see there is not so big a jump in GPU requirements as there is on CPU requirements, from what I understand, it means that the PhysX in ArmA 3 will be a CPU thing, needing perhaps a full thread on the needed 4 cores CPU.

Nvidia is working this way for years, of course they tend to make you believe in their commercials, that a Nvidia GPU is needed but they have already show they can be damn adaptable, even selling SLI licences for future AMD motherboard, it's called realism

[Terracide]

I am blaming nobody, you will get a playable game, whatever your GPU will be provided you get a powerful CPU.

Performances in ArmA were already quite CPU dependent due to the ways the game is built. You can see there is not so big a jump in GPU requirements as there is on CPU requirements, from what I understand, it means that the PhysX in ArmA 3 will be a CPU thing, needing perhaps a full thread on the needed 4 cores CPU.

I certainly hoped that BIS hasn't botched their PhysX implementation so that they only offer CPU physics...

[Mr. Bravo]

But just because they're using PhysX doesnt mean that they will use it to the more extreme levels where you really need the GPU-based hardware. Regular ragdoll-effects and basic vehicle-physics wont stress the CPU much at all for ATI/AMD-owners. It's the more advanced effects like organic physics, particles, massive destruction and wind/water that would need a GPU for calculations. I trust BIS will find some sort of balance here, which wont leave ATI/AMD-users outside as much as you might think.

I mean, I dont really care about realistic waveing flags or advanced shattered glass and stuff like that which we got to see in Mirrors Edge for example with the GPU-physics activated. All I want is realistic physics on my grenades, vehicles and some sort of ragdoll-effect on animations.

[dotted]

Why should the minority ditacte the performance for the majority?

Don't blame BIS...blame AMD...for doing nothing but talk about GPU-physics.

They aren't entirely all talk: http://bulletphysics.org

[Terracide]

They aren't entirely all talk: http://bulletphysics.org

Yes they are.
Bulletphysics != AMD
Bullet 3.0 (GPU physics) is still not out = just talk.

They have adopted ATi's line...they promised (back in 2006) GPU physics in a few months...nothing has happend....except a lot of FUD, talk and empty PR.

Why do people who think PhysX is BAD...and AMD is just around the corner with their own CPU physics solution always show a lack of insight in the topic?

---------- Post added at 11:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 PM ----------

But just because they're using PhysX doesnt mean that they will use it to the more extreme levels where you really need the GPU-based hardware. Regular ragdoll-effects and basic vehicle-physics wont stress the CPU much at all for ATI/AMD-owners. It's the more advanced effects like organic physics, particles, massive destruction and wind/water that would need a GPU for calculations. I trust BIS will find some sort of balance here, which wont leave ATI/AMD-users outside as much as you might think.

I mean, I dont really care about realistic waveing flags or advanced shattered glass and stuff like that which we got to see in Mirrors Edge for example with the GPU-physics activated. All I want is realistic physics on my grenades, vehicles and some sort of ragdoll-effect on animations.

Anything that makes my favourite mil-sim more REALISTIC is a bonus for me.
You are advocating less realism...because AMD is doing nothing.

If you want less realism...you can always play CoD...problem solved.

[OverVoltage]

Well im guessing that the physX will be like in mafia II, only special effects that has no effect on gameplay and is only eyecandy. Probably the physX will be disabled in multiplayer and will be a single player only. Though I hope im wrong and do something innovating with the physX in gameplay.

Im on AMD and I don't see why so many are against PhysX, It something that you can turn off anyway or run on your processor. Computer has always been about the more money you spend on your system the more eyecandy you will experience, if you want a level playing field buy a console.

My two cents on PhysX is im glad for the usage of newer technologys and wish more developers would take advantage of newer technologies software and hardware. Also this is an excuse for me to justify spending hundreds if not thousand/s on my computer.

[@ST]

Those elitist rants of some nVidia fanboys are hardly bearable anymore

[dotted]

Yes they are.
Bulletphysics != AMD
Bullet 3.0 (GPU physics) is still not out = just talk.

They have adopted ATi's line...they promised (back in 2006) GPU physics in a few months...nothing has happend....except a lot of FUD, talk and empty PR.

Bullet isn't AMD as PhysX is nVidia, but they did hire they guy which was my point. And Bullet already has hardware acceleration, so your statement isn't true.

[Old Bear]

There are many ways to render physics in game such as Havok, Nvidia PhysX or Bullet.

BIS has chosen the Nvidia solution for a CPU solution.

All player whatever their GPUs will be, are going to play ArmA 3.

But there is no reason to flame people because they have not bought an Nvidia card, the COD part was irrelevant and useless.

[Terracide]

Those elitist rants of some nVidia fanboys are hardly bearable anymore

Not as sad as the whining of AMD's fans over features they can't run...

---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 AM ----------

Bullet isn't AMD as PhysX is nVidia, but they did hire they guy which was my point. And Bullet already has hardware acceleration, so your statement isn't true.

Since Bullet 3.0 SDK isn't out, it hard to code for...right?

I have seen tech demos from Ati/AMD since 2006.

I am tired of techdemos...put up or shut up AMD...