Why do you want PhysX?

[mkey82]

Now I could repeat how you missed the point, but what good would that do?

[CharmingCharlie]

 

And the AMD fusion thing is not illegal. The PhysX thing with Nvidia blocking PhysX is illegal. Because it prevents you from using the card based on what hardware you own. AMD did do plenty of things that was illegal like ripping Intel off for some of their early cpus. but that isn't really the point.

Please show me a court ruling that states what Nvidia is doing is "illegal". I am quite sure if this was illegal then ATI would have hauled Nvidia up in front of the courts by now but they haven't for some reason. Oh and it is about as legal as AMD blocking off a program from Intel users as well. They are both shady practices but NOT illegal.

 

 

Should we justify these big companies just doing whatever they want because it is "just business" or because everybody does it. If more of these companies continue to keep doing what they have been doing then it will only be a matter of time before they start getting anti trust lawsuits.

If you don't like how a business does well business then vote with your wallet. You don't like the way Nvidia do things then don't buy their stuff. I don't like the way AMD do things so I don't buy their stuff. If a company starts getting into anti trust lawsuits that is their problem not mine. If ATI want to do something to make their cards stand out and lock Nvidia users out they are more than happy too. I would look at what ATI are doing and see whether it is something I am interested in and act appropriately.

 

 

Maybe they are used but not as being advertised as PhysX. Havok, for example, isn't overhyped. I haven't seen anobody screaming 'HAVOK IS THE BEST PHYSICS ENGINE EVAH!1!!!!1!ONE1!!!1!ELEVEN!1!' when HL2 came out. Before nVidia bought AGEIA, i haven't seen people screaming 'OMFG WE NEED PHYSX GIEF IT TO USSS'. And before that, PhysX DID work well on nVidia cards. That about nobody not using Physx.

Well come on give credit where credit is due, Nvidia has raised the profile of physics on GPU's massively. Before Nvidia started marketing the hell out of it most people would have looked at you with a blank stare if you had said anything about running physics code on a GPU. Now there is a real push for it to happen people are starting to WANT it now and hopefully that demand will spur developers on to do it be it Physx's, OpenCL or Bullet.

 

In many ways Physx reminds me of the "hoover" thing we had in the UK. There was a company called Hoover that made vacuum cleaners. There marketing was so successful that people starting calling all vacuum cleaners "hoovers". In fact today most people still go "I am going to do some hoovering in a minute". That is why people are going "omgz use physx" they don't mean ONLY use Nvidia's physics engine they are saying "we want GPU accelerated physics".

 

 

Well. Crap. You're right. That makes half my arguments invalid. CRAP. Well, we need R* to implent OpenCL in the RAGE engine. But have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_%28software%29 reference 3. But i still need something to confirm that RAGE has OpenCL support enabled.

I had a good chuckle at that wikipedia page, I mean there isn't a single mention that Bullet runs on Nvidia hardware on that page. It just came across as an AMD/ATI arse kiss if you ask me. If I didn't already know that Bullet could be done on Nvidia's hardware that wikipedia page certainly wouldn't have enlightened me that's for sure. But then that is to be expected AMD have invested in Bullet but I would have expected wikipedia to be a bit more partisan.

 

 

GTA IV would indeed look better. I also was disappointed when not being able to walk in random shops. But that isn't PhysX. That's a lazy R*. But it would defenately look better if clothes were behaving realistic. Seeing trees moving with leafs falling off (it's autumn). But those effects wouldn't NEED PhysX to be enabled, any other physics engine could handle that. The reason it isn't in GTA IV is just because it would take time to develop. And GTA IV got delayed already a few times. You think R* wanted to wait for a game to be released just because they can add effects people just don't pay attention to?

Well there you go that is why people want physx in GTA 4 because it would look better . The fact it can be done with other engines is a moot point, people just use the word Physx because they have heard of it, it is a buzz word to them. In that way as I said Nvidia has done a damn good job of raising the profile of physics on GPU's.

 

We may one day see GTA feature GPU accelerated physics but that day will not happen till it is being done on the Xbox1080 (or what other sh*t name they think up for it). I would love to see GPU accelerated physics in ALL my games be it using Physx's or Bullet or OpenCL which is why I said "why would you not want it".

 

 

This would be basically as if you bought a new car and when coming in for a service, the service man tells you he will block air conditioning in your vehicle because you used some non-original equipment, like third party seat covers. It's your f*cking car adn you can do waht ever the f*ck you want with it.

It is still an example of AMD cutting their competitors off which is the same thing that Nvidia are trying to do. I also believe there is a technical issue regarding this, it isn't a good idea to mix and match GPU's like this and never has been. Naturally it will probably work but it could lead to many unforeseen problems.

 

There is also an issue with testing, how do we know that ATI weren't absolute bastards and refused to supply Nvidia with the necessary equipment to test physx's inconjunction with ATI hardware ? We don't, we do know that ATI and Nvidia f*cking hate each other and neither will make things easier for the other.

 

As for your car example, I would say it is more like you owning a Honda and using a Toyota carburettor in the engine then being found out and having your warranty rights removed. You may have been using that carburettor perfectly fine for a year before it was found out but it is still non-compliant hardware that Honda doesn't support. This whole Nvidia/ATI thing is "six of one and half a dozen of the other".

 

[ikt]

yay, short said, PhysX is just like any other advanced physics simulation driver, the only differnce is the marketing nvidia does.

[Extortionate]

 

yay, short said, PhysX is just like any other advanced physics simulation driver, the only differnce is the marketing nvidia does.

Welcome to the real world, where companies buy other companies technology and market it as their own. Microsoft and Apple do this and then claim it's their innovation. Thankfully, you don't have to pay for PhysX so I don't see why you're making such a issue of it.

 

ATI has technology that NVIDIA doesn't have, it's just the way of the world.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Extortionate

[PecanFrost]

Charlie, the Wiki page give a list of supported technology including Nvidia's CUDA, but it is quite low down the page with that other Nvidia related product the PS3. I see PhysX in the same light that people looked at the first 3D cards when there wasn't one standard but many people fighting to make their way of doing it the standard. It really won't go mainstream until both sides (or Microsoft) pick how it's going to be done.

 

I'm looking forward to when that happens, at the moment we're only just at the lens flare stage, wait until developers reach the must have stage. The stage where you walk along a street, someone shoots at you through a sheet of glass, a chunk of the glass comes off, hits a leaf on a tree the leaf falls into water creating slight waves, etc. The "real life" we so want to see in a city.

 

It would also allow true damage to be show on characters, who wouldn't want to see the blood textures replaces with a half torn off jacket? I'm an ATi person, but not because of always being an ATi person, they just covered my requirements when I needed a new card, I've jumped between the two for the last few generations so don't really mind who has this tech, both companies would push their products and protect their technology so I don't think either is demonised.