Batman Arkham City to use Improved PhysX and support DirectX11 and 3D

Link, great, looks like i have to play it PhysXless :evil:

PhysX is extremely gimmicky and is pretty tacked on with most games as Arkham Asylum was. Nothing about it makes me wanna turn it on considering the little you do get comes at the cost of like 35-40% of your framerate.

Could careless for 3D.

I'm glad to see DX11 will be used, but I don't think I've seen any multiplats make a significant difference between it and DX9. However, I am curious to see how big of a difference the visuals are between the consoles and PC are ever since I read about a developer touting the significant difference.

I am holding out on getting it for the PC. Simply cause I want to see what It has to offer on the WiiU.

I don't expect the Visuals to be much better on the WiiU (compared to the xbox360/ps3), but if it offers some really fun gameplay with that new tablet controller, enough utilization of it and I will pass on the PC version.

If not, and the WiiU version doesn't utilize the Tablet controller that much, then I will just get it on pc, and by then, the price would have dropped or it would be about time to start catching it on sale somewhere!

But the game looks amazing, and looks like it will be a lot of fun! Asylum was fantastic!

Yep, such a gimmick, no idea why anyone would want to play with PhysX on, even if it's like a totally different game with it on. Can't find the full PhysX comparison but here's what really proves it's such a pathetic gimmick because it uses it extensively in this level.

Can't wait for it

PhysX is extremely gimmicky and is pretty tacked on with most games as Arkham Asylum was. Nothing about it makes me wanna turn it on considering the little you do get comes at the cost of like 35-40% of your framerate.

Could careless for 3D.

I'm glad to see DX11 will be used, but I don't think I've seen any multiplats make a significant difference between it and DX9. However, I am curious to see how big of a difference the visuals are between the consoles and PC are ever since I read about a developer touting the significant difference.

Mystic-G

PhysX is extremely gimmicky and is pretty tacked on with most games as Arkham Asylum was. Nothing about it makes me wanna turn it on considering the little you do get comes at the cost of like 35-40% of your framerate. Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

PhysX is extremely gimmicky and is pretty tacked on with most games as Arkham Asylum was. Nothing about it makes me wanna turn it on considering the little you do get comes at the cost of like 35-40% of your framerate.

Could careless for 3D.

I'm glad to see DX11 will be used, but I don't think I've seen any multiplats make a significant difference between it and DX9. However, I am curious to see how big of a difference the visuals are between the consoles and PC are ever since I read about a developer touting the significant difference.

ferret-gamer

Did and wasn't impressed. Still very tacked on.

Very cool, I look forward to it. I'll be playing with all the features enabled. Possibly even 3d, depending on the type of support. If I can use my VT25 Plasma and the glasses that came with it, I'll be in business. Crysis 2 is kinda cool with 3d on.

Very cool, I look forward to it. I'll be playing with all the features enabled. Possibly even 3d, depending on the type of support. If I can use my VT25 Plasma and the glasses that came with it, I'll be in business. Crysis 2 is kinda cool with 3d on.

hartsickdiscipl

You can, but you'll be limited to 720p.

:D tacked on. PhysX actually adds to the game. I don't see how enchanching the graphics is something that is tacked on. Nothing PhysX did looked out of place or took away from the immersion of the game. I sence a feeling of sour grapes!

Batman aa has to be seen in person to appreciate the effects of physx and 3d. I think it was wrong to not have the smoke effects without physx though as most games have that.

The scarecrow levels are best with physx on. I play it in 3d with physx on high so I am expecting big things from Arkham City.

Wii o wont be out this year i thought never year..Batmans going to rock..Picking up the pc version for sure when it comes out on steam..Catwoman looks amazing..Also hearing robin is a unlockable character..We shall see how it goes..

Does this mean since I have a ATI Card it wont run as good because ati doesnt have Physx?

Does this mean since I have a ATI Card it wont run as good because ati doesnt have Physx?

chriscoolguy

Not just run it as good, it won't run it at all lol...It's okay though, because I won't be running it either :P

EDIT: I mean you won't be able to run the PhysX, you'll still be able to run the game you just have to turn the PhysX off.

Physx is not a gimmick, get over it.

HELL yeah i got gtx 580 physx it is for me :)

Batman AA was one of my favorite games! i will buy it day one! we must support dx11 games. DX9 must die . yes buying it day one. Also i am intalling batman arkam city right now again to play it with physh because when it was released 2 years ago i played it with no physx my pc was not powerful enough to play it with physx.

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

Zubinen

I think Carmack sums up physx quite nicely.

"I hope nvidia didn't pay a whole lot of money for them".

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

topgunmv

I think Carmack sums up physx quite nicely.

"I hope nvidia didn't pay a lot of money for them".

PhysX is the most advanced thing we have right now, Nvidia did wonders with the prototype Ageia had, Havok is the 2nd best, fun effects and not as demanding as PhysX, difference is it simulates nothing, tons fly in the air like grams. If only PhysX weren't exclusive, so that ATI would use it too, the gaming world would be much better with Euphoria for characters and Physx for the rest.DanielDust

There's nothing special about Physx aside from the fact that Nvidea has to go out of its way to prevent AMD users from having the option available in games. The only reason I got a GTX 590 is mainly because it is more useful for school work, and because of Just Cause 2 CUDA water, all the Physx stuff looks pretty, but it's just lobbying style BS. I didn't sit there playing games like DCS A-10 Warthog, Crysis, Red Faction, GTAIV, and think to myself "Wow, this game is alright but Physx would make it way better." ;)

[QUOTE="DanielDust"] PhysX is the most advanced thing we have right now, Nvidia did wonders with the prototype Ageia had, Havok is the 2nd best, fun effects and not as demanding as PhysX, difference is it simulates nothing, tons fly in the air like grams. If only PhysX weren't exclusive, so that ATI would use it too, the gaming world would be much better with Euphoria for characters and Physx for the rest.Zubinen

There's nothing special about Physx aside from the fact that Nvidea has to go out of its way to prevent AMD users from having the option available in games. The only reason I got a GTX 590 is mainly because it is more useful for school work, and because of Just Cause 2 CUDA water, all the Physx stuff looks pretty, but it's just lobbying style BS. I didn't sit there playing games like DCS A-10 Warthog, Crysis, Red Faction, GTAIV, and think to myself "Wow, this game is alright but Physx would make it way better." ;)

Really, do you think I play games wondering how they'd be with PhysX? Nvidia doesn't go out its way anything...they own the technology and excuse me if I think your post was made just for the sake of posting, PhysX is pretty but it's BS? yeah better graphics are pretty but it's BS, it doesn't really sound like an educated argument in such a context now does it? Games need to evolve, PhysX and Euphoria are superb technologies already available that are barely used and as I said, games would benefit a lot from them, of course, that doesn't mean that I take a nap when a game installs and dream that it has PhysX support...DanielDust

I said it was lobbying style BS which is completely true, Nvidea lobbies for its Physx to be used in games as opposed to it being something inherently beneficial to the gaming industry like the Havok physics engine. Everything done by Physx can be emulated better and more efficiently by other physics engines. I say this as an unbiased owner of a GTX 590 which has better image quality than any GPU on the market can offer, especially AMD cards which are notorious for their "optimizations" which make games on max settings on an AMD card look like mid-high settings on an Nvidea card.

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

Zubinen

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

I laugh at the whimpering argument that PhsyX is a gimmick and that it's pointless. PhsyX is mind blowing when used right, and implemented into any game. It adds on to those games which could already have decent destruction if the dev took the time. This is just banter from the users that decided to go with "ATI" because they were hesitant to pitch forward the cash for their desired Nvidia card and are now stuck with their ATI subsequent.

I laugh at the whimpering argument that PhsyX is a gimmick and that it's pointless. PhsyX is mind blowing when used right, and implemented into any game. It adds on to those games which could already have decent destruction if the dev took the time. This is just banter from the users that decided to go with "ATI" because they were hesitant to pitch forward the cash for their desired Nvidia card and are now stuck with their ATI subsequent.

SickStench

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

SickStench

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

SickStench

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

[QUOTE="SickStench"]

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

Zubinen

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

[QUOTE="SickStench"]


With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="SickStench"]

I laugh at the whimpering argument that PhsyX is a gimmick and that it's pointless. PhsyX is mind blowing when used right, and implemented into any game. It adds on to those games which could already have decent destruction if the dev took the time. This is just banter from the users that decided to go with "ATI" because they were hesitant to pitch forward the cash for their desired Nvidia card and are now stuck with their ATI subsequent.

KHAndAnime

It really is, and I'm actually coming from an ATI card myself, I had a 5770 when they first came out. I just upgraded to a 570 when I built my new rig. Can't say I've ever been this pleased with any ATI product.

[QUOTE="SickStench"]

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

Zubinen

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

Of course you would bring this down to my "favorite" brand of video cards. Until 3 weeks ago I was using ATI, now I'm using Nvidia. I've played games both with and without PhysX on, and judging from personal experience. It is MUCH MUCH BETTER, and offers much more on the table. If you had this "said" intelligence which you're invalidating me for then I think you would be hard working coding video games, but I think that's beyond your level of comprehension, isn't it? The topic of the forum post was PHSYX(again, beyond your level of comprehension apparently), not Nvidia's CUDA cores. If someone were to create a forum topic about cuda, workstation support, superior image quality I would have been hard pressed to insert my opinion regarding those topics, but it wasn't, was it? I'm simply providing my opinion on the subject matter provided. Until you can understand that, I don't think I'll respect your manipulation and misjudgment of something I've said, when clearly you cannot read. Good day, math student.

That's funny, when I use PhysX in any game I have the option of pushing it onto my multicore processor. Which I inevitably end up doing almost always.

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

[QUOTE="SickStench"]

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

SickStench

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

Of course you would bring this down to my "favorite" brand of video cards. Until 3 weeks ago I was using ATI, now I'm using Nvidia. I've played games both with and without PhysX on, and judging from personal experience. It is MUCH MUCH BETTER, and offers much more on the table. If you had this "said" intelligence which you're invalidating me for then I think you would be hard working coding video games, but I think that's beyond your level of comprehension, isn't it? The topic of the forum post was PHSYX(again, beyond your level of comprehension apparently), not Nvidia's CUDA cores. If someone were to create a forum topic about cuda, workstation support, superior image quality I would have been hard pressed to insert my opinion regarding those topics, but it wasn't, was it? I'm simply providing my opinion on the subject matter provided. Until you can understand that, I don't think I'll respect your manipulation and misjudgment of something I've said, when clearly you cannot read. Good day, math student.

Not that that's out of the way, yes the water simulation in Just Cause 2 is impressive, and so is the destruction on Red **** Though it could have been much more graphically using PhysX combined with their game engine, and other Nvidia features like CUDA. Am I wrong here? No.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"] [QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] PhysX = physics work offloaded to GPU. Are games already offloading physics to the GPU without the use of PhysX? KHAndAnime

The FPS difference is what seems to upset most people about PhysX, why to some people 30-40FPS is considered unplayable is beyond me. I guess they can enjoy the 60FPS they're getting without it. I'll sit here, not being able to tell the difference with my 30-40FPS. No lag, or noticable drops = playable by me, and if that lesser frame rate gives me better image quality, among many other things then I am okay with that.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="topgunmv"] Teuf explained in system wars that offloading physics work to the gpu is a pretty terrible idea, especially in a day and age where any decent multicore processor is very under utilized. SickStench

The FPS difference is what seems to upset most people about PhysX, why to some people 30-40FPS is considered unplayable is beyond me. I guess they can enjoy the 60FPS they're getting without it. I'll sit here, not being able to tell the difference with my 30-40FPS. No lag, or noticable drops = playable by me, and if that lesser frame rate gives me better image quality, among many other things then I am okay with that.

Also, to note it's kind of pointless to play PC gaming unless you're just a fan of strategy games when you're not utilizing all of the features which make it so dominant, that includes PhysX and overall image quality by comparison.

[QUOTE="SickStench"]

[QUOTE="Zubinen"]

This makes me regret my decision to switch from 2 HD 6970 CF to 1 GTX 590 a little less :oops:

I mean Batman AA physx really went head to head with the best non-physx games like this.

Mystic-G

With PhysX this would have been much much better looking. This really isn't all that impressive anyway.

Not sure what I was lying about? Was it part where I said it would have been much more impressive if PhysX were used in combination with those effects? If so, that's no lie, it's just that we'll never get to see that glorious day will we?

Just to clarify, while I think CUDA itself alone is why Nvidea cards should come with all PCs by default, Physx really seems like a dead horse but for some developers, it's favorable as seen with Batman AA and Mafia II where Physx may have been the only way to implement some of those visual/aural goodies and in this case one could argue that the multi-threaded CPU physics vs Physx is like PS3 vs X360 where the Physx is just a much quicker, and perhaps more practical solution for developers, especially those that have strict development deadlines(like Madden or CoD which have to be released every single year). For the gamer in me, the only thing that was in my mind that I really cared for when switching card setups is the CUDA simulated water, I just want to swim in it all day, and I will. But as a gamer that is also a futurist, I look forward to improvements in Intel's integrated graphics solutions since onboard cards are available to everyone therefore if one day they are sufficient for high-end games, developers will have a much, much easier time making games for PC plus there will be more people buying PC games.

Just to clarify, while I think CUDA itself alone is why Nvidea cards should come with all PCs by default, Physx really seems like a dead horse but for some developers, it's favorable as seen with Batman AA and Mafia II where Physx may have been the only way to implement some of those visual/aural goodies and in this case one could argue that the multi-threaded CPU physics vs Physx is like PS3 vs X360 where the Physx is just a much quicker, and perhaps more practical solution for developers, especially those that have strict development deadlines(like Madden or CoD which have to be released every single year). For the gamer in me, the only thing that was in my mind that I really cared for when switching card setups is the CUDA simulated water, I just want to swim in it all day, and I will. But as a gamer that is also a futurist, I look forward to improvements in Intel's integrated graphics solutions since onboard cards are available to everyone therefore if one day they are sufficient for high-end games, developers will have a much, much easier time making games for PC plus there will be more people buying PC games.

Zubinen

[QUOTE="topgunmv"] [QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] PhysX = physics work offloaded to GPU. Are games already offloading physics to the GPU without the use of PhysX? KHAndAnime

That's because physx is coded terribly for processors. It's x87 based, and until just a few months ago wasn't even multithreaded.

3-D ? No one cares - that's already dying.

PhysX is useful, but it's used so little, that by the time they get it perfected, it will be outdated and replaced with something else..

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="topgunmv"] Teuf explained in system wars that offloading physics work to the gpu is a pretty terrible idea, especially in a day and age where any decent multicore processor is very under utilized. topgunmv

That's because physx is coded terribly for processors. It's x87 based, and until just a few months ago wasn't even multithreaded.

Physx is totally useless. Just make all the effects pre rendered and bam, you have amazing fake physics.

Also all the effects can be done on the CPU, they just take them out. Like with the cloths and stuff? You could just do a worse version, but they want to make physx stand out so they purposely do not do that.

If you want fake physics you have Havok which is done on CPUs and it offers just some of the visual pleasure, but the gaming world's state is pathetic, even Havok a technology bound by no exclusivity isn't implemented more into games, it's actually become less and less used.