[QUOTE="spank_thru101"]
Care to give examples of this. I am merely confused as to what games were impacted by the inclusion of the original phys-x card and how they impacted the gameplay? I don't think there is a single game, now or then, that physx has actually changed the way you play the game. It may enhance the visual experience, but change the way you play?!?!.AnnoyedDragon
The PhysXPPU encountered a chicken and egg scenario. In order to implement physics that improve the game play experience; you need to build the game with the PPU in mind. However to justify games being made that REQUIRED the PPU, you needed an install base. To create that install base you need adoption justifications, but to get adoption justifications; you needed that install base.
As a result the majority of games simply slapped PhysX on as a secondary thought.
However the Ageia PPU was fully capable of, and advertised for, improved game play experiences that were previously impossible. They demonstrated this with self funded tech demo titles like CellFactor, games where every physics object could be used as a weapon.
Nvidia's solution back then, Havok FX, was similar to Nvidia PhysX today. Using physics to add effects to the game, but contribute nothing to game play. Back then it was because of limitations with GPU accelerated physics, whether that is still the case today I don't know; but they are still only using it for effects.
As for phys-x being optimized by Ageia and not by Nvidia, that is debatable and actually makes no sense since it is detrimental to Nvidia in the long and short term. It costs to run Physx, but then again you generally are dealing with thousands of particles/objects that each have their own individual set of functions and operations, and again...physx is not needed it merely enhances the visual experience.
spank_thru101
Back in the Havok FX days, Nvidia marketed GPU physics as being highly efficient. Just upgrade your GPU and stick the old one in SLI, even an older GPU would be more than enough to cover all your physics needs. Fast forward to today and what does it take to run Nvidia PhysX? Even a game with low visual complexity like Mafia 2 requires some hefty hardware to do GPU physics.
It's nothing more than a excuse to bloat system requirements to Nvidia, sell more powerful GPUs. I know you said that makes no sense; because it would be detrimental to them in the long term, but that's what it looks like they are doing. It's not just PhysX, they like to throw bloated Ambient Occlusion in their games as well. They seem to be throwing a lot of stuff in games today in order to justify more powerful hardware.
Kudos for responding and backing up what you post. Its good to know the info. At the same time you need to consider, as I am sure you have, that trying to have the market adopt to physx as a gameplay inclusion rather than a visual one is not only difficult (especially in these port days) but also ultimately limits the possible consumer base for physx. How many devs would jump on board and say "hey lets make these fancy physics a core element in the execution of the game?". I am not disputing what you said or invalidating it but merely pointing out that the route Nvidia chose was sound though this does not give them a pass on some of their other choices regarding physx (purposely crippled cpu bound api, the whole 'no ati card+nvidia card" snaffu which has thankfully passed). In time though this may change as software and hardware does. To expand on this though it seems for the time being that PhysX is going to be the leader in this market, as I highly doubt OpenCL or DirectCompute will somehow come out of left field and knock Nvidia off its high horse. They certainly could but that would require a very large investment in marketing to devs and working with them.@KillerJuan - Nice to know someone else has played and enjoyed Cryostasis.
Log in to comment