Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Check out the physx effects for mirrors edge

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 7, 2009 7:38:48 AM

I see nothing special about that, of course the picture is crap which dosent help but the effects dont look any differant fron the debris and destruction i get in Far Cry 2 with my ATI card. :kaola: 
Mactronix
January 7, 2009 7:43:24 AM

I never played farcry 2 but Ive never seen a game with that realistic of tearing off plastic/silk.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 7, 2009 10:34:55 AM

I'm not impressed. Looks like normal.

Ati is far superior in terms of image quality.
January 7, 2009 10:35:25 AM

Umm..... Phsyx also has a software mode that works on any 3D card. For me it's not a huge advantage.......

And..... Why does this sound like an advert? Reminds me of Jack Thompson saying games are killing simulations. Because the tearing off plastic/silk flows smoothly. :) 
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2009 11:12:12 AM

Quote:
Software mode that works with any x-86 cpu.


Only this causes as massive CPU bottleneck...We've been down that road before.

Advanced physics effects are simply too intensive to run only on a CPU. If you want realistic physics, you need to offload the calculations elsewhere. Even FC2 only has a few scripted physics effects; I'm talking full dynamic physics, not shoot a certain building with a RPG and you knock a wall down.

I'm not saying PhysX is the answer, but its a step in the right direction.
January 7, 2009 11:50:35 AM

Pershing121 said:
that combined with stereo 3d should make nvidia give the gamer the ultimate immense experience, why do people even buy ati cards anymore?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvhw_v3q4L8


1) Because ATI offer great value for money and fantastic performance
2) Because I no longer have the Nvdisp.dll BSOD.
3) Because physX runs in software.
4) Because Multi Core hyperthreaded CPUs will do just as well except in extreme situations (and that vid is NOT extreme I've seen more intense Crysis physics demos).
5) Because physX will end up on ATI cards anyway http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ati-physx,5841....
6) Because stereo 3d is a niche product - more of a proof of concept than a mainstream selling point (peripheral cost and product support being limiting factors).
7) To annoy you?

I'm sure I could come up with more but you get the idea. I'm no ati fan boy but your post annoyed me, sounds like the kind of post of an ignorant teenager on youtube.
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2009 1:36:08 PM

rtfm said:
1) Because ATI offer great value for money and fantastic performance


did you miss the 8800gt when it was launched? i dunno about you but the 3870/50 were pretty useless when it was launched even till now (extremely forgettable when theres a 4670/4830 lyin around).

rtfm said:
I'm no ati fan boy


oh yes you are brudda!

anyway.

ati is also working on gpu physics (havok) not PhysX per se. if only the 2 camps would agree on a single physics standard.

but some people need to be honest, those cloth physics are superb. but i guess not a lot of people can appreciate how good the experience will be unless they take that fanboy blood away.

but isnt that dumb. since its inception, there are only 2 things that PhysX is good at, cloth and dust simulation (the flowing water demo was forgettable). cant they do realistic body-to-body collision? I played some PhysX UT3 Engine Games back when i was with a 9600gt, the ragdolls from Airborne and GoW didnt seem to change.

Imagine race driver grid with real collision accelerated physX. 2 cars bumping each to destruction in slowmo, that will be heaven.
January 7, 2009 3:02:17 PM

Did you not see the link about Nvidia welcoming collaboration with other gpu makers regarding physx?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/n [...] ,5841.html

No, really I'm not a fan boy, I have a 4850 now because when I bought it it was the best bang for the buck. Before that I had a 6800gt which was great (apart from the bsod issues) and when I bought it was a good performer (see a theme here).

I will buy whatever hardware is best value/performance for me at the time, regardless of who makes it (excepting msi who I f****** hate for the s*** mobo I bought from them and their subsequent failure to fix it).

I merely gave Pershing121 my answer to his question: why do people even buy ati cards anymore.

I personally think the gpu accelerated physx is not going to go far, with the rising core/thread count in cpus and the increasing demand on gfx for the gpu I just don't see that it makes sense for the gpu to do physics calculations as well, except maybe as a good use of an old gpu which would be no good for sli/crossfire.
January 7, 2009 3:04:47 PM

Oh, and you are right the 8800gt was great when released and if I had been upgrading then, sure I would have bought one, but that's not relevent to this discussion, is it?
January 7, 2009 3:13:13 PM

OP is correct, clearly we should all ditch our ATI cards and buy Nvidia so we can enjoy seeing a couple pieces of cloth flutter in the wind. The game is simply unplayable without this.

wh3resmycar said:
did you miss the 8800gt when it was launched? i dunno about you but the 3870/50 were pretty useless when it was launched even till now (extremely forgettable when theres a 4670/4830 lyin around).


Both companies are constantly coming out with better deals, right now the best deal is the HD4850. Digging up older cards to say that ATI sucks? Sounds like the tactic of a fanboy to me.
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2009 4:56:57 PM

gamerk316 said:
Only this causes as massive CPU bottleneck...We've been down that road before.

Advanced physics effects are simply too intensive to run only on a CPU. If you want realistic physics, you need to offload the calculations elsewhere. Even FC2 only has a few scripted physics effects; I'm talking full dynamic physics, not shoot a certain building with a RPG and you knock a wall down.

I'm not saying PhysX is the answer, but its a step in the right direction.


Honestly, I can run the PhysX maps on UT3 on my i7 at about 15-20fps pretty continuously. Looking at my CPU usage chart, the software driver is only running a single thread for physx. Any bets on how smooth that would run if all 8 threads were utilized?

Of course, if they multithreaded the software physx, if would give a lot less reason to use the GPU...
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2009 6:05:19 PM

Exactly why both Intel (with LRB) and AMD will gp MT when possible for physx using cpu, and possibly cpu/gpu mix as well, once things are truly defined. Unfortunately, nVidia had little to say in this, and what they have now wont be the lasting defining usage for physx
January 7, 2009 10:08:07 PM

havoc relies on cpu while physx relies on nvidia gpu. Not even on the same playing level!!
January 7, 2009 10:14:18 PM

wh3resmycar said:
did you miss the 8800gt when it was launched? i dunno about you but the 3870/50 were pretty useless when it was launched even till now (extremely forgettable when theres a 4670/4830 lyin around).



oh yes you are brudda!

anyway.

ati is also working on gpu physics (havok) not PhysX per se. if only the 2 camps would agree on a single physics standard.

but some people need to be honest, those cloth physics are superb. but i guess not a lot of people can appreciate how good the experience will be unless they take that fanboy blood away.

but isnt that dumb. since its inception, there are only 2 things that PhysX is good at, cloth and dust simulation (the flowing water demo was forgettable). cant they do realistic body-to-body collision? I played some PhysX UT3 Engine Games back when i was with a 9600gt, the ragdolls from Airborne and GoW didnt seem to change.

Imagine race driver grid with real collision accelerated physX. 2 cars bumping each to destruction in slowmo, that will be heaven.



ever played flatout or flatout 2? Awesome car physics.
January 7, 2009 10:20:01 PM

rtfm said:
Did you not see the link about Nvidia welcoming collaboration with other gpu makers regarding physx?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/n [...] ,5841.html

No, really I'm not a fan boy, I have a 4850 now because when I bought it it was the best bang for the buck. Before that I had a 6800gt which was great (apart from the bsod issues) and when I bought it was a good performer (see a theme here).

I will buy whatever hardware is best value/performance for me at the time, regardless of who makes it (excepting msi who I f****** hate for the s*** mobo I bought from them and their subsequent failure to fix it).

I merely gave Pershing121 my answer to his question: why do people even buy ati cards anymore.

I personally think the gpu accelerated physx is not going to go far, with the rising core/thread count in cpus and the increasing demand on gfx for the gpu I just don't see that it makes sense for the gpu to do physics calculations as well, except maybe as a good use of an old gpu which would be no good for sli/crossfire.



most games dont even take advantage of multiple cores nor do developers know how to/want to take advantage of that or cpu power in general, its a lot easier for developers to just concentrate on the gpu and they are more likely to do so, also it takes a lot more cpu p[ower than gpu power to 3d accelerate a game in any way so what makes you think physx would be any different? You can buy a 2000 co0mputer without a grpahic card (only onboard) and itll play game slike crap until you get a gpu, so I think your wrong, cpu power means little compared to gpu acceleration. And, the more cpu power becomes available the mor0e demanding games ar ein other areas and gpu power could probably be accelerated easier and cheaper anyway. DO you really want to buy a new processor every few months?
a b U Graphics card
January 7, 2009 10:59:38 PM

I think what people are saying here is, since theres no standard for physics in gaming, theres currently 3 players, Intel,AMD and nVidia. Since nVidias only solution is gpu driven physics, its only natural theyre pushing in this direction. What I find interesting is, at this time, AMD is the only of the three that have the options of going either cpu or gpu driven, and since its pretty clear they want it cpu driven, and Intel of course wants this as well, it leaves nVidia with little say in this. If the standard ever becomes a split usage, then nVidia will have a head start in the gpu area, but no solution for the cpu area, and thus, less influence as to how itll all come down, and currently without any true standards, we are in that situation, and again, nVidia is still the lessor player here
January 8, 2009 1:43:12 AM

if physx is to do anything but die, Nvidia will have to make it more accessible than optimized to run on their GPU's. they will have to play nice with Intel and AMD and explore the best way to make the technology mainstream.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2009 1:52:28 AM

Exactly. And hopefully nVidia does some good things in the interim, as I believe the gpu solution is better, at least for now, until LRB and all those 32 core cpus come out
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2009 3:43:01 AM

turboflame said:

Both companies are constantly coming out with better deals, right now the best deal is the HD4850. Digging up older cards to say that ATI sucks? Sounds like the tactic of a fanboy to me.


nope, apparently im against anybody who heralds one brand as the second coming of thy savior. did i say ATI sucks right now? are you daft?

note: "4670/4830 lyin around"


havoc relies on cpu while physx relies on nvidia gpu. Not even on the same playing level!!
said:

havoc relies on cpu while physx relies on nvidia gpu. Not even on the same playing level!!


havoc on the gpu is what ATI is working on. and as of now you wont see any tech demo of it yet.


ever played flatout or flatout 2? Awesome car physics.
said:

ever played flatout or flatout 2? Awesome car physics.


for a console that is. i want to see every bits and shreds flying around on impact.
January 8, 2009 6:34:37 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I think what people are saying here is, since theres no standard for physics in gaming, theres currently 3 players, Intel,AMD and nVidia. Since nVidias only solution is gpu driven physics, its only natural theyre pushing in this direction. What I find interesting is, at this time, AMD is the only of the three that have the options of going either cpu or gpu driven, and since its pretty clear they want it cpu driven, and Intel of course wants this as well, it leaves nVidia with little say in this. If the standard ever becomes a split usage, then nVidia will have a head start in the gpu area, but no solution for the cpu area, and thus, less influence as to how itll all come down, and currently without any true standards, we are in that situation, and again, nVidia is still the lessor player here


hey shetforbrains, intel and amd are processor companies, why else would they not wnat it gpu driven? Think a little. explain to me why processors with all their advantages over the years and speed boosts still cant play ut2004 full grpahics and speed with an onboard video if theyre so great?
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2009 6:57:47 AM

Pershing121 said:
Think a little. explain to me why processors with all their advantages over the years and speed boosts still cant play ut2004 full grpahics and speed with an onboard video if theyre so great?


that depends with the onboard video that you're using. and since games started becoming more gpu bound since dx9 came out, a better gpu will give a more pleasurable experience more than anything. GPU comes first when you're pc gaming.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 7:18:44 AM

Simple question....

Is it so FAQing hard to get debris to bounce of the first-person?

Ooohh tearing plastic, who gives a FAQ !?!
There's glass, debris, and everything else flying around and bouncing off every hard pre-rendered/calculated/positioned surface, but the protagonist (which I'm supposed to image is me, especially with OOOooh 3D glasses) seems to be made of gaseous cloud matter with everything passing right through them (maybe that's where the smoke part of PhysX went, I saw the water demo). Look big chunk of debris coming at me let's run faster and watch it go right through me... ;) 

Also since this is supposed to be a physics demo, can someone explain to me the physics of how at time 1:09 as the protagonist is sliding sideways down the inclined roof-like structure that the particles that were going faster down the roof are being passed by the sliding person and even new debris (not that generate in their direction, but the opposite direction) while airborn is being passed. Must be a huge co-efficient of friction & drag on that material but like the original the runner's pants, shoes and left hand are made of teflon to allow for those wicked slides, despite all the audible friction squeals. :heink: 

Also the bullets that created the debris didn't leave any marks on the surface once generate anymore.

Seems like the 'pre-PhysX' bullets were a little more realistic in the original if maybe a little less debris-generating;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acD6s4E3xso

Anywhoo, like I've said before, enough with the Shiny Debris-Storm physics, give me something that isn't there just to say "oh yeah game-physics", gimme the interactive physics Ageia was promising and saying their implementation was the only way to make it happen.

Instead of shards of glass, the game should just generate really tiny PhysX logos or nV logos as the debris and all the newly added sheets of plastic, cloth, glass or tinfoil should be logo branded too, so they REALLY let people know what they paid for. :wahoo: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 7:24:49 AM

Pershing121 said:
hey shetforbrains,...


Hey n00b, check the lip or you and your thread are history, like Ageia. [:thegreatgrapeape:4]
January 8, 2009 7:24:59 AM

nvidia makes technology of the future and what once was thought as science fiction possibly today, technology largelry unknown to the massive accessible right to your fingertips with free drivers. They are the future not ati, what has been accomplioshed in terms of graphics has already been accomplished the next step is immersion, virtual reality, effects impacting the player, being right there instead of looking at a monitor, nvidia is that future, all ati is is increasing todays technology, and making more pixels or more polygons ons creen. Nvidia has visions way beyond that, visions msot people on this forum cant even comprehend.

Imagine playing mirrors edge with head tracking like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECRSWM-F3z8

and pure virtual reality stereo 3d where you are right there and everywhere you look, everywhere you turn your head, the game world exists as if it were real. Better than sex probably imo and its possible right now not 10 yrs form now like ati would have you believe.
January 8, 2009 7:26:07 AM

fact is with nvidia you wont get artifacts and cant really overburn your video card do to good throttling and the car dprocecting itself over overclocking unlike ati, I had artifacts on my ati 9700 pro couple of years back over a simple single overclock, never used them since.
January 8, 2009 7:31:52 AM

more whats possible with nvidia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZABh01HVIM

oh and there is technology already out where glasses arent requirement (not that it makes any difference for me):
http://www.videsignline.com/192201274

"Also since this is supposed to be a physics demo, can someone explain to me the physics of how at time 1:09 as the protagonist is sliding sideways down the inclined roof-like structure that the particles that were going faster down the roof are being passed by the sliding person and even new debris (not that generate in their direction, but the opposite direction) while airborn is being passed. Must be a huge co-efficient of friction & drag on that material but like the original the runner's pants, shoes and left hand are made of teflon to allow for those wicked slides, despite all the audible friction squeals. :heink:  "

can you epxlain any physics to me in max payne?
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 7:45:21 AM

Pershing121 said:
nvidia makes technology of the future...


The preceding paid announcement was brought to you by nVidia's "the way it's meant to be paid" campaign.

One bad experience with an R9700 and voila, ATi the Devil, nV the Saint.

Funny thing is, it doesn't matter since intel will destroy them both 'cause they have dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you. Now THAT'S physics I'd pay for !!

Pershing121 said:

can you epxlain any physics to me in max payne?

Max Payne wasn't pretending to have realistic physics effects, which is exactly what you're pretending this delivers.

And seriously, nV's physX mascot is the chick from Mirror's edge?

I have a feeling intel's going to do better with this PR team;
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3523/havocge8.jpg
January 8, 2009 8:23:21 AM

Tell me some actual games (not demos) that had more realistic physics so far than.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 8:26:56 AM

@ Pershing121,
Ok so you made your pro Nvidia post and told us all how "nvidia makes technology of the future" Funny then why dont they support DX 10.1 ?. However i digress.
My points which are.
1. You really dont want to get in a pissing contest with TGGA :non:  As i said you made your post/point and it just dosent stand up the way you are presenting it.
2. @ TGGA
Isnt it about tim ethis thread died ?

Mactronix
January 8, 2009 9:37:51 AM

rtfm said:
1) Because ATI offer great value for money and fantastic performance
2) Because I no longer have the Nvdisp.dll BSOD.
3) Because physX runs in software.
4) Because Multi Core hyperthreaded CPUs will do just as well except in extreme situations (and that vid is NOT extreme I've seen more intense Crysis physics demos).
5) Because physX will end up on ATI cards anyway http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ati-physx,5841....
6) Because stereo 3d is a niche product - more of a proof of concept than a mainstream selling point (peripheral cost and product support being limiting factors).
7) To annoy you?

I'm sure I could come up with more but you get the idea. I'm no ati fan boy but your post annoyed me, sounds like the kind of post of an ignorant teenager on youtube.

1) ever heard of the 9600GT?
2) Keep crying from a problem in forceware 96.
3) Because PhysX is incapable as a technology of running on anything but a GPU. PHYSICS can be manifested in many forms, such as Havok (CPU Software) and OpenCL coming soon.
4) Because a Multi Core HT CPU will NOT do as well as that
5) Because PhysX WILL NOT end up on ATI cards, PhysX is a proprietary nVidia technology. soon ATI and nVidia will both use OpenCL, not nVidia PhysX nor ATI Stream/Brook+
6) Because stereo 3d sound has nothing to do with PhysX?
7) Because that wasn't the kind of post of an ignorant teenager on youtube? :sarcastic: 

:pfff: 
January 8, 2009 9:39:57 AM

mactronix said:
@ Pershing121,
Ok so you made your pro Nvidia post and told us all how "nvidia makes technology of the future" Funny then why dont they support DX 10.1 ?. However i digress.
My points which are.
1. You really dont want to get in a pissing contest with TGGA :non:  As i said you made your post/point and it just dosent stand up the way you are presenting it.
2. @ TGGA
Isnt it about tim ethis thread died ?

Mactronix

Yeah thats right, DX 10.1 isn't technology of the future. It is technology of the past. i will be ridiculously surprised if a DX 10.1 exclusive game comes out before now and DX 11 - the future.

no sane game developer will limit their audience to ATI users only. DX 10.1 is already dead and buried in the pages of history. Or Wikipedia...
January 8, 2009 9:45:27 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Simple question....

Is it so FAQing hard to get debris to bounce of the first-person?

Quote:
Hey n00b, check the lip


Simple question... what is this hypocrisy? i don't mean to be a protagonist but come on... oh well what does it matter this threads gonna be locked soon anyway... why do i waste my keyboard? :sweat: 
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 11:18:11 AM

V3NOM said:
Yeah thats right, DX 10.1 isn't technology of the future. It is technology of the past. i will be ridiculously surprised if a DX 10.1 exclusive game comes out before now and DX 11 - the future.

no sane game developer will limit their audience to ATI users only. DX 10.1 is already dead and buried in the pages of history. Or Wikipedia...


+1 on strangestranger,s first statement in his last reply.

@ V3NOM
Stop moving goal posts to suit yourself :pfff:  Pershing121 stated this "nvidia makes technology of the future, now my reply was pointing out that they dont infact support the latest DX so cant really be championed as making tec of the future, or indeed of the present.

Now your banging on about DX10.1 games not being developed because this would limit the market to ATI customers only.
Guess what ..Surprise if they make Phsyx games they are then by definition limiting themselves to Nvidia card owners.
:lol:  :pt1cable:  :lol:  Oh the irony of your statement

Mactronix
January 8, 2009 11:33:17 AM

And there ends the thread lol
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 11:43:05 AM

Oh i certainly hope so....Where's a Mod when you want one...I don't know there's 2 or 3 around then when you actually want one ... :lol: 

Mactronix


mod note: Replies came in much later than my last one, mod was trying to sleep. ;)  - TGGA
January 8, 2009 11:47:06 AM

Quote:
I should be a mod, that would rock would it not.


Only if you continue to offer your special brand of abuse advice.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
January 8, 2009 12:07:32 PM

V3NOM said:
Quote:
Hey n00b, check the lip


Simple question... what is this hypocrisy? i don't mean to be a protagonist but come on...


Re-read the section I quote and you quote, no hypocrisy, not by a long shot, unless you equate un-provoked insults in a questionable troll-ish thread as the one I responded to , to one replying in kind with far kinder words. What in JDJ's post required that opening response?
The "FAQin" part of my post wasn't directed at anyone in particular other than the devs, just a question as to why, be it Havoc or PhysX or Epic or Crytek's physics engine that it's so hard to get the first person to be a solid reflective object?

V3NOM, you may disagree, PM me if you want to explain it or want it explained further..

.. because this thread is now dead. [:thegreatgrapeape:7]
!