NVIDIA PhysX and Mirror's Edge

you don't "need" physix for good gaming. physx is an option for Nvidia users in certain games that support it, but for all around gaming you don't absolutely need it.

lets face it mirrors edge is a crap game with or without physics

Any physics is innovative IMHLO, like we see on Oblivion as exampled. But Im in Apes camp on this one. Until it actually makes a difference in game, effects decisions, the player etc, then its just what it is innovative, and not groundbreaking

i thought mirror's edge was a good game actually. but yeah, physx is a bit of a gimmick. sure its more 3D effects, but none that add to the gameplay. Maybe once a standard API is agreed upon and more than a handful of developers start coding physx in their games, then it'll be worth it. but right now, its just eye candy.

Physx is a nice little extra no one needs it but do you need dx10 over dx9 for the extra visual effects it brings no... but do you want it probably yes. Running physx though my now useful again 8800gt is what i just do while a 260 does the main rendering.

What are you talking about?

It has a new DLC with maps that last 1 hr to complete EACH...lol....

I'm sorry 1 game?

UT3, Rainbow Six GR 2, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge, CellFactor, and a bunch more I'm sure u can find a list.

BTW GRAW 2 is not Rainbow Six. BTW PhysX is more wide used than just pc also available on Xbox 360 and ps3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

I meant Tom Clancy's

oh lol I didn't take it to heart. Your right, so why argue

Tearing. Sorry typing on a new keyboard. Trying to adjust. Going from MS ergo to a g15. Different shaped keys and smaller. Been typing on ergo keyboards since the late 80's early 90's.

http://developer.nvidia.com/object [...] .htmlthere is a list of titles that use physX. I am not a console gamer so have not played any of them, but hell even the iphone is supporting physX now. The discussion was about physX and in a different thread, not sure, was about how havoc is better because it is used by other platforms. The point is PhysX is PhysX no matter if it is cpu or gpu based.
Oh and btw Havock is not hardware based. It is only a SDK also.

Understand my point, for THIS thread, PhysX is NOT PhysX, the OP is talking about dropping an ATi card for the 'benefit' of PhysX, that's not about the CPU kinda of PhysX so your list is no more beneficial or relevant than a detour in the the longer list of games that support Havoc. And PhysX on the iPhone is as pointless as Running a video cam app on it, it's too hardware limited to make good use of it.

So for this thread, that it's GPU-PhysX and that it's PC based, is VERY relevant, it's the whole point, not whether PhysX is being adopted. Ageia had the same list you're linking to, it didn't make it any more compelling then than it did now, or vice versa, the only thing that changed is the install base, and if that's an improtant change then the Havoc addition of ATi, nV & S3 as well as AMD & intel means more install base for their brand of Physics. But just like PhysX right now, it doesn't really matter enough to chose a lesser graphics or CPU solution simply to add these essentially tack-on implementations.

If he were to sell his HD4830 and with the proceeds buy a GTS250 or G9800GTX, or maybe even a second hand GTX260 if he's lucky, enabling PhysX means you greatly reduce your performance, so are you saying those effects are worth a reduction of ~20% in fps or resolution, and also losing other features in other titles?

As JDJ mentioned, my view on all of them, Havoc included, I don't care about them until they really make a difference and influence game play in a worth way and show me something more than superficial visual effects similar to shinier water. Even in Mirror's edge that blowing cloth doesn't come from wind that effects your jumps, nor from rotor-wash that affects your trajectory or balance.

For now it's still just a beta feature more about R&D than real killer-app.

I can agree with you about the op. It is not worth it to drop a card just for physX. If the op was looking at a new card anyhow then ths not dx 10.1 should matter. he/she should get the fastest they can afford no matter if it is ATI or Nvidia. Both can add some nice eye candy but truthfully that is all it is right now. I would love if true physics were involved. Wind affecting bullet trajectory, gravity effecting bullet drop, moving vehicles affecting jumping and true physics.

Swifty, you can't on Vista, you can on XP, it's already been done. However if you have to buy more hardware for just one or two games, they better be games you damn love or else it's like paying $100+ for a few % difference in a game, and globally that money would be better spent on a faster CPU or GPU. The main thing is for people to understand that, and the OP's post shows he's definitely not that savy about it. Heck the way the poll is made and the thread couched it almost looks like a PR post. Similar to one that would start, should I sell my two GTX295s because they don't have DX10.1?

And whether PhysX gets better or not has yet to be seen.
nVidia's had it for a while and it's no better than Ageia's implementation (as seen that it does the same on both only faster when using a much larger processor). That it will ever be much more than clothy / partical-ly tack-on is still up in the air.

We, You, can hope for, but for now it's not there and it's future is no more certain now than when it was under Ageia.

And that's the problem. Chicken & Egg, do the cool apps come once the install base is big enough to maximize a full-fledged physics implementation, or do you add a sliding scale with the high-end being unusable by any current hardware (similar to Crysis or EverQuest II). I hope for the later, where the sliders can go to 11 if you have the rig for it, but this would only work on A-list titles, and really if developers have lost their focus on PC to dedicate to weak consoles it may take longer than we would hope.

But if you make the feature such a killer-app that you create the new CS or WOW, then the development cost would be worth it for the longevity of the engine and its spin-offs.

And WoW isnt that demanding either, so the falloff of perf wouldnt be as bad. Yea, maybe in that scenario, but spending that much for just 1 game would leave no monies in the piggy bank for TWIMTBP'd team

No swifty, he means two "different" video drivers. As in, Cat. 9.3 to run your graphics and NVidia 1xx.xx to run your "physx" graphics card. What you have done (2 NVidias) I've seen before (and is a very good idea, as physx doesn't need a 280).

Is it on XP you could, Vista you can't? Not sure of that though.