hello.
i am sorry if some dumb english grammer will bother you.
as much as i know "PhysX" is a "physics engine".
it is made by a great company(NVIDA).
i think it does its job by GPU ( not CPU ) and it seems it can be more efficient more than others which works with CPU.
at least it doesn't waste CPU's time to simulate the physics rules and the GPU which has more cores can do it better and
the CPU can do other things.
do you think the programmers still want to make their own "physics engine" ?
will they stop makeing "physics engine" and use the "PhysX" instead of them ?
i mean when there is a FREE "physics engine" which it works by GPU and it is made by a great company and it works fine ,
it seems it is crazy if the programmers still make their own "physics engine".
can you explain it to me ?
thanks.
good luck.
i am sorry if some dumb english grammer will bother you.
as much as i know "PhysX" is a "physics engine".
it is made by a great company(NVIDA).
i think it does its job by GPU ( not CPU ) and it seems it can be more efficient more than others which works with CPU.
at least it doesn't waste CPU's time to simulate the physics rules and the GPU which has more cores can do it better and
the CPU can do other things.
do you think the programmers still want to make their own "physics engine" ?
will they stop makeing "physics engine" and use the "PhysX" instead of them ?
i mean when there is a FREE "physics engine" which it works by GPU and it is made by a great company and it works fine ,
it seems it is crazy if the programmers still make their own "physics engine".
can you explain it to me ?
thanks.
good luck.