Borderlands 2 PC video shows off fancy PhysX effects - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Elspin;37335898]The massive irony here is I've already explained to you that referring to just a single part of PhysX as "PhysX" is like referring to metrocop baton sparks as the source engine. Not like you read any of the thread though, even though it's [B]on this page[/B].[/QUOTE] Are you serious? Do you not have anything better to do than argue semantics when I've clearly stated [I]several fucking times[/I] that forcing PhysX exclusivity with GPU acceleration is a load of shit? What do you think I've been talking about [I]the entire time?[/I] I mean, give me a break. The last ~6 posts wouldn't be here if you would have just followed your own advice and stopped bitching about semantics. [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] And honestly the "lol u havent red the thread ur a dumass" spiel is getting fucking annoying

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37335934]Are you serious? Do you not have anything better to do than argue semantics when I've clearly stated [I]several fucking times[/I] that forcing PhysX exclusivity with GPU acceleration is a load of shit? What do you think I've been talking about [I]the entire time?[/I] I mean, give me a break. The last ~6 posts wouldn't be here if you would have just followed your own advice and stopped bitching about semantics. [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] And honestly the "lol u havent red the thread ur a dumass" spiel is getting fucking annoying[/QUOTE] If you don't like me complaining about you not reading the thread, why don't you read the thread? I'd appreciate it. Anyways if you're seriously trying to state that one of the best physics libraries if not the best is going to fail because of an optional feature, I can't decide if that's worse or not.

[QUOTE=Elspin;37336040]If you don't like me complaining about you not reading the thread, why don't you read the thread? I'd appreciate it. Anyways if you're seriously trying to state that one of the best physics libraries if not the best is going to fail because of an optional feature, I can't decide if that's worse or not.[/QUOTE] So it's not a bad thing that AMD users don't get cloth physics and goo in Borderlands 2? Am I missing something here? [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] Again it's not the library's fault, it's the fact that nVidia set it up so that they can use developers to purposefully fuck over AMD users for no real reason [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] More importantly these things are perfectly possible with Havok

so, lemee get this straight, you need the GTX 660 nvidia card to get all that cool physx shit in that trailer or do you just need any nvidia card? will my geforce 9800 GT work with all that coolio physx shit in the trailer?

[QUOTE=TheStateTrooper;37336137]so, lemee get this straight, you need the GTX 660 nvidia card to get all that cool physx shit in that trailer or do you just need any nvidia card? will my geforce 9800 GT work with all that coolio physx shit in the trailer?[/QUOTE] Your card "supports" PhysX but I really doubt it will run it

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37336084]So it's not a bad thing that AMD users don't get cloth physics and goo in Borderlands 2? Am I missing something here? [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] Again it's not the library's fault, it's the fact that nVidia set it up so that they can use developers to purposefully fuck over AMD users for no real reason [editline]20th August 2012[/editline] More importantly these things are perfectly possible with Havok[/QUOTE] Everything in accelerated PhysX is possible without it, the developer has just chosen their performance budget against what they want the required specs to be, and has decided that without accelerated GPU performance they don't think certain effects will be viable. It was their choice. AFAIK havok has less features than PhysX. As for whether I think it's a bad thing that AMD users get certain features, I don't think that's the situation. The situation is that a developer decided that certain features are only within the budget with GPU acceleration.

[QUOTE=Elspin;37336212]Everything in accelerated PhysX is possible without it, the developer has just chosen their performance budget against what they want the required specs to be, and has decided that without accelerated GPU performance they don't think certain effects will be viable. It was their choice. AFAIK havok has less features than PhysX. As for whether I think it's a bad thing that AMD users get certain features, I don't think that's the situation. The situation is that a developer decided that certain features are only within the budget with GPU acceleration.[/QUOTE] And this I understand (and thank you for not being rude about this point! :v:) But like, my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards - it's not like they'll get less money when those of us with current, still technologically relevant AMD cards buy a PhysX accelerator card. I mean, it's entirely possible for (hardware-accelerated) PhysX to become much more widely available while nVidia still, well, keeps their control over it. And they can still profit.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37336245]And this I understand (and thank you for not being rude about this point! :v:) But like, my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards - it's not like they'll get less money when those of us with current, still technologically relevant AMD cards buy a PhysX accelerator card. I mean, it's entirely possible for (hardware-accelerated) PhysX to become much more widely available while nVidia still, well, keeps their control over it. And they can still profit.[/QUOTE] AFAIK it would take a lot of work to add hardware acceleration to ATI cards as well, and considering NVIDIA is their opponent they probably wouldn't give them access to the necessary information anyways.

I don't think anybody is saying that it couldn't be better, but it's totally pointless to argue against nvidias choice to get people to buy their cards.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37336142]Your card "supports" PhysX but I really doubt it will run it[/QUOTE] The best way to do it is to use two cards and dedicate one to PhysX. Like say if I had a 580 I could plop my old 8800GT into my rig and use it solely to do PhysX shit while leaving my decent card to deal with the graphics without having to pull double duty.

[QUOTE=Wii60;37271950]is physx considered a gimmick or not[/QUOTE] Physx = cloth physics. right?

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37336452]Physx = cloth physics. right?[/QUOTE] oh god are well really back to this :/

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37336452]Physx = cloth physics. right?[/QUOTE] Naw man it's all about the sparks and jelly water.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37336395]The best way to do it is to use two cards and dedicate one to PhysX. Like say if I had a 580 I could plop my old 8800GT into my rig and use it solely to do PhysX shit while leaving my decent card to deal with the graphics without having to pull double duty.[/QUOTE] You would get extremely better framerates soleley using the 580, the 8800 would bottleneck it as a pure physx card, its been experimented with before and you can only gain performance with a dedicated physx card from the same generation as the main card i.e. 580 for rendering 560 for physx.

[QUOTE=Elspin;37336282]AFAIK it would take a lot of work to add hardware acceleration to ATI cards as well, and considering NVIDIA is their opponent they probably wouldn't give them access to the necessary information anyways.[/QUOTE] I don't mean add hardware acceleration to AMD cards (I never even said anything close to that??), I've said [B]standalone accelerator cards[/B] at least 5 times now

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37350111]I don't mean add hardware acceleration to AMD cards (I never even said anything close to that??), I've said [B]standalone accelerator cards[/B] at least 5 times now[/QUOTE] Would help if he practiced what he preached wouldn't it.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37350111]I don't mean add hardware acceleration to AMD cards (I never even said anything close to that??), I've said [B]standalone accelerator cards[/B] at least 5 times now[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37336245]And this I understand (and thank you for not being rude about this point! :v:) [b]But like, my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards[/b] - it's not like they'll get less money when those of us with current, still technologically relevant AMD cards buy a PhysX accelerator card.[/QUOTE] I was responding to this post, don't be ridiculous and pretend what I posted wasn't relevant to it. [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37350247]Would help if he practiced what he preached wouldn't it.[/QUOTE] Dude, we get it - you have an irrational hatred of the PhysX library and love to shitpost - could you keep it to the OIFY? Thanks

[QUOTE=Elspin;37350676] Dude, we get it - [B]you have an irrational hatred of the PhysX library[/B] and love to shitpost - could you keep it to the OIFY? Thanks[/QUOTE] I don't? When have I said I hated it? Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37326095]And so why doesn't Nvidia just make PhysX accelerator cards akin to the Ageia days? They get money, their software stays proprietary, and people still get PhysX when they want it, regardless of if they own an nVidia card or not[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37330904]I'm not saying open source PhysX, but going back to the accelerator model lets them still control everything they need to while retaining market domination in that segment[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;37336245]it's not like they'll get less money when those of us with current, still technologically relevant AMD cards buy a PhysX accelerator card. I mean, it's entirely possible for (hardware-accelerated) PhysX to become much more widely available while nVidia still, well, keeps their control over it. And they can still profit.[/QUOTE] that's three times I've said "accelerator cards are a good idea" not including the post where I specifically state "standalone accelerator cards." Seriously, if you're going to bitch about reading comprehension, it'd be a good idea to follow your own advice [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] And yet never once have I said "nVidia should hand over CUDA to AMD so they can have PhysX too!!!!" I've stated three times that separate accelerator cards (on top of existing CUDA cores in desktop graphics cards) would be a great idea since, well, read the fucking posts I quoted for reasons why [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] It's my opinion that PhysX will [I]never[/I] catch on if hardware acceleration (when it's at its best) is locked down to computers that have only nVidia cards. If hardware acceleration becomes more popular more developers will use it. It's a win-win for nVidia. [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] Which brings us back to BL2, where the extra fancy PhysX stuff is only for nVidia users. It doesn't have to be like that.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37351485]that's three times I've said "accelerator cards are a good idea" not including the post where I specifically state "standalone accelerator cards." Seriously, if you're going to bitch about reading comprehension, it'd be a good idea to follow your own advice [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] And yet never once have I said "nVidia should hand over CUDA to AMD so they can have PhysX too!!!!" I've stated three times that separate accelerator cards (on top of existing CUDA cores in desktop graphics cards) would be a great idea since, well, read the fucking posts I quoted for reasons why [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] It's my opinion that PhysX will [I]never[/I] catch on if hardware acceleration (when it's at its best) is locked down to computers that have only nVidia cards. If hardware acceleration becomes more popular more developers will use it. It's a win-win for nVidia. [editline]21st August 2012[/editline] Which brings us back to BL2, where the extra fancy PhysX stuff is only for nVidia users. It doesn't have to be like that.[/QUOTE] Dude I'm starting to seriously think you have reading comprehension issues :/. I mean you could just be the most massive hypocrite ever, but how could you possibly think that me saying (summarized) "it would be difficult to add support to ATI cards" in response to "my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards". Whether or not that was the main point of the post, that was what I was responding to and it was a perfectly valid response. I legitimately do not understand what your problem is

[QUOTE=Elspin;37351676]Dude I'm starting to seriously think you have reading comprehension issues :/. I mean you could just be the most massive hypocrite ever, but how could you possibly think that me saying (summarized) "it would be difficult to add support to ATI cards" in response to "my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards". Whether or not that was the main point of the post, that was what I was responding to and it was a perfectly valid response. I legitimately do not understand what your problem is[/QUOTE] AMD cards are completely out of the equation, do you know what a "standalone accelerator card" means? It's not impossible to put a card with a couple CUDA cores on it and write some drivers that don't mess with AMD's drivers I've never said once to "add PhysX support for AMD cards" (it's not ATI anymore by the way)

[QUOTE=Elspin;37351676]Dude I'm starting to seriously think you have reading comprehension issues :/. I mean you could just be the most massive hypocrite ever, but how could you possibly think that me saying (summarized) "it would be difficult to add support to ATI cards" in response to "my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards". Whether or not that was the main point of the post, that was what I was responding to and it was a perfectly valid response. I legitimately do not understand what your problem is[/QUOTE] What you seem to be missing is you can't just hack half of a point off and try to dig at it. [quote]"my problem still lies in the fact that hardware acceleration exists only through nVidia cards".[/quote] ISNT seperate from [quote] I mean, it's entirely possible for (hardware-accelerated) PhysX to become much more widely available while nVidia still, well, keeps their control over it. And they can still profit. [/quote] All you are doing is dropping half of what he said and going at him with it. So yes, he is in the right to call you on the fact that you are insulting HIS reading comprehension when in fact YOU are the one at fault.

[QUOTE=WearingNothing;37351708]stuff[/QUOTE] Yes, exactly. So I'm going to explain it again: First off, there is nothing wrong with PhysX itself. The problem is that hardware acceleration is only for computers with an nVidia card. If PhysX is to replace Havok, hardware acceleration needs to be more widely available. And I have put forth, now 4 times, a solution that existed before nVidia bought PhysX: PCI accelerator cards. They would exist for people with older GeForce cards that can't process PhysX as well as normal graphics at a decent framerate, and for people with AMD graphics cards. This helps PhysX hardware acceleration become more widespread, which creates an incentive for game developers to pick up PhysX and its hardware acceleration. nVidia still gets control of PhysX, PhysX becomes more popular, nVidia still profits and consumers still get PhysX. Everyone is happy. What's happening with Borderlands 2 is fragmentating bullshit.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37351694]AMD cards are completely out of the equation, do you know what a "standalone accelerator card" means? It's not impossible to put a card with a couple CUDA cores on it and write some drivers that don't mess with AMD's drivers I've never said once to "add PhysX support for AMD cards" (it's not ATI anymore by the way)[/QUOTE] I think you (and wearingnothing apparently) completely misunderstood my post here. My post was NOT meant to say "look, I think you're being a massive fucking idiot and fuck you if you think your [AMD] card should get hardware acceleration" the tone was meant to be interpreted as "well, since nobody wanted to buy a separate card I should address why they probably didn't want to support AMD as an alternative". I wasn't disagreeing with your post at all, just adding to why they wouldn't have added support for AMD. Then all of a sudden everyone got really angry, presumably because you thought I was trying to disagree with your post when I was just adding to the conversation. I realize your post said nowhere in it "add support for AMD cards" thanks, that's not what I quoted.

See, nVidia has offered AMD the chance to adopt PhysX hardware acceleration multiple times - AMD declined.

Is it just me, or do the liquids look really silly and semi-out-of-place? To be honest, I won't enable this while I play. It the cloth and dirt stuff seem nice, but it's all just too much excess. Considering how poorly optimized the first Borderlands was (in places), I think I'll just save performance to better enjoy the shooty bits.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;37351900]See, nVidia has offered AMD the chance to adopt PhysX hardware acceleration multiple times - AMD declined.[/QUOTE] Funny enough that was what I was actually trying to suggest - I was trying to say, basically that maybe NVIDIA offered but AMD declined. I figured it was probably something to do with NVIDIA wanting details that AMD did not want to release, but it could be anything really.

In the end this is what I think. Hardware Accelerated PhysX (Lets call it HAPX for this post, easier than typing it out) will always be considered a gimmick as long as its Nvidia only. Now, PhysX itself IS in UE3 etc etc but that isn't at all what the argument is. The main problem is the fact that HAPX cannot run on half the consumer bases computers because of stupid limitations like Nvidia cards only. Because of this, HAPX is only used for really lame and small things like particles, cheap cloth physics, and 'fancy' water. Now, I bet that the stuff that they added could be done with other physics libraries but the issue here is that from the looks of it they decided to kinda half-ass the default particles and try to go really fancy for HAPX (and also shamelessly plug the new Nvidia card that can do all this cool stuff!!). So now, you get half the user base who are made to feel like they made the wrong decision and that they are not really that important unless they bought a Nvidia card. If we at least had a separate card that could help run HAPX, even with an AMD card, it would help remove that a bit even more. Though, its obvious that Nvidia doesn't want that either because they completely ditched the old HW Cards and even locked out Hardware Accel if you have any card that isnt a Nvidia. So yes, PhysX itself may in fact be a great library, and really good to work with. However, HAPX will be a gimmick because of the hardware limitations, and most developers wont go out too far on the plank with huge new developments at the cost of half their player base.

[QUOTE=WearingNothing;37351950]In the end this is what I think. Hardware Accelerated PhysX (Lets call it HAPX for this post, easier than typing it out) will always be considered a gimmick as long as its Nvidia only. Now, PhysX itself IS in UE3 etc etc but that isn't at all what the argument is. The main problem is the fact that HAPX cannot run on half the consumer bases computers because of stupid limitations like Nvidia cards only. Because of this, HAPX is only used for really lame and small things like particles, cheap cloth physics, and 'fancy' water. Now, I bet that the stuff that they added could be done with other physics libraries but the issue here is that from the looks of it they decided to kinda half-ass the default particles and try to go really fancy for HAPX (and also shamelessly plug the new Nvidia card that can do all this cool stuff!!). So now, you get half the user base who are made to feel like they made the wrong decision and that they are not really that important unless they bought a Nvidia card. If we at least had a separate card that could help run HAPX, even with an AMD card, it would help remove that a bit even more. Though, its obvious that Nvidia doesn't want that either because they completely ditched the old HW Cards and even locked out Hardware Accel if you have any card that isnt a Nvidia. So yes, PhysX itself may in fact be a great library, and really good to work with. However, HAPX will be a gimmick because of the hardware limitations, and most developers wont go out too far on the plank with huge new developments at the cost of half their player base.[/QUOTE] And this is why we see useless implementations in games like Borderlands 2 - really, who would buy an nVidia card for some goo and water physics? I'm buying Borderlands 2 because I loved the first, and even if I had an nVidia card I don't think I'd turn on the PhysX because the PhysX features in Borderlands 2 are... lacking.

[QUOTE=WearingNothing;37351950]In the end this is what I think. Hardware Accelerated PhysX (Lets call it HAPX for this post, easier than typing it out) will always be considered a gimmick as long as its Nvidia only. Now, PhysX itself IS in UE3 etc etc but that isn't at all what the argument is. The main problem is the fact that HAPX cannot run on half the consumer bases computers because of stupid limitations like Nvidia cards only. Because of this, HAPX is only used for really lame and small things like particles, cheap cloth physics, and 'fancy' water. Now, I bet that the stuff that they added could be done with other physics libraries but the issue here is that from the looks of it they decided to kinda half-ass the default particles and try to go really fancy for HAPX (and also shamelessly plug the new Nvidia card that can do all this cool stuff!!). So now, you get half the user base who are made to feel like they made the wrong decision and that they are not really that important unless they bought a Nvidia card. If we at least had a separate card that could help run HAPX, even with an AMD card, it would help remove that a bit even more. Though, its obvious that Nvidia doesn't want that either because they completely ditched the old HW Cards and even locked out Hardware Accel if you have any card that isnt a Nvidia. So yes, PhysX itself may in fact be a great library, and really good to work with. However, HAPX will be a gimmick because of the hardware limitations, and most developers wont go out too far on the plank with huge new developments at the cost of half their player base.[/QUOTE] I can kinda agree with that I guess, and that acronym is both a good idea and sounds pretty good. I still think there's potential for some really cool gameplay with HAPX, but I think the real problem is that rather than designing games that take advantage of HAPX in a way that enhances the game, they're going for the sleaziest of routes and just (literally) adding sparkles. With some innovation I'd bet you could design physics based gameplay that could really take advantage of HAPX. I mean, it's not -just- the advanced features of PhysX that are basically experimental in games that can be accelerated AFAIK. If you had a shit tonne of physics objects and simulating them was becoming really hard on the processor you could probably offload that onto the GPU, but I can't say for sure because I was using an AMD card when I was experimenting with PhysX.