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

[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] Isn't that what we've been telling Elspin(and others) for the last couple of pages?

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37352057]Isn't that what we've been telling Elspin(and others) for the last couple of pages?[/QUOTE] No, I've basically been agreeing with that since the beginning - I've just been arguing that PhysX is still a great library even if you ignore HAPX. I thought I asked you to keep the shit posting to the OIFY, the discussion was becoming civil...

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37352057]Isn't that what we've been telling Elspin(and others) for the last couple of pages?[/QUOTE] Yes, Technically. The reason I stated HAPX as opposed to PhysX, is because they are 'technically' different things and it looked like everyone was shitting on the whole library itself. I don't have any personal experience or anything with physX itself so I don't know its quality, but he should have kinda noticed that we meant the HAPX, not the whole library itself. I would say it was more confusion than anything, there was no real distinction between the two. Lots and lots of confusion on both sides.

[QUOTE=Elspin;37352088]No, I've basically been agreeing with that since the beginning - I've just been arguing that PhysX is still a great library even if you ignore HAPX. I thought I asked you to keep the shit posting to the OIFY, the discussion was becoming civil...[/QUOTE] Sorry, you're the one acting like a jerk. Constantly telling Protocol7 he can't read and insulting his intelligence, calling my posts shit posts when they couldn't be farther from them just because I said something that rubs you the wrong way. Got a problem? How about instead of ordering people around like you own the place you take it up with them personally.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37352404]Sorry, you're the one acting like a jerk. Constantly telling Protocol7 he can't read and insulting his intelligence, calling my posts shit posts when they couldn't be farther from them just because I said something that rubs you the wrong way. Got a problem? How about instead of ordering people around like you own the place you take it up with them personally.[/QUOTE] I'm the jerk? Did you not notice this was a forum? The point of a forum is not to look at a news article, form an opinion in 3 seconds and then go "lol fagx sux". I'd have loved to have actually had a conversation about how the technology could have been better used, and here's you making a posts like this: [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37352057]Isn't that what we've been telling Elspin(and others) for the last couple of pages?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37336513]Naw man it's all about the sparks and jelly water.[/QUOTE] Pretending you're not trying to shit post here would be insulting to your own intelligence, how about actually discussing the topic at hand?

PhysX as a physics library is fine, nVidia only hardware PhysX is not heck I'd say any gpu accelerated physics is not the way to go tbh, for most games, the GPU is what is taxed the most (and is the most needed resource) while the CPU is sitting at like 20% utilization or something that has plenty to spare at least

[QUOTE=Elspin;37352432]I'm the jerk? Did you not notice this was a forum? The point of a forum is not to look at a news article, form an opinion in 3 seconds and then go "lol fagx sux". I'd have loved to have actually had a conversation about how the technology could have been better used, and here's you making a posts like this:[/QUOTE] Wait so you're hand waving your being at the very least rude, and I'm not just talking about to me, as "Hey! This is a forum bub!"? Well that first quote was a legit question aimed at WearingNothing so if questions count as shit posts now then a lot of people are gonna be gone soon. The second quote wasn't really serious, not that you'd believe me. [QUOTE=Elspin;37352432] Pretending you're not trying to shit post here would be insulting to your own intelligence, how about actually discussing the topic at hand?[/QUOTE] I did discuss it. Me and others have said what WearingNothing has said, in one variation or another, countless times but you keep going on and on about "PHYSX LIBRARIES PHYSX LIBRARIES PHYSX LIBRARIES". I dunno why you're being so hostile.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37352611]PhysX as a physics library is fine, nVidia only hardware PhysX is not heck I'd say any gpu accelerated physics is not the way to go tbh, for most games, the GPU is what is taxed the most (and is the most needed resource) while the CPU is sitting at like 20% utilization or something that has plenty to spare at least[/QUOTE] Am I the only one who thinks that there could be possibilities for neat physics based gameplay if it was hardware accelerated though? I mean sure, if you take a modern game and try to tack on HAPX you're probably gonna get what you're seeing in borderlands, but if a game was designed from the ground up to be about the physics and had really complex physics with less of an emphasis on graphics, couldn't that be an interesting game? There would be a lot of problems to go with that of course, like obviously if you're designing the game around this it wouldn't be possible to make it optional - and if it was PhysX it'd be NVIDIA only. I'm just saying a game with an emphasis on complex physics could be really interesting.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37352611]PhysX as a physics library is fine, nVidia only hardware PhysX is not heck I'd say any gpu accelerated physics is not the way to go tbh, for most games, the GPU is what is taxed the most (and is the most needed resource) while the CPU is sitting at like 20% utilization or something that has plenty to spare at least[/QUOTE] Exactly. I'm fine with PhysX itself but this proprietary nonsense is NOT doing it any favors.

[QUOTE=Elspin;37352676]Am I the only one who thinks that there could be possibilities for neat physics based gameplay if it was hardware accelerated though? I mean sure, if you take a modern game and try to tack on HAPX you're probably gonna get what you're seeing in borderlands, but if a game was designed from the ground up to be about the physics and had really complex physics with less of an emphasis on graphics, couldn't that be an interesting game? There would be a lot of problems to go with that of course, like obviously if you're designing the game around this it wouldn't be possible to make it optional - and if it was PhysX it'd be NVIDIA only. I'm just saying a game with an emphasis on complex physics could be really interesting.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure this could be done via software physics (look at Crysis, CPU only physics, has amazing physics) There doesn't seem to be any developer interest in gpu physics even if it could be done on both AMD and nVidia Even Carmack says it's a bad idea to do gpu physics

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37352750]I'm pretty sure this could be done via software physics (look at Crysis, CPU only physics, has amazing physics) There doesn't seem to be any developer interest in gpu physics even if it could be done on both AMD and nVidia Even Carmack says it's a bad idea to do gpu physics[/QUOTE] Anything's possible up to a point, I mean at one point there was no graphics cards and we still had graphics - that's why I was trying to brainstorm a type of game with physics complicated enough they needed a card. I would definitely agree it's probably not worth the effort since nothing like this has been done AFAIK, but still - I love my physics and I'd love to see something done with them that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37352750]Even Carmack says it's a bad idea to do gpu physics[/QUOTE] Unless he's said different somewhere else, in that video he said it was a bad idea to do Ageia style PPU add-in card physics, as the percentage of your audience that is willing to spend extra money on a physics card is extremely low, at least when the amount of games that benefit from such a thing are low, and those two factors each drive the other down. Also, as he mentioned, PPUs, like any other hardware get outdated and need upgrading periodically. The major advantage of GPU physics over PPU physics is that players already have a GPU for graphics rendering, no additional hardware required (and likewise, GPU upgrades ~= physics upgrades). Essentially, Nvidia's bringing PhysX to the GPU has greatly increased the possibly audience from the likely very small percentage of PhysX PPU owners to the 46% (Steam Hardware Survey) of players with Nvidia GPUs. This has led to more of a use of Hardware accelerated PhysX in games. However, this is, obviously, not a perfect solution, as the other 54% of the market is unable to use it. Because of this we're unlikely to see any games using HW PhysX for anything affecting gameplay all that much (which is why pretty much all the games use it for additional/better effects). The best solution would really be to have something GPU accelerated but vendor agnostic, so it utilizes an already-owned piece of hardware but works with more than just Nvidia. Until then, it'll remain a gimmicky effect boost enjoyed by those Nvidia users that elect to enable PhysX effects.

[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] Any 8 series card or newer, so yes a 9800GT *would* work, but not well.

To the people who think it would be fine on just the CPU, if you try anything thats very parrallel like particles the cpu will kill itself, which is why you need GPU acceleration. I think HAWEN will be one of the best utilisations of physx in a game since they can do physx on the nvidia GRID platform for streaming to tablets and stuff.

I am sincere, it looks awesome.