1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Nvidia and their marketing...DISGUSTING!

Discussion in 'General Nonsense' started by Jelle Mees, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. Jelle Mees

    Jelle Mees New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    718 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Belgium ⇒ Limburg
    http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzY1OTYsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

    Notice the moving "flags" or whatever it's called in English. Now whatch this:
    http://xboxmovies.ign.com/xbox/video/HUMAN_SHIELD3.mov
    ( sure, it's not THAT cool, but hey, if they could do that without PhysX 6 years ago... )

    I saw this PhyX movie today and I was horrified when I saw it. Nvidia makes it seem like physics are almost impossible without Nvidia PhysX.

    Anyone remember the game "Splinter Cell" that was released in 2002 for the first Xbox console?

    It also had flags and stuff that would move when a body or bullets hit it, it also had glass that broke, it also had flying leaves, papers, etc... And this game was running on a Geforce 3 and a Pentium 3 processor. Damn, the game had shadows that can still compete with shadows you see in games that got released this year...

    Things that are possible with the good old Unreal 2.0 engine ( first splintercell game ) now seem completely impossible in Unreal Engine 3 without a card that supports PhysX? That's complete BS!

    I compare this marketing stunt with the one Apple pulled off with their Iphone:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaN1Nz1Dyls

    First the false Geforce 9 announcements, then the Geforce 8 to 9 rename stunts, then the redicously high GT200 prices and now this? No way that I am buying Nvidia products again unless there is no other option ( notebook for example ).
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2008
    r9 and BloodTotal say thanks.
  2. PVTCaboose1337

    PVTCaboose1337 Graphical Hacker

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    9,512 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,143
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    It is too bad, but pushing physx is a good thing, for all those who own nvidia cards at least.
     
  3. Jelle Mees

    Jelle Mees New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    718 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Belgium ⇒ Limburg
    It's not just Nvidia, but also the companies and developpers that support Nvidia.

    Epic game tried to advertise their engine by showing a movie where they demonstrated beatifull water in GOW2 that went as far as the eye can see. But everyone who remembers playing Splinter Cell back in 2002 knows that the same ocean was there in that game and it was using Unreal Engine 2.0:
    http://xboxmovies.ign.com/xbox/video/OVERHAND_PIPE.mov

    Same can be sad about the destructable walls. I remember playing a shooter on the PS2 about 4-5 years ago where you were able to destroy every single wall in the game. Again, without PhysX technology.... And the PS2 only had a very week GPU and a 300Mhz CPU! There are cellphones with more power these days...

    Everyone now beleaves that destructable walls, realistic water physics etc...are new. It's like everyone has forgotten about all the games that were released so many years ago and showed the same stuff Nvidia is demonstrating now, but keep in mind that the old stuff was running on technology from 8 years ago!
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2008
  4. VulkanBros

    VulkanBros

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,451 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    373
    Location:
    The Pico Mundo Grill
    PhysX is´nt everything - although I have played Warmonger with a Ageia PhysX PPU - that was great.

    Look at HL2 - the waterscenes are amazing - so like Unreal Engine 2/3 the Source Engine is also capable off showing physics-alike things.

    Point is - do we really have to buy a Nvidia GPU card to get decent physics-like-games?

    I hope not ...

    It´s a bit of a shame that Ageia did´nt manage to stay independent...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. BloodTotal

    BloodTotal

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    837 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Canadia
    Yes, "Disgusting".

    I also have an iphone, and yes when I was watching the commercial, the guy just goes into appstore, downloads a game, and it just appears installed on the Iphone desktop or w/e it is. I was like, man he didn't even download that thing.

    I don't like it when companies try to do that, it makes them bad in my books, if they are trustworthy then I like them, but these little gimecks, no-
     
  6. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Man, you don't know what you are talking about, in fact it seems you actually don't have a clue. LOL trying to compare those games to what we are seeing in Mirror's edge is what it is disgusting. Anyway PhysX is not about the effects you can create, but about how much of them you can use or how detailed you can create them.

    First of all water was not physics based in any old game (Splinter Cell? :roll:) and neither were flags, cloths or glass. The plastics in the .mov you provided have like what, 6-8 nodes? The ones in Mirror's edge have clearly hundreds and you can break them and although you can't see it in the video they interact with each other. Furthermore the ones in SC move before the guys even touch it, there's a name for that in my book: ANIMATION. Yeah animation by proximity, just like doors open in Prey.

    Talk about glass, again it's animation or if you prefer it, what has always been called effects physics. They don't follow physics laws, just some predefined, yet randomized animation effects. For instance show me a game where EVERY broken glass piece doesn't dissapear or continue falling forever through the floor. Show me one where you can interact with the fallen pieces.

    Leaves were animated in old games too. Take FarCry 2, it's not even old. You shoot a rocket to a tree and leaves fly around, they even move in the wind's direction, but if you shoot another one thos leaves won't change their direction. Because it's animation and not physics. A physics engine like Hardware PhysX is something that is always ready and makes particles behave like real particles, while wind, explosions, the player and NPCs are real forces that can always interact with them.

    As I said it's about detail and fidelity. Of course you can create the same effects in the CPU but not to the same detail. Most gamers have dual cores right now, 1 core is as much as you can use for physics. To make physics as detailed as in PhysX enabled Mirror's Edge on a CPU you would require at least a Core i7 (and a Core17 would be the prerequisite that way), or simply a 9500GT. Let's see... $450+ for a Core i7 or <$60 for a 9500GT or 9400GT...
     
  7. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Tell me, what's the difference for a neutral, non-fanboy guy between having to buy a $50 PhysX card or a $50 GeForce card?? Indeed in reality it would be between a $100 PhysX card and a $50 GeForce card.

    What's more anyone with a decent Nvidia card doesn't need any additional card.

    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=JKoXKlXl6s0 - Stick piles are conprised of more than 100 sticks, brick walls have like 500 (10x10x5) bricks, I don't even know of how much particles fluids are made, but a lot more. This same screensaver runs on my 8800GT at stable 50 fps (limited by Vsync, which means it's always between 50 and 100) and only once it momentarily fell to 38, when a pile of sticks collisioned with a brick wall and both went through water, displacing/splattering all around, while the ball faster than those was already going through one of the flags, all in the same screen space.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  8. Jelle Mees

    Jelle Mees New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    718 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Belgium ⇒ Limburg
    Why would you want to use a screensaver that needs 3d-rendering and physics calculations when you can use that or a simular screensaver as a movie in 2D. Seriously, I don't want my PC to cost 200$ extra in a year for a flashy screensaver.

    My point is, the developpers in Mirrors Edge removed objects completely instead of creating animations that are not hard to create. Clearly they made some sort of deal with Nvidia.
     
  9. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    40,678 (12.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15,532
  10. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,547 (1.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    in short i agree with Darkmatter.

    all of these old games you mention hardly scratch the surface of how complex todays "physx" animations are.

    the game you are thinking of is Red Faction, with a destructable environment, and it wasnt everything. and even so, broken wall fragments hardly move with realistic physics at all.

    scripted/animation/cinematics, they are all the tricks we used to use. nowadays, we can actually generate physics.
     
  11. OzzmanFloyd120

    OzzmanFloyd120

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,047 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Location:
    Pontaic Michigan
    Honestly who really cares?
    We really don't NEED physx, because the animations that game devs have been using have been working fine for years. Honestly I don't think I've ever heard anybody say "It makes me mad that when that piece of glass hit that other piece of glass that it didn't act accordingly." And frankly 98% of the time I can't tell any difference between the animations and the physx driven stuff anyway.
    Another thing is that in the scope of graphical design and programming a lot of games are really losing out on a good story. (broken record)
    I mean, I love a 100% destructible terrain, but I'd much rather have a good story that's fun to play than amazing graphics that throttle down my computer so much that I have to spend more on hardware to get decent FPS.
     
    BloodTotal says thanks.
  12. VulkanBros

    VulkanBros

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,451 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    373
    Location:
    The Pico Mundo Grill
    1. Okay...I am a fanboy...you are truly a great detective...so what...
    2. Nvidia was´nt able to do physx 2 years ago - Ageia was
    3. I dont buy stuff so I can sit and watch screensavers
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    LOL. What the hell are you saying? The screensaver is just a demo showing what can be done. Don't be foolish, you knew that, but just want to discuss. :shadedshu

    DICE, the developers, didn't remove anything. They added all the stuff for the PC version. The game has already released for consoles as it is as you can see it in the non-phyx video. It was first developed for consoles and it was supposed to be like that, it's even apparent in the controls according to previews. You can't have all those features seen in a CPU, no matter what you want to believe.

    On the contrary, one of the main reasons games are being more and more simple and short is because deevelopers have to animate every single effect they want in their games, as well as adding more and more details in general. Animated physics is just one of them. When animating you have to programate every single situation you want, the longer the game the more you have to code. With hardware physics* is a code once use multiple times thing, you don't have to tell objects what to do, they do what they should because that's what would be physically correct. Hardware physics make developers' lives easy.

    So it boils down to the fact you can't increase the details in games with animation much more than what we have today, it proportionally increases spent time. With physics you just have to code once and then the world you just created does everything.

    EDIT: NEED is a tricky word BTW, relative. The gamers didn't NEED hardware graphics back in the Quake days, that's for sure. They didn't need lighting effect engines, developer painted textures looked as good, after all. They didn't need shaders and asociated hardware, developers could code that themshelves. Etc... etc. etc...
    So we didn't really need anything like that. There's no better story than the one we had in 90's Lucasfilm/Lucasarts games (Maniac Mansion, Monkey Island) so we don't really need anything beyond that. But looking at your specs, I can't help but think: "Or DO we??"

    1. So you really are? I wasn't saying you were, just making a point: Anyone neutral would take a $50 solution over a $100 solution anyday, specially if the $50 solution is more powerful, smaller, quieter and cooler.
    2. Agreed, but they did something to fix that. AMD/Ati can't do them NOW, and are doing NOTHING to fix that. They supported a solution either owned by Intel or M$ (open standards :roll:) that won't come until late 2010...
    3. No comment. :shadedshu

    * I have to make it clear that is not necessarily PhysX what I defend, but hardware accelerated physics as a whole. My only option is to defend PhysX and Nvidia because are the only ones following that route. If it was for Intel or AMD we would have not have compareble physics until 2015, if at all!!
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
    Kursah, BloodTotal and NeoCrisis say thanks.
  14. Black Hades

    Black Hades

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    300 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Ambugaton
    You guys are forgetting that there is (a somewhat more feble) alternative to physx. Namely Havok, and it runs on CPU.

    If you loathe Nvidia so much for making a standard out of physx you should support the games that use Havok instead.

    Tin foil hat time:
    "The irish company Havok company was developing a specialized version of Havok Physics called Havok FX that made use of ATI and NVIDIA GPUs for physics simulations, but was later canceled." Link

    Now there's where things went wrong.

    Latest game to use Havok physics was Fallout 3 if I remember well, and it isnt all that bad realy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  15. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Havok is not as powerful as PhysX,not even close :laugh:, it's sofware physics, every game using it is only a little increment over previous games. Tell me a new game with definately better physics than HL2, you can't because there's no one. Now that's Havok. 4 years and no improvements were made, except some incremental minor improvements to detail. Either you haven't ever seen PhysX demos in action or you don't know what those demos mean. Havok is owned by Intel BTW, so take my word that you won't see hardware accelerated Havok until Larrabee is out.

    EDIT: Hmm there's in fact a pair of games with better physics, Crysis and FarCry 2, AND they had to program their OWN ENGINE, because Havok evidently falls short. Havok was good in UT2003 days, in HL2 days, but right now is a joke. A really bad joke told by Intel. A weapon used by Intel to hold down progress until they have something to bring into battle. A shame.
     
    DaedalusHelios says thanks.
  16. Black Hades

    Black Hades

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    300 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Ambugaton
    Well I DID say it was feble compared to physx, why are you flaming me?:p
    If the project would have been nourished & received better maybe it would have been better than physx

    But I was just saying... What if Havok FX would have becomed reality? I bet they would have improved it a lot by now. But yes havok and physx have been asimilated and look what happened :shakes fist at Intel & Nvidia:
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  17. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Ah, I was a Havok defender, Havok FX indeed*, until it was cancelled. Right now, as I said is a joke, thanks to Intel, who obviously doesn't want physics to move from their precious hardware. Coincidence that HavokFX was cancelled? Really?

    What has happened to PhysX? It has improved?? LOL

    *I liked it better than Ageia in those days BTW, for the simple fact you needed a 250 euros card back then. But things have changed a lot, you don't even need extra hardware today, just buy a Nvidia card. You don't know how much I'm awaiting the day Ati folows suit. That's why I have to defend PhysX so strongly, we won't see anything better than what Intel wants otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  18. Black Hades

    Black Hades

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    300 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Ambugaton
    Yeah I remember not to long ago Nvidia "offering" PhysX on a silver platter to ATi. I still dont know if it's for the best that they refused. We'll see soon I guess.

    Nvidia: Here, free of charge! all I need you to do is say "who's your daddy?"
    AMD/ATi: :slap:
     
  19. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    What's even more sad for me, is that they supported Intel instead.

    EDIT: There were rumors that Ageia offered PhysX to Ati/AMD first but they didn't accept. I remember when I saw those rumors I thought: "Huh huh bad news for Nvidia, good news for gamers, my next card will be Ati for sure, that R600 specs look amazing". We know how things went, so now, until Ati does something on the physics front, I will always go Nvidia. For me physics imporvements >>>>>>>> graphics improvements. I definately don't want STATIC photorealistic games.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  20. Black Hades

    Black Hades

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    300 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Location:
    Ambugaton
    Yeah well, there are no heroes in this consumerist world.
    Just because ATi got it'self a nice reputation as a "mr saviour of the masses" because it started a price war with Nvidia doesnt make them noble in thought and action. It's just a different marketing aproach, one that for instance Google was (and is) good at.

    The only thing I'm concerned is to have the video card (power & quallity) that suits my needs for a minimum amount of cash.

    Nvidia was once mr goody two shoes as well, who knows what the future holds. Maybe eventualy AMD/ATi will become the antagonist :laugh:
     
  21. DaedalusHelios

    DaedalusHelios

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,967 (1.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    827
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC, USA
    I think it would be great for games to support both. Havok would be turned on for people without PhysX compatible hardware.

    I just think we need to realize PhysX is better but its the consumer that decides if it is worth it for him to spend the extra money. ;)
     
  22. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    PhysX can run on the CPU too and it's as good as Havok if not better, it's really hard to tell. There was another player in the past when Havok was just being stablished as the physics of choice, which IMO was better: Meqon. It had some really nice demos that showed much better physics than Havok at the time running on CPUs. It was bought by Ageia.

    PhysX is AFAIK the most extendable physics solution. It can run on PPUs, GPU and "all" CPUs, including x86 (Larrabee included probably) and Power PC (Cell microprocessor included). It's AFAIK the physics solution included in the Play Station 3 SDK.

    EDIT: More on the subject:

    http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16014

    What they say there is so convenient to what I said. :) (I promise you I have nothing to do with them, it seems that all I said is what it has to be said about PhysX, haha)
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  23. OzzmanFloyd120

    OzzmanFloyd120

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    3,047 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    297
    Location:
    Pontaic Michigan
    Well the part about physx taking less coding I didn't know, but what I was trying to say is that if we've been looking at these animations for the past ten to fifteen years with a slow CPU being able to handle the load then why move away from that. It's not like every single pane of glass that breaks in a game has to be coded separately, the same animation will suffice for all of them and hardly anybody will notice.

    I was just trying to voice my opinion as a neutral party.

    A guy's gotta do what he's gotta do to keep up these days :laugh:
     
  24. r9

    r9

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,144 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    I could not say it better.
     
  25. Binge

    Binge Overclocking Surrealism

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,981 (2.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    PA, USA
    My take on the subject. Flaunt it if you got it.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page