jabbadapHardly, as long as physx is bundled with engines like ue4 and unity 5, it will have bright future.

If you mean gpu accelerated then that would be the case(nvidia should really open that up, getting universal gpu path for physics would make games more realistic. Now physics are used merely for eye candy, not really physics), but this cpu path has it's future.

And I am referring to the GPU version of course. After all I think the CPU versions are useless since they are only used for eye-candy. GPU-accelerated physics is the future, and for PhysX to succeed it would have to be usable on ALL GPU's and also be more efficient than its competition. It has yet to prove it is efficient considering how much of a hit it causes to framerates.

Captain_TomNo, Nvidia is grasping at straws to keep a costly asset from becoming completely irrelevant (Though I would argue it already is).

No, not ALL PhysX titles were forced, but we can all agree that a big reason PhysX has noteworthy market-share is due to Nvidia's money-hatting.

Are we even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about physx as a whole, not just its GPU part. How is physx irrelevant if it's included in unreal and unity engines and is used in hundreds of games and more upcoming games?
Not all? Yet you said otherwise before. No, we cannot agree because it only exists in your mind. You claimed it, you have to bring evidence of it. Yeah, let's ignore that physx being FREE to use in windows games had nothing to do with it.

Captain_TomAnd I am referring to the GPU version of course. After all I think the CPU versions are useless since they are only used for eye-candy. GPU-accelerated physics is the future, and for PhysX to succeed it would have to be usable on ALL GPU's and also be more efficient than its competition. It has yet to prove it is efficient considering how much of a hit it causes to framerates.

Eye candy?! There are many games, like mass effects, that use CPU physx (no GPU, none) for their ENTIRE physics simulations. Rip it off, and the game won't have ANY physics in it, not just eye candy.

Actually, it's GPU physx that is used for eye candy. CPU physx is used for actual gameplay physics calculations, just like havok, bullet, etc.

Yes, you're right. For physx's GPU module to succeed, nvidia has to open it up, or else it'd remain just as niche as it is now, but then you say, that it causes a framerate hit. Do you know why that happens in GPU physx games? Because when you enable it in games, the amount of physical effects grow exponentially, meaning the amount of calculations rise too. Of course the framerate will dip. If the amount of effects didn't change between the off and on settings, then you'd actually see a framerate INCREASE after turning GPU physx on.

Why don't you download and run fluidmark and see for yourself. Choose a set amount of particles, say 10000, and try with both GPU physx on and off. You'd see that GPU physx, with the same amount of particles, is much faster.

Captain_TomHonest to god, give me an example of a PhysX game that does things others don't do.

I got better things to do than feeding a troll. You have an account with the same name over at TechSpot don't you?

Jurassic1024I got better things to do than feeding a troll. You have an account with the same name over at TechSpot don't you?

Honestly how am I trolling? I expressed my honest to got opinion. I own products from all vendors so I am sorry you have a chip on your shoulder for a certain company.

meanwhile... tress fx is opensource.... works well on teh nvidia cards

Personally, I hate the GPU Phys-X. In my experience, it always seems to overdo the physics to what I consider unrealistic levels. It's like giving a pyromaniac a can of gasoline and telling him to jsut use it to fuel his car. You know the extreme is going to happen. For that reason, I always set Phys-X (for those few games that have it) to run off the CPU. So, this move by Nvidia will likely boost a wider adoption of what I consider the understated, but more realistic physics.