Borderlands 2 PhysX video

[pantherx12]

It is the same reaction all over the place when you talk about PhysX with people who use Radeons. It is useless, looks like s**t and so on. Funny thing is those who enjoy PhysX with their cards have a completely different opinion.

Everyone loves physical simulations in game ( hell I download openCL demos just to fuck about with physics)

No one is complaining about phsyx it's self as far as I'm aware, people are frustrated by it's implementation and developers blatant disregard for AMD hardware when they utilise accelerated phsyx in their games.

Like I mentioned earlier a lot of the time they don't even bother making static/pre-animated replacements. It's just shitty.

Hell in Cryo stasis most of the effects could easily be replicated on any card.

You only have to watch the physx on/off comparison video so see what a crock of shite it all is

 

[eidairaman1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)#Havok_in_video_games


p

 

[Fluffmeister]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)#Havok_in_video_games


p

Over 150 games eh?

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

Over 360 games and counting, with some nice games in development too.

 

[eidairaman1]

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games/other-titles?items_per_page=All

 

[Fluffmeister]

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games

http://www.havok.com/customer-projects/games/other-titles?items_per_page=All

220 is still less

 

[Fluffmeister]

from official site actually, who knows what the site you posted.

The list looks pretty accurate to me, but your happy to query the results yourself.

Hell lose 100 games and it would still be more.

It's OK to be wrong sometimes fella.

 

[newtekie1]

a few of the games that "required" a Nvidia card for phsyx could be hacked to run the calculations on the CPU.

I remember doing it with Mirrors edge.
( you had to run simplified calculations and fewer particles etc but it still looked a lot better than without)

At this point, you can actually run any hardware accelerated PhysX title on the CPU through the nVidia control panel. It gives you the option to select the CPU as the hardware PhysX device, it just runs like shit because the hardware accelerated features of PhysX were optimized to run a a GPU architecture(the original PhysX cards were basically 128MB PCI GPUs with 16 Shaders).

And every game that uses hardware accelerated PhysX switches to a scaled down software version, comparable in quality to other software physics engines, when a PhysX supporting GPU isn't present. And yes a lot of them you could hack back in some of the hardware accelerated features, but the performance was pretty poor. Finding a good balance between the good performance and the features is tricky, which is probably why the game developers don't bother and just stick with the approved feature set for software PhysX that nVidia sets.

It is the same reaction all over the place when you talk about PhysX with people who use Radeons. It is useless, looks like s**t and so on. Funny thing is those who enjoy PhysX with their cards have a completely different opinion.

While I won't say PhysX looks like s**t, I will say it is pretty useless in most games. But so is AA and AF, and any of the other visual settings in a game. The first time I played through Batman: AC I used an HD4870 and didn't miss PhysX one bit.

Funny thing is you can use Havoc Engine which could be customized to Radeon Only and it be the same deal that NV is ploying, Havoc engine is far more scalable and adaptable to run on slew of hardware. I hear Open CL is the same way.

if it worked more titles would be Physx Driven but they arent. Because they can realize that they can use the Havoc engine and most users out there wouldnt be getting a graphics card because of Physx/Physics.

For developers, using the Havok engine offers nothing over using PhysX. Havok runs in software, on the CPU, just like software PhysX. Both give similar levels of detail when run in software on the CPU as well.

In reality, PhysX runs on just as many platforms as Havok because both run on the CPU. It is only hardware accelerated PhysX features that will only run on nVidia hardware, and AFAIK Havok has not released an engine that provides hardware acceleration so it can't be said what hardware that would run on. AMD demoed an Open-CL based cloth demo using Havok running in Open-CL, but that is all I can really find on hardware accelerated Havok. The version games are being produced with is still entirely software running on the CPU.

i was on nvidia back in those days. GF's rig is still on an 8800GT.

its no different to forcing 8XAA on in a game. sure it looks better - but at a pretty hefty cost, for something with zero gameplay benefits.

Exactly.

Not true I still see more titles on market with Havock whether PC or Console.

This list of Havok Games says 327 games use havok, but doesn't say if it is games release or a mix of games released and in dev or on hold. This list of Physx games lists 366 games released with 35 more in dev.

So it seems from what I can find at least that PhysX now has more games on the market than Havok.

people are frustrated by it's implementation and developers blatant disregard for AMD hardware when they utilise accelerated phsyx in their games.

But that is a stupid thing to be frustrated about. PhysX still runs in software mode, so physics is still present in the game, when the game runs on AMD hardware. AND there really is no other viable hardware accelerated physic engine option. So it is either use PhysX to get hardware accelerated physics, or don't use hardware accelerated physic at all. It is stupid to get frustrated at developers because they want the best game possible. Havok still hasn't even hinted that they will be releasing an OpenCL accelerated engine, they've only demoed it with AMD 3 years ago and then ever mentioned it again. And I think that was only a thrown together tech demo for AMD so AMD could show how awesome OpenCL is, and not an actual direction Havok wanted to move in. Bullet has just released their OpenCL accelerated engine in March of 2012(so nowhere near enough time for any major title to implement it), and even at that, it is only partially hardware accelerated, most of the work is still done on the CPU. The only part that seems to be OpenCL accelerated is rigid bodies, everything else is still on the CPU.

 

[eidairaman1]

Just makes me wonder if its feasible to have anything more than a 8800 GTS 320/640 for Rendering PHYSX

 

[newtekie1]

Just makes me wonder if its feasible to have anything more than a 8800 GTS 320/640 for Rendering PHYSX

The 8800GTS 320/640 definitely have enough power to do the PhysX calculations if they are used as a dedicated card. Though I would go with at least a G92 based card simply because the G80 cards use way too much power, even just sitting idle, to warrant leaving in a system for a dedicated card. Granted, if you have any halfway decent modern nVidia card, having a dedicated card is a total waste anyway.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Over 150 games eh?

http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=all

Over 360 games and counting, with some nice games in development too.

and your full of shit 360 games yes most of them oh look at that CPU based herp derp so doesnt really matter now does it

28 total on GPU 19 Total on PPU

PPU got dropped completely by Nvidia so that brings it back to 28 that function properly without work arounds 28 games

The 28 games that use PhysX

Active Worlds
Alice Madness Returns
Batman Arkham Asylum (this is rather dubious do the BS tactics used and the fact PhysX didnt contribute a whole lot ooo flying paper)
Batman Arkham CIty
Borderlands 2 (not yet released)
Cryostasis (was a terrible game at release took 3 GTX 280s in SLI + PhysX to run at 60fps was terribly optimized title in that regard)
Dark Void (one of the worst games ive ever played most pretend Capcom and Airtight Games never made it lol its that bad)
Crazy Machines II
Hawken
Hot Dance Party
Hot Dance Party II
Mafia II
Mars
Metal Knight ZEro Online
Metro 2033
Metro Last Light
Mirror's Edge
Passion Leads Army
QQ Dance 2
Sacred 2 Fallen Angel
Sacred 2 Ice & Blood (oh look both of these have flying leaves who cares with high camera angle and small viewing area it adds very little to the experience on both titles)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Unreal Tournament 3
Warmonger Operation Downtown DescrutionDarkest of Days (mediocure game using the Marmoset Engine rather boring nothing exciting)

of those games 11 are big name games that had large budgets etc and used it well.

Batman Arkham City
Borderlands 2
Mafia 2
Cryostasis
Mirror's Edge
Sacred 2
Metro 2033
Metro Last Light
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon AW2
Unreal Tournament 3
Alice Madness Returns

Of those titles games that made good use of PhysX 5 total

Mafia 2
Mirror's Edge
Cryostasis
Batman Arkham City
Alice Madness returns

of those 5 games you end up with.

Mafia 2: 90% of all effects can be run on todays CPUs i know recently played Mafia 2 with PhysX on using my 2500k and now 3770k fully playable wilth all PhysX effects on except for NPC cloth so while awesome Mafia 2 kinda proves that GPU physX isnt THAT great when CPUs today in the mid range can handle the work load if its coded properly. So this title really is only impressive in its implementation but that a CPU can do it so GPU relevance here is rather lacluster
Mirror's Edge you can BS the Physx onto the CPu not as good as Mafia 2 in that regard but possible does add to the game play overall so its a win. Arkham city in all honesty most of its effects could easily be done CPU side they choose not to

so of the 6 bit titles only Cryostasis really stands out as something that was truly interesting what with full on fluid with the water cannon etc, but took so much horsepower to run at launch it was pretty much a flop.

PhysX is great software its amazing what can be done with it

Whats more amazing is that todays CPUs can handle a great deal of what PhysX offers instead of running on the GPU but as its NVIDIA's software and they make GPUs well its rather self explanatory which way they are going to lean. regardless its all rather sad that its locked to one vendor. Or in many cases can be done CPU side nearly as well

but yea so 360 games total 28 of which are CPU and only 11 of which are really big name GOOD games, of that only 5 really really needed the GPU to accomplish said effects and even than thats debatable with 1 game just being over the Top in its GPU needs for PhysX.

Open CL could accomplish these things on all hardware. but NVIDIA looks out for NVIDIA is a gimmick but it makes them money. Regardless as long as its a Gimmick tied to one company means youll always end up with sub par physics that really dont contribute much to the game itself do to the simple fact not everyone can run it aka 37% of PC gamers can't make use of the feature period and lets face it NVIDIA's magica 63% can't ALL run it either thats BS as well so its probably far closer that only around 25% of Users Total with discrete Graphics can make use of PhysX properly in Borderlands 2 and the number of users who BUY that game with PhysX in mind are probably far far smaller than that. In the end Developers arent dumb enough to screw there users completely so PhysX will remain and most likely always be a gimmick icing on the cake for maybe 20-25% of the PC gaming community.

 

[Rei86]

I heard the same actually, they're supplying the WII U GPU also.

Not sure what Sony are doing mind you.

Sony is getting a GPU code named Southern Islands.

Its been speculated for sometime that the Wii U is using a modded 5870, the Xbox 720 will launch with a 6XXXish APU setup and that the new Sony Code Named Orb will probably pack a 79XX card.

So yes since the GameCube Nintendo has had a ATi card in their console. MS had a modded nVidia card in the Xbox and moved onto if I remember a X1800 in the 360. Sony with its Cell Processor in the PS3 was paired with a Nvidia 7800. So yeah...Nvidia's lost all console contracts and AMD has picked them up.

 

[newtekie1]

and your full of shit 360 games yes most of them oh look at that CPU based herp derp so doesnt really matter now does it

28 total on GPU 19 Total on PPU

PPU got dropped completely by Nvidia so that brings it back to 28 that function properly without work arounds 28 games

The 28 games that use PhysX

Ok, and how many use any other form of hardware accelerated physics? The point is that there are 360 games that use PhysX in software or hardware form, the software titles being directly comparable to Havok and Bullet in quality, and the hardware ones offering effects that neither Havok or Bullet have demonstrated they are capable of in real-world game environments. At this point, developers are using PhysX more than Havok or Bullet combined(from what I can find). You can whine about how only a few use hardware accelerated PhysX, but the fact is that there are a total of 0 games that use any other hardware accelerated physics engine. so it is total BS at this point to say PhysX isn't popular, it has more software physics titles and more hardware accelerated titles than anyone else.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

true enough

but how many of those games use PhysX in a way thats fundamentally better than Havok etc?

Havok is one option many developers also use custom physics implementations Dice and Battlefield come to mind instantly

i could care less about software side

yes Havok has 200-300 games
yes PhysX has 300-400 games

Havok GPU accellerated 0
PhysX GPU accellerated 28

Havok GPU accellerated that the physics makes a difference 0
PhsyX GPU accellerated that the physics makes a difference 5

and again thats debatable as more than a few of the high class games that really make PhysX look appealing much of it can be done CPU side again Mafia 2 is a prime example some of the best Physics extras ive seen introduced via PhysX and 80-90% can be done CPU side.

my point is simple that most of the awesomeness PhysX brings to the table can indeed be done on the CPU and NVIDIA;s own software showed that in Mafia 2 which looks better than most PhysX titles in terms of whats going on.

Also dont put fucking words in my mouth newtekie i never said it wasnt popular. It is and for a reason doesnt change the fact GPU accellerated PhysX is still a damn gimmick and litterally is only amazing on a few titles that can be counted on a persons hands over the course of 6 god damn years 6 years for 28 titles again 11 of which used it decently well, but only 5 were amazing, and of the 5 well only a couple actually needed the GPU for it.

as for you FLumeister again how many PhysX games are amazing compared to Havok or other custom solutions by developers again i pointed out only 28 titles that use the extra features of them most are not amazing not even close its rather laughable. I want better Physics in my games not gimmick bullshit. lol

 

[Fluffmeister]

Yeah it's kinda hard to compare to other solutions which support jack shit else but the CPU.

 

[solofly]

PhysX mmmmmmmm, 3D mmmmmmmm music to my ears...

 

[newtekie1]

but how many of those games use PhysX in a way thats fundamentally better than Havok etc?

Of the hardware accelerated titles? Almost all of them, since they all contain soft cloth physics, which Havok/Bullet can't do smoothly in software. Also, while small amounts of volumetric smoke is possible, filling whole rooms with it like Batman:AA does isn't without hardware acceleration.

 

[Fluffmeister]

true enough

but how many of those games use PhysX in a way thats fundamentally better than Havok etc?

Havok is one option many developers also use custom physics implementations Dice and Battlefield come to mind instantly

i could care less about software side

yes Havok has 200-300 games
yes PhysX has 300-400 games

Havok GPU accellerated 0
PhysX GPU accellerated 28

Havok GPU accellerated that the physics makes a difference 0
PhsyX GPU accellerated that the physics makes a difference 5

and again thats debatable as more than a few of the high class games that really make PhysX look appealing much of it can be done CPU side again Mafia 2 is a prime example some of the best Physics extras ive seen introduced via PhysX and 80-90% can be done CPU side.

my point is simple that most of the awesomeness PhysX brings to the table can indeed be done on the CPU and NVIDIA;s own software showed that in Mafia 2 which looks better than most PhysX titles in terms of whats going on.

Also dont put fucking words in my mouth newkie i never said it wasnt popular.

as for you FLumeister again how many PhysX games are amazing compared to Havok or other custom solutions by developers again i pointed out only 28 titles that use the extra features of them most are not amazing not even close its rather laughable. I want better Physics in my games not gimmick bullshit. lol

You just make the token mistake of assuming PhysX = GPU acceleration.

And equally stop putting words in my mouth you knob jockey, I've made no such claims, just correcting the ignorant here, tis all oh angry one.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

thats all i care about GPU acceleration

PhysX is just another generic middleware to me. it serves a purpose its not amazing its not that much better than anyone else it has GPU acceleration thats what makes it worthwhile but in that regard its lacking and not because its not awesome but because its proprietary and locked in. Not so much angry as disappointed everyone hails every game with PhysX as the awesomest shit since sliced bread when it goes GPU acceleration but in the video for borderlands i see nothing that wasnt done 2-6 years ago in various other forms and on top of that nothing in it needs the GPU for it either. just marketing gimmicks. again Mafia 2 was a prime example it has more effects than Borderlands 2 does in the physics department yet all of it can be done CPU side.

If there gonna push PhysX do it right push both software AND GPU dont just strip a game down to the bare minimum then offer accelerated version as the greatest thing ever. Its just bullshit marketing. and makes for worse games not better ones.

I mean hell if NVIDIA is gonna push PhysX then show some damn progress with it, not shit i already saw two years ago running on my CPU.

 

[the54thvoid]

It is the same reaction all over the place when you talk about PhysX with people who use Radeons. It is useless, looks like s**t and so on. Funny thing is those who enjoy PhysX with their cards have a completely different opinion.

Nah. I had a GTX 580 and bought Batman AA to see all the fuss (previously had used Mirrors Edge and Cryostasis on a GTX 295). I was hugely disappointed with the Physx. While i could walk through smoke particles and it was kinda neat, the rest of the environment was background scenery and fake as shit.

I think the water FX in Borderlands looks totally out of place with the comic style. The rag physics is fine enough but it doesn't make the game. The problem, the huge problem with physx is that you get to play with a few effects but the rest of the world stays outside your interaction.

It is and will remain a little gimmick that NV uses to shift their hardware. Nothing more.

 

[Fluffmeister]

It is and will remain a little gimmick that NV uses to shift their hardware. Nothing more.

Guess what, that's all nVidia care about. The game is already being bundled with old inventory to clear stock, if it sells them some cards great, they make some money, Gearbox have already been paid so they are happy too.

People bought AMD cards so they didn't want (better GPU accelerated ) physX anyway and don't have to have it in their game.... everyone is happy!

 

[newtekie1]

thats all i care about GPU acceleration

PhysX is just another generic middleware to me. it serves a purpose its not amazing its not that much better than anyone else it has GPU acceleration thats what makes it worthwhile but in that regard its lacking and not because its not awesome but because its proprietary and locked in. Not so much angry as disappointed everyone hails every game with PhysX as the awesomest shit since sliced bread when it goes GPU acceleration but in the video for borderlands i see nothing that wasnt done 2-6 years ago in various other forms and on top of that nothing in it needs the GPU for it either. just marketing gimmicks. again Mafia 2 was a prime example it has more effects than Borderlands 2 does in the physics department yet all of it can be done CPU side.

If there gonna push PhysX do it right push both software AND GPU dont just strip a game down to the bare minimum then offer accelerated version as the greatest thing ever. Its just bullshit marketing. and makes for worse games not better ones.

They are all middleware by that definition...

Which do you think is better?

Havok/Bullet with basic software physic but no option for hardware accelerated physics.

or

PhysX with the same basic software physic as everyone else but with an option for hardware accelerated physics with the right hardware?

And you say there was nothing in the Borderlands 2 video that you haven't see already 2-6 years ago that doesn't need a GPU, so show me where you have seen interactive soft cloth physics and interactive volumetric smoke in large quanties on another engine that was running on the CPU alone.

I mean, seriously, if effects like that ran on the CPU so easily you would think the guys who's engines are entirely CPU based would have implemented them already a long time ago, but they haven't.

 

[Flibolito]

IMO the physX is neat and will add a little flavor to the game for those who have the hardware for it but this game is so dated graphically already from what i can see it doesn't really matter here. Mafia 2 and Batman games were definitely better with the GPU acceleration on, I just wish more developers went this route as an optional extra.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

Smoke, Debris Cloth etc all done in Mafia II on the CPU

PhysX is better, hands down in terms of support

but that doesnt change the fact that Borderlands 2 WITHOUT physX is bs, they could have done more with it and you damn well know it, it was purposefully kept bare minimum to make GPU PhysX look better and that is where i have a problem. It makes hte base game worse on purpose to sell more hardware via Gearbox getting a paycheck from Nvidia its rather sad really im not saying i EXPECT CPU PhysX to be as good as GPU PhysX but it goes without saying in this situation Software side was purposefully held back by Gearbox to get a check from Nvidia. Thus you end up with a base game that is worse than it could have been, in favor of a few extra GPU sales.

Many games today offer amazing physics on the CPU that look just about as good as what im seeing Borderlands 2 put out on the GPU and thats just depressing.

essentially the main problem i have is PhysX could be great but purposefully holding back software in favor of GPU for no real reason is just terrible for users but then most users will buy it on console and thus all of this is irrelevent to the bottom line anyway.

Maybe in 10 years when consoles dont suck so hard and properly do acelerated Physics we might finally move forward to something better.

 

[Fluffmeister]

The main problem here is other solutions simply don't offer everything PhysX does, I appreciate people bemoaning the proprietary side of it, but as it stands they are the only ones to offer GPU acceleration so why not take advantage of that fact?

People are always keen to point out how few games support GPU acceleration and the like anyway, but at least they are offering their customers something extra and working hard on improving it. Is it to sell hardware? Oh frickin course it is, but in my book at least it's a nice bonus.

Equally it's easy to stand around and shout OpenCL! OpenCL! OpenCL! and do nothing about it.

GPU Havok isn't going to happen because why would Intel give AMD/nV an advantage, which leaves Bullet being one of the only real viable options here. Only once they have decent and comparable option/support out can anyone truly compare and contrast PhysX worth and how well it's implemented.

The fact this topic comes up every time a new games comes out with decent physics support suggests no matter how much they say it sucks, they clearly want it.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

and again you miss MY point

Borderlands 2 with GPU PhysX off looks worse then most titles today also using CPU based physics

Borderlands 2 with GPU PhysX on looks roughly eqivalent to what was seen in UE3 map pack for the PPU and not much better.

so essentially from what im seeing is a game that doesnt really do anything with PhysX on the GPU thats really that intensive, yes i want better physics

but WHY DUMB IT DOWN purposefully just to make GPU side look better. im guessing the check Nvidia hands out is worth far more than actual sales.

im not saying GPU physics sucks i do indeed want it, what i dont want s games fucking crippled on purpose to make it look better for marketing.

and having owned multiple NVIDIA gpus and the Aegia PPU i do indeed want better physics just seems every game that comes out with it either cuts effects back to purposefully make the difference MORE noticeable.

Considering how many studios like to call gamers entitled babies and that there work is art i find it funny they readily accept checks to put out lackluster "art" lol oh well i think ive trolled enough insulted enough for one day ive had my fun