On last years gamescom i listened to an interview Mr. Yerli gave at the gamestar location.
I remember a question about use of Physx in Crysis 2, but i cant remember the answer.
But anyway... I think its time that the already existing physic effects could be accelerated by the Cuda Cores of Nvidias grfxcards.
Some games like the new mafia add so much particles just to show what additional Physx can do. Its so unnecessary.
Please Crytek... i know you have a good relationship with nvidia. Just add the Physix acceleration for the already existing gamephysics.
Just for the performance. I know its possible. And you would be the first company to make intelligent use of Physx.

No-one would use physX when directcompute 5.0 and havoc-gpu is better

The fact is that game developers just aren't that interested in gpu physics, yet. PhysX titles are few and far between and are always coupled with incentives from nvidia (i.e. they'll offset development costs with new rigs for the team to even just some money).

There are better offerings than physX on the market, which also have the bonus of being able to run on the vast majority of cards which make up todays high end (nvidia have bombed in sales for the last two generations), but developers, without the financial benefits waving in front of their faces, just aren't fussed.

I do hope to see these effects as much as you though, but nvidia's physX is not going to be the future in any form, especially when CPU's can bear the grunt quite happily (tweak run mafia 2 to run with with physX on the cpu, and the game runs fine, with the cpu using around 50% of it's power).

Anyways, i'll expect we'll see intelligent use of gpu physics in games soon with purebred dx11 games utilising directcompute 5.0 and/or havoc-gpu.

Nvidia just don't have the market domination they'd need to force people to use physX a lot in a game. AMD have around 80% of the market share for high end cards post 2008.

(and to avoid a random blind backlash, post 2008 means the number of people using a hd4 series or gtx2 series and above, you can't expect physX on a 9800GT or hd3 series and below)

3 Posts in a row... he he..wow..

i understand your position and mostly agree with you Mr Chair
But for me as a gtx 280 owner theres only one game that really pushed physx to a point where no other physic engine has gone before.
That game was Cryostasis. I doubt that the other engines could handle such a huge load of water calculation. (ice melts..fluid on surfaces run down to a small puddle etc.) all that within a full physical- interactive invroment. At least ive never seen anything like the physics in this game again.
For Crysis: there was a rumor that Crysis Warhead would support physx.. but it never happened. Because Nvidia being some kind of partner to Crytek... i had hope for this to happen in Crysis 2.

Oh and for the mafia - tweak u need a very strong processor. But thats not the idea of having a GPU internal processing unit, to tweak the calculation back to a processor. Im open for a new standard.. but then they should also use the cuda core (s) within that solution (DX,HAvoc).

Well, they'll definitely use the cuda cores in directcompute 5.0 and havoc - gpu.

I agree it's irritating, it's like me having a dx11 gpu, pushing around 5x the computing power than your gtx280 and still not having any gpu-physics built into my games too But at least i get sneek peeks at dx11 awesomesauce like in dirt 2 and unigine

In the end, games will get there, and until then we'll get small peeks into the future, but we'll just have to wait i guess. At least nvidia do push this kind of stuff onto developers so we do get to see it occasionally.

But no developer does it out of choice because of the aforementioned AMD dominance in the high end market (and dx10/11 gpu's can all do gpu-physics on direct compute, but developers just don't care). It's pretty much a proven fact that games with physX actually lose out in sales because they lock features that, by right, can be replicated on AMD cards if they used an open standard, so AMD users ignore the game

I agree that gpu physics is much more effective, but the cpu issue is also important. CPU's are cheaper and are also much less utilised in demanding games, so most of the time it is best to keep it on the CPU, but i know that gpu physics is the future for really complex and amazing things, i just have to look at AMD stream demos for that kind of stuff.

Anyways, i guess my rambling is that physX is kind of the appetizer, not the main course hopefully that main course will arrive soon though, i'm starving!

P.S. 3 posts = no edit button

Crysis 2 uses CryEngine 3 Physics.

Not Physx

[quote]Crysis 2 uses CryEngine 3 Physics.

Not Physx[/quote]

Please read what the thread is about.. we both allready knew that.
It was just about the idea of having physx support.

Why use PhysX when Crytek already have their own half decent physics system? Why isolate one brand (AMD) when they can have the same level of interactivity on both brands? PhysX is an easy solution for engines that don't have their own physics engine capabilities.

Lastly, PhysX is the single most overrated piece of engineering on the market today. This is also coming form an nVidia user, who has owned an 8800GTX, two 8800GT's and a GTX285 since PhysX was released via CUDA.

Crysis 2 wont need Physx because Cryengine 3 already has it

[quote]Why use PhysX when Crytek already have their own half decent physics system? Why isolate one brand (AMD) when they can have the same level of interactivity on both brands? PhysX is an easy solution for engines that don't have their own physics engine capabilities.

Lastly, PhysX is the single most overrated piece of engineering on the market today. This is also coming form an nVidia user, who has owned an 8800GTX, two 8800GT's and a GTX285 since PhysX was released via CUDA.[/quote]

Yes, Crytek already has a physics system that works just fine on all GPU's. There is no need to kill half a potential market for no reason.

[quote]Unless there are tons of destructible stuff on an enormous scale in the game, PhysX won't be needed.

How come that games without PhysX can have large destructible environments such as Crysis and Bad Company 2, while games with little to no destructobility like Metro 2033 advertise for PhysX, despite the game having no practical use for it.

PhysX is just overrated [/quote]

IMO PhysX adds an extra stick for each tree you see.
And it makes the flags move a little...

[quote][quote]Unless there are tons of destructible stuff on an enormous scale in the game, PhysX won't be needed.

How come that games without PhysX can have large destructible environments such as Crysis and Bad Company 2, while games with little to no destructobility like Metro 2033 advertise for PhysX, despite the game having no practical use for it.

PhysX is just overrated [/quote]

IMO PhysX adds an extra stick for each tree you see.
And it makes the flags move a little...[/quote]


PhyX does add in extra little details that make the game look good. And it also has an awesome cloth flow feature (as said above) that is extremely realistic but has a heavy load on you CPU. And example would be Mafia 2
- the cloth flow on your character is just crazy

PhysX is used heavily for particle applications also, something which maybe CryEngine could benefit from, as it is rather heavy on particle visuals.

Hmhh... but all that must lead to more physic details on the Pc Version right?

I bet it will be the same level of physic detail as it is on the console version. Because crytek does nothing exclusive for pc anymore.

[quote]Hmhh... but all that must lead to more physic details on the Pc Version right?

I bet it will be the same level of physic detail as it is on the console version. Because crytek does nothing exclusive for pc anymore.[/quote]

Well, there are some PC exclusive features i know of.

1. Per object motion blur. Direct X10 feature, consoles wouldn't have the power to run it.
2. Parallax Occlusion Mapping, POM, consoles don't have the power to run it.

[quote]Hmhh... but all that must lead to more physic details on the Pc Version right?

I bet it will be the same level of physic detail as it is on the console version. Because crytek does nothing exclusive for pc anymore.[/quote]

Honestly, I would be perfectly happy if Crytek just had the Xbox360 graphics, makes sure its PC resolution, and then add features exclusive for the PC like PhysX and 3D Vision/Eyefinity, and full out DX11 support.

Honestly after all that, the game would look stunning and the hardware would be stressed. And if you didn't run that stuff, you still got good resolution and 150+ fps to back you up.

I said physical features.. parralax occlusion mapping has nothing to do with the amount of physical objects in a game.

@ Talon... If your wish would come true ,, you better dont go closer to any walls because the textures would look like they came out of a dishwasher