Well, I clocked my card up from stock speeds to FTW speeds (670/1458/1188) and my framerate in Lighthouse has jumped worlds.
Inexplicable, but it might work for you too! :D
Thoughts on PhysX
Thoughts on PhysX
Its marketing.
NVIDIA CAN do this. But then what would DX11 have to offer? They've beat DX10 into the ground...no one cares. Alot of gamers are on XP still. DX11 offers in-game intergrated physics? ZOMG MUST UPGRADE! its really a business instead of science. Its available, just not to the public...yet...
NVIDIA CAN do this. But then what would DX11 have to offer? They've beat DX10 into the ground...no one cares. Alot of gamers are on XP still. DX11 offers in-game intergrated physics? ZOMG MUST UPGRADE! its really a business instead of science. Its available, just not to the public...yet...
-
scavvenjahh
- Editors
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 06 Mar 2008, 17:20
Thoughts on PhysX
No PhysX in AoC afaik; but physics, using CUDA ;) Sounds cool that devs can use CUDA the way they want, rather than being "forced" into using PhysX. It's even better that physics become a part of DX...
However PhysX is a beast of its own with some unique features (advanced all-in-one physics engine w/ soft bodies, high parallelism allowing persistent debris, etc.) that still make it an interesting path for game creators to follow - even though very few games would ever use even half of its capabilities.
The more options for devs to effectively implement physics in their games depending on their specific needs, the better I guess. Be it by using GPU-accelerated PhysX, CPU-bound Havok or any other custom solutions.
The Death Of PhysX has been foreseen since the engine first popped out. Who cares about he future really ? The only certain thing by now is that 'advanced physics' in games is the next big thing.
However PhysX is a beast of its own with some unique features (advanced all-in-one physics engine w/ soft bodies, high parallelism allowing persistent debris, etc.) that still make it an interesting path for game creators to follow - even though very few games would ever use even half of its capabilities.
The more options for devs to effectively implement physics in their games depending on their specific needs, the better I guess. Be it by using GPU-accelerated PhysX, CPU-bound Havok or any other custom solutions.
The Death Of PhysX has been foreseen since the engine first popped out. Who cares about he future really ? The only certain thing by now is that 'advanced physics' in games is the next big thing.
Re: Thoughts on PhysX
If I have older PhysX games that installed the Ageia drivers in the Control Panel will they use the NVIDIA driver's PhysX? Do I still need the older drivers for these games?
Also here is a neat article about PhysX.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143
Also here is a neat article about PhysX.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT070510142143
-
scavvenjahh
- Editors
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 06 Mar 2008, 17:20
Re: Thoughts on PhysX
PhysX is a library so newer versions should take care of older games... You *should* be able to uninstall the Ageia drivers.
In reference to the neat article: http://physxinfo.com/news/4241/physx-an-easy-target/
And to add to the mix: http://physxinfo.com/news/3892/mafia-ii-is-not-using-gpu-for-physx-cloth-simulation/
In reference to the neat article: http://physxinfo.com/news/4241/physx-an-easy-target/
And to add to the mix: http://physxinfo.com/news/3892/mafia-ii-is-not-using-gpu-for-physx-cloth-simulation/
Re: Thoughts on PhysX
Don't blame me, blame Wikipedia. :mrgreen:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests