[Costin Moroianu]

EDIT: NVM

[Regis]

What about Bullet Open Source Physics Engine?

Quote

Features:
Rigid body and soft body simulation with discrete and continuous collision detection
Collision shapes include: sphere, box, cylinder, cone, convex hull using GJK, non-convex and triangle mesh
Soft body support: cloth, rope and deformable objects
A rich set of rigid body and soft body constraints with constraint limits and motors
Plugins for Maya, Softimage, integrated into Houdini, Cinema 4D, LightWave 3D, and Blender and import of COLLADA 1.4 physics content
Optional optimizations for PlayStation 3 Cell SPU, CUDA and OpenCL

Used in:
Grand Theft Auto IV
Red Dead Redemption
Trials HD
3D Mark 2011
2012
Hancock
Bolt
The A-Team
Sherlock Holmes
Megamind
Shrek 4

[Aaden]

Regis said:

What about Bullet Open Source Physics Engine?



Used in:
Grand Theft Auto IV
Red Dead Redemption
Trials HD
3D Mark 2011
2012
Hancock
Bolt
The A-Team
Sherlock Holmes
Megamind
Shrek 4 ›››

GTA4 physics
Seems to do a fine job.

Seriously though, I don't know a lot about Bullet. One severe restriction is support though - with an open source product you'll never get the kind of support you get when you buy one. And that's a huge con when companies consider software.

[Aver]

Costin Moroianu said:

What about the games where it matters? The GTX 670 is better then the 7970 in Crysis 2, Batman: Arkham City, Battlefield 3, Shogun 2 and Metro 2033, some of the most demanding games out there. At least based on the becnhmarks I've seen. ›››

I've stopped reading and started looking for benchmarks that would prove that you are wrong. I found over dozen of them and then I found out that someone already corrected you. It's sad day for my inner forum warrior. />/>

Also I might add that 7970 is not only cheaper/same priced (depends on region), but you also get Far Cry 3, Hitman: Absolution and Sleeping Dogs with it. Over 100$ of value.

[M4xw0lf]

Aver said:

I've stopped reading and started looking for benchmarks that would prove that you are wrong. I found over dozen of them and then I found out that someone already corrected you. It's sad day for my inner forum warrior. ›››

Aww, I'm so sorry

Regarding bullet physics: AMD has focussed on bullet for some time now (but it's still open, unlike physx), so maybe it will see more use in next-gen console titles.

[Vinterberg]

Why is it such a bad thing that NVidia cards gets an advantage in certain games? Isn't it the same with PC vs. consoles - and who likes having crappy graphics just because of consoles? Why should AMD drag the market down because "everybody must get the same experience", they don't in alot of other aspects of gaming graphics..

Is it also unfair that NVidia has ambient occlusion settings in the control panel, because AMD haven't got it?

[Aver]

Vinterberg said:

Why is it such a bad thing that NVidia cards gets an advantage in certain games? Isn't it the same with PC vs. consoles - and who likes having crappy graphics just because of consoles? Why should AMD drag the market down because "everybody must get the same experience", they don't in alot of other aspects of gaming graphics..

No, it's simply stupid to use closed physics engine, that will improve experience for half of your customers. It's better to use or create engine that everyone can enjoy. And it has nothing to do with graphics, but with physics. Also as I said earlier. Using physics engine that uses GPU instead of CPU is bad idea for a game with so demanding graphics.

Quote

Is it also unfair that NVidia has ambient occlusion settings in the control panel, because AMD haven't got it?

No one suffers from it so why would anyone care?

[Costin Moroianu]

Creating a solid PhysX engine that can match Nvidia's own would take quite a bit of money from CDPR I imagine. Can CDPR justify spending that money?

[M4xw0lf]

There is bullet. CDPR doesn't need to build its own engine.

[Aver]

Costin Moroianu said:

Creating a solid PhysX engine that can match Nvidia's own would take quite a bit of money from CDPR I imagine. Can CDPR justify spending that money? ›››

They can do it based on Havok. Plenty of devs improved parts of Havok for their games and only thing that Havok doesn't have and PhysX have is physics of those small particles like shards of broken glass. And it's very small feature.

[Prince_of_Nothing]

Quote

Actually Havok is way more popular physics enigne. It was used in over 200 games. PhysX was used in over 50 games.

Also Havok has big advantage over PhysyX if it comes to great looking games that require a lot of GPU power. Havok uses only CPU, PhysyX uses mostly GPU. So you would need even more powerful GPU than now. That's why games that require a really good GPU don't use PhysyX. Only exception is Metro.

You're wrong on this dude. Havok is only more popular if you compare it against hardware accelerated PhysX. But if you compare it against software PhysX (which many console games use), then it probably comes up short.

[Prince_of_Nothing]

M4xw0lf said:

Physx needs to die and be replaced by open source. Or go open source.
As it is, Nvidia and their proprietary GPU-Physx are inhibiting the wide-spread use of more advanced physical simulations - and I'm not talking about useless eye-candy (which is all Physx is about), but real physics with actual relevance to gameplay - that is, deformable materials, destructible environments, the good stuff. ›››

A naïve sentiment. PhysX is basically the only name in hardware accelerated physics now. Of course there's Bullet physics, but compared to PhysX, it's under developed and under supported.

With PhysX, developers can add content much faster due to all the tools and support they get from Nvidia..

I understand the dislike for PhysX's proprietary nature, but when you consider that PhysX has been delivering hardware accelerated physics for years now, compared to Bullet, then it's a no brainer.

As for "real" physics, that's a developer issue. There's no reason developers can't use PhysX to deliver game affecting physics..

[Aver]

Prince_of_Nothing said:

You're wrong on this dude. Havok is only more popular if you compare it against hardware accelerated PhysX. But if you compare it against software PhysX (which many console games use), then it probably comes up short. ›››

Nope, if you look at two lists (list of games that use Havok and list of games that use PhysX) that you can find in this topic you will see that 95% big games are on one of them (rest of games probably uses their own engines - like GTA). There is simply no room for more games.

[Guy N'wah]

Vinterberg said:

Why is it such a bad thing that NVidia cards gets an advantage in certain games? Isn't it the same with PC vs. consoles - and who likes having crappy graphics just because of consoles? Why should AMD drag the market down because "everybody must get the same experience", they don't in alot of other aspects of gaming graphics..

Is it also unfair that NVidia has ambient occlusion settings in the control panel, because AMD haven't got it? ›››

It's not a bad thing. Graphics companies should be striving for competitive advantage. If that means they provide software that makes such good use of their architecture, well, if it's good, it wins sales, and the competitor who can't run it because their architecture's different be damned.

But when CDPR adopts it, they get all the people who feel they're entitled to equal support upset. We heard all that with Eyefinity. If the new game will run at maximum performance only on nVidia hardware because maximum performance requires on-GPU PhysX, we're going to hear from them again. I for one value my peace and quiet enough not to want to hear it.

[Prince_of_Nothing]

Aver said:

They can do it based on Havok. Plenty of devs improved parts of Havok for their games and only thing that Havok doesn't have and PhysX have is physics of those small particles like shards of broken glass. And it's very small feature. ›››

PhysX has fluid simulation, Havok doesn't. PhysX has turbulence, Havok doesn't. PhysX has force field generation. Havok doesn't.

[Prince_of_Nothing]

Aver said:

Nope, if you look at two lists (list of games that use Havok and list of games that use PhysX) that you can find in this topic you will see that 95% big games are on one of them (rest of games probably uses their own engines - like GTA). There is simply no room for more games. ›››

Where's the list? I have a hard time believing more games use Havok (which developers have to pay for), compared to using software PhysX which developers don't have to pay for.

Software PhysX is free for developers, and is integrated into the Unreal engine 3. Those are two big reasons why PhysX is so popular. Developers only have to pay a fee if they want to use hardware accelerated PhysX.

[Aver]

Prince_of_Nothing said:

Where's the list? I have a hard time believing more games use Havok (which developers have to pay for), compared to using software PhysX which developers don't have to pay for.

Software PhysX is free for developers, and is integrated into the Unreal engine 3. Those are two big reasons why PhysX is so popular. Developers only have to pay a fee if they want to use hardware accelerated PhysX. ›››

http://en.wikipedia....Havok_(software)

Big games that used Havok in last year:
Call of Duty
Medal of Honour
Far Cry 3
Darksiders 2
Sleeping Dogs
Assassin Creed 3
Halo 3
Uncharted: Golden Abyss
Binary Domain
Kingdoms of Amalur

Not a lot of room for PhysX.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

But when CDPR adopts it, they get all the people who feel they're entitled to equal support upset. We heard all that with Eyefinity. If the new game will run at maximum performance only on nVidia hardware because maximum performance requires on-GPU PhysX, we're going to hear from them again. I for one value my peace and quiet enough not to want to hear it.

There will be big complaints regardless on launch, would they be bigger if CDPR included PhysX by Nvidia? Maybe, maybe not.

But considering that CDPR has to deal with a truckload of complaints we don't even see then well I don't see them caring much for a few loud mouths on the forums.

[Guy N'wah]

Prince_of_Nothing said:

Where's the list? I have a hard time believing more games use Havok (which developers have to pay for), compared to using software PhysX which developers don't have to pay for.

Software PhysX is free for developers, and is integrated into the Unreal engine 3. Those are two big reasons why PhysX is so popular. Developers only have to pay a fee if they want to use hardware accelerated PhysX. ›››

For a commercial developer, license fees are a normal cost of doing business, not usually grounds for adopting one technology over another. Maybe that doesn't apply to indy developers or garage shops. But CDPR can afford the tools that produce the best results. If GPU PhysX is a big win with their engine, they should adopt it, even if it costs big money and even if AMD customers will kvetch. But if they do, the AMD customers will kvetch.

[Costin Moroianu]

I'd bet TW3 won't support eyeinfinity like TW2 so they will kvetch anyway.