I will not buy a Witcher 3 because...
17.06.2013 @ 11:06 #61
V1000 Cooler Master PS, 128g Samsung SSD, 1tb Black Western Digital HDD,
LG BluRay Burner, 2 EVGA 660TI in SLI OCed just a wee bit, In a NZXT phantom 630 case!
Asus Nvidia 3d 144mhz 24 inch monitor. Logitech Track ball, Mech keyoard, Razor Xbox Gamepad
17.06.2013 @ 13:04 #63
You miss the point:
Nvidia advanced physx will run exclusively run on nvidia gpus, this isn't the difference of amd graphics card systems running the game at 40fps and nvidia systems running it at 60fps. this is the difference of amd graphics card systems running the game at 10fps and nvidia systems running at 60fps. I.e. Unplayable on non nvidia graphics card systems.
Again, telling us to just buy nvidia is such a rude statement it makes me mad, that's what nvidia wants, they want me to buy their graphics cards just so I can use advanced physx, it's not going to happen, I won't get sucked in by their little marketing trick.
I do however, still want accelerated fur. Again, there are non gpu specific solutions out there, such as havok.
17.06.2013 @ 13:42 #64
Secondly, for FUD devulgers: It's recommendable that you either post a source of where you saw those information, or it's better to be careful with accusation.
17.06.2013 @ 14:24 #65
To use physx its pretty much required to have an nvidia card otherwise it will run purely off of the CPU if you're using an AMD card, and it doesn't really work that great. I can't even run borderlands 2 with max physx unless I want 10 FPS with an i7-2600k @ 3.8ghz, and I can play the witcher 2 on maximum settings with a decent framerate. That's how much the difference is.
So while it isn't specifically required to use an nvidia card to use physx, in so many words it basically is required in the end, regardless. You don't specifically need a nvidia card, but yeah... you aren't going to go very far without it if you want physx.
I'm still going to buy the game regardless, I just hope there isn't that much of a visual difference without physx because I certainly won't be able to use it.
17.06.2013 @ 16:32 #66
As for your statement about telling me to buy an nvidia card. It's these sort of blatant practices from nvidia which makes me NOT buy their hardware. If I purchased an Nvidia card that's the same as me buying an Xbox One because an exclusive game is on it I want. I'm not going to allow microsoft to put their 24 hour check on me just because there's a game I want. ›››
Apparently either Havok doesn't have the capabilities to produce e.g. this kind of fur simulation, or implementing it would require too much work compared to the PhysX case. Also don't forget that Nvidia sends their engeneers to help along, which makes things much easier for CDPR. I'm quite sure that, being a not very large studio, this was the only option CDPR could implement with respect to the feautures in question, time- and cost-wise.
Nvidia doesn't put a 24 hour check upon you, so better compare it to Sony. Would you buy PS4 for an excusive that is available there?
In any case, console hardware is too slow to actually run these features we discuss here (also Nvidia announced that some sort of lighter version of PhysX will be available on consoles). So only PC consumer distribution matters. And according to the latest Steam survey, Nvidia users formed 62% of all people using discrete graphics.
17.06.2013 @ 17:12 #67
My amd system is a 7970... so pretty high end.
To answer your question Jerf, no, no I would not. But you have a good point, sorta thinking about nvidia as being a console exclusive, I did not consider that. I still wouldn't buy a ps4 just for one or two games though.
At the very least I don't want my wolves to be that ugly, perhaps cdproject red can get some fur looking fur into the non physx solution, perhaps they could get a bodged tressfx solution working or something. Even if it doesn't look as good, as long as it looks decent compared to adv physx completely off.
17.06.2013 @ 17:12 #68
With GPU computing? No, they are not too slow. And this PhysX that will be available on consoles is the same thing that is on X360 and PS3 and the same thing we have on PCs when you turn off GPU computed features. It is so called "physics wannabe". Try to play some physX game and set physX on the lowest setting...
Yes, physX look great on nVidia cards, but it doesn't fully work on other platform and its basics functions looks really bad. At least in games that were released so far. Basic PhysX looks like physics from decade old games and even nVidia seems to admit - just look at their promo videos of games that use physX. Those videos basically look like this:
"Here is game with PhysX set to high:" *awesome effects* "and now look at effect with PhysX set to low:" *complete garbage*. "If you don't want to see this sh*t, better buy our card!".
They could use Havok and everyone would have good physics. Instead they have chosen PhysX, so nVidia users will have great physics, but rest of their customers will PROBABLY have really bad physics.
17.06.2013 @ 17:27 #73
Jack Bauer 24 said:
From what I read, Bullet is available on PlayStation 3, so it might be present on PS 4 as well. If CDPR cares to use these optimizations, they might consider using it instead of PhysX there. If they do, this can apply to desktop AMD cases as well.
Be sure to direct this question to CDPR if you are an AMD or potential PS4 user.
17.06.2013 @ 17:33 #74
Not only nVidia has awesome support. Look what devs say about Havok in interviews:
And guy from Relic said once that Havok's engineers work with them so much that they consider them as part of team, but I can't find this quote now .
Also Havok won award for best 3rd party software on Game Developers Conference 5 times in the row. And there have to be a reason why Havok is being used in ~80% of the games.
17.06.2013 @ 17:50 #75
This is referenced in some older announcements. No idea where it stands today:
17.06.2013 @ 17:55 #76
AMD doesn't focus on bullet. Bullet ex-developer works for AMD now and he makes stuff like TressFX etc., but they don't support bullet or any other physics engine.
About Havok. Yes, it is owned by Intel, but they treat their software and hardware business completely separately. Havok was optimized for AMD CPUs even before new consoles and it perform perfectly smoothly on them. So it doesn't matter that Havok is being developed by Intel because it doesn't favor Intel's CPUs.
17.06.2013 @ 18:05 #78
Nothing which affects the actual simulation of the physical properties of objects in the game.
Nevertheless a GPU-accelerated version of Havoc has already been shown on the PS4. So GPU-Havoc might actually become the alternative to GPU-Physx, although it's as "un-free" as Physx.
€ Here's the demo video: