Another sweet PhysX comparison video, this time from the full version of Darkest Of Days, check it out: http://www.gamephys.com/2009/09/10/new-darkest-of-days-physx-comparison-videofull-version/
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yeah the physX looks nice in the game.. wish they had put a little more detail in the people.. though i think they over did it a little on the leaves.. because i kept having to turn physX off for a few of the maps just because i couldnt see anything with all the leaves flying around..
I agrre the leaves are overdone and should be tomed down.
But that smoke is nice...now more of that..and interactive water
Overall opinion ... another game that takes away something that can be done with the CPU and says you need to buy a PhysX capable GPU to get it back. Now, if you can show me a game that gets poor performance because of the graphics on a lower end machine, but gains a nice FPS boost from the PhysX being enabled, then I'll shut my mouth (0-30FPS going to 40-60FPS +)
Show me interactive smoke (NOT SCRIPTED) in a none PhysX game...I dare you.
- For Smoke and dust .. another tacked on feature. Smoke and Dust/Fog has been done for years without PHysX. And it seems like they simply remove the smoke and dust/fog from the non-physX which is the same game they played with Batman. Purposely removing something that can be done without PhysX, then adding it back in saying you need to buy PhysX to get it. Not buying it ... Also, the scene where the soldiers are fighting in the ditch, and it shows PhysX on/off, I can't tell the difference.
Crysis.
World in Conflict.
BioShock
Any XNA game can have it.
Any torque game can have it.
Then you got the silly DirectX tech demo.
Quite sure there are others.
"interactive smoke"
?
Fine then.
World in Conflict.
Soft Particles.
Download the demo, blow something up, and put a helicopter over it.
Lower the camera angle. and tell me that is scripted.
Also, one of the developer video states the fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9negXp6c0
I had a little bit of trouble in finding this video. Ubisoft (new owner), removed all the videos without the Ubisoft logo in them.
I use:
in Softimage.
It's trouble to simulate, made more difficult without 3Ds Max's flow editor (just a UI prefference for me, maybe it is easier...).
But with enough deflectors... and decent hardware (hint for campus techs/finance), then it's going to work.
EDIT: I had a feeling some person is going to say: 'oh yeah, with Physx hardware you can simlutate soft particles".
What I meant is out school has P4s (first generation...) with ancient V3100 graphics cards. 6 years ago = purchase time.
Decent hardware meant my previous build with a Phenom X4, and a Radeon 4550 - the primary station I used before I donated it to the campus 3D Animation Club.
(by the way, I also used ODE... not Physx [though they are not used for particles... hint]).
Yeah but the #'s released also shows GPU processing is anywhere from 4-10x more expensive than CPU processing ... in terms of development cost. Plus, cpu's are not exactly unable to "keep up with the times". Within the past couple of year's we've gone from single to 4-6 core cpu's, with 8 core on the horizon. And I don't have a problem with GPU doing work for you, like you pointed out. I just have a problem with requiring people to buy an additional tacked on GPU, simply for a few effects that can be done on the cpu. And you're not really getting anything extra for it for it in terms of 'new' or 'extra performance'.its weird, beause pc manufacturers are moving away from fast cpu's in favor of multi-tasking gpu's. especially in laptops, they are finding that a gpu can do many of the things a fast cpu can do, only much cheaper. they are shipping core 2 solo chips at 1.4ghz, but its hardly and issue because deticated nvidia CUDA graphics take care of so many things you hardly ever notice the slower cpu. the only time it becomes a real problem is encoding video and watching streaming HD content...
Show me how walking through smoke/fog "pushes" it out of your way, like it actually has enough viscosity to do that ... I dare you.Show me interactive smoke (NOT SCRIPTED) in a none PhysX game...I dare you.
Show me it ingame, as APC's don'st react with smoke:
http://picasaweb.google.dk/AtechVideo/LogitechWebcam#5380633355258463314
Like I said ...words are easy.
Show me how walking through smoke/fog "pushes" it out of your way, like it actually has enough viscosity to do that ... I dare you.
Well...
In your hero's demo video...
I didn't see bullets pushing smoke out of the way.
Show me that... Like you said. Words are easy.
Not everything is interactive.
All WiC videos are rendered by the game engine, not prerendered.
Helicoptors can, mostly to all to visual pizzaz, and the fact they have rotors.
Note, smoke camo is heavy... heavy. You cannot just 'blow' on it and expect it to move out of your way, like light oil smoke will.
Afterall... was Directx 10 even enabled?
Why don't you back up your claims first.
Crysis: Debunked
WiC: Not happening
Why don't you restate what claims you have left, so I don't have to guess what you claims are now?
Your whole point is now what?You are barking up the wrong three...during 2½ years service (2 missions under the belt) I learned what smoke is...and isn't...and no there isn't enogh påhyscis in that video, I agree...but it is a hell of a lot better than most other games, that rely on scripted physics...so it is far from perfect..and your point was?
Darkest of Days indeed. This first-person shooter from 8monkey Labs fails on nearly all fronts. A promising narrative setup is roasted over a bonfire of mangled mechanics, poor presentation, and sloppily implemented missions and objectives. The dynamics of the large scale firefights the game offers are wrecked by erratic and unbelievable enemy behavior, and the poor visuals certainly don’t help. With more development time and a more clever use of the time-traveling concept, this could have been an interesting shooter. As it is, it’s an arduous trip on which nobody should embark.
There is nothing in that demo that is sweet, never mind awe-inspiring. Almost all of those effects can be (and have been) done in other games without the use of PhysX. This is just like the Arkham Asylum PhysX trailers - nothing was at all impressive with the hardware physics. They just ended up stripping out these "unique" effects instead of rendering them in another way to give the illusion that PhysX added "so much more." Back to Darkest of Days, the game's graphics look like crap (worse than a present-day console port) and the fact that the game appears to be shit (reading IGN's review) just aims at the fact that NVIDIA is releasing another techdemo with the facade that it is a "game." Whoever is in their marketing department needs to be fired ASAP, people are not this stupid, unless NVIDIA really is this desperate. What I'm curious to see is how deep NVIDIA's pockets are; how long can they keep this exclusive stuff up? Furthermore, if I extrapolate, why are they trying so hard? Has the 58xx cards really gotten them that nervous and they are that desperate?
This thread was started two days after game came outFunny how this thread died when the game actually came out!