Jump to content

PhysX


zehir
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's something I found out recently; you don't need a special GPU or physics card to use PhysX. I downloaded a PC game demo the other day that wouldn't even run because it didn't find the PhysX drivers. Once I downloaded and installed this:

 

http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx_8.06.12_whql.html

 

It worked fine. There's even a little tech demo in the Windows control panel now. Without a GPU, it just uses the processor. It works fine with most games, but I think a dedicated GPU unit would be needed for CPU-heavy flight sims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DCS uses Havok then Ati radeon cards will have an advantage over Nvidia. Correct?

 

Not correct.

Havok is software. Any graphic can be operated Havok.

 

PhysX is hardware, but Nvidia already reported that both ATI graphics cards such as Nvidia, may use such technology. Both.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not correct.

Havok is software. Any graphic can be operated Havok.

 

PhysX is hardware, but Nvidia already reported that both ATI graphics cards such as Nvidia, may use such technology. Both.

 

And how do you think Ati cards can use PhysX if it's a hardware solution? It's also a software physics engine which Ageia made optimized to be used with their hardware cards. Nvidia bought Ageia and added support in their drivers to make it hardware accelerated by their graphics cards as well.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how do you think Ati cards can use PhysX if it's a hardware solution? It's also a software physics engine which Ageia made optimized to be used with their hardware cards. Nvidia bought Ageia and added support in their drivers to make it hardware accelerated by their graphics cards as well.
Not Ageia PhysiX but Havok. Newest HD4000 series are already ready for Havok. We only need to wait for Catalyst drivers including this system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nVidia would like everybody to use PhysX, thats why they actively support development of a CUDA/PhysX driver for Radeon cards (http://www.ngohq.com/news/14219-physx-gpu-acceleration-radeon-hd-3850-a.html).

 

AMD officially backs Havok (interestingly now owned by Intel). Havok is most known for use in games such as Halflife2, and indeed a software solution that runs on the CPU. However, Havok has been working on adding GPU support, which makes sense, since GPU's are much strong for that purpose then CPU's.

 

I am indeed interested if and how PhysX/Havok will be supported....

  • Like 1

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how do you think Ati cards can use PhysX if it's a hardware solution? It's also a software physics engine which Ageia made optimized to be used with their hardware cards. Nvidia bought Ageia and added support in their drivers to make it hardware accelerated by their graphics cards as well.

 

PhysX is hardware, not software. Only need to use this technology is drivers. For use my Hotas Cougar (is hardware) need drivers (software part). For use PhysX need drivers, and this drivers use CUDA technology, similar to language used by ATI.

 

For use Havok no need specially drivers, no need include support for this technology in drivers, all graphics can run Havok.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhysX is also software. It just depends on how its coded.

 

Havok is the same. It has just been most commonly implemented through software.

 

Difference is just like in the old days of graphics, software or hardware acceleration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhysX is hardware acceleration, same the GeForce or ATI graphics acceleration are.

 

Acceleration software = CPU computer perform the calculations.

Acceleration hardware = The alternative CPU (in this case the GPU) performs calculations. Same the graphics acceleration.

 

Conclusion, PhysX is hardware acceleration.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, in this case, Havok is Hardware accelerated, too ;-) Or might it be that the CPU is Software and i did not notice?

 

I would rather say the question is: Is the physics engine (be it Havok or PhysiX) running emulated on the CPU, or is it adapted to run on a GPU (by the means of CUDA for Nvidia/PhysiX or in the Future on AMDs GPUs for Havok), or does it run on specially designed, proprietary Hardware as it was on the former PhysiX Cards?

 

As you can see, you cant distinguish Software-accelerated and Hardware-accelerated.

 

The only interesting question on this manner is, at least for me, will the Use of one or both engines be implemented in the DCS-Series ?

 

If yes - there you go and you will be likely able to use a GPU to enhance your experience auf physical effects over the level you would get by doing it on a CPU.

 

S~

 

Brati

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them." (THX Rich :thumbup: )

 

33rdsignatureimage7klmu6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With DirectX 11, physics support will be added. That will make the choice for most developer irrelevant, as they just have support 1 way of doing their physics calculations. Looking at DCS developing time, we will probably get physics support sometime between the F-16 and the Hind... :)

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With DirectX 11, physics support will be added. That will make the choice for most developer irrelevant, as they just have support 1 way of doing their physics calculations. Looking at DCS developing time, we will probably get physics support sometime between the F-16 and the Hind... :)

 

the DCS development time has not being set yet, nor the order of the jets packs is defined at this time. :)

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS development time was sort of a good guess, since DirectX 11 is to be introduced late next year, and with the amount of planned modules, that will definitely be in the timeframe... The order of jets was just totally completely a joke... :) gotta have fun once in a while...

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, in this case, Havok is Hardware accelerated, too ;-) Or might it be that the CPU is Software and i did not notice?

 

I would rather say the question is: Is the physics engine (be it Havok or PhysiX) running emulated on the CPU, or is it adapted to run on a GPU (by the means of CUDA for Nvidia/PhysiX or in the Future on AMDs GPUs for Havok), or does it run on specially designed, proprietary Hardware as it was on the former PhysiX Cards?

 

As you can see, you cant distinguish Software-accelerated and Hardware-accelerated.

 

The only interesting question on this manner is, at least for me, will the Use of one or both engines be implemented in the DCS-Series ?

 

If yes - there you go and you will be likely able to use a GPU to enhance your experience auf physical effects over the level you would get by doing it on a CPU.

 

S~

 

Brati

 

Havok is not accelerated with GPU. Havok processes is run in CPU, PhysX processes is run in GPU (or old PPU of Ageia). Conclusion, Havok is not hardware accelerated, its very simple.

 

You can play in game with video cards (not all games), but no accelerate graphics, CPU calculate graphics. Uou install GPU (graphic acceleration card) and can play with advanced graphics.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Cavallers del Cel - Comunintat Catalana de Simulació http://www.cavallersdelcel.cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Havok ran indeed on the CPU and PhysX used to work only on Aegia's PPU cards. However, Havok is being already starting to support GPU's, and PhysX has been made available for GPU's through CUDA as well. So both technologie are now blending towards eachother, and tapping into the power of current day GPU's.

MSI 870A-G54, AMD Phenom II X2 555 @Phenom II X4 B55 BE, 3.2 GHz quad-core, Asus EAH4870 DK/HTDI/512MD5, OCZ Gold Edition DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit Low-Voltage. Budget = Cheap = Good :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...