PhysX Physics Engine

[sobek]

Please stop bumping this thread by posting the same post over and over again. You have already heard the developers opinion regarding physx countless times, give it a rest please. Your request has been noted.

Edited July 5, 2013 by sobek

[VTJS17_Fire]

I'm not a coder, but regarding Havok: it's geared for "shooter" style engines.

 

Where, exactly, would you see it applied in DCS?

 

Havok is used by Age of Empires III (great game), too. ;)

[xracer]

Yes. Unfortunately it requires rearchitecturing the whole thing from the ground up.

 

So does this mean that we will be all good in the future with quad CPU's or even Dual Core's as long as they manage to increase the Ghz on them? Also how much does cache in CPU's affect performance in DCSW? Since it has taken many years to develop DCSW into what it is today, is it safe to say that any major multitreaded model of DCSW is not to be seen for a long time?

[JOKERACTS]

The PhysX was a leading edge technology, simulate the realistic OCEAN, Atmospheric Cloud, Smoke particle, collision particle, cloth,

 

Good simulator never left it behind.

 

well, just make 2 version mode in the SIMULATOR,

for others don't have PhysX, use the CPU for PhysX,

those who have PhysX, USE THE GPU FOR PHYSX!!!!!

[maturin]

But wait... why???

 

Seriously, there's nothing in DCS that needs physics. All the flight model and ballistic stuff run on in-house 'physics.'

 

All PhysX did for ArmA was force the team to spend a whole year re-implementing it instead of making actual features.

 

No flight simulator is going to have a terrain engine complex enough to require PhysX for ground vehicles.

 

I'm trying hard to think here, what possible reason ED could ever have for shelling out on expensive Middleware that takes ages to configure.

Edited October 13, 2013 by maturin

[VincentLaw]

This is a graph of my system load while running DCS for a few minutes. (not at max graphics)

 

Now remind me why I should be offloading my CPU physics calculations onto my GPU again? If anything, I should be offloading my graphics calculations from my GPU onto my CPU. The GPU isn't just some magic box that can take anything you throw at it, and Physx is not magic either. All of the special effects and physics calculations that Physx does can be done without Physx.

 

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, even if that something has really good marketing.

[phant]

It will be nice to know what ED devs think about AMD MANTLE

 

Bye

Phant

[JOKERACTS]

EVERYONE KNOW THE BATMAN WITH BOTH DIRECTX 11 AND PHYSX WAS DEFINITELY THE BEST OF THE BEST,

 

EVERYONE KNOW THE ARMA 3 DEFINITELY BEST OF THE BEST.

 

those who pro AMD ATI, just like to deny the truth. you go your own ways.

 

if similar simulation with DirectX 11 and PhysX, a lot more user will go there.

[ShuRugal]

we can get the performance of ARMA 3!

 

I didn't realize that ED was looking to downgrade the simulation.

 

EVERYONE KNOW THE ARMA 3 DEFINITELY BEST OF THE BEST.

 

who is "everyone" and what are his credentials? Also, can we get a spokesperson for "everyone" who doesn't have CA glue under his shift key?

[BHawthorne]

PhysX is proprietary crap. Don't implement proprietary video card tech.

[Witchking]

PhysX is proprietary crap. Don't implement proprietary video card tech.

 

Agreed... I think havok, bullet and euphoria would be amazing and resource efficient..just look at GTA 4, RDR and GTA 5.