It didn't take them long to sell out to Nvidia, did it? I personally feel PhysX is over rated, at the end of the day, the laws of physics are the same no matter what 'engine' you use, it's the implementation that's different.
personally, I'll stick with Newton.
Will you go over to PhysX now that they're part of nVidia?
Quote:Original post by Sijmen
Unreal Engine 3 uses PhysX, now how does this work on Mac and Linux?
Well, yes. I'm sure big name companies have licensed right to the source code, and are able to port it over. I mean, I can't go to Ageia's website and download the Mac SDK. If I can, I'd love to know where on the site the download link it :D
Quote:Original post by bronxbomber92Quote:Original post by Sijmen
Unreal Engine 3 uses PhysX, now how does this work on Mac and Linux?
Well, yes. I'm sure big name companies have licensed right to the source code, and are able to port it over. I mean, I can't go to Ageia's website and download the Mac SDK. If I can, I'd love to know where on the site the download link it :D
An ex co-worker showed me this:
Quote:Is there a Mac port of the SDK? Would it use the PhysX HW?
Currently, we only enable Mac builds with select, licensed developers who maintain their own ports of the PhysX SDK.
We are currently evaluating adding Mac to our supported list of platforms. Initially, this may only be for software simulation--with an OS driver coming some time after that. These products would not be available until the beginning of 2007, at the earliest, and whether or not they support 64 bit would partially depend on our 64 bit Windows plans.
In the meantime, you can feel free to evaluate the Windows version of the SDK, and monitor the Public Releases Thread in the Public Announcements Forum for any further information.
Nvidia bought PhysX, but nothing's changed. There's been no announcement, no new product, no improved API/SDK... so why should developer opinions change? In fact, the only thing this announcement proves is that there is no market for standalone "physics co-processors."
Will Nvidia integrate PhysX into their future GPUs? Doubtful. Doing so would fracture the GPU market, which is not in the interest of consumers. Hardcore gamers and Nvidia fanboys would buy such GPUs, sure, but the mass market would pass - especially at a high premium - and by the time the effects trickle down to OEM integrators like HP and Dell, ATI'll have an equivalent.
In other words, this is a total non-event about a non-product, at least as far as PCs are concerned. Perhaps the story will be better in the console space... oh, wait; they'd have to wait for the next generation of consoles.
Sorry. I just can't see any value here.
Will Nvidia integrate PhysX into their future GPUs? Doubtful. Doing so would fracture the GPU market, which is not in the interest of consumers. Hardcore gamers and Nvidia fanboys would buy such GPUs, sure, but the mass market would pass - especially at a high premium - and by the time the effects trickle down to OEM integrators like HP and Dell, ATI'll have an equivalent.
In other words, this is a total non-event about a non-product, at least as far as PCs are concerned. Perhaps the story will be better in the console space... oh, wait; they'd have to wait for the next generation of consoles.
Sorry. I just can't see any value here.
Author
Well, an interesting outlook in all directions. I had all sorts of thoughts reading through the responses to this thread and decided to check a few of my own presumptions...
But one of the first things I came across was an updated news article
It seems, like me, they presumed the hardware was already in modern gaming consoles. But, the quote is now striked out?! Apparently they (console devs) just use the PhysX middleware.
I personally went back to the old NovodeX 2.2 SDK as to not need the newer drivers, which were quite a large download and hassle. 2.8 SDK is due this month and I plan to use it, again though I want to support software users so there won't be any soft bodies or fluid etc going on (Ageia really want devs to support hardware but that's not possible for me at least!). However, some large scale effects can be applied in a local fashion so to speak, you tend to try a few work-arounds in some areas, like custom suspension, even re-invented the wheel lol. The SDK still attracts my attention after around 5 years, in a big way.
I guess it's a similar time to when Cg was announced. Now it's time for Cp perhaps, and the new hardware will hopefully be compatible with ATI too.
But one of the first things I came across was an updated news article
It seems, like me, they presumed the hardware was already in modern gaming consoles. But, the quote is now striked out?! Apparently they (console devs) just use the PhysX middleware.
I personally went back to the old NovodeX 2.2 SDK as to not need the newer drivers, which were quite a large download and hassle. 2.8 SDK is due this month and I plan to use it, again though I want to support software users so there won't be any soft bodies or fluid etc going on (Ageia really want devs to support hardware but that's not possible for me at least!). However, some large scale effects can be applied in a local fashion so to speak, you tend to try a few work-arounds in some areas, like custom suspension, even re-invented the wheel lol. The SDK still attracts my attention after around 5 years, in a big way.
I guess it's a similar time to when Cg was announced. Now it's time for Cp perhaps, and the new hardware will hopefully be compatible with ATI too.
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Nvidia bought PhysX, but nothing's changed. There's been no announcement, no new product, no improved API/SDK... so why should developer opinions change? In fact, the only thing this announcement proves is that there is no market for standalone "physics co-processors."
Mainly because we tend to jump like so many frightened rabbits everytime this happens, because we are worried that.....
Quote:
Will Nvidia integrate PhysX into their future GPUs? Doubtful. Doing so would fracture the GPU market, which is not in the interest of consumers.
...this might happen. There is always a disaster "waiting" to happen. (e.g. MS kills off OpenGL. Sun kills off Linux. Linux kills off MS. MS blots out the sun and makes us all pay them for sunlight which they control via tiny doors, etc.) The console market is fragmented, for example.
Quote:
Hardcore gamers and Nvidia fanboys would buy such GPUs, sure, but the mass market would pass - especially at a high premium - and by the time the effects trickle down to OEM integrators like HP and Dell, ATI'll have an equivalent.
If they do, we will have to support both, or neither. Unless somebody comes up with a wrapper we can use, and the two actually support it. This is equally scary, and thus seems far more likely to happen.
Quote:
In other words, this is a total non-event about a non-product, at least as far as PCs are concerned. Perhaps the story will be better in the console space... oh, wait; they'd have to wait for the next generation of consoles.
Sorry. I just can't see any value here.
PhysX is no consideration to me until they decide to step down from their awfully high horse (which hopefully might happen under new management).
When you go to their website with the mere thought of having a look at their SDK, you can't read one thing apart from the propaganda which says that they are the best and that some big titles use their engine.
You can neither download the SDK, nor any profound documentation whose study would enable you to decide whether or not it's suitable for your projects at all, and how much work it will be to integrate into your existing projects.
If you want to get to any information beyond "We're the best, sucker" you have to apply for an account. Mind you, apply.
It's not only that they demand that you register with your personal details (this is a "what the hell" thing already), but it is only an application.
In other words, they deem it a privilegue if you're granted a look at their crap at all.
No thanks. If you have something that you expect customers to spend a lot of money, and developers a lot of time on, you have to be a little more courteous and supporting.
An browseable description of the SDK (doxygen or whatever), or some other useable and publicly downloadable information is really not asked too much.
When you go to their website with the mere thought of having a look at their SDK, you can't read one thing apart from the propaganda which says that they are the best and that some big titles use their engine.
You can neither download the SDK, nor any profound documentation whose study would enable you to decide whether or not it's suitable for your projects at all, and how much work it will be to integrate into your existing projects.
If you want to get to any information beyond "We're the best, sucker" you have to apply for an account. Mind you, apply.
It's not only that they demand that you register with your personal details (this is a "what the hell" thing already), but it is only an application.
In other words, they deem it a privilegue if you're granted a look at their crap at all.
No thanks. If you have something that you expect customers to spend a lot of money, and developers a lot of time on, you have to be a little more courteous and supporting.
An browseable description of the SDK (doxygen or whatever), or some other useable and publicly downloadable information is really not asked too much.
Quote:Original post by bronxbomber92Quote:Original post by Khaos Dragon
PhysX supports Linux and Mac, you just can't get hardware acceleration from the PhysX card on those platforms, but the card is hardly used by anyone and the Novodex API is pretty amazing in software.
Not publically. The Unity game engine has the only port of the SDK to Mac OS X that I know of.
Destineer is using PhysX for AOE3 on Mac IIRC.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
