It's actually amazing how the misconceptions about PhysX get around, isn't it?

Oh, thanks for your info. That's expensive, isn't it?

The Unreal engine is created by dozens and dozens of experts who are probably all on $100k/year salaries, so $50k is pretty cheap.

For $50k you'd only be able to hire a junior/intermediate programmer for one year, and in that time they'd have no chance of creating something that can rival Unreal.

Also -- with engine licensing, companies like to restrict the ability to use C++ for the cheap/"indie" version, and then sell a C++-compatible version for a lot of money. They do this, because the big companies (who do have a lot of money) want to use C++, while the garage-game-develoeprs (who have no money) are often happy with other languages.

If you want to use C++, you pretty much either have to have a lot of money, or you have to use an open-source engine, which usually aren't as good as UDK/Unity/etc...

Very thanks for your reply. But I heard PhysX is not supported in AMD (I mean non-nVidia) devices.

That's not true. The main PhysX functionality works everywhere (otherwise no one in their right mind would use it!!), but it has some extra functionality that only works on nVidia GPUs. Games often use this for extra special effects or destruction stuff, so that it doesn't matter too much if it's missing.

Agreed.

And thanks for the PhysX info.

Have nice times and bye.