I remember the tech demo of batman walking through a low-lying cloud of fog or something and the fog wooshed around his feet like what you'd think real smoke/fog would do should you walk through it.PhysX heyday was Arkham City...that had some really amazing particle effects- the Penguin fight at the Iceberg Lounge looked gorgeous
I've wondered about that too, but I think that PCIe has too high latency and too low bandwidth for intersection accelerators to be that far from the main GPU and not have performance issues.I often wonder if it makes sense to make an add-on ray tracing card like the old PhysX cards.
I thought the hardware to do the RT is separate from rasterization cores? If so, why would you need that on a second card?
I think the sli bridge bandwidth would have to be way higher to facilitate ray tracing on another gpu
I also loved the original metro 2033’s use of physx for their smoke effects, it really added to the immersion of walking through old dilapidated subway tunnels and the smokiness of the homemade gun powder they use in their ammo.I just recently played through Darkest of Days and the Physx were neat, they under utilized them a bit though.
Cryostasis on the other hand, with the water and ice, it was really cool. More games need to use physx.
Nothing to necro considering PhysX is still in wide use. It's built into UE4 and Unity, for two.
It's kinda been superceded by nVIDIA Gameworks - which - I haven't really seen much use of outside of a few titles... a while ago...Based upon their pricing themselves out of all but those with the most disposable income, I wager nVIDIA is looking to move out of PC gaming and on to the big bucks, namely, the Pro market, AI/machine learning, and Enterprise.That generally was using the software version of the engine, no one really enabled or used the hardware side. The hardware accelerated version is very much dead at this point. With nothing released in almost 8yrs with the tech I think?
nvidia necroing physx
cool story broPhysX has been open source for a long time....It went open source back in 2015 with version 3, they changed the license type for version 4 in 2018, and version 5 was supposed to come out in 2021 but Nvidia claims it was delayed because of COVID, and that's an argument that is very hard to refute so, not going to try.
PhysX never went away, but for FPS titles Havok does better, Bullet is easier to implement even if it is not as accurate, and PhysX is mostly for really nice-looking static elements so very pretty things that most developers don't want to spend the resources on at this stage. There are cheaper methods to get something that looks similar, especially with how textures, 3d models, and lighting have advanced over the past 8 years.
For actual workloads involving complex calculations, CUDA has much faster libraries, and PhysX 5 was too late to the party for Epic who developed their own lightweight engine for UE5, leaving just Unity integrating it by default.
You can manually add PhysX 5 to Unreal 5 though, it just falls outside the support range.
Epic has instead moved over to specific engines for specific physical effects that better interact with how they do things in the UE5 engine.
The "hardware" version has long since been superseded by a series of CUDA libraries, that are very fast and accurate.That generally was using the software version of the engine, no one really enabled or used the hardware side. The hardware accelerated version is very much dead at this point. With nothing released in almost 8yrs with the tech I think?
It's built into the game engine nowadays, so there is no need for an option to turn it on.You know, I was playing Metro Exodus: Enhanced Edition recently, and I saw an "Advanced PhysX" toggle in the options menu. I was surprised. It has been a looooooooooooooong time since I have seen an option for PhysX in the settings menu for a game.
I remember playing around with the nVidia Flex demo and messing with the PhysX stuff in there. That was neat.