DarthRevan84 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I hope not there needs to be a benefit to being loyal to 1 company over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(NSW)LilVanu Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 it's possible to be open source and make money :D Not profitable enough or more people would be doing it. Open source doesn't really pay for a Yacht. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)RockstarPanda Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hey... business is business... Proprietary/Intellectual property is really all any tech company has going for it. I mean no one is going to spend years of research and develop time and money, then give it all away for free. no? that isn't 100%% true look at what Tesla just did with everything the R&D'd for those cars. All the computer and battery technology is free to everyone now. and they spent alot of money developing the software to make that S#&$ work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlebbyMilliner Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 You're talking about the PhysX APEX particle/turbulence effects. The core PhysX middleware package runs fine on everything (see Borderands 2 as an example). Specifically, the advanced effects (the stuff that most people call "PhysX") is a codebase that is written in CUDA. CUDA pre-dates OpenCL. I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia compiles an OpenCL codebase for PhysX in the future as the tools mature. This may be what the PS4, XBox One versions are in reality. It's not necessarily as streamlined. I don't know the details of it. One of the previous posters mentioned Borderlands 2 as well. In that game, you could enable all the pretty effects on the CPU if you wanted. And simple things like cloth blowing in the wind or water effects CRUSHED the framerate. I went from ~90fps on a Crossfire system down to ~30fps with "Medium settings" and then to ~14fps with "High Settings" from only the PhysX particle effects enabled. The amount of computations needed are huge and modern CPUs are just not specialized enough to handle it efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlebbyMilliner Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 that isn't 100%% true look at what Tesla just did with everything the R&D'd for those cars. All the computer and battery technology is free to everyone now. and they spent alot of money developing the software to make that S#&$ work. No. They just verbally said they wouldn't sue over patent infringement. They are trying to push the EV market to drive sales. It's more of a PR stunt than anything else. nVidia already has over 50% of the dedicated GPU market (see Steam's hardware survey) already. They don't need to jump start the market. Conversely, there is generally nothing preventing AMD from licensing CUDA and PhysX hardware acceleration. Obviously they don't want to be controlled by a competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelldor Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 You're talking about the PhysX APEX particle/turbulence effects. The core PhysX middleware package runs fine on everything (see Borderands 2 as an example). Specifically, the advanced effects (the stuff that most people call "PhysX") is a codebase that is written in CUDA. CUDA pre-dates OpenCL. I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia compiles an OpenCL codebase for PhysX in the future as the tools mature. This may be what the PS4, XBox One versions are in reality. It's not necessarily as streamlined. I don't know the details of it. One of the previous posters mentioned Borderlands 2 as well. In that game, you could enable all the pretty effects on the CPU if you wanted. And simple things like cloth blowing in the wind or water effects CRUSHED the framerate. I went from ~90fps on a Crossfire system down to ~30fps with "Medium settings" and then to ~14fps with "High Settings" from only the PhysX particle effects enabled. The amount of computations needed are huge and modern CPUs are just not specialized enough to handle it efficiently. I was thinking about opencl for particles.I doubt they would ever do that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkDeadeye Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Buy a GT210 and uh download..uhm..S#&$.. wait google.. http://www.ngohq.com/graphic-cards/17706-hybrid-physx-mod-v1-03-v1-05ff.html that thing And you'll be PhysXing like a pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSlayer Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 With this on the main page, do you really think that DE is allowed to do something for AMD users, considering nVidia's notoriously shady business practices? Well DE is absolutely into that shady business aswell then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashnal Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 AMD and Intel users can easily run Physx in games if the developers allow it. DE refuses to do so Sigh ... this is false in the context of his question. Let's break it down. Warframe already uses the CPU library for Physx on all systems for all physics in game. What OP is referring to, and what many people think "physx" IS is the Apex Particle simulation, particularly the turbulence effects. Which is just one module of physx. This particular module is only written for CUDA, not CPU. Since AMD GPUs don't use the CUDA API, they can't run it. Since that module isn't written for for CPU, no one can just simply 'enable' it. It would require porting by Nvidia first. Which is an investment they obviously aren't willing to make. Sigh, I really wish people would read up on what Physx is and isn't before they start making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvid Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Well DE is absolutely into that shady business aswell then. How is it shady? Shady implies that there's an aspect of their practices that we don't know about. Them having a chokehold on their IP isn't shady, it's common business practice. Edited July 12, 2014 by Corvid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSlayer Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 How is it shady? Shady implies that there's an aspect of their practices that we don't know about. Them having a chokehold on their IP isn't shady, it's common business practice. I just highlighted the bullS#&$ of the guy I quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now