No More Physx Since Last Update

[yourgreatestfear]

My setup consists of two 9600 GT (one as primary and one as dedicated PhysX). This setup worked perfectly fine and allowed all the eyecandy in Warframe until the last update hit. Now the PhysX Option is greyed out and I can't get it back (I tried changing to physX on primary and switching both cards in their roles ... no effect).

 

Driver are latest versions of course and in other PhysX titles its still working fine, so it has to be a change which came with the update.

 

Any workarounds or fixes for this problem available?

 

If not, Fix it please!

[hectorlemon]

same happens to me.
always worked my evga gtx285 ftw and 512mb 8800gts for physx.

But since last update I can not enable physx on 8800gts

I researched a bit and seen that the primary graphics card I can physx enabled.

I hope it gets fixed soon

[starfire]

Same here... I wonder if it's related to us or DE.

[yourgreatestfear]

I checked the game files, according to filedate it seems to be the PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll (3.2.2.1) which got changed and brought us the trouble.

 

Looking for older fileversions and hopefully find a workaround.

 

@Devs

 

Give us back the old physx libraries back for now and fix the issue with cards dedicated to PhysX!

 

Update:

PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll (3.2.0.1) not working as replacement, anyone got a version between 3.2.0.1 and 3.2.2.1 of this file?

Edited May 18, 2013 by yourgreatestfear

[ErickJatobA]

Not only to dedicated cards for physx...

I`m only have a GTS 250 and pyshx is not work as weel....

before the last update was perfect.

[MotherCorpus]

I only have one 680 gtx and it works alittle too well due to it blocking my view sometimes, but it's so purty I wouldn't change it.

[yourgreatestfear]

I know there is a trend with the Nvidia PhysX developers to kick out older cards gradually with every new version by making more demands on RAM or stream units without having the decency to implement fall back options like DirectX offers.

 

If (!) thats just another case of this trend, so please Warframe Devs stick to older PhysX libraries! Graphics were fine and smooth with a 9600GT as dedicated PhysX unit. A few more particles are not worth losing a lot of player systems for this option.

Edited May 18, 2013 by yourgreatestfear

[Advanced-]

I agree, I used it fine on my GTS 250.

I'd love to get it back.

[GrandMasterV]

It works with older card minimum VRAM is 256MB, that lowest entry point.

That said as devs put more PhysX the minimal of 256MB would not be sufficient.

WF is really using allot of physx so it is demanding on your card, i think 256MB would not be sufficient.

 

P.S. the amount of cuda core and GPU clock speed is what determs that final performance of PhysX.

Put a GT 640 with 4gb of DDR3 as PhysX card to support my GTX 660, what does not need that much ram.

Edited May 19, 2013 by GrandMasterV

[starfire]

I have 1GB VRAM

 

It works with older card minimum VRAM is 256MB, that lowest entry point.

That said as devs put more PhysX the minimal of 256MB would not be sufficient.

WF is really using allot of physx so it is demanding on your card, i think 256MB would not be sufficient.

 

P.S. the amount of cuda core and GPU clock speed is what determs that final performance of PhysX.

Put a GT 640 with 4gb of DDR3 as PhysX card to support my GTX 660, what does not need that much ram.

 

I have 1GB VRAM card and it doesn't work anymore after the update

[GrandMasterV]

I have 1GB VRAM

 

 

I have 1GB VRAM card and it doesn't work anymore after the update

That would be above specs indeed, main point i was trying to make how much CUDA cores and GPU clock speed?

[yourgreatestfear]

Main point is:

The game worked perfectly with a 9600Gt being a dedicated PhysX card or a GTS 250 doing all the work. For whatever reason the Devs changed the PhysX, the change is not worth taking away PhysX for so many people.

 

A good Dev would deploy a hotfix for the time being and would offer a discussion about the issue.

[starfire]

That would be above specs indeed, main point i was trying to make how much CUDA cores and GPU clock speed?

48 CUDA cores and the speed is up to 1265MHz. How is it? good? bad? It used to handle physX well.

[DreadWolf7]

Main point is:

The game worked perfectly with a 9600Gt being a dedicated PhysX card or a GTS 250 doing all the work. For whatever reason the Devs changed the PhysX, the change is not worth taking away PhysX for so many people.

 

A good Dev would deploy a hotfix for the time being and would offer a discussion about the issue.

There have been a lot of crashes caused by PhysX so just patching an older version back in would be bad.  Also there doesn't seem to be any new patch as far as updates go and I had my PhysX running as well. This is another sort of issue.

Edited May 20, 2013 by DreadWolf7

[GrandMasterV]

Let me show you a simple example, i wanted a PhysX card but based on my current motherboard i only could install a PCIe 2 card.

So i looked for the best card out there with PCIe 2 and i ended up with a ASUS GT 630 4GB DDR3 RAM.

Now this little card has a 96 cuda cores, 810 Mhz clock, rates 4 out of 5 for a dedicated Physx card, combined (physx and rendering) rates 2

I did this cause my GTX 660 rates 4 combined, so it could use a little help, now all the physx runs very smooth.

 

Now let's look at the GT 9600,rates the same as the GT630, but is a older card with less cuda cores.

As PhysX gets better and more heavy duty the specs are off, so it should rare 2-3 as dedicated physx card and 1-2 as combined.

PhysX is now so heavy duty in this game a better PhysX card is needed, it is probably switched of by the Devs.

Only thing i can think of right now is that the Devs are testing out fps/lag factors, More PhysX = more GPU CUDA cores.

http://physxinfo.com/wiki/GPUs_with_PhysX_support

 

Perhaps you can submit a ticket and ask them directly.

 

P.S. The site states you need CUDA architecture(8** series and above)32 Cuda cores, 256 MB RAM(512 sinlge GPU)

Since PhysX is now ahead of these specs in modern games, i would say 64 CUDA cores, 512 RAM(1GB RAM single GPU)

Edited May 20, 2013 by GrandMasterV

[yourgreatestfear]

There have been a lot of crashes caused by PhysX so just patching an older version back in would be bad. Also there doesn't seem to be any new patch as far as updates go and I had my PhysX running as well. This is another sort of issue.

People crash because of physX

-> Inform them and let them deactivate it until fix will arrive = smart way to deal with it

-> fix it by disabling it for more then just those who have problems = dumb/lazy way to deal with it

 

@GrandMasterV

It worked perfectly!!! No Fps-issues, No crashes ... Devs want to put in more effects in future, fine, then they should make the effort to implement it as an additional option (level of PhysX) ... excluding systems from effects already working for them so that a minority can enjoy a few more particle effects is simply stupid.

And I know for a fact, that the PhysX SDK does not force developer to exclude systems. Its a free choice of functions which can be made optional.

 

In the end ... as written before the PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll was upgraded in last update, it was just a personal guess that the library itself excludes more cards now. Would be nice to have actually feedback from development before we make further guesses.

 

Does development even reads this forum? Or is it just to keep community busy like we know from Wargamings international forums?

Edited May 20, 2013 by yourgreatestfear

[GrandMasterV]

People crash because of physX

-> Inform them and let them deactivate it until fix will arrive = smart way to deal with it

-> fix it by disabling it for more then just those who have problems = dumb/lazy way to deal with it

 

@GrandMasterV

It worked perfectly!!! No Fps-issues, No crashes ... Devs want to put in more effects in future, fine, then they should make the effort to implement it as an additional option (level of PhysX) ... excluding systems from effects already working for them so that a minority can enjoy a few more particle effects is simply stupid.

And I know for a fact, that the PhysX SDK does not force developer to exclude systems. Its a free choice of functions which can be made optional.

 

In the end ... as written before the PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll was upgraded in last update, it was just a personal guess that the library itself excludes more cards now. Would be nice to have actually feedback from development before we make further guesses.

 

Does development even reads this forum? Or is it just to keep community busy like we know from Wargamings international forums?

This game is still in BETA state so there testing out options and methods before a official release.

There bound to be trouble with a game in beta testing, when this game is the official release you would have a valid point.

 

True, there are games that give you the option on how much PhysX you want enabled.

Been trying to find out what cards support up to what in what version of PhysX myself.

Only good reference materials so far is the Physxinfo.com site but there slightly out dated.

 

Never said it was forced of the PhysX development just that with how much PhysX i see at full specs i am sure some cards will be unable to process it.

Obvious conclusion would be that it was done by the WF Dev team preventing crashes and testing out how far to push the envelope.

The only logical conclusion is that some cards where "switched off" since the last update, with PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll was updated as well.

It used to work for most cards and now it doesn't, what else can be the problem?

 

And i know one WF staff members is in here, Dimitri 

Edited May 20, 2013 by GrandMasterV

[DreadWolf7]

People crash because of physX

-> Inform them and let them deactivate it until fix will arrive = smart way to deal with it

-> fix it by disabling it for more then just those who have problems = dumb/lazy way to deal with it

 

@GrandMasterV

It worked perfectly!!! No Fps-issues, No crashes ... Devs want to put in more effects in future, fine, then they should make the effort to implement it as an additional option (level of PhysX) ... excluding systems from effects already working for them so that a minority can enjoy a few more particle effects is simply stupid.

And I know for a fact, that the PhysX SDK does not force developer to exclude systems. Its a free choice of functions which can be made optional.

 

In the end ... as written before the PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll was upgraded in last update, it was just a personal guess that the library itself excludes more cards now. Would be nice to have actually feedback from development before we make further guesses.

 

Does development even reads this forum? Or is it just to keep community busy like we know from Wargamings international forums?

 After the last patch it was still working for me up till this morning.  If you would look around you would see they do but there is so much to read and they have to sort out the useful info from well post that are asking if they even read the forums.

 

Do get off that high horse it's unfitting of you.

Edited May 20, 2013 by DreadWolf7

[yourgreatestfear]

Sorry, but the BETA excuse only works as long as you don't take money for it. Too many developer fool their costumers with 'Beta'-sign while cashing in already. Not saying every developer is the same and I know some depend on that cash to develop the game, but I am not giving the benefit of the doubt anymore until proven wrong.

 

As for the topic: Lets hear what developers have to say, if they care to comment.

[[DE]Linkski]

My setup consists of two 9600 GT (one as primary and one as dedicated PhysX). This setup worked perfectly fine and allowed all the eyecandy in Warframe until the last update hit. Now the PhysX Option is greyed out and I can't get it back (I tried changing to physX on primary and switching both cards in their roles ... no effect).

 

Driver are latest versions of course and in other PhysX titles its still working fine, so it has to be a change which came with the update.

 

Any workarounds or fixes for this problem available?

 

If not, Fix it please!

 

Just to clarify, is your PhysX completely broken or is it just the NVidia PhysX Effects (the checkbox in the settings menu)? These are two entirely different things. The game runs on PhysX naturally, PhysX Effects is our term for NVidia's APEX technology which is used to improve the overall look of PhysX.

 

If your models are ragdolling / exploding properly then that means PhysX is fine and that the issue is with the PhysX Effects. 

 

It is entirely possible that a version change could have triggered this issue and we will definitely investigate it further. In the meantime it is probably a good idea to update your GPU to the latest drivers or, if possible, try testing this theory with beta drivers.

 

Does development even reads this forum? Or is it just to keep community busy like we know from Wargamings international forums?

 

Don't worry, we've got eyes everywhere. I have tried to stay on top of the performance forum whenever possible. I understand that this is a frustrating issue however from what I can tell it does not appear to be game-breaking. With that said it is definitely important that we get it resolved as soon as possible.

[yourgreatestfear]

1. Thanks for opening a dialog, a good sign :)

 

Now to your questions:

It is the additional PhysX on Hardware Option which doesn't work anymore (the additional particle effects etc.). Neither before or after I have any performance issues or glitches. ragdolls & explosions still work, its just a lot eye candy missing *sniff*.

 

Of course I made sure physX and nvidia driver were up to date before opening the thread ( dont plan to be a fool, alltho it is possible I am ). I will search for Beta driver and test further.

 

However, to test further my theory about the physX library it would be nice if you could provide the PhysX3Gpu_x64.dll of last live game version (should have been one between the 3.2.0.1 and the current 3.2.2.1). As long as you don't use some unique function calls of the new lib this should be the fastest way to circle down on the problem.

 

Update: Nvidia Beta driver offer no solution, I tried, no PhysX package newer then the actual 9.12.1031 included or offered elsewhere.

Edited May 20, 2013 by yourgreatestfear

[GrandMasterV]

Only way to test this game and see if the servers/clients/physx/game engine etc etc is on full load.

See this as a benchmark like you would do when your oc'ing your rig, testing everything under full loads.

 

If there is nothing to do, no content, no game as it suppose it would mis represent the end product.

This beta test shows the flavors of the final product, flavors might change or flavors might be added.

The ONLY way to do proper testing is like this, you can not test client/server/engine load by just throwing some pc's at it.

Thousands of people need to play, mash those mouse/keyboard keys, buy/sell  etc etc to get a accurate picture.

And you are offered a reset while retaining the perks of the founders package and refund of plat.

 

V

Edited May 20, 2013 by GrandMasterV

[yourgreatestfear]

Only way to test this game and see if the servers/clients/physx/game engine etc etc is on full load.

See this as a benchmark like you would do when your oc'ing your rig, testing everything under full loads.

 

If there is nothing to do, no content, no game as it suppose it would mis represent the end product.

This beta test shows the flavors of the final product, flavors might change or flavors might be added.

The ONLY way to do proper testing is like this, you can not test client/server/engine load by just throwing some pc's at it.

Thousands of people need to play, mash those mouse/keyboard keys, buy/sell  etc etc to get a accurate picture.

And you are offered a reset while retaining the perks of the founders package and refund of plat.

 

V

 

seriously, I have no clue what you are going on about and why. We talk about a feature which for some obviously got disabled by accident. Performance or testing methods were at no point issue here.

 

Try to stay on topic.

Edited May 20, 2013 by yourgreatestfear

[GrandMasterV]

seriously, I have no clue what you are going on about and why. We talk about a feature which for some obviously got disabled by accident. Performance or testing methods were at no point issue here.

 

Try to stay on topic.

Right trying to explain what could have happened and what could be the problem.

And what circumstance were talking about, everything that comes around the corners when development is in progress.

PhysX is growing been trying to find out more on the PhysXInfo.com site see if i can get the data on cards and ratings.

 

There are no problems only solutions, finding the right one requires looking at ALL directions.

[Advanced-]

Glad to see it being looked in. Looking forward to the fix.