Ok, that title was probrably confusing, but I have an idea. When a car gets into a crash, little bits of plastic, glass, and the occupants flesh go flying around and all over the road, not to mention fluids like coolant, oil, gas, or DEF if it's a diesel. Anyone who has been in a crash, seen a crash, or watched a crash test video will know what I'm talking about. Please share your thoughts on the subject.
This would dramatically reduce the framerate, great idea, but with people that have GPUs like me, it won't work well.
*CPU. Actually. And yes. It would be a framerate torture, but it wouldn't be far-stretch that if this gets added it could be quickly improved. Things like shards of glass or plastic dont even need to be physical objects, they could work as particles affected by gravity with basic models and no textures, or maybe they just dissapear after some time, so that the computer doesn't has to render them. The thing about the gore, i think that the devs stated that they dont want the game to be overly violent, so if they do add people in the cars, i dont think they would add a realistic visual on death for them. About the liquids spilling out..... Now THAT is a challenge, because it would have to be a rendered liquid that would fall to the ground, and depending on what kind of surface it falls on have different effects, and if you want diesel to spill to asphalt and STILL be able to light up, it means that there needs to be an entirely new set of physic coding just for that. It would still be nice to be added tho, but it might be too much trouble for what's worth. At least right now.
The liquids pooring out of the car don't actually have to have the liquid physics like in blender or something, they could well be like the petrol gushing out of your car like when your gas tank gets shot in gta 5. The liquid could be like some kind of texture overlay.
PhysX can run CPU accelerated on AMD rigs. PhysX isnt needed for this technology. PhysX in general is crap. PhysX for GPU processing just uses Nvidia CUDA (originally of course Ageia CUDA), you could use CUDA direct instead of PhysX. CUDA has a rival, OpenCL, which works on both AMD and NVidia GPUs. All in all. Your post is both irrelevant and the final point is not true.
Ok, but some ideas and the way I expressed it were. Sorry for dissapointing you, I try to do my best not to make people sad.
no seriously, not one thing there was remotely new, most of them have even been expressed in further detail.
PhysX as it is now is crap, but if it were developed more by the original company (over the years of course) it would be excellent for things like debris which was in the OP post #1 "When a car gets into a crash, little bits of plastic, glass, and the occupants flesh go flying around and all over the road, not to mention fluids like coolant, oil, gas, or DEF if it's a diesel" PhysX was originally built to handle massive amounts of debris which is revelant to the OP post, Nvidia purchased the Tech and decided to add it to their GPUs instead of developing it as a stand alone tech (PPU Card) Dumbed-down version: Original Post: wish there was more debris My post: Physx would have been good if developed more (Nvidia shouldn't have purchased it) Reason: Physx was meant to handle massive amounts of debris Nvidia did a massive disservice to us all by effectively killing PhysX, Imagine games with 5000+ pieces of debris on screen at 60fps, This is a tech that is overlooked because we just don't have it, Oh but what it could have been
And my point. PhysX can run on the CPU instead of on CUDA (something NVidia never changed, even under Ageia, PhysX used either CPU or CUDA where available, PPU's were simply CUDA cards, Nvidia integrated CUDA into their GPUs), PhysX isnt needed for debris, raw OpenCL can manage it for both AMD and NVidia GPUs.
And how is on-loading PPU onto a CPU better? wouldnt a stand-alone card be far superior? Adding it to a GPU or a CPU slows both by some percent. A stand-alone PPU is superior to both solutions.
How many times do I have to reiterate the point that NVidia changed absolutely nothing except discontinuing standalone CUDA cards in favour of integrating CUDA onto their GPUs instead... (should note, even the first gen NVidia cards with CUDA matched the Ageia standalone ones for CUDA performance)
Exactly what im saying, adding CUDA (PhysX it to the actual GPU. A stand alone card would have been better, A separate company making Cuda Cards (PhysX Cards) would be superior to a GPU company adding it to the GPU circuitry (less space, heat, less resources, etc.) a full PPU card has more space (less heat) and specialized development by a company working on PPUs only. I think your having trouble grasping that concept? Again dumbed-down Agiea: I want to work on PPUs Nvidia: I want to work on GPUs Nvidia: I will buy the PPU tech Nvidia: I want to work on GPUs (and put a little effort into PPUs) Nvidia has done well with PPUs just not as good as a stand alone company So it is true Nvidia should not have purchased PhysX R.I.P PPUs
Ageia went bust. First gen NVidia cards to support CUDA matched Ageia for CUDA performance. Nvidia cards were the same price as Ageia ones (they were hugely overpriced under Ageia, seriously, same money would buy you an NVidia GPU supporting CUDA rather than a CUDA only card, and yet it performed the same plus did graphics). They;ve gotten a whole ton faster since. Or. JUST USE FUCKING OPENCL WHICH IS SUPPORTED ON NVIDIA AND AMD GRAPHICS CARDS. I think you're having trouble grasping that concept.
Or. JUST USE FUCKING OPENCL WHICH IS SUPPORTED ON NVIDIA AND AMD GRAPHICS CARDS. I think you're having trouble grasping that concept
