Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa
The only thing running in that "game" was the physics. There was a poorly rendered graphics environment that pale's in comparison even compared to CoD graphics which is outdated. The only thing running was the physics. You've been able to do the same thing with PhysX on the CPU for years. What's your point? It's slow and choppy. The Havok destruction in BC2 is minimal and still consumes most of the computing resources in multiplayer. I'm level 50 so obviously I've played the game plenty and still enjoy it. The Frostbite engine uses the Havok physics engine during explosions which, yes, includes Destruction 2.0.
Using 80-85% of the CPU of a 2600K @ 4.5 and only producing minimal effects just goes to show how poorly x86 performs with the Havok engine. PhysX has been able to produce far better realistic effects since back when AGEIA still owned the technology in 2005. I'm glad that Havok is being used in games since you don't need a an Nvidia GPU but there's no comparison in performance between the two. As CPUs become more powerful so will GPUs and they're far better at parallel processing than x86 will ever be. I can't wait till a realistic beach scene in Crysis 3 or whatever comes out using some of this new PhysX 3.0 development.
I can see you don't grasp the difference between gpu physics and cpu physics, or how they relate to physx & marketing of physx.
That demo I linked (will check when I get home to see if it was the right link) does what would take tri-sli to accomplish. Which is great for nvidia's bank, but illogical, thus moot. That is why you only ever see "particle physics" used in Physx games.. Read the thread and learn, don't retort without understanding the premis.
Havok has nothing to do with nvidia.. I don't see why u keep bringing it up in ur defense.
Battlefield has physics all over the place. Every bullet is real & trash cans, cones, etc can be peppered with bullets and moved all over the map. The're real objects.
On the contrary, it is very hard for physx to do deformable & real object based physics. Nearly any demo doing so required multiple video cards, that is why nvidia sticks with particle physics, like shuffling papper & waiving banners in Batman... because to do any more would require a second video card...! And that was/is the whole point behind sli & physx... to get people to buy into their marketing and make nvidia richer with a gimmick.
Don't believe me(?).. name one physx game with deformable physics... heck, name one physx game with real objects... lol.
Physx is a gimmick, the more you try to rebuttal the more you illustrate that you have no fundamental grasp on what a physical environement consist of & keep regurgitating the same ole rederict.