You assume that all AMD users would be pissed off at the game having Nvidia PhysX. I very much doubt that's going to happen. We, as in the forum users, form a very small minority of the customer base after all. So a few people complaining about it on a forum shouldn't affect their policies ( and yes I know I've complained very loudly about certain things but I've never really expected CDPR to implement the things I want ).
Witcher 3 won't sell millions. Sure it might sell 3 million in about two years or maybe even 4 but I have hard time believing it will sell more then that and that's with it being multiplatform.
I do have to ask however, how many AMD users complained about Borderlands 2?
Witcher 3 won't sell millions. Sure it might sell 3 million in about two years or maybe even 4 but I have hard time believing it will sell more then that and that's with it being multiplatform.
I do have to ask however, how many AMD users complained about Borderlands 2?
According to Nvidia's website, PhysX has been used in over 300 titles, which is more than Havok. This makes sense, because as I said, software PhysX is free for developers (even for commercial use), whereas you have to pay to use Havok.Aver said:
Source
At any rate, there is so much more you can do with hardware physics as opposed to software physics. Havok is without a doubt, the best software physics API there is. But no CPU can compare to a GPU when it comes to crunching physics algorithms.
I have to admit though, CDPR can easily add many advanced physics effects like cloth, hair etc in the Witcher 3 using Havok alone. The effects won't be as accurate as they could with GPU acceleration, but they would be serviceable.
CDPR never used the advanced software physics that Havok is capable of generating in the Witcher 2.. That's why you see clothes that stick to characters, and hair that is more akin to a thick rope than anything else..GuyN said:
Perhaps they might use those features in the next game.. While software physics will never be as impressive or as accurate as hardware physics, there's still quite a bit of room left for improvement if the Witcher 3 still uses Havok.
Then I don't know in which games it was used. If you exclude games from list of games that used Havok, there is not many more games that could use PhysX.
Maybe they are talking about games like "Passion leads army" or this http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/pc-games/nurien or this http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/pc-games/mkz . I'm starting to think so, seeing that such games are presented on official PhysX's page as examples of games that are using PhysX .
Especially this screenshot as an example of usage of PhysX is great:
Quality!
/>/>Edit:
Ok, I found nVidia's list of games and I was right about quality of those games:
https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-games
I bet that those games:
Stalin Subway
Desert Diner
Gluk'Oza: Action
Inhabited island: Prisoner of Power
Magic ball 3
Monster Truck Maniax
Showdown: Scorpion
Stoked Rider: Alaska Alien
Ultra Tubes
Warmonger: Operation Downtown Destruction
have very sophisticated physics. Especially Stalin Subway and Alaska Alien.
For sure! But Havok don't use them to promote their engine and among games that used Havok there is a lot of great titles. On nVidia list 90% of titles are crap, 8% are mediocre or cool but old games (Gothic 3, Two Worlds 1, Age of Empires 3, Rainbow Six) and 2% are modern, cool or mediocre titles (Metro 2033, Mafia 2, Borderland 2).CostinMoroianu said:
Also I listed those games mostly for fun. Those names are amazing.
Well and in the end they used Havok. It started as PC title, before Sony bought them, so maybe it's why there is this mistake.
No way . I don't want after thought phsyX system to sell physX powerful video cards . We should also not forget our brothers and sisters who uses ATI cards . Physics in The Witcher 2 perfectly matches the art style of the game . The can create their own in Red Engine 3 (New Red Engine that they will use for TW3 and CP2077) or they should stick with havok . They already have done a lot to please the fans like making the game open world and other stuff etc . Now they should be allowed to do what they do best . No pressure CDPR , do your thing and make a bad ass game for PC .
I would also like them to improve physics for the next iteration of the RED Engine. It doesn't have to be proprietary, that can always be a headache. I am an Nvidia person and wouldn't mind PhysX. I would prefer, however, an open standard. If there is none, perhaps there IS a niche for this kind of thing after all. Hmm... multi-platform, open-specification physics engine...
If they improve physics for their future games, CDPR could incorporate some environmental puzzles/combat tactics. For example, using Aard to cause a small avalanche to fall over a group of monsters, collapse walls in a mine, tear out small bushes or trees, etc. Maybe also push people against each other, knocking out two or three in a single blow. Also Geralt could gather momentum and perform particularly strong moves, or whatever.
If they improve physics for their future games, CDPR could incorporate some environmental puzzles/combat tactics. For example, using Aard to cause a small avalanche to fall over a group of monsters, collapse walls in a mine, tear out small bushes or trees, etc. Maybe also push people against each other, knocking out two or three in a single blow. Also Geralt could gather momentum and perform particularly strong moves, or whatever.
Great ideas Volsung. Flinging objects at people using Aard, I love it. I don't want them to shaft either ATI or Nvidia if they can avoid it. But they really need to update the physics in the engine.
Y'see, I don't want them overusing physics and putting such great demand on designing around it to make sure that it works properly. However, I do want them to utilize it better. I can definitely see a lot more potential for the signs to make a bigger impact in the game, though I feel that simply making physics objects be muddling combat would just be distracting. Use it more in puzzles, which are a controlled environment, or outside of combat. The physics themselves were passable for this much.
I'm pretty sure that features mentioned by Volsung are already completely possible in Red Engine. All those thing are basic physics. Also Havok is capable to do way more that it's doing in TW2 and it would be nice to see it in next game. Like realistic cloth simulation and stuff like that. It seems that it requires additional fees etc. But I guess it's worth it.
I also want to point out that Havok Phsyics won 5 times in the row Game Developer Magazine's and Gamesturas's award for the best middleware.
I also want to point out that Havok Phsyics won 5 times in the row Game Developer Magazine's and Gamesturas's award for the best middleware.
Then Havok it isAver said:
It doesn't have to be physics intensive, but it would be very, very cool if they include these physics based dynamics into normal gameplay. Open-ended tactical combat with environmental physics? Hell yes! I'm guessing in Cyberpunk 2077 the environment will also play a big role in combat: alleys, vehicles, obstacles, bullets and other projectiles.
If they do this then I hope that they won't overdo this. I like such things in the game, but when it's overused it starts to feel gimmicky. When in every single fight you have possibility to throw something at enemies then it starts to feel like combat is designed only around it. It's cool to play sometimes games like Dark Messiah, that is designed around this gimmick, but from TW2 I would expect this not being a main feature of combat. But nonetheless I would love to see some physics in combat too.Volsung said:Then Havok it is
It doesn't have to be physics intensive, but it would be very, very cool if they include these physics based dynamics into normal gameplay. Open-ended tactical combat with environmental physics? Hell yes! I'm guessing in Cyberpunk 2077 the environment will also play a big role in combat: alleys, vehicles, obstacles, bullets and other projectiles.
PhysX is nVidia exclusive and furthermore not supported by all their cards, isn’t it? Sounds like a bad idea to restrict your effects to 50% (or even less) of your customers when the alternative can basically include everyone.
As for physics in combat, Aver’s got it right. It wouldn’t be much of an RPG anymore if it focused heavily on them in that fashion (cf. the aforementioned “Dark Messiah of Might and Magic”). I mean in these games you end up being able to kill even the most advances enemies by kicking them from a ledge or into a wall of spikes, even on level 1. The degree to which “The Witcher 2” employed them (Aard + cliff) is enough for me.
As for physics in combat, Aver’s got it right. It wouldn’t be much of an RPG anymore if it focused heavily on them in that fashion (cf. the aforementioned “Dark Messiah of Might and Magic”). I mean in these games you end up being able to kill even the most advances enemies by kicking them from a ledge or into a wall of spikes, even on level 1. The degree to which “The Witcher 2” employed them (Aard + cliff) is enough for me.
How are environmental physics not part of an RPG? Are you serious? If you were RP-ing with pen and paper and a human dungeon/game master, you could come up with things like that. Try to hit objects, do whatever. Not everyone has to sword fight and cast spells.Demut said:
In-game, I picture environmental physics could actually add an element of surprise to combat. But it could be heavily stats-driven if you like, even turn-based. It simply is a factor you can take into account. Weakening a scaffold with Aard to drop it a creature? Didn't we do something like that at the end of Chapter 3 in TW1, except it was scripted? Now imagine something like that in a much smaller scale, that you can control. For example, again, body collisions. More skilled enemies would probably be able to evade these moves. As I said, stat-driven. It doesn't have to be everywhere and combat doesn't have to be designed around it, as Aver well pointed out it would be annoying. But it would be nice to add a degree of reactivity from the environment. One body should push another, falling objects knock people down, etc. Acceleration, momentum, gravity. Things like that as part of the general game world.
What you are talking about are the combat mechanics of an action game, unrelated to (simulation of) physics.
I like the idea of a bit more physics in terms of using the environment in combat. Not scripted sequences, but rather being able to throw things with Aard or throw enemies into spiky ornaments Maybe we could even set some things on fire with Igni which would then hurt enemies, although I suppose that would have to have limits (can't go burning down the whole town ).
Maybe we could even set some things on fire with Igni which would then hurt enemies, although I suppose that would have to have limits (can't go burning down the whole town ).Yeah, considering their explanation for using DX9 in TW2 I expect they will try to avoid any choices that would cut out potential players (or give them a significantly worse experience just for having the "wrong" brand of graphics card).Demut said: