Should Witcher 3 use PhysX instead of Havok?

[CostinRaz]

From where do you get your so called facts Aver?

Anyway you have not explained why a company like CDPR would use PhysX considering what you are saying if it is true.

 

[dragonbird]

Prince, read previous posts in the topic and Havok/PhysX website. You will find out official info that those facts are true.

Can you give a link for

- PhysX documentation is only in Finnish language, and
- if company want to use PhysX they have to sign agreement with Nvidia that source code of the game is property of Nvidia

because I can't find any reference to either.
Thanks.

 

[GuyNwah]

No, Nvidia doesn't provide any support and Havok does. Moreover PhysX documentation is only in Finnish language, because Aegia, original creator of PhysX was Finnish company and part of deal between them and Nvidia when Nvidia bought them, was agreement that Nvidia won't translate any documentation nor creation kit from Finnish. It's because Aegia was very patriotic company and they wanted to promote Finnish languge - I know idiotic, but it's the way it is :/ . So it's very hard for programmer to work with PhysX, but Nvidia provides help from their translators (so I guess we can say that they provide some support, but only basic).

Also, if company want to use PhysX they have to sign agreement with Nvidia that source code of the game is property of Nvidia - it's necessary to check if some component wasn't used in improper way. So using PhysX is very shady business. That's why so few companies use it - most of them are afraid that they will lose control over their source code.

These statements are all false.

There is no requirement that source code of the game become property of nVidia. Every commercial software developer who deals in software containing proprietary products is aware of the possibility of license challenges or audits. Claims that software companies will not use it on the foundation of some silly statement posted by somebody with an axe to grind on a competitor's forums are FUD.

PhysX documentation and technical support are provided in English; there is no requirement that the documentation not be translated from Finnish. To receive such documentation and technical support in English requires only that you register as a PhysX developer, at no cost. Claims that there is no documentation or minimal documentation in English are FUD.

The claim that few companies use PhysX is false. 396 games have been released with PhysX support. This is fewer than Havok ("over 500") but no foundation whatsoever for spreading FUD that "few" companies will use it.

 

[Aver]

Of course I was mocking here. I hoped that ridiculous facts like Finnish language and loosing rights to source code would be crazy enough for everyone to spot on and understand. Point of my post was that I can post every stupid thing that I want as argument, just as posting "Havok doesn't provide support". What is point of discussion if someone post something as 'fact' before he checks it. First I tried to correct all those posts, but then same arguments were coming over and over again. So I sarcastically suggested that poster should read website first, but it was deleted by mod so I posted this crazy thing as example that I can post any 'fact' that I want too.

 

[GuyNwah]

If you want to troll, it's more efficient to troll with claims that aren't so readily fact-checked. The forums have a way of self-correcting tendentious claims. Trolling to make the point that you can get away with it doesn't influence anybody.

But that is beside the point. The point is that CDPR has the option to choose between two different widely-used physics implementations, each of which has its own advantages. Only their engineers are in a position to determine which will give them the best results. Because the decision has to be made on technical and commercial grounds known only to insiders, any arguments we make in favor of one or the other are not really of any consequence at all.

I've been on the receiving end of customer demands for a particular proprietary or unique technology (whether a computer language, a database engine, hardware, just whatever) for years. Caving in to customer demands on such matters usually results in a botched product and an unhappy customer.

 

[Aver]

If you want to troll, it's more efficient to troll with claims that aren't so readily fact-checked.

I didn't want to 'troll' per se. I wanted by this post encourage other posters to check PhysX and Havok websites.

[Edit] I hate when people add more to their posts when I already answered. I look like douche then, because it looks like I answered to one part and avoided later arguments. /> So let's answer rest of your post.

Trolling to make the point that you can get away with it doesn't influence anybody.

I usually try different, more polite way, but it doesn't work either. Normally I would just ignored post (and I should have done that), but I was pretty annoyed because I already answered few times to posts like "Havok doesn't provide support and Nvidia does". Then I answered sarcastically, that he should go and check out official sites, but my post was deleted because of sarcastic tone. Then another my post was deleted because of similar reason. So I got pretty annoyed and posted troll post. Now I wouldn't do this, but at least this post wasn't deleted.

But that is beside the point. The point is that CDPR has the option to choose between two different widely-used physics implementations, each of which has its own advantages. Only their engineers are in a position to determine which will give them the best results. Because the decision has to be made on technical and commercial grounds known only to insiders, any arguments we make in favor of one or the other are not really of any consequence at all.

Of course, but also I want be able fully enjoy game. I don't want to have limited physics just because CDPR have partnership with Nvidia. Normally, I don't care when any game uses PhysX because it's extremely rare (1-2 games per year) and it was never included in any game that really important for me. But TW3 is close to my heart, it's my favorite franchise and I would be seriously disappointed if I wouldn't be able to see full potential of it.

I just hope that introduction of new build of Havok with support for GPU will be the last nail to PhysX's coffin and that we will never again see this abomination.

 

[RSIK_4]

After reading this conversation about havok v/s physx....
i came to know that its quality and performance...
which havok produced it very well in TW1 & Tw2 games....
so i m with havok....

 

[CostinRaz]

Yeah like the clingy clothes that everyone had? Because that's what PhysX handles.

I just hope that introduction of new build of Havok with support for GPU will be the last nail to PhysX's coffin and that we will never again see this abomination.

Really you are just coming off as being bitter over them deciding to use a technology that doesn't work on your GFX card.

Also quite frankly why is it an abomination? Oh it's exclusive? That's not an argument about the merits of it in terms of performance and visual effects.

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

I will let you in on little info\

AMD vs Nivida.

AMD worries to much about top Fps and will basically gun for that in hopes to sway the sheeple that see OMG that AMD card beats the NVIDIA card by a FPS . However if you look at the avergae and the lows NVidia is the clear winner. I have Used both and Iike both but I tend to buy Nvidia because they have better products. Period. Also NVIDIA did not want the contracts for wither console? why No money in it. AMD needs the filler money....hell they need any money they can get. Nvidia has a postive cash flow of 3billion plus. Yes, in the bank that is savings. They are winning there is no room for debate here. AMD on the other hand is in the whole and their credit was downgraded yet again just a few mths ago. I hope they pull through as they do offer a decent produce for a good price.
Also NVIDIA does more in the same FPS (effects wise, post processing etc) than AMD

While the descritpion of the financial situations of AMD and Nvidia is correct, the parts I've marked bold are just plain wrong.

 

[Aver]

Really you are just coming off as being bitter over them deciding to use a technology that doesn't work on your GFX card.

Also quite frankly why is it an abomination? Oh it's exclusive? That's not an argument about the merits of it in terms of performance and visual effects.

I'm against all technologies that are exclusive to one manufacturer. And I'm pretty sure that Nvidia users are losing on exclusivity too. If it would be optimized in such way that everyone can use it then probably it would be more common instead of having 1 or 2 games by year. If it would be in like at least 10 games per year then maybe even I would buy their graphics card.

If there gonna be one common solution that can be used on all graphics card and next-gen consoles then we will probably see it the most of the games. That's why I hate exclusive solutions - they don't become popular and nobody gets profits from existing technology.

 

[CostinRaz]

And I'm pretty sure that Nvidia users are losing on exclusivity too. If it would be optimized in such way that everyone can use it then probably it would be more common instead of having 1 or 2 games by year. If it would be in like at least 10 games per year then maybe even I would buy their graphics card.

I am not entire certain on this one, out of the games released last year only 2 of them really good and that is Far Cry 3 and Warfighter, neither used Havok or PhysX cloth however.

But then we have games using exclusive Nvidia technology either as Borderlands 2 with PhysX or AC3 and Black Ops 2 with TXAA ( laugh all you like on their visuals, but TXAA is exclusive ).

I think the reality is that there aren't many great looking games out there anyway.

 

[Aver]

I am not entire certain on this one, out of the games released last year only 2 of them really good and that is Far Cry 3 and Warfighter, neither used Havok or PhysX cloth however.

But then we have games using exclusive Nvidia technology either as Borderlands 2 with PhysX or AC3 and Black Ops 2 with TXAA ( laugh all you like on their visuals, but TXAA is exclusive ).

I think the reality is that there aren't many great looking games out there anyway.

I wasn't talking about graphics, but physics. In graphics department PC have a lot of great features (i.e. DX11) and they are widely used and I don't mind such little things like exclusive type of AA - it would be better if it wouldn't be exclusive, but it's not game changing feature. I would mind if TXAA would be the only option to have AA in the game and it would be unavailable for AMD users.

I'm really pleased with nowadays graphics, even with games that doesn't look amazing. Actually seeing better graphics doesn't excite me anymore, because it's never big leap. On other hand physics are terrible and boring. I really want to see more games with great, innovative physics and I seriously doubt that PhysX will be responsible for popularization of advanced physics.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Actually seeing better graphics doesn't excite me anymore, because it's never big leap.

Have you watched this?

 

[Aver]

Have you watched this?

Yes, I have seen it. This video impressed me the most in last few years, yet mostly because things like facial expressions etc. I was more like "yeah, it's looks great" rather than "OMG! THIS IS AMAZING! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THOSE GRAPHICS IN THE GAME!".

 

[Agent_Blue]

Yes, I have seen it. This video impressed me the most in last few years, yet mostly because things like facial expressions etc. I was more like "yeah, it's looks great" rather than "OMG! THIS IS AMAZING! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THOSE GRAPHICS IN THE GAME!". />/>/>

My point is this. If indeed these are in-engine graphics and not CGI, it's indisputably a Quantum Leap.

It's not uncommon for RPGers to downplay the importance of graphics. I, on the other hand, hold the opposite view. Only recently Todd Howard said just as much, so hopefully the industry's big players won't fall prey to such mistaken notions anytime soon. TW3's self-proclaimed vision is to have the best looking RPG ever, rivalling FPSs and what not. So no worries there either.

 

[Aver]

It's not uncommon for RPGers to downplay the importance of graphics. I, on the other hand, hold the opposite view. Only recently Todd Howard said just as much, so hopefully the industry's big players won't fall prey to such mistaken notions anytime soon. TW3's self-proclaimed vision is to have the best looking RPG ever, rivalling FPSs and what not. So no worries there either.

I don't downplay role of technical part of the games. I like nice graphics, but nowadays we have really nice graphics, but terrible physics and dumb AIs. It's time to start pumping money into other parts of game development.

 

[Agent_Blue]

I don't downplay role of technical part of the games. I like nice graphics, but nowadays we have really nice graphics, but terrible physics and dumb AIs. It's time to start pumping money into other parts of game development.

Well, AI, that I can agree with. The sheer NPC dumbness is prevalent to staggering degrees. But physics, really? Current physics seem quite good to me. What specific aspect is in need of some major update?

 

[Aver]

Well, AI, that I can agree with. The sheer NPC dumbness is prevalent to staggering degrees. But physics, really? Current physics seem quite good to me. What specific aspect is in need of some major update?

Physics of hair, cloth, fluids, fire.

Even such basics like physics of thrown enemies - for example look at behavior of enemies in TW2 that are pushed with ard. It's looks cool, but it doesn't look believable - their bodies act like rag dolls - I know that it's name of this feature, but nonetheless, human body is not a rag doll .

 

[RSIK_4]

Have you watched this?

Trailer is simply superb....

 

[mxYELLOW]

Me too hate proprietary technologies.