Hawken PhysX Trailer, APEX Turbulence




Some PhysX effects in Hawken (based on Unreal Engine 3) including APEX Turbulence, a PhysX feature which uses velocity fields to simulate particle motion.


19 thoughts on “Hawken PhysX Trailer, APEX Turbulence”

  1. DrBalthar

    Typical PhysX usage after over 5 years things still haven’t moved on at all. Still primarily used as a visual gimmick.

  2. mareknr

    Typical DrBalthar. After 5 years still empty phrases about PhysX usage. :-) Sorry man but if you don’t like NVIDIA or PhysX itself just say it. Or give us some examples of physics usage which is better and not scripted. Thanks.

  3. fellix

    Same old tech, recycled for yet another hit title. It’s nothing more than a visual effect, done with a proprietary API. It’s pretty much doable with HLSL/GLSL too. It looks cool, sort of, but it adds nothing to the actual gameplay – a marketing vehicle for NV.

  4. mareknr

    @felix: “It’s pretty much doable with HLSL/GLSL too” It’s seems easy according to your words. So I asked why isn’t there someone else who offer better solution? Which other physical engines on this level allow interaction between physically simulated objects and game environment? NVIDIA spent time and money to upgrade and optimize PhysX so it’s not only marketing vehicle as you say. Yes NVIDIA use it to sell their GPUs too but it’s OK. They move development of physical engines into next level. Cloth, particles, force fields – all of this can interact with each other (all you still want to see animation and scripts?). It’s true that it doesn’t influence gameplay, but study how much work was needed to see something like this. It’s not easy.

  5. PixelEuphoria

    Those Turbulence particles in the beginning are way too gratuitous for me. The particles for the energy collector looks cool (and appropriate), but for things like every hit on a shield, or every health powerup… bleh! I feel like they took tech that looks really cool, and just shoe-horned it everywhere.

  6. Anon

    This dude DrBalthar is hilarious. :) He so likes static AMD technologies that others are useless.

    Another one is fellix. What raw graphics adds to gameplay? πŸ˜€

  7. mareknr

    @Anon: AMD doesn’t have any own physical engine. So there aren’t any static AMD technologies. Anything what can be accelerated on AMD cards can also run on cards of NVIDIA GPUs. Advantage of NVIDIA are their own proprietary technologies which are running only on their cards. And this is a problem of som AMD fanboys. This is not about PhysX. They have needs to believe that every technology which is not supported by AMD is bad. PhysX will never be good enough to satisfied these people. When there will be a game where PhysX will influence gameplay, they will find something else on it to criticise.

  8. mareknr

    @Patrick85: It depends on game usage. This is not property of PhysX engine. Game developers are using it that way to achieve interesting visual effects. The asset of PhysX is that objects in game can interact with each other and their behavior is influence by given physical rules. APEX turbulence is the proof. Or fluid simulation in Borderlands 2. With GPU PhysX we have chance to see something like that for the first time. And then you can see some people who don’t know nothing about PhysX development and are talking about it with disrespect. Normal opinion about PhysX usage is OK but what felix said or many times before DR Baltar is only about some funny hate. The most funny thing I ever read is sentence “It’s pretty much doable with HLSL/GLSL too”. It seems like achieve something like PhysX is the matter of some days or months.

  9. DrBalthar

    nVidia would be a great company if it wouldn’t be run by an idiot on the top which only has a big ego and its the source of all the problem in the company. Otherwise engineers are doing a reasonable job (most of the time) considering the circumstances.

    The problem with nVidia (and PhysX is a great example) they want to be like Intel introducing proprietary tech and hoping everyone jumps onto it but they just aren’t smart and big enough to pull it off like Intel.

  10. mareknr

    @DrBaltar: Whatever. PhysX is the only solution of its kind which can use all resources (CPU and GPU) and is already using in games. There is no such alternative. Bullet can be interesting and via OpenCL it can be used by everyone. But there is no company which would pay for its support. Like NVIDIA did for PhysX. If PhysX wouldn’t be proprietary technologie, NVIDIA wouldn’t never support it (why would somebody spend his money to something which will be used by everybody else for free). So what is better solution? Proprietary technology with excellent support or open technology without any usage? NVIDIA rewrite whole Physx engine and extend its functionality. They also develop APEX for PhysX easier implementation into games. They did a lot of work with good results (my opinion). PhysX in Borderlands 2 and in new online shooters is a step forward.

  11. mareknr

    And the atmosphere of game is much better then with script and animated physics. Mafia 2, Batmans, Borderlands 2 and these new online shooters which are using GPU accelerated PhysX features are a good example. And I think that NVIDIA is doing this well, because with these projects, APEX is integrated into developers engines which means, that they would use PhysX in their future games too.

  12. Anon

    @DrBalthar: Oh, yeah? And how AMD’s CEO is running company? Over $1 billion lost in 2012. πŸ˜€
    It’s AMD ego do not license third party technologies.

  13. DrBalthar

    @makenr: Doesn’t matter game companies will not pick it up especially since nVidia is out of all the next gen consoles so the support will just be added to those where nVidia is willing to send ca$h into the direction of developers and they will just use it for eye candy. This has been happening since day one now with PhysX. PhysX is pretty much a lose-making business for nVidia and just wait a couple of more years and it will be dropped. It is not that PhysX is bad per se it is just nVidia’s handling of PhysX is bad! Most HW companies trying to control a SW middleware is usually not a good thing and ends up in tears unless they have a 90% dominance over the market (like Intel does)

  14. mareknr

    @DrBaltar: According to HW of next-gen consoles, PhysX handling obviously doesn’t change. But according to possibly 8-core architecture in consoles, they can use PhysX with CPU acceleration. For now PhysX is the most using middleware physics engine. It depends what can PhysX offer in basic. And this is something on what NVIDIA works in PhysX SDK 3.x and can be used for gameplay influence when it does’t depend on some specific HW. CPU acceleration is re-implemented and from there is only a small step to use GPU accelerated features. Plus APEX itself is implemented in some game engines like Unreal Engine 4. And I thing the work on PhysX SDK 3.x was done well according to its implementation in new online shooters Planetside 2, Hawken and Warframe. I don’t know nothing about PhysX future. It can be drop after some years but for now I think it’s the best physics engine – NVIDIA did great job on it’s implementation. It has some problems in market but as we can see on Bullet, this is not best way two. For know there are 28 games using GPU accelerated PhysX for eye candy effects and 0 games using GPU accelerated Bullet. So what is better in view of players? Great demos are not everything (PhysX has some too).

  15. bakso

    Physic that influences gameplay can be frustating. I still be glad if it only for eye candy or real world physical effects. How about mech damages physx effects?

  16. Jonah

    Yeah, you can’t have physics that influences gameplay if it only works on some cards…
    you can’t have some players be effected by something and others not

Comments are closed.