Added: 2 years ago
From: PCGamesHardware
Views: 165,496
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (354)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • So lame, it's not like these effects can't be done without Physx, it's just a scam for Nvidia to make more money, they pay off the devs to make all of these particle effects with Physx that they could make without, that way, when the game comes out they shit on ATI users.

    It's actually pretty immature when you think about it,

  • pyshx is scam

  • retards! the one with OFF above it has the particles off! I mean WHY would you have a game with a gun called the powerfull water gun when my piss diameter is wider?  The graphics has been turned down, rename this to [game name] bad vs max quality for all i care

  • Gimmick 

  • looks great^^

  • que jogada de marquetim fudida foi essa da nvidia ein, nem comparaçao"com e sem physx ! caba perdendo a graça joga sem physx

  • just so u all know what Nvidia shows off with "PhysX" can all be done by using CPU based Physics like Havok, which has also been proven to take less performance off.

  • 1C COMPANY? THE COMPANY THAT MADE MEN OF HONOR?

  • @theuncanspan 1C are a publisher.

    Also, the particle effects are possible on a CPU, sure... but they're a lot easier to do with a CPU.

  • 0:57 I can do that with my penis

  • this games graphic is awfull. 

  • @comicguy00 are you serious?

  • @manuruleforeva123 yes, im very serious. Is it using physx to compensate for something?

  • @comicguy00 Your grammar is awful.

  • @Filbertfriend troll

  • I feel as if Intel is spamming this thread.

  • physx is dead (nvidia user here)

  • Are you kidding me? You can't create good-looking rain without any physics engine? Come on.

  • @xmine08

    The game uses SPH simulation. The only other game that produces similar fluids is Crazy Machines 2. And it relies on GPU PhysX as well. SPH is very slow on CPUs. Give Realflow a whirl (no pun intended) and compare its speed to some of the stuff Nvidia does in realtime. It's night and day.

  • Dirt 3 has some impressive particle effect's, and the best part, it don't need PhysX and runs at 60FPS without a extra card. Nvidia's closed door approach has only hindered them.

  • @captaincough you dont need an extra card who told you that? all you need is a series 9XXX or higher

  • i don't remember the weapon at 0:55... was it in the game (main line)?

  • Physx is one of the biggest gimmicks ever... There's only like 3 games that actually use it, and none of those games even has the best physics of any game whatsoever.

    Take a look at games like Crysis (the first one), and Portal 2... Those games have great physics, and they don't even use Physx at all.

    People have even RECOMMENDED that I use an extra videocard as a dedicated Physx GPU. The only game I have that uses Physx is Metro 2033, and I can't even really tell a difference.

  • @RalphCQ plenty of games use physX , don't like it? Don't use it, it's not a gimmick its a true physics engine btw

  • @Fyrwe No, its crapware. And it is a gimmick.

  • @RalphCQ PhysX is not a gimmick. It does enhance gameplay greatly. The fact that there aren't many games that support PhysX and that the frame rates drop massively with PhysX enabled, isn't really the fault of the technology itself. The technology itself is very sound and impressive, we just need more games supporting PhysX and more powerful cards that won't drop frames significantly with PhysX enabled.

  • where can i download this ?

  • where is in this fucking game the water gun?

  • physX is awezum:O

  • That's very misleading because everything on the physx side can be done without physx in most engines. I've made similar effects with bouncing particles in the UE3 without the need for any physics card. Simply disabling particles all-together in the game then saying "look, only physx can do this!" is very misleading and just plain untrue Water doesn't flow in this game, they're simply transparent particles which bounce around for 1-2 seconds then fade away.

  • @iSOBigD a processor can do everything physx can do, just slower. A cpu doesn't have the same calculating capacity as a gpu which is why physx is used to take some of the workload off of the cpu and put it on the gpu.

  • @marski1337 Right, but in these examples, everything shows on the physx side can be done on an average CPU at a good frame rate within a game. It's simply an unfair, biased, rigged "comparisson".

  • @iSOBigD Yeah, I get you. I'm using a quad core cpu but since I have a physx gpu as well I just tend to use that if it's available in the game. This comparison is maybe a bit biased in that it should have had like a gazillion million crashing particles rendered both on cpu alone and then in physx. Then we would've seen a drop in frame rate on the cpu side.

  • @iSOBigD Interesting... never thought about it that way.

  • @iSOBigD don't hate

  • @iSOBigD I get where you going and I think your right but UE3 is not good example because it's also based on the physx engine (but off course you can do this effect without the phicx enige). also it isn't like you need a separate graphics card (at leat if you have a nvidia card). but i hate the monopole from nvidia on this engine as well!

  • @iSOBigD

    Generally only about a tenth of the physics effects is possible on the CPU even with over clocking.

    You should have said that PhysX type effects is possible using STREAM or OpenCL, albeit, not as refined as CUDA.

    But neither has Apple, AMD or the Kronos Group come up with a PhysX substitute for the GPU.

  • @iSOBigD Exactly what I was going to say. Drives me crazy when game developers say "you need a physics card for that", when all they are doing is adding particle physics... which has been around for years.

  • @iSOBigD

    Thanks telling. I knew there was something suspicious about this. 

  • @iSOBigD I think you're a bit of an idiot. Could cryostasis do more that it did without physx? Yes, and it do what physx can without physx? No. Companies use physx because it's the all around best way to use particle physics effects, and it looks damn good, and it's easy. Using a complex work around for something that looks worse in the end, isn't worth it. So most companies just say "use physx or get no good graphics at all"

  • @onefrozenheart You really have no clue what you're talking about. Physx is about physics, it has nothing to do with graphics. You can make great special effects that don't interact with other objects and you'd need no physics engine of any kind - plus the game would run faster. Physics just allow for interaction between objects, in this case, particles. If there's no physical interaction, you don't need a physics engine. Graphics don't need physics.

  • @iSOBigD you can get dumber over time! COOL! Maybe you should re-read my comment. The only graphics related thing I said was my end quote, which is true, physx, particles, no physx, no particles (or way less particle effects) therefore, no physx means worse graphics, that is true, for cryostasis, and was the companies decision to do that. I also said physx looks good, which is true, the particles interacting in the world with other things, does look good

  • @iSOBigD

    Thank you. I was thinking about that too.... I knew that couldn't be true.

  • @iSOBigD Then you wouldn't mind doing this for each and every company that has to make a game with particle effects that interact with in game geometry? I for one like the way this looks, most people seem to like this video, and it cuts down on programing time for developers.

  • @oflaherty117 It doesn't cut down on anything, it's an on/off switch just like before. They're simply accelerated by a video card so they can have more interactive particles at once. That's literally all it is. The point is the video simply has particles off then particles on. It's not a physx on/off comparison at all.

  • @iSOBigD If you did not have a Nvidia GPU would you still be able to see these effects?

  • @oflaherty117 In theory... However there are several games that look much better with PhysX where such effects are not available without proper hardware... NVidia is often paying them for that.

    You could always try cracked/hacked version of PhysX... it works flawlessly... it is just NVidia blocking/disabling hardware support if it can find graphic card made by competition.

  • @iSOBigD Thanks for clearing that up.

  • do radeon have this?

  • @iwhitecastle

    AMD uses havok, but I got a Physx card with my 4870 so I got both Nvidia physx and Havok. :)

  • @696969Brian696969 Havok isn't ATI exclusive kid.

  • @iwhitecastle nope, this is an nvidia technology, although its all just marketing. i wouldnt be surprised if ati have something exactly the same just called a different name.

  • @kahuna3901 no, ati hasn't got a 3d technology that works as well as nvidias 3d vision nor do they support physx or something similar. I just bought myself a 560ti - finally i can play this game with activated physx :D

  • @MartinGro131 PhysX will so be phased out because more companies go with Havok now a days which does the same thing just less performance draining and works on both cards. Also the way ATI's 3D works is the same as Nvidia the only thing they dont have is the classes yet, which 3rd party companies are making that work with all monitors.

  • @kahuna3901 technically its Agiea technology which was around before Nvidia bought them making PhysX to work on both ATI and Nvidia at the time. Nvidia bought the rights to them so they can say they have something that the competition dosnt, which will be phased out by havok because most game dev's dont like to create a bias on their games. Overall the amount of times that PhysX is placed in a game now dosnt warrant buying a Nvidia card just for PhysX or ur a blind man.

  • yes but big computer nesesary

  • advertisement gimmick by nvidia

  • @ninjaturtle205 Huh? Yes, this is them showing what they can do with Physx, but it's not really a gimmick. Like reflections, soft shadows, and dynamic lightings/shadows, this can make a game look far better, making the player feel like they are playing in a more responsive world.

  • @MordeaniisChaos True that PhysX does add more to the game but this can also be done with Havok which is a CPU based physics generator, which is also why companies like to go with havok over PhysX

  • i loled hard at the water cannon thts so fake

  • Lol, do you notice that the settings are higher in the physx on test?

  • Nvidia sucks major balls. They keep optimising games for their utterly expensive and innefective cards just to sabotage ATi.

  • @NotRaPoSa0CiNzEnTa and that is a bad thing how ?

  • @torrasque2007 Instead of making better cards, Nvidia disoptimizes games for cards from other brands. This affects the price on the Nvidia cards.

  • The realy cool physics are when you pee. :D

  • roflmao the watercannon without physx, that was patethic

  • @daogenify

    your spelling is also pathetic.

  • The water cannon is fucking hilarious without physx. You are telling me that is how they designed it?

  • lol at that effects.. they can be done without physx for sure

  • GAH where do you GET that GUN?

  • NOW THAT WAS HILARIOUS :DDDDD

  • This looks so exaggerated. I've seen similar effects in games that don't use PhysX.

  • @ImperialArmour e.g. Bioshock on ATI cards

  • umm.. is this bullshit? i doubt PhysX turns the water gun from a piss cannon to a water jet.

  • is this game scary? like bioshock?

  • Who the hell wants to rent this video?

  • PhysX isn't a scam first off, go try Metro 2033, and turn advanced PhysX on, you will notice a considerable difference of in-game particles.

  • @Doofunator for the performance drop its dismissable

  • I also agree with what others said about PhysX being a scam. I played Mirror's Edge with and without PhysX and while there were very minor graphics improvements, they made framerate unnecessarily slower. The improvements also had no effect on gameplay at all, so whats the point?

  • This game does have locations where you can see good physics like this, ok, but overall the game is very poorly tested and runs very poorly. Maybe some later indoors levels are good, but I played thorugh first two areas (outside, indoors, first enemies appear) and it was buggy as hell.

  • that sucked so hard

  • physx is indeed a scam.... this comparison is fake

  • physx is a scam

  • @ApocalypseIsComing and i see your not a software developer!

  • Great...now I need to go take a piss

  • Wow, they creeated an peeing machine.!

  • wooow.....no PhyX nd its the crapiest game i've seen in the past 3 years....With phyX nd it suddnly becomes awesome 0.o......

  • They should be able to do all of this without physx.

  • @Usul573 Yes it is possible. At a price.... The software can simulate this effect at the cost of half your frame-rate.

  • lol 0:55 (the left one) the water look like pee

  • PhysX is good, but unless you spend a shitload of money on a computer, it will always make games unplayable.

  • wow @ the water

  • Ati chips können die effekte doch auch berechnen, nur die haben eben keinen extra chip oO

  • What is physx?? when did it come out??

  • @ISetYourFaceOnFire PhysX is an nVidia only feature that makes physics in games look more beautiful. Only a few games like Batman Arkham Asylum and Cryostasis use it, but it's a cool feature when you have an nVidia grahpics card and one of those games.

  • @Vr0l1jk Aww okay thanks so are all games going to have it in the future or? wait is it only for pc the "Physx"? and when did it come out :o?

  • @ISetYourFaceOnFire no not all games are going to have it just games pretty much that are made for Nvidia users and btw MAFIA 2 with PhysX on high Owns all!

  • @ISetYourFaceOnFire Physx is one of the many reasons why Nvidia owns ATI.

  • @TheBraden1996 Right...Name 2 other reasons. Just a small grasp out of the many reasons why ATI owns nVidia, faster, cheaper (except the well positioned GTX 460), cooler and therefore quiter, way less power consumption, ATI brings out new cards more than once in a decade. Actually, next generation comes out in just 2 weeks. This will undoubtly slaughter the GTX460/465, as it is said the HD6870 will replace the HD5770 on it's pricepoint, but will offer HD5870 performance.

  • -.- This game was made for PhysX. So without it looks like shit

  • its funny cause that stuff shows up when its off so wtf?

  • at 0:58, the water on the left looks like a pathetic toy

  • Fuck you Nvidia, you cockaroaches.

  • Comment removed

  • the last thing is just a joke... u dont fucking need phsyx to make water u stupid idiot. Tryin to impress that phsyx is so much better...

  • Well, the whole gunfire spark thing was new and kind of neat but other than that the only thing I've seen come out of PhysX is lag.....

  • oh so u cant have physx unless you have a nvidia card well guess its a good thing a had a gtx 285 put im my pc instead of that ati he was going to put in it :S

  • This game looks a lot like bioshock

  • @tom1161

    you've obviously never played it, then...

  • 2014 we will laugh our asses off, when we rewatch that stupid PhysX shit. Just a retarded attempt to make more cash.

  • @12x8u I ditto this, as a Nvidia owner I can say myself that Physx is a highly unoptimized gimmick that could be simulated quite easily and lag free with a simple cpu.

  • Next time I jump in a swimming pool with lag-free splashes, Ima be like, YAY, REAL WORLD PHYSICS FTW ^^

  • Physics of the Future is Right here Ladies and Gents...Unless there is a Superior Physics Engine.

  • @wariofan279 with DX11 and more recent updates with Havok and Cry 3 engine, physx is pretty much useless. not to mention Physx is about 10x more to implement than Havok and other engines, hence why only a VERY few games use it.

  • @KingOfSand100

    You over-Exagerate,Many games use PhysX.

    maybe not as much as Havok,But Still,Alot of Games use it.

    And i have never Seen Havok do Water Movement.

  • @wariofan279 there really isn't that many. according to the nvidia site, only 30 games use physx.

  • It looks worse than it would because they used virtually no other standard of hardware physics when Nv Physx is disabled.

    They didn't even use Havoc! They would have you think it's this bad without Nv's Physx, which is entirely untrue.

    ATI has hardware physics support, but it is opensource, they working on an open standard, so game developers don't have to pay $ to use it. Lets just hope developers get on board.

    More people will have access to hardware physics, and dev's won't have to pay.

  • Are ''Cryostasis'' and ''Cryostasis Sleep of Reason'' same games???

  • @borkogamerr yes

  • i am up to level 8 but havent seen anything like that and i have installed physX and have turned it on in the options but still nothing is it because i have an ATI mobility radeon graphics card? do i need an NVIDIA card?

  • @360viper117 yes

  • NVIDIA crank that S#!T UP! FUCK ATI FUCK ASUS DOING 1200$ CARD FOR ATI! FUCK AMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @aldobu1990 butthurt fan

  • @aldobu1990 neeeeeeeeeerd raaaaaaaaaaaaaaage!!!!

  • @aldobu1990 1200$ card? lol

  • The water blaster ... OMG made me so lol

  • very gooooooooooooooood!!! :D

    but

    the game sucks D:

  • @Xxx0zkrxxX The game is great 0_o

  • @SgtMustang if you say it :P

  • this is not physx on and off its graphics high and graphics low

  • forcing the physx may make it look worse on ati but it is still a good game

  • complete difference

  • "Water pour and flows as it would in the physical world" Lmao fail. :D

    We may never see that. :P

  • Jiggle PhysX? They should trademark that.

  • complete bullshit

  • i have ati card (so no physx) but ima still get

  • @Sharkey3331 You can get an Ageia card but it will lag with this game though!

  • sure, the physx is prettier, but the fact remains that the other guy killed his baddie first :P

  • This game is so awesome, I just bought it again on Steam... Love it.

  • Oh, I just bought this. Comparing the water cannon effects... right now I have PhysX off and it looks like I'm killing people with rain droplets. Looks so much better with PhysX on. When I first got that gun I didn't even know if it was working.

  • I have

  • oh, so that's why my dad told me that i should get a new computer with a nVidia card and not an ATi. can't wait to get a new computer though ;)

  • While watching, I was mostly paying attention to the screen with enabled PhysX.)

  • wow!

  • the physics engine must be integrated in directx, so it doesen't matter what hardware you have.

  • physx is BS , what is really needed is game programers to get of their fat asses and do better coding to do real use of quad cores and hexacores

    Take real advantage of these monster new cpus for physics ... thats what i say !

  • What cheap, gimicky bullshit Physx is. More than half of those effects could be done without a Physx enabled card. I remember they advertised the same shit on Batman Arkham Asylum. "With a Physx card you can see newspapers flying in the air when you walk over them!!!" rofl, I saw shit like that on GTA3 10 years ago. Morons.

  • its me or with PhysX off, the game runs smoother?

  • Seems you need an nvidia card to play this game. Too bad...

  • okay..that means if I have a ATI Radeon card (for example HD 5750 in my case) there are no Physx effects and the game would look so crappy only because I dont have a Nvidia card?

  • Can I use my ATI card for my main GPU and buy a GTS 250 as a dedicated PhysX?

  • @itchyfingers89 : no you cannot, as nvidia won't allow physx to run if a non-nvidia gpu is doing the rendering.

  • @h3Xh3Xh3X With the latest drivers you can have an ati gpu for the graphics you'll need an nvidia card to run the physx obviously.

    Also PhysX requires a gpu with a MINIMUM of 32 stream processors so 8600gt/9500gt are bare minimum.

  • @94XJ I have an 8 year old Dell with an high-end AGP ATI card with an Ageia PhysX card, I actually got it to play this game with the PhysX on, but it lags like none other!

  • @h3Xh3Xh3X lol google hybrid physx. you'll be surprised.

  • wow u don't need physx to do all that, if they strip the game down on purpose is different lol, propaganda ftl

  • (PhysX) Makes Tits move naturally .Therefor it's worth the investment.

  • @aceracc323 There is a Chinese MMO game with that feature in a middle of development process.

  • @aceracc323 LOL like in the first 3dmark Vantage test right? No physx...no jiggly, physx jiggly.

  • @94XJ Yes, I thought I was The Only One Benchmarking to see Tits Move.

  • @aceracc323 Very right dude :D

  • @aceracc323 and it lowers your fps nice

  • @aceracc323

    best comment here in the last weeks,man...you're our hero.

  • @aceracc323 ICant people just post a regular comment instead of making it sex oriented?

  • @aceracc323 You just red my mind...

  • @aceracc323 New upcoming porn games using PhysX and Kinect plus 3D, it would be awesome!! :D

  • The Video is way, way too short to make a statement.

  • Looks less like "hey we can do cool things with PhysX!" and more like "hey, if you don't buy our PhysX card, we will disable these effects for you!"

    A failed advertisement.

  • cryostasis sucks...it is just a bioshock ripoff.

  • @cenagod you are a moron

  • I have a nvidia 280 card and a physx card and the physx dont work. I haven't really seen any explanation as to why not. In the menu you can turn on physics but not the advanced physics which is whats in this video. whats up

  • aik ?

    kenapa yang off grafik nya macam di kurangkan ?

    walau apa pun,

    saya rasa HD5970 sudah memadai untuk saya.

  • The point is that today only a few games support PhysX....

    And the most of them are crappy games...

  • @johnie1992 Mafia 2 is not a crappy game :)

  • @vladut15bis Right, Mafia 2 is the Only good game with physx.... But Mafia's 2 game engine graphics where not that good...

    Plus the End of the game was a Crap!!

  • @johnie1992

    yeah the ending sucked but the rest of the game made up for it

  • @johnie1992 Mafia 2=Crap game

  • @johnie1992 mirrors edge isn't a crappy game too :o

  • @re4pt0x Indead, thats why I said "The Most of them" and not "All of them"