# Hack Released to Enable PhysX on Windows 7 with ATI GPU Present



## btarunr (Oct 5, 2009)

For NVIDIA's PhysX technology, it has been a roller-coaster ride since NVIDIA's acquisition of the technology, and its makers. As much as PhysX quickly became one of the important selling-points of NVIDIA's consumer graphics line GeForce, it also had its small share of controversy, linked to market dynamics more than anything. With the technology's port to the GeForce GPU, enthusiasts fancied having the freedom of choice with a primary GPU that is dedicated to rendering 3D graphics, and a second GPU that is just about powerful to assign as a dedicated PhysX GPU. 

Although having a powerful ATI Radeon GPU aided by a less-powerful NVIDIA GeForce GPU for PhysX was possible on Windows XP, the succeeding Windows Vista restricted this, by making sure two active display drivers couldn't coexist. Windows 7 removed this restriction, but before you could rejoice, NVIDIA quickly released a driver-level code with its 186 series drivers, that disables NVIDIA PhysX altogether when a GPU from another vendor is coexisting and enabled, even an IGP for that matter. If that wasn't bizarre enough, with the latest drivers, you can't even pair an Ageia PhysX PPU card with an ATI Radeon GPU going about its business. To the rescue comes a soft-modder's nifty bit of software that overrides this restriction from NVIDIA's drivers, so you can use dedicated GeForce PhysX cards on machines with ATI Radeon primary GPUs again. The corrective driver patch comes from tech portal NGOHQ.com community member GenL.



The patch, which you can download here, has been successful so far going by community members' feedback. It lays to rest any argument NVIDIA would like to make about how using dedicated PhysX cards with primary GPUs of your choice (which happen to be an ATI Radeon) would be the end of the world, other than of course, market-dynamics.

Speaking of which, here's NVIDIA's statement on why dedicated PhysX accelerators ought not to work with GPUs from other vendors: "PhysX is an open software standard any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it. NVIDIA supports GPU accelerated PhysX on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes PhysX a great experience for customers. For a variety of reasons - some development expense some quality assurance and some business reasons NVIDIA will not support GPU accelerated Physx with NVIDIA GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non- NVIDIA GPUs."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Oct 5, 2009)

it works,  im using it


----------



## Jakl (Oct 5, 2009)

oo a Primary ATI card with a nVIDIA PhysX card for secondary... ooo Interesting


----------



## kenkickr (Oct 5, 2009)

Does it still require having two monitors or dual video inputs on your monitor to setup?


----------



## aquariuz (Oct 5, 2009)

Well, Nvidia's somewat being "selfish" by restricting the ability of using their lower end card with other GPUs, but I guess it makes some kind of sense. They're afraid of losing against ATI, especially with the release of the 5800 series. Thank god for modders out there to come to the rescue 

This won't really be an issue for me, assuming Fermi (GT300) will defeat 5800 ATI. In that case, I will stick with Nvidia. If Nv fails to impress me, n the rest of the world, then ATI it shall be, n I extend my thanks to those awesome modders out there.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 5, 2009)

It all leads back to ATi's flat out unwillingness to support PhysX running natively on their hardware.  If they had just put forth a little effort back when nVidia was extending the olive branch, PhysX would be running on ATi hardware without the need for a secondary nVidia GPU at all, and we wouldn't be in this situation.


----------



## aquariuz (Oct 5, 2009)

So wait, who actually owns Havok physics? is it in control of ATI or Intel?


----------



## kenkickr (Oct 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It all leads back to ATi's flat out unwillingness to support PhysX running natively on their hardware.  If they had just put forth a little effort back when nVidia was extending the olive branch, PhysX would be running on ATi hardware without the need for a secondary nVidia GPU at all, and we wouldn't be in this situation.



Wasn't ATI working with Havok until Intel purchased Havok?  Yes they were.


----------



## Flyordie (Oct 5, 2009)

However, ATi is still working with HAVOK on it all... right now, both companies hate Nvidia, so working together to oust them from the market will be beneficial... 

The downside is- once Nvidia caves in... it will just be Intel vs ATi in the GPU market.


----------



## mandis (Oct 5, 2009)

> If that wasn't bizarre enough, with the latest drivers, you can't even pair an Ageia PhysX PPU card with an ATI Radeon GPU going about its business...



That can't be legal... 

Can they do that???


----------



## suraswami (Oct 5, 2009)

ShRoOmAlIsTiC said:


> it works,  im using it



So if I enable the onboard 8200 vga and install NV drivers + this patch, I can use it for PhysX along with my 4850 GPU in W7?


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It all leads back to ATi's flat out unwillingness to support PhysX running natively on their hardware.  If they had just put forth a little effort back when nVidia was extending the olive branch, PhysX would be running on ATi hardware without the need for a secondary nVidia GPU at all, and we wouldn't be in this situation.



Well, maybe if Nvidia would opensource PhysX, they would.  "Olive branch" my ass.

As is, it's a proprietary standard.  There's no incentive for any hardware company to use PhysX, if it's always going to be under Nvidia's control.  Even if ATI did license it, Nvidia would probably ensure it only worked best on *their* hardware -- what would be the point?

And licensing issues have nothing to do with Nvidia's dick move of not allowing PhysX to work on a secondary Nvidia card if you were running a main ATI card.  

That's just greed, coupled with a fair amount of butthurt.  



mandis said:


> That can't be legal...
> 
> Can they do that???



They certainly can -- PhysX is Nvidia's own proprietary standard.  All the more reason for no one to use it.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 5, 2009)

nVidia's excuse may be that they can't guarantee everything will run properly with a different vendor's card doing the primary rendering, but that doesn't constitute disabling the adapter. It constitutes simple not offering support for those setups.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 5, 2009)

wait wait wait, i thought the ati crowd said physx is a joke and a marketing scheme. so why hack it for ati cards...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 5, 2009)

mandis said:


> That can't be legal...
> 
> Can they do that???



It has happened. Those ASUS/BFG Ageia PhysX cards won't work (with recent drivers), if the drivers see an ATI GPU. As for legality, NVIDIA can do what it wants with its hardware/software.



Easy Rhino said:


> wait wait wait, i thought the ati crowd said physx is a joke and a marketing scheme. so why hack it for ati cards...



EPeenmarkVantage


----------



## shiny_red_cobra (Oct 5, 2009)

NVidia are such fuckers for adding these restrictions, unfortunately they own PhysX so they are allowed to put whatever restrictions they want...


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> wait wait wait, i thought the ati crowd said physx is a joke and a marketing scheme. so why hack it for ati cards...



No one's hacking it "for ATI cards" -- they're hacking it so that it can work with the *Nvidia cards they already bought, but just use as secondary physics processors*.

Get it?  This kind of shit is the kind of reason why ATI has never bothered to use PhysX.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 5, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> No one's hacking it "for ATI cards" -- they're hacking it so that it can work with the *Nvidia cards they already bought, but just use as secondary physics processors*.
> 
> Get it?  This kind of shit is the kind of reason why ATI has never bothered to use PhysX.



right, but the ati crowd thinks physx is a joke and  a marketing sceme. so why even bother with any of it?


----------



## Roph (Oct 5, 2009)

Doesn't nvidia see that these antics only make OpenCL more attractive?

And I imagine that's the same reason ATI would turn down PhysX, and it looks like the right decision. As somebody pointed out in another thread, Nvidia aren't giving themselves the best image as far as being able to govern and control a standard is going.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 5, 2009)

This thread will be some NV users battling to the end for their green goblin juice, ATI users laughing about the clever way a driver can be minpulated to defeat the joke the lock out was anyway. The people who don't know or care and don't use it will shrug and either get pissed at NV for the crap they pull, or just leave the thread.



So, someone is in the lead already with defending NV, others are following up with the "why ATI sucks" arguments, red users are already laughing and some are preparing for another heated battle of red VS green.


----------



## erocker (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> wait wait wait, i thought the ati crowd said physx is a joke and a marketing scheme. so why hack it for ati cards...



It is. Game developers taking it on and putting it to use is the reason.


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It all leads back to ATi's flat out unwillingness to support PhysX running natively on their hardware.  If they had just put forth a little effort back when nVidia was extending the olive branch, PhysX would be running on ATi hardware without the need for a secondary nVidia GPU at all, and we wouldn't be in this situation.


I'd be curious what invida charges for licensing cuda/physx. Probably a ton, it's bad enough that they license havok...Had this situation gone well in the beginning, both Ageia and Havok would have remained independent and licensed to either GPU company. With the invidia logo on the hardware...I'm sure it's an arm and a leg, Havok is no better probably, but it's better established than Physx.


----------



## air_ii (Oct 5, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It all leads back to ATi's flat out unwillingness to support PhysX running natively on their hardware.  If they had just put forth a little effort back when nVidia was extending the olive branch, PhysX would be running on ATi hardware without the need for a secondary nVidia GPU at all, and we wouldn't be in this situation.



I don't know who to believe - you or Dave Hoff...



DaHoff]While it would be easy to convert PhysX from CUDA to OpenCL so it could run on our cards said:


> However, ATi is still working with HAVOK on it all... right now, both companies hate Nvidia, so working together to oust them from the market will be beneficial...
> 
> The downside is- once Nvidia caves in... it will just be Intel vs ATi in the GPU market.



I don't think they're working to oust them. Oust PhysX - yes, NV - no, as OpenCL is aimed to run on all capable hardware...


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> right, but the ati crowd thinks physx is a joke and  a marketing sceme. so why even bother with any of it?



I don't give a damn why they're doing it.    Probably 3D Mark Vantage E-penii scores like bta said.

But the fact that Nvidia, in a classic dick move, has stripped away functionality from products *that people have already bought* should make anyone angry, no matter what side of the ATI/Nvidia divide you sit on. 

Seriously, if it's not, it's really really hard not to look like just an apologist.


----------



## csendesmark (Oct 5, 2009)

*Nvidia FAIL*


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> right, but the ati crowd thinks physx is a joke and  a marketing sceme. so why even bother with any of it?


I wouldn't classify those with AMD card for rendering and a nvidia card for physx as part of those who do not.  This IMO is a different group of consumers.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 5, 2009)

I actually think this is pretty damn cool. I've wanted to try out Nvidia Dedicated GPUs (not IGPs like on my wife's laptop) for a minute now, just to be like "Wow, this is a Nvidia Graphics Card!" Now maybe I can snag up a 9800 GT or low 200 series here soon.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 5, 2009)

Physics processing is not a joke to either NV or ATI users. It is what we will see more and more of as games progress.
Nvidia went the their route and ATI went their's.
The problem is that physics processing should be an open standard that works for everyone, on any card, in any game. We will see what unfolds in the future as the battle looks to be a lose/lose for anyone who demands a proprietary standard that only runs on their hardware.

Just my opinion


----------



## Kaleid (Oct 5, 2009)

As long as you only can purchase physics acceleration through one company I'll ignore it.
And I'm not too fond of the idea of having two heat producing graphic cards inside the computer.

I think the GPU's either need a cheaper extra GPU to calculate stuff so that is always available even if you purchase one card or that physics acc. only take off when multi-CPU systems are common.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> wait wait wait, i thought the ati crowd said physx is a joke and a marketing scheme. so why hack it for ati cards...



Generalise some more, will you?

Side question, can people still use AGEIA made PhysX cards?


----------



## air_ii (Oct 5, 2009)

ZoneDymo said:


> Generalise some more, will you?
> 
> Side question, can people still use AGEIA made PhysX cards?



No, they can't. Not with new PhysX stuff, anyway.


----------



## Kaleid (Oct 5, 2009)

air_ii said:


> No, they can't. Not with new PhysX stuff, anyway.



All the more reason to wait with this much longer..


----------



## Selene (Oct 5, 2009)

thank god, now can we move on and stop the nonsence posts about it.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 5, 2009)

Quite some time ago there was a discussion here on TPU about the future of dedicated physics cards. The consensus was that it belonged on the mobo, not on the GPU, so that it was GPU independent. There are some issues their (buss latency) but no more that having a dedicated card. 

The GPU is well suited for doing physics, but not if everyone has their own proprietary standard and the game companies are coerced into using one method or another.

As I said, we will see how this all works out.


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 5, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It has happened. Those ASUS/BFG Ageia PhysX cards won't work (with recent drivers), if the drivers see an ATI GPU. As for legality, NVIDIA can do what it wants with its hardware/software.



No. This is not correct. They can’t do whatever they want to. 

You put a product on the shelves that meant to do a specific task/mission and advertise it. You list its minimum requirements on the box and on your website. 

You can’t come up after a few months/years and introduce some new exaggerated restrictions via software updates that weren’t listed in the *minimum requirements* after a lot of people already bought this product.

This is absolutely illegal. Nvidia made a terrible mistake and opened its front door for lawsuits from its customers and its rivals. They will probably revert it and remove these restrictions - for their own good. 

If you bought a DVD player and it suddenly stopped working for no reason, then you are entitled for a refund/replacement. This fact covered by billions of legal precedences all around the globe.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 5, 2009)

Easy Rhino said:


> right, but the ati crowd thinks physx is a joke and  a marketing sceme. so why even bother with any of it?



Like I said, EPen1smark Vantage. If it never had anything to do with PhysX, If I were an ATI user, I wouldn't even bother with any of it.


----------



## cauby (Oct 5, 2009)

This could definetly force Nvidia to re-think it's moves,because it's really freaking dumb to disable phsyx on AGEIA PPU!!!!
Hell,phsyx was born out of Ageia!!


----------



## Kreij (Oct 5, 2009)

Regeneration said:


> No. This is not correct. They can’t do whatever they want.
> 
> You put a product on the shelves that meant to do a specific task/mission and advertise it. You list its minimum requirements on the box.
> 
> ...



Hi Regen !!

Technically (and legally) they can. If they push a product into end-of-life status they are no longer required by law to support it with "new and improved" updates. 

They do, however, have to announce the ending of support for the product. Whether they have done this or not, I cannot say as it could be buried in some small print tattooed to some lawyer's a$$.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 5, 2009)

theubersmurf said:


> I'd be curious what invida charges for licensing cuda/physx.



if you are a serious developer they actually help you out with coding and give you money if you use those technologies in your product


----------



## wiak (Oct 5, 2009)

all heil the user community!


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 5, 2009)

Kreij said:


> Technically (and legally) they can. If they push a product into end-of-life status they are no longer required by law to support it with "new and improved" updates.



They are not allowed to break it on purpose. So according to your outlook, they are also allowed to send a malicious code and terminate legacy GeForce GPUs via drivers.

The law protects consumers from such abusive behavior.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 5, 2009)

Regeneration said:


> No. This is not correct. They can’t do whatever they want to.
> 
> You put a product on the shelves that meant to do a specific task/mission and advertise it. You list its minimum requirements on the box and on your website.
> 
> ...



Take it easy. Ageia PhysX cards were never guaranteed to work under Windows 7 by Ageia/NVIDIA. I'm not taking sides here. We're all helpless one way or the other, and I agree with your work to a large extant.

And oh..once my DVD player's warranty period is over, a refund is the last thing I'd expect from its manufacturer if it abruptly fails. 
I know that in this case, the manufacturer broke into my house, and broke my DVD player.


----------



## Bo_Fox (Oct 5, 2009)

Nvidia should know that it is hurting the gamers with ATI cards who already have a dedicated card for PhysX.  With Vista, it was not allowed, so Nvidia didnt do anything about it, but then Nvidia put in a code to block it in Win7 (which allowed 2 different GPU's to operate at the same time).  

Those who play Mirror's Edge or Batman are left out in the cold if they have ATI cards.  

*Here's a note to you game developers who design such games: *

No matter how much Nvidia is paying you to use PhysX instead of Havok or some other great game engines that allow for awesome physics utilized by the CPU (Crysis, Ghostbusters, etc..), please do not take the bait from Nvidia and then leave out nearly half of the gamers with a crippled version of your game.  

PhysX already cripples it in the first place with a few gimmick effects.  Usually, when PhysX is being used, it means that the game will not be allowed to have as good overall built-in physics effects as Crysis for example, and that the game will have to be designed in such a way to be played without PhysX for nearly 1/2 of the gamers out there.  Once again, it means that while the game will be somewhat crippled without those PhysX effects, you will have to make sure that those additional physics effects are not so integrated into the game that it makes the game dependent on it.  

A good game should depend on the physics.  Usually, the better the physics are, the better the game could be by depending on it.  Half Life 2 depended on it to a great degree, which earned it its reputation.  Crysis also depended on integrated physics, in that the basic physic effects were always there no matter how much we tried to dumb down the settings.  Games with such good engines never ever needed PhysX to begin with.

The gimmick PhysX effects could have been done using CPU-based algorithms with nearly or exactly the same stimulations so that we could enjoy Mirror's Edge or Batman on both ATI and Nvidia cards with much better performance than what Nvidia's PhysX would have ever allowed for with top-end Nvidia cards in the first place.  It would have resulted in greater sale revenues in the long run than with Nvidia's TWIMTBP bribes.  Also, you would have never been discouraged to build in some of the physics effects into the game so that the game depends on it, without having to worry about breaking the game for those with ATI cards.  For example, Mirror's Edge could have actually depended on the flags and breaking glass that were done with cpu-based physics.  

There you go, dear developers.


----------



## air_ii (Oct 5, 2009)

I suppose if you were offered, say, 100k, you'd tell them to shove it ? (No, I don't know how much they pay).

Besides additional PhysX effects in Batman are a joke to me, anyway. I'm still waiting for a game that'd really convince that it's worthwile to spend extra $$$ on a physics capable hardware.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 5, 2009)

Regeneration said:


> They are not allowed to break it on purpose. So according to your outlook, they are also allowed to send a malicious code and terminate legacy GeForce GPUs via drivers.
> 
> The law protects consumers from such abusive behavior.



Forgive me, Regen, I did not mean to start an argument on the symatics of legal doctrine and precidence. It serves no purpose on a forum such as TPU.

I truly hope that this will all wash out with an open standard for physics that work for eveyone. Especially me.


----------



## Regeneration (Oct 5, 2009)

But to be honest, this is a good thing – it opened my eyes. It took me months, but only now I realized that we shouldn't help Nvidia standardize PhysX. We should ignore and boycott it until it either dies or opens up for everyone. If I were GenL, I’d remove the patch and tell everyone to ignore PhysX. A good PC game would remain good with or without PhysX.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Oct 6, 2009)

I would expect Legal Action by NVIDIA since it is their Technology so do not expect for this hack to survive long....Not to mention that Microsoft will certainly ban it from future updates....


----------



## erocker (Oct 6, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> I would expect Legal Action by NVIDIA since it is their Technology so do not expect for this hack to survive long....Not to mention that Microsoft will certainly ban it from future updates....



I wouldn't, unless they want to fall on their sword and alienate more customers. Since MS and ATi have a pretty good releationship right now I don't expect MS to do anything about it. Either way I don't expect physX in its current form to last much longer. *Well, Nvidia will probablly ask them to take it down first.


----------



## wiak (Oct 6, 2009)

Flyordie said:


> However, ATi is still working with HAVOK on it all... right now, both companies hate Nvidia, so working together to oust them from the market will be beneficial...
> 
> The downside is- once Nvidia caves in... it will just be Intel vs ATi in the GPU market.


more like AMD will have most of the cake, heck they are working with both havok (intel) and bullet to make them DirectCompute/OpenCL complaint 

and NVIDIA will HAVE to comply to Intel/AMD physics rules, why? who the heck wants to program for ONE GPU vendor when there is a bunch more like ATi, S3 Graphics, Intel, Matrox that are basicly most of the market

one thing DirectCompute and OpenCL will arrive soon with Windows 7, and PhysX is then dead, most new games will use DirectCompute as its a part of DirectX 11 and is a open windows only standard, same goes for OpenCL thats an open open standard


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 6, 2009)

It will last a good long while and probably beat any other kind of phisics standard. Why you ask? Well like Rhino was saying if this was such a joke then why even bother with a hack for it? Apparently its more real then people think and more people want it even though they dont want to admit it. SO yea, with that being said id say PhysX is around to stay.


----------



## F430 (Oct 6, 2009)

if someone heaven knows  its israelan prosessing  lol


----------



## Wile E (Oct 6, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> It will last a good long while and probably beat any other kind of phisics standard. Why you ask? Well like Rhino was saying if this was such a joke then why even bother with a hack for it? Apparently its more real then people think and more people want it even though they dont want to admit it. SO yea, with that being said id say PhysX is around to stay.



Not to mention, just because direct compute and OpenCL are upon us, doesn't mean that they will be easy to program for, or nVidia can't just port Physx over to that.

I think Physx will stick around. Perhaps not exactly as it is now, but I don't think it will be dying.


----------



## mlee49 (Oct 6, 2009)

I want screen shots!


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Not to mention, just because direct compute and OpenCL are upon us, doesn't mean that they will be easy to program for, or nVidia can't just port Physx over to that.
> 
> I think Physx will stick around. Perhaps not exactly as it is now, but I don't think it will be dying.



Lol first time ever somebody agrees with me on a flame bate topic thread like this. 

Im no fanboi of PhysX but just with what i see going on i think its gonna stay.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 6, 2009)

Well, back on topic, the x64 patch doesn't seem to work with the latest WHQL drivers (191.07).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Not to mention, just because direct compute and OpenCL are upon us, doesn't mean that they will be easy to program for, or nVidia can't just port Physx over to that.
> 
> I think Physx will stick around. Perhaps not exactly as it is now, but I don't think it will be dying.





PP Mguire said:


> Lol first time ever somebody agrees with me on a flame bate topic thread like this.
> 
> I'm no fanboi of PhysX but just with what i see going on i think its gonna stay.



I personally think it will go the way of the dinosaur but Wile E and I were debating that in another thread. Anyway people hack stuff all the time just to piss off a maker. Kinda like when your dad says no you go off and do it anyway.

Just because someone hacks something doesn't validate its importance to anyone but the original maker and the hacker himself. 

Oh and before anyone goes all Chuck Norris on me I happen to like Physx. I just haven't seen anything to justify a dedicated GPU yet.


----------



## Marineborn (Oct 6, 2009)

sweet, im gonna buy some cheapass lowend NV card to get some phyX! sucka..WOOT WOOT!!


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 6, 2009)

Regeneration said:


> If I were GenL, I’d remove the patch and tell everyone to ignore PhysX. A good PC game would remain good with or without PhysX.



Cosign


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Oct 6, 2009)

i was able to do this a while ago using the 181. series driver or somethign simaler.  It worked fine with my g/f's 4870 and an 8800gts 512 on windows 7 x64, did it about a month ago


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 6, 2009)

186 is where they locked it.


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 6, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> if you are a serious developer they actually help you out with coding and give you money if you use those technologies in your product


I'm talking about licensing cuda to ATI/AMD, not developers. I'm willing to bet it's an arm and a leg to license it, ATI and invidia have gone at it like cats and dogs forever, even though they want their proprietary physics to be the standard, and would support it's running on their hardware, I just can't see them paying ATI to implement it.



btarunr said:


> Like I said, EPen1smark Vantage. If it never had anything to do with PhysX, If I were an ATI user, I wouldn't even bother with any of it.


I have seen some physx stuff I liked, even though I thought the game was sort of lame, I thought the physics in mirror's edge did add a lot to the game, and I liked it overall...They could have done more with it, but meh, it was still pretty cool.



HellasVagabond said:


> I would expect Legal Action by NVIDIA since it is their Technology so do not expect for this hack to survive long....Not to mention that Microsoft will certainly ban it from future updates....


Well hopefully someone will have the wits to take invida to court for not allowing their gpus to use a feature of their cards...disabling features in the presence of another manufacturers gpu is overall pretty weak, when it could be a way to sell more cards for them. I'm not sure why invida would want to do this really, they still sell cards, just not the highest end ones.


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 6, 2009)

IT works, w000000!


----------



## VIPER (Oct 6, 2009)

btarunr said:


> As for legality, NVIDIA can do what it wants with its hardware/software.



They can and Microsoft can't? How's that? M$ has to pull out some parts of the OS because the laws, and NV can do anything because is their hardware/software? Don't think so!


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Oct 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Well, back on topic, the x64 patch doesn't seem to work with the latest WHQL drivers (191.07).



They work fine for me,  Im using the ones from the front page today.  Installed the drivers then installed the patch.  Im using the 1.01 patch with weird gui.  Worked no problem at all.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Oct 6, 2009)

Proprietary this proprietary that, as if there're a lot of 'open' things in the GPU world. Some people probably think DirectX is an open standard. What fking bs.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 6, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> I would expect Legal Action by NVIDIA since it is their Technology so do not expect for this hack to survive long....Not to mention that Microsoft will certainly ban it from future updates....



People like W1zzard and Unwinder openly distributed pixel-shader unlocking soft-mods back in the GeForce 6 series/Radeon 9 days. NVIDIA/ATI didn't even fart. This hack will survive and flourish till NVIDIA finds a technical (and not legal) way around it. Then, GenL will have a new puzzle to solve.


----------



## amschip (Oct 6, 2009)

I don't understand it. Nvidia seems to try really hard to become the most hated company on the planet. They doing exactly tha same Apple does with their O/S. Well let them, but why they disabling PhysX PPU is beyond my comprehension. It's a separate product that suppose to work as a physics calculations support with any system.
As for ATI adopting PhysX, well good they didn't and are persuing open source path, becuse if they did everyone now would have to licence that darn thing.


----------



## NeSeNVi (Oct 6, 2009)

Good to know


----------



## inferKNOX (Oct 6, 2009)

TheMailMan78, I agree with you. It's important to just the hacker not everyone necessarily, so the sort of Troll comments like, "Why do ATi users care so much?" are redundant.

At least ATi is working an Open standard unlike nV. It'd really suck if everyone started releasing their own personal way of delivering physics. nVidia really didn't need to try and maintain exclusivity with PhysX because their GT200 and G80's did great in the market. Of course that's nV's only card to play now that the HD5xxx's are here, but that's beside the point.
Now I think OpenCL & DC are going to squash PhysX out because they're open + they don't have too many voices holding them back like OpenGL, which is the only significant danger with open initiatives such as this.

Just to be clear here, when putting the nVidia with an ATi card do you physically connect them together in a sort of Crossfire/SLI hybrid connection? If not how does it (physically) work exactly? Some pics would be nice.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Oct 6, 2009)

OpenCL is open. OpenGL is open. Nothing with DirectX in its name is open. ATI has a closer relationship with Microsoft on the DirectX matters. And nVidia happens to have a history of providing great OpenGL support.
What the frak is wrong with people's memories these days?


----------



## leonard_222003 (Oct 6, 2009)

This is to fanboy's , we complain about what Nvidia is doing because we can't spend our buck as good as it can be , we want something from both worlds , for example :
1. we want the perf. of Ati's video card  but with all the eye candy ( like physx ) , we can't have it and we hate Nvidia , Nvidia sell's their performance more expensive 
2. we want a future proof card from Nvidia  (dx11 ) but they don't have one , yet
3. we can have a future proof card like 5850/5870 with a 9600GT for physx but again Nvidia doesn't want that
So you see fanboys of both worlds , we hate we can't spend our money wisely , if we go for the dx11 card we could miss out on physx  ( rare and bad games but batman is nice ) , if we go for the old gt200 cards we lose on performance and DX11 , so what to choose ? 
Now you can understand why some people hate Nvidia so much , they were set with an Nvidia card for physx and Ati's monster 5870 for dx11 , Nvidia is forcing us to buy from them even if they have low performing cards compared to ATI.
I bet the founder of Ageia Physx is kicking himself now for not asking for more money , look how important this has becomed in this war.
Even if people want to buy something from Nvidia now  they don't have DX11 , they are less performing , consume more , we know perf. can't get any better than this ( been on the market for some time and drivers are mature ).


----------



## KainXS (Oct 6, 2009)

All nvidia is doing with physX now is turning it into a plague, it runs like shit on PC cpu's and only runs on their gpu's without hacks, and in the end that plague is going straight to developers into their brains, and its limiting them, because as a dev they are stuck in the balancing act of sales on one side they have to make money, on the other side, and the other side is innovation, but when half your users can't play the product its meant to be played it limits them in the end, and now more than ever we need a standardized physics platform similar to havok but something developers can use either at low cost or freely, and it dosen't need to be 90% accurate, at least it should be like 65%, who would want to play games that were too accurate, if games got too real, too accurate they start getting boring, its that little bit of impossiblilty that allows you to do things impossible in the real world, makes games fun.

I'm not really caring about the consumers right now even though its not right, I'm thinking of devs that are sitting at their desks talking to their bankers in this trap.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 6, 2009)

Regeneration said:


> You put a product on the shelves that meant to do a specific task/mission and advertise it. You list its minimum requirements on the box and on your website.
> 
> You can’t come up after a few months/years and introduce some new exaggerated restrictions via software updates that weren’t listed in the *minimum requirements* after a lot of people already bought this product.
> 
> This is absolutely illegal. Nvidia made a terrible mistake and opened its front door for lawsuits from its customers and its rivals. They will probably revert it and remove these restrictions - for their own good. .



Hmmm... Vista support for nForce 3 anyone? Code 43 ring any bells?

Main reason why I don't buy nVIDIA - and the fact the image quality (from my own experiences) is donkey balls compared to ATi.


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 6, 2009)

leonard_222003 said:


> This is to fanboy's , we complain about what Nvidia is doing because we can't spend our buck as good as it can be , we want something from both worlds , for example :
> 1. we want the perf. of Ati's video card  but with all the eye candy ( like physx ) , we can't have it and we hate Nvidia , Nvidia sell's their performance more expensive
> 2. we want a future proof card from Nvidia  (dx11 ) but they don't have one , yet
> 3. we can have a future proof card like 5850/5870 with a 9600GT for physx but again Nvidia doesn't want that
> ...



Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. And your post just proved mine, and a few others points. If PhysX is such crap then why are people wanting to get that extra NV card to use PhysX then huh? 

And you pay the extra price for the extra performance. Its as simple as that. I see alot of bitching about Nvidia for nothing and alot of hate for nothing. The same kinda people will pay a grand for an Intel i7 Xtreme processor but will bitch about paying 100 extra bucks for a better performing Nvidia gpu. All the people complaining that have i7 CPUs in your case should just shut up because your all being hypocrits. If you wanna bitch over Nvidias +5 FPS then put an AMD rig in there and buy an ATI card since its cheaper for only ~5fps less.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 6, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Proprietary this proprietary that, as if there're a lot of 'open' things in the GPU world. Some people probably think DirectX is an open standard. What fking bs.



Its not open but it doesnt belong to any of the major players, the major difference


----------



## CrackerJack (Oct 6, 2009)

Would someone please show some test runs with this type of setup. I've been thinking about getting a 9600 GT, but only if it's really noticeable. So if someone will post a before and after picture that would be GREAT! And list specs


----------



## daehxxiD (Oct 6, 2009)

WHAT!?

Not only could you not pair an Nvidia Card with ATI, but they also restricted use of a dedicated PhysX PPU-Card in combination with an ATI-GPU?!

That's seriously wrong if you ask me, makes me pissed just thinking about it, even though it doesn't concern me as a Laptop user. 

Shouldn't this be illegal altogehter? I mean, who told me I will not be able to use my PhysX Card on my ATI because some sinister corporation thinks it's smart to get more money out this way.


----------



## leonard_222003 (Oct 6, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Nobody is forcing you to buy anything. And your post just proved mine, and a few others points. If PhysX is such crap then why are people wanting to get that extra NV card to use PhysX then huh?
> 
> And you pay the extra price for the extra performance. Its as simple as that. I see alot of bitching about Nvidia for nothing and alot of hate for nothing. The same kinda people will pay a grand for an Intel i7 Xtreme processor but will bitch about paying 100 extra bucks for a better performing Nvidia gpu. All the people complaining that have i7 CPUs in your case should just shut up because your all being hypocrits. If you wanna bitch over Nvidias +5 FPS then put an AMD rig in there and buy an ATI card since its cheaper for only ~5fps less.



What people are concerned is if Physx becomes a standard , not the count on my fingers games that are available now with physx.
What if physx will be available in most future games and Ati's can't do the effects ? it could be a problem for the people who bought one or two 5870's.
Why do you think only about people who buy core i7 and expensive stuff ? some people like me wich have only a E5200 and 4850 bitch about Nvidia's dirty strategy too , Batman looks better on a 8800GTS than on a 4870x2 or 5870 wich are wayyy faster , i guess we can leave hardcore hardware out but the 4850/4870 user wants some AA in batman , and physx if they can ( not really physx but the extra effects that come bundled with "physx" ).


Some people say only Ati users bitch about this ( true ) , and some say only Nvidia users come to defend the evil company like this.
You have to know Nvidia is doing this only because they don't have a DX11 card , everybody knows this , if they wanted to be so bad with the competition they could've done this anytime , also , that super monster that some fans applauded ( GT 300 FERMI or something ) doesn't really exists in a working state for a presentation.
I wouldn't pick on this if not for the deceveing manner in wich they presented Fermi  , look some numbers  about a super card we are gonna launch , look it's in my hand now , take some pictures , now really you thought this was the real thing , no , it's just a mock up , what ???
So in the end we look at the show " Nvidia will do anything to stop people from buying a 5850/5870 ".


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 6, 2009)

Excellent. Suck it Jen-Hsun!


----------



## EnergyFX (Oct 6, 2009)

Steevo said:


> This thread will be some NV users battling to the end for their green goblin juice, ATI users laughing about the clever way a driver can be minpulated to defeat the joke the lock out was anyway. The people who don't know or care and don't use it will shrug and either get pissed at NV for the crap they pull, or just leave the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> So, someone is in the lead already with defending NV, others are following up with the "why ATI sucks" arguments, red users are already laughing and some are preparing for another heated battle of red VS green.



Personally, I prefer NV over ATI... always have... But even with that said, I am all for everyone getting the use out of their hardware.  I'm glad for the hack... good for those that can make use of it.  I don't have much respect for NV trying to hoard the cookies here, especially when folks way back when bought the Ageia cards.  That is total BS to impliment drivers that disable that hardware just because NV wants to poke ATI in the eye.


----------



## EnergyFX (Oct 6, 2009)

Dixxhead said:


> WHAT!?
> 
> Not only could you not pair an Nvidia Card with ATI, but they also restricted use of a dedicated PhysX PPU-Card in combination with an ATI-GPU?!
> 
> ...



I sense a class action lawsuit attempt in the future.  ATI should spearhead it


----------



## Ghiltanas (Oct 6, 2009)

I think physx can't be the future,  we need a very open system for the phisycs, that can be used by everyone.


----------



## daehxxiD (Oct 6, 2009)

Ghiltanas said:


> I think physx can't be the future,  we need a very open system for the phisycs, that can be used by everyone.



Come GPGPU with DX11, come Havok or a new Physics-Engine with GPU-Support/Acceleration. I could almost bet on it.

That is, if Nvidia is not smart enough to share (e.g. sell) this license to other manufacturers; effectivly making it usable by everyone (consumer).


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 6, 2009)

Ghiltanas said:


> I think physx can't be the future,  we need a very open system for the phisycs, that can be used by everyone.





Dixxhead said:


> Come GPGPU with DX11, come Havok or a new Physics-Engine with GPU-Support/Acceleration. I could almost bet on it.
> 
> That is, if Nvidia is not smart enough to share (e.g. sell) this license to other manufacturers; effectivly making it usable by everyone (consumer).



AMD is trying to get an open physics standard going. here


----------



## Ghiltanas (Oct 7, 2009)

theubersmurf said:


> AMD is trying to get an open physics standard going. here



i knew it, and the good thing is ati partnered with Intel (havok is used by a lot of games, if i'm not wrong).  The problem of ati could be the marketing; it's very important, now it's time to use it


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 7, 2009)

leonard_222003 said:


> What people are concerned is if Physx becomes a standard , not the count on my fingers games that are available now with physx.
> What if physx will be available in most future games and Ati's can't do the effects ? it could be a problem for the people who bought one or two 5870's.
> Why do you think only about people who buy core i7 and expensive stuff ? some people like me wich have only a E5200 and 4850 bitch about Nvidia's dirty strategy too , Batman looks better on a 8800GTS than on a 4870x2 or 5870 wich are wayyy faster , i guess we can leave hardcore hardware out but the 4850/4870 user wants some AA in batman , and physx if they can ( not really physx but the extra effects that come bundled with "physx" ).
> 
> ...



My argument wasnt for PhysX but for his price argument on NV GPUs. 

As for what your saying, i agree that what they are doing is wrong with PhysX but my (and quite a few others) point still stands. If PhysX is not such a big deal and its gonna go down the toilet then why are so many ATI users complaining about it?


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 7, 2009)

Ghiltanas said:


> i knew it, and the good thing is ati partnered with Intel (havok is used by a lot of games, if i'm not wrong).  The problem of ati could be the marketing; it's very important, now it's time to use it


Havok is older, but I think physx is gaining ground to the point where it's almost as common, it may even be as common now. Somehow I don't think Bethesda and Valve are going to rework their engines for physx, but you never know. IMO the entire situation got screwed up when both Havok and Ageia allowed themselves to be bought. Like I said before, I'd rather it be that both Havok and Ageia licensed their APIs to both ATI and invida, and the use of them was application controlled. A simple "Enable GPU physics" in the video options would probably been a way to implement either easily had that happened, but now they're both proprietary, and money, being money, is in the way of consumers actually getting what they want and being happy. Yay money. Hopefully an open standard will take hold, as someone else mentioned, with directx compute and OpenCL around, the idea that there wouldn't be some kind of open source Physics seems almost far fetched, getting developers to choose it is another story though.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Oct 7, 2009)

W.T.F. 
Just because a third party controls the standard doesn't make it an "open" standard.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 7, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> If PhysX is not such a big deal and its gonna go down the toilet then why are so many ATI users complaining about it?


 Because Nvidia f*#ked with Batman. Nobody messes with "The Bat" and EVERYONE knows Batman is an ATI fanboy.







Anyway Physx is proprietary to Nvidia. If the tables were turned Nvidiots would be doing the same thing. Also as I said before Physx currently does nothing for the game that Havok cannot do but because of TWIMTBP program some developers take money over product quality.

There lies the hate for Physx. 

Personally I would like Physx to be open to both ATI and Intel. Why? Because Nvidia would still hold the advantage of being the owner of the intellectual property thus developing its hardware/software to run it best PLUS it wouldn't alienate the rest of the world. It really is a "win, win" for everyone.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 7, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Personally I would like Physx to be open to both ATI and Intel. Why? Because Nvidia would still hold the advantage of being the owner of the intellectual property thus developing its hardware/software to run it best PLUS it wouldn't alienate the rest of the world. It really is a "win, win" for everyone.



I really don't see how every single PhysX game running better on Nvidia hardware is "win, win" for everyone.    Feel free to explain, though.  

IMO, what would be best is for Nvidia to opensource the PhysX code -- that way, ATI could contribute to it as well, and it wouldn't work any better on either Nvidia OR ATI hardware.  It would just work great for all.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Oct 7, 2009)

If nVIDIA did make it Opensource, which they won't, and if PhysX actually started to outperform nVIDIA on ATi cards - man, they would be pissed! It's not outside the realm of possibility - hence why it isn't Opensource.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 7, 2009)

InnocentCriminal said:


> If nVIDIA did make it Opensource, which they won't, and if PhysX actually started to outperform nVIDIA on ATi cards - man, they would be pissed! It's not outside the realm of possibility - hence why it isn't Opensource.



If it was made opensource, that wouldn't happen.   And even if somehow a full release of the hypothetical opensource PhysX did make it to release, at least you'd be able to step back through the code to see exactly _how_ it was performing better on Nvidia hardware, and then ATI could take appropriate measures to fix it.  

It's that kind of transparency that makes opensource so great.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 7, 2009)

Why the hell would they want to open source their code? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd make it free to use maybe, but not give away the source. That's asking too much.

All they would have to do is port it to OpenCL instead of only CUDA. There, problem solved.


----------



## Ghiltanas (Oct 7, 2009)

theubersmurf said:


> ...*but now they're both proprietary, and money, being money, is in the way of consumers actually getting what they want and being happy. Yay money.*...



you struck the target, and maybe you've also right, when you tell havok it's not a valid alternative.
now i wait to see what will ati bring out whit pixelux partnership


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 7, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> W.T.F.
> Just because a third party controls the standard doesn't make it an "open" standard.


If you're talking about bullet physics, it's license is under the zlib license. look here. It's not the GNU public license, but it's similarly available to anyone.


----------



## Scrizz (Oct 8, 2009)

Ghiltanas said:


> you struck the target, and maybe you've also right, when you tell havok it's not a valid alternative.
> now i wait to see what will ati bring out whit pixelux partnership



but for havok you don't need special hardware


----------



## CrackerJack (Oct 8, 2009)

Will someone plz summit some screenies I want to see the difference having Physx (ATI Main/Nvida PhysX)


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 8, 2009)

Here's a video of mirror's edge with and without physx enbaled, physx adds a lot to the title. link.


----------



## dir_d (Oct 8, 2009)

theubersmurf said:


> Here's a video of mirror's edge with and without physx enbaled, physx adds a lot to the title. link.



I really hope some developer gets the balls and does this with DX11 and they get rid of Physx all together. Or atleast have that with DX11 and also maybe Physx for the DX10 option.


----------



## CrackerJack (Oct 8, 2009)

theubersmurf said:


> Here's a video of mirror's edge with and without physx enbaled, physx adds a lot to the title. link.



I see the visual difference, but performance i see barely any. But i guess that's whole point of PhysX anyway.


----------



## theubersmurf (Oct 8, 2009)

CrackerJack said:


> I see the visual difference, but performance i see barely any. But i guess that's whole point of PhysX anyway.


Pretty much, if physx is intrisic to the engine, so far people have kept the hardware requirements low so you can run it on your cpu without it being overloaded, like the unreal engine. But yeah, that's pretty much added effects. I have to admit I liked it when I played mirror's edge...I played it with physx disabled and it's sort of a mediocre title without it. But that's my feeling about it.


----------



## inferKNOX (Oct 8, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> OpenCL is open. OpenGL is open. Nothing with DirectX in its name is open. ATI has a closer relationship with Microsoft on the DirectX matters. And nVidia happens to have a history of providing great OpenGL support.
> What the frak is wrong with people's memories these days?


you're right in that DX isn't open, but even though nV gave better OpenGL support, the standard is dogged by indecision because of an excessive number of parties wanting their way. DX is just there because it overthrew OpenGL due to the indecision problems I mentioned, so it's unavoidable as long as Windows is the gaming platform.
Now OpenCL is better because it's not being weighed down by too bureaucracy and is open. It can "win", lol.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Why the hell would they want to open source their code? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd make it free to use maybe, but not give away the source. That's asking too much.



Why the hell would they want to?  If you have to ask, you'll never know.  :shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Why the hell would they want to?  If you have to ask, you'll never know.  :shadedshu



Please don't start with your commie crap man.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 11, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Why the hell would they want to?  If you have to ask, you'll never know.  :shadedshu



There is absolutely no good reason for them to open source it. It's more profitable for them not to. And lets face it, business is about making a profit. Not to mention, there's less headaches when certain people want to create a branch, so you have a million different forks and incompatible versions, or the community takes so long to decide on a uniform change that progress moves at a snail's pace, and some other standard overtakes it, ala OpenGL.

Nope, open source is entirely too overrated in many situations. Closed but free to use is perfectly fine if it gets the job done.


----------



## Woody112 (Oct 11, 2009)

Wile E said:


> There is absolutely no good reason for them to open source it. It's more profitable for them not to. And lets face it, business is about making a profit. Not to mention, there's less headaches when certain people want to create a branch, so you have a million different forks and incompatible versions, or the community takes so long to decide on a uniform change that progress moves at a snail's pace, and some other standard overtakes it, ala OpenGL.
> 
> Nope, open source is entirely too overrated in many situations. Closed but free to use is perfectly fine if it gets the job done.



I agree with you on this about 90% Technology is past the the idea of mainstreaming a new breakthrough that would generate a profit. But it's crap like this that stifles the development of those who are trying to make a new break through. I don't really know how to put what I'm thinking down right now but simply I'm saying that if a company is going to bogart a technology that could further advance, well technology then their should be laws in place to that give them full rights to it but also give others access to it without having to pay huge sums of royalties to use the code, hardware or software. It's this kind of crap that slows down the advancement of everything and then the world is stuck for years trying to do a work around to it so that it can become mainstream. It's just that every time a company does this sort of thing over greed aka "large profit". It hinders the advancement of developing the next great thing and so on. So what we could have achieved in 5 years now takes us 20 years. The way this system is set up in all honesty need to be looked at. Hope this made some kind of since, I'm a little drunk right now, just got back from a the pirate festival in Savannah GA. Ha ha good time.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 11, 2009)

Woody112 said:


> I agree with you on this about 90% Technology is past the the idea of mainstreaming a new breakthrough that would generate a profit. But it's crap like this that stifles the development of those who are trying to make a new break through. I don't really know how to put what I'm thinking down right now but simply I'm saying that if a company is going to bogart a technology that could further advance, well technology then their should be laws in place to that give them full rights to it but also give others access to it without having to pay huge sums of royalties to use the code, hardware or software. It's this kind of crap that slows down the advancement of everything and then the world is stuck for years trying to do a work around to it so that it can become mainstream. It's just that every time a company does this sort of thing over greed aka "large profit". It hinders the advancement of developing the next great thing and so on. So what we could have achieved in 5 years now takes us 20 years. The way this system is set up in all honesty need to be looked at. Hope this made some kind of since, I'm a little drunk right now, just got back from a the pirate festival in Savannah GA. Ha ha good time.


Oh, I agree with you. I was speaking in very general terms. What nV is doing in this particular case is total bullshit. I just don't think that open sourcing the code is the answer.


----------



## Woody112 (Oct 11, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Oh, I agree with you. I was speaking in very general terms. What nV is doing in this particular case is total bullshit. I just don't think that open sourcing the code is the answer.



AH I got ya now, Ya I agree with ya to a T when it come to open soursing. Open sourcing is definitely not the answer. But the source should be reasonably available by some avenue at least. Like you said in general terms. Were on the same page, wasn't sure I fully understood were you were trying to come from on that post is all


----------



## inferKNOX (Oct 12, 2009)

Maybe if they found a way to open-source it without giving up rights? Maybe to create a sort of agreement where anyone can work on the source, but it can only be implemented if the owner of the rights agrees to the change?
I think that would be somewhat more appropriate (just a suggestion though).


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 13, 2009)

i need havok physics not this


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 13, 2009)

So what's the latest with this? Any personal experiences?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 13, 2009)

Don't mean to intrude but what ever happend to Physx on ATI cards? Was it a fake after all...


----------

