So if this can work on a wii it could for PC video cards from ATI ?.. If so why the hell no one hacked it already :P... Not as it's worth all that much in the 1t place as havok does a great job already i think.

How does physx on the wii improve the gaming experience?

Methinks nvidia is grasping at straws.

SteevoThe "universal" API will be DX11 and no doubt part of the new Xbox

And thats exactly why Nv is doing this - they know their physics engine on PC is about to get swamped, so they're moving it to platforms MS cant touch.

[I.R.A]_FBiHow does physx on the wii improve the gaming experience?

Methinks nvidia is grasping at straws.

I second that:laugh:

[I.R.A]_FBiHow does physx on the wii improve the gaming experience?

Methinks nvidia is grasping at straws.

It doesn't... The average Wii owner has probably never heard of Physx, nor do they care if it is incorporated into their games. :laugh:

just like havoc engine.

The original Xbox had a nvidia gpu...all manufactures learnt from this and now purchase ati hardware for thier consoles...nobody wants inferior nv crap hardware anymore..so they try any push thier shitty SDK..i hope intel revive Havok and put the last nail in thier bullshit coffin...but well probably see the same Wii in a new bow renamed the "new" x Wii gtx soon.

GODAMN I HATE Nvidia

craigoThe original Xbox had a nvidia gpu...all manufactures learnt from this and now purchase ati hardware for thier consoles...nobody wants inferior nv crap hardware anymore..so they try any push thier shitty SDK..i hope intel revive Havok and put the last nail in thier bullshit coffin...but well probably see the same Wii in a new bow renamed the "new" x Wii gtx soon.

GODAMN I HATE Nvidia

Thats just asking for a flame war :shadedshu

DrPepperThats just asking for a flame war :shadedshu

agreed... but so long as he doesnt aim his rage at members of the site, he aint really breaking any rules.

he'll chill out sooner or later.

Musselsagreed... but so long as he doesnt aim his rage at members of the site, he aint really breaking any rules.

he'll chill out sooner or later.

Well its not that he's breaking any rules its that someone else will come on and have a go at him.

DrPepperWell its not that he's breaking any rules its that someone else will come on and have a go at him.

and if that happens, i'm a watchin.

No flamwar here people..BUT ati have spoken on nvidia sdk`s for thier hardware already...so id say Nvidia may well be rehashing a battle they already lost

craigoNo flamwar here people..BUT ati have spoken on nvidia sdk`s for thier hardware already...so id say Nvidia may well be rehashing a battle they already lost

Nv are definately making money from it, so its hardly a loss. Moving from one platform to another simply means they're moving to the places profit are... i'd hardly call that losing.

I've used phsyx in games and thought it was great - the only problem was the lack of titles supporting it, which is why i went ATI this time around.

[I.R.A]_FBiHow does physx on the wii improve the gaming experience?

Methinks nvidia is grasping at straws.

EDIT: I know you didn't mention Havok, but in the physics world there are mostly only two players and Havok is the bigger one. We DO need physics in the games as they improve gameplay a lot, so if we say we do not need PhysX it can only be because we have an alternative, and because of how thigs are that's Havok. You can change "Havok" name in the post by any other physics provider of your election anyway.


PhysX is exactly the same thing as Havok. Tell me how does Havok improve the gaming experience? PhysX is not only a hardware accelerated physics engine, it's a physics engine, period. It can run on various platforms, much more platforms than Havok does, so that's only a plus.

Regarding why do we need a 3rd party physics provider, the answer is easy. They can do a much better job than any developer could do. Because of the experience, because they can spend much more resources on it...

TBH it's annoying to hear "why do we need PhysX when we have Havok or any other physics provider" and all those kind of things. It's like saying why do we need id Tech 5, Cryengine 2 or Source, if we have UE3. They are just different engine providers and the more the better. In physics world there are primarily 2 players with almost all the "market" share: Havok and PhysX. It's stupid to prefer Havok over PhysX. I could understand it, partialy, if Havok was independent, but it belongs to Intel. There's no reason why anyone would prefer Havok over PhysX, unless he is biased, both API/engines can do exactly the same when running on the CPU, PhysX just allows for hardware support and brings a great improvement for those who want to enjoy it. I can't understand what's wrong with all of you against progress.

MusselsNv are definately making money from it, so its hardly a loss. Moving from one platform to another simply means they're moving to the places profit are... i'd hardly call that losing.

I've used phsyx in games and thought it was great - the only problem was the lack of titles supporting it, which is why i went ATI this time around.

That is all well and good if the SDK does not utalise AMD/ATI hardware, as that would be in breach of ATI`s inititial wishes.

edit: physx is a great thimg....id like to see havok with a greater market share

craigoThat is all well and good if the SDK does not utalise AMD/ATI hardware, as that would be in breach of ATI`s inititial wishes.

Nvidia offer programs to nintendo. Nintendo apply it to the console.

ATI's wishes have nothing to do with this, it all comes down to the legal agreement between ATI and nintendo - and i hardly think ATI would get away with restricting what code can run on their GPU's when they were making their sales pitch for the Wii's GPU.

MusselsNvidia offer programs to nintendo. Nintendo apply it to the console.

ATI's wishes have nothing to do with this, it all comes down to the legal agreement between ATI and nintendo - and i hardly think ATI would get away with restricting what code can run on their GPU's when they were making their sales pitch for the Wii's GPU.

The PhysX support in the Wii has nothing to do with GPU physics anyway. As I said above, PhysX is just another physics engine provider. In the Wii there's no doubt it will run on the CPU.

MusselsNvidia offer programs to nintendo. Nintendo apply it to the console.

ATI's wishes have nothing to do with this, it all comes down to the legal agreement between ATI and nintendo - and i hardly think ATI would get away with restricting what code can run on their GPU's when they were making their sales pitch for the Wii's GPU.

QFT...unfortunatley

craigoedit: physx is a great thimg....id like to see havok with a greater market share

BTW, any special reason why you would want Havok to have a greater market share? It already owns like 75% of the market anyway. Why you would want Intel to have almost a monopoly there is out of my comprehension.

explain how this works coz the wii has an ati graphics chip? hollywood or something its called

can the wii even run physx? i mean some pcs take a hit and they have high end graphics

some of the eye candy in games will depend on more than the ATI graphics chip...the pc takes a performance hit because some of the graphics workload is shared with the cpu when physX is enebled on a non nvidia based system...what nvidia will likeley do in the case of the Wii is blow smoke up the arse of the games dcevelopers until every time you turn on your console you will be spamed with the nvidia logo

craigoid like to see havok with a greater market share

Havok is in just about everything. I hope you're not trolling.

MusselsNv are definately making money from it, so its hardly a loss. Moving from one platform to another simply means they're moving to the places profit are... i'd hardly call that losing.

I've used phsyx in games and thought it was great - the only problem was the lack of titles supporting it, which is why i went ATI this time around.

Exactly. The majority of people can't be convinced in buying hardware specifically for physics processing. That basically means this whole NVIDIA/AMD physics race that is going on is them grasping at straws trying to find profit in their Ageia/Havok purchases. I think they are finding it very difficult to make money on them except in software licensing. Both bought it anticipating they would make a lot of money in terms of hardware. It just isn't happening.

I thought Intel bought havok ?

They did. AMD is riding on Intel's back with Havok just like they are with Crossfire on Intel processors. NVIDIA is really becoming the kid in the corner no one wants to play with.