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

[theubersmurf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i need havok physics not this

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

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

 

[AphexDreamer]

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