Should FD add PhysX to Elite?

h347h

h347h
A simple cheap card like a 750 TI is pretty much all you need for a dedicated PhysX card.($50-$70 range depending on where you buy it currently.)

So why not add PhysX and allow it to increase effects like station fog, or weapon effects. Damage models could use PhysX quite a bit I think.

I look at this and think how cool special effects on engineer weapons and thrusters would be with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5qhaEghJ74

It could also help with accretion disks and comets ect.
 
Last edited:

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
A 750ti is 125-150 euro here. :( Anyway, cool stuff! Nver heard much of it, but from your post I gather you need to add a secondary card just for it, like the 3DFX/Voodoo cards of the 90s?
 

Jypson

Jypson
sleutelbos said:
A 750ti is 125-150 euro here. :( Anyway, cool stuff! Nver heard much of it, but from your post I gather you need to add a secondary card just for it, like the 3DFX/Voodoo cards of the 90s?
Click to expand...

You don't need a separate card, you can offload the PhysX to the CPU or even have your main card do the grunt-work as well; it's not that tasking if you have a decent card.
 

h347h

h347h
sleutelbos said:
A 750ti is 125-150 euro here. :( Anyway, cool stuff! Nver heard much of it, but from your post I gather you need to add a secondary card just for it, like the 3DFX/Voodoo cards of the 90s?
Click to expand...

Well some games PhysX is CPU bound some games a card like a 1080 could handle it, but games like Batman Arkham Knight benefit from having a dedicated PhysX card as long as it isn't several generations behind or going to bottleneck the main GPU.
 

CptXabaras

CptXabaras
h347h said:
A simple cheap card like a 750 TI is pretty much all you need for a dedicated PhysX card.($50-$70 range depending on where you buy it currently.)

So why not add PhysX and allow it to increase effects like station fog, or weapon effects. Damage models could use PhysX quite a bit I think.

I look at this and think how cool special effects on engineer weapons and thrusters would be with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5qhaEghJ74

It could also help with accretion disks and comets ect.
Click to expand...

On my desktop for ED i use one card for rendering and one dedicated to physX, but only becouse of the pulsating shadows bug using SLI (dual gtx 980)..Always thought that the game had PhysX support in it..
 

h347h

h347h
CptXabaras said:
On my desktop for ED i use one card for rendering and one dedicated to physX, but only becouse of the pulsating shadows bug using SLI (dual gtx 980)..Always thought that the game had PhysX support in it..
Click to expand...

It supports multi threading and SLI but as far as I know no PhysX
 

warbaby2

warbaby2
Yea, some nice looking effects there... would be interesting to see a ship break apart into scraps of drifting metal and sparks.
 

h347h

h347h
LoneWolf2183 said:
How hard would it be to add it into the game?
Click to expand...

Well I have no clue really. It isn't supported by a lot of games but it is with a few major titles recently like Witcher 3 and Fallout 4. I don't know if it is hard to work with or it has something to do with people wanting to keep graphical parity with AMD and NVIDIA cards or something. I just know I have seen it at work in Planetside 2 and I wish more games would use it. For exploration it could be amazing.
 
Last edited:

The Chairmaker

The Chairmaker
There is a reason why Physx isn't used in most games.

Physx is proprietary NVIDIA solution. It would instantly degrade the game for all xbox players and AMD Graphics card users.
Not to mention Frontier would need to presumably cough up some money to NVIDIA.

Its as good as dead as far as gaming is concerned, only a handful of titles have used it in the last few years.
 

Foxiol Eagle

Foxiol Eagle
I have a pretty decent PC (with a GTX970) and I say NO to PhysX. Every game that uses PhysX as its main physics engine performs terrible (Arma 3 is a very good example, pCARS for AMD users and others that had many problems)...and the effects are not that impressive at all compared to what we have now in Elite Dangerous when it comes to particle effects and overall interactions.

Fidelity and great performance is what we have now and I hope the game stays in that way.


PS: There is a much better physics engine called Havok, which in most of the games that use it, it performs great and it has better possibilities when it comes to other things, such as destructible environments, applying realistic interactions to objects and such. (check games such as Spintires, Dark Souls series, Just Cause series and some others)
 
Last edited:

Soopyyy

S
Foxiol Eagle said:
I have a pretty decent PC (with a GTX970) and I say NO to PhysX. Every game that uses PhysX as its main physics engine performs terrible (Arma 3 is a very good example, pCARS for AMD users and others that had many problems)...and the effects are not that impressive at all compared to what we have now in Elite Dangerous when it comes to particle effects and overall interactions.

Fidelity and great performance is what we have now and I hope the game stays in that way.


PS: There is a much better physics engine called Havok, which in most of the games that use it, it performs great and it has better possibilities when it comes to other things, such as destructible environments, applying realistic interactions to objects and such. (check games such as Spintires, Dark Souls series, Just Cause series and some others)
Click to expand...


Doesn't Cobra engine already use Havok?
It just doesn't implement it very widely. Pretty certain i've seen it referenced in the config files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom