craig5320

Dark Void Review with PhysX Analysis
_______________________________

Dark Void is one of the first big multi-platform releases of 2010 and is also a key title in NVIDIA’s PhysX catalogue. Today we take a look at the game in detail with a full review and also look at the PhysX content/performance.

__________________

HardwareHeaven on Facebook

orion_star

well call me jealous if you want, but while adding eyecandy the physx doesn't appear to add anything to gameplay.

__________________

Veridian3

What sort of thing would you like to see developers add to gameplay with PhysX?

orion_star

Well I would like to see destroyable environments, RF:G was a nice start. Proper projectile based weapons, especially for online FPS, hit scan weapons blow.

Basically something that actually affects gameplay. Smoke effects and such such are all fine and dandy, and maybe to some it adds immersion, but to me (and many that I know) it feels more like a gimmick than anything else.

__________________

crowTrobot

I don't know man those particles look gorgeous. The non-physx version looks totally stiff.

Maybe with the new APEX dk we'll see more creative uses of PhysX other than fog/particles.

orion_star

The thing is when you are actually playing you don't really notice these things, at least I don't. When I watched the first video I couldn't even notice what PhysX was adding, the only way I noticed was with side-by-side comparisons.

__________________

Tipstaff

It's not like with Mirror's Edge or Batman: Arkham Asylum where PhysX completely changed the feel of the game. Here, the only noticeable thing is the turbulence and smoke effect for the jet-pack, which is really cool btw, but otherwise the effects are forgettable, not even noticeable at all.

__________________

Optix

Ok, the video with the jetpack completely sold me but I don't have that kind of processing power so it won't look quite as pretty.
Buy a card for dedicated PhysX, which would normally be good enough to run your everyday games! Nvidia - the way it's meant to be paid.

__________________

orion_star

I would rather see game physics make more use of multicore cpu's than force you to buy a second video card (or 2 others in the case of ATi owners).

__________________

comp_ali

I've played the dem of this game on the pc , worst controls I've ever experienced . No way in hell Capcom invest some time to adapt the keyboard/mouse controls. Anyone remember Resident Evil 4. It is capcom trend to ignore these things.

demarc

try it with a gamepad. the greatest purchase i have made in years aside from a new video card.

the problem with physx is unless it changes how you play the game you're not going to notice it in a fast paced game. you're not going to slow the game down just to admire the physx effects. not unless you throw in bullet time + physx IMO now that would be a great combination

__________________
the sky is falling..

Sihastru

The problem with PhysX is that the developers can't use it at it's full potential until everyone will accept it as "the standard". Someone said that the environment should be "destroyable". We can't have that, not because PhysX can't do it, but because it needs to be the same on an ATi (or Intel/PowerVR, Via/S3, Matrox even if they are almost dead). The problem is not that ATi doesn't support PhysX (or some say that nVidia doesn't want them to have it), the real problem is that ATi doesn't have a physics engine of it's own. They had a "plan to make an engine" that was a total bust, now they have another "plan to make an open engine" who knows what would happen this time around...

If ATi (and the others) would have even a hint of a physics engine, then the developers might code for both PhysX and for the WhateverX ATi version of it. But ATi has only promises (and promises don't do physics).

There was a time when people preached about "diversity" and how good it is for us, now everyone wants "uniformity". Until ATi gets their head out of their "garbage disposal output ports" (to put it poetically) and produces the fabled "Open" physics engine, PhysX is all we have, and I will enjoy it.

I think most of the times it's not about "how little it adds to the experience" but instead it's about "my card doesn't support that, and as a conclusion, I don't want it".

This "Dark Void" title was of no interest to me until I saw what PhysX adds to it. It's like playing games on Low Quality or High Quality. And PhysX is Ultra Quality. I'm getting this game just for PhysX and, of course, the music score (by the guy that did the soundtracks for Terminator/BSG, and I liked the music score a lot in those series, there's an interview with him on HH, look it up).

orion_star

AMD/ATi is working with intel on the Havok engine afaik, which is capable of doing these physics 'calculations' on the cpu. If they port Havok to work with OpenCL (nvidia could do the same with physx) then any card can do hardware physics (those that support OpenCL).

__________________

Sihastru

ATi was working with Havok, only Intel, Autodesk, Microsoft, Sony and a few others remain... ATi is currently involved with Pixelux in an attempt to produce an open source physics engine. That engine is just an OpenCL accelerated subset of their DMM engine that is on the market for sometime. It is not that widely used/accepted so I have my doubts about it's performance and capabilities. What ATi is promising is essentially a port of an existing technology.

We shouldn't dismiss the fact that nVidia has a big head start on them and that PhysX is essentially compatible with any new-ish ATi card, it's just not licensed to run on their hardware. So at any time nVidia might get smart for a moment and make PhysX widely available when they will feel the possibility of a real threat from a competing engine.

Optix

This whole mess could be settled if Nvidia would stop being douche bags about PhysX, open it up to AMD and admit they cocked up and wasted a bunch of money buying Aegis and locking the card manufacturers into a semi-stalemate.

Yeah, yeah, Batman, Batman, Batman. Big whoop. One title over the course of how many years that actually used PhysX remotely close to how it should be but what did we get? Blowing newspaper. Please.

__________________

orion_star

No where can I find anything stating that AMD has stopped working with Havok. I read that once Intel bought Havok talks of Havok FX (GPU accelerated physics) stopped, but they are still working with them for x86 cpu's.

It is understandable that AMD is reluctant to use nVidia's CUDA to gain PhysX capability, they would be at nVidia's mercy in terms of performance.

__________________

A Desire to Game

I think they went a little over the top with the capabilities of PhysX. The jet pack smoke, disintegerator, and particles all look like they were put there just to be over the top. The comparison is pretty lame with PhysX off, but I think they could have done a little more effects that were not PhysX related. Looks like a fun game but in the end I would still feel like I just purchased a PhysX publicity game made by nVidia.

__________________
Three is my new favorite number. (SATA III, USB 3.0, and triple channel memory)

orion_star

It's a TWIMTBP game, of course they are going to make the effects look significantly better with PhysX on than with it off, nVidia is working hard to push it's tech on people. It is pretty much the reason why I intend to avoid TWIMTBP titles until they straighten up the act or I get an nVidia card (which is probably close to 2 years away from now).

__________________