Author |
Message |
venn177
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:35 am Posts: 3778 Location: Largo, Florida
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
I agree with Daman though that UT3 was terrible and had terrible physics.
|
Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:39 am |
|
|
numgun
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:04 pm Posts: 2932
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
I dont see what you mean by bad physics in UT3. The ragdolls were fun, controlling vehicles was fun, the guns were fun, killing was fun and deaths were fun.
I dont really pay attention to technical stuff under the game, the main point that it has good gameplay, and imo UT3 did have a good one.
I enjoyed it totally and still am with new mods like 3rd person view and alot of other custom stuff keeps making UT3 even more fun.
|
Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:20 pm |
|
|
jaybud4
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:07 pm Posts: 511 Location: ☼The Infinite World☼
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
numgun wrote: I dont see what you mean by bad physics in UT3. The ragdolls were fun, controlling vehicles was fun, the guns were fun, killing was fun and deaths were fun.
I dont really pay attention to technical stuff under the game, the main point that it has good gameplay, and imo UT3 did have a good one.
I enjoyed it totally and still am with new mods like 3rd person view and alot of other custom stuff keeps making UT3 even more fun. You should try UT2004. It's basically the same thing with less computer-intensiveness (that means the graphics aren't quite as good, but still) and around 999 times the amount of custom content. I'm completely serious, too.
|
Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:30 am |
|
|
ppiksmada
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:56 am Posts: 564 Location: Behind a DarKlone, trying to pierce its fudging armor!
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
And Jaybud knows game customization.
UT2004 was better in my opinion, stuff didn't feel underpowered and vehicles weren't impossible to drive. Anyways, I haven't seen many outstanding changes that would make PhysX worth being converted over. Prove me wrong I guess.
|
Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:44 am |
|
|
Daman
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:22 am Posts: 1451
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
numgun wrote: I dont see what you mean by bad physics in UT3. The ragdolls were fun, controlling vehicles was fun, the guns were fun, killing was fun and deaths were fun.
I dont really pay attention to technical stuff under the game, the main point that it has good gameplay, and imo UT3 did have a good one.
I enjoyed it totally and still am with new mods like 3rd person view and alot of other custom stuff keeps making UT3 even more fun. 04 had better physics and can run on 1ghz/256mb ram computers. UT3 = bad. Oh and zalo the physics in that 2d implementation look HORRIBLE. They could have just as well used any other physics engine and been just as good or better. Nothing special to PhysX there.
|
Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm |
|
|
zalo
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:11 pm Posts: 1496
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
I'm not trying to promote 2D PhysX, it's just that this entire thread is named after a 3D engine put into a 2D game, so it seemed like a relevant link.
You could get the same kind of performance increase if Data just integrated his existing engine with CUDA.
|
Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:09 am |
|
|
numgun
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:04 pm Posts: 2932
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
I own UT2k4 and I must say UT3 wins it by 6/0. The vehicles in UT2k4 sucked balls so I have no idea what you are talking about. Specifically the scorpion in the old one was trash, admit it, nobody liked that ribbon gun it had. Also the overall look of UT3 is amazing and much more cool than the old one and I love the new looks of the guns and the little details on how they function. And the effects... just beatiful.
Also, the vehicles feel much more powerful in the new game alot. The weapons seem a tad weaker compared to the last game, but still remain devastating and satisfying to use so I dont complain.
|
Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:55 am |
|
|
NeoSeeker
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:13 am Posts: 1183 Location: eating sock's face like a cupcake
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
ITT
Rich ♥♥♥holes need a legitimate use for their useless physx card.
|
Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:54 am |
|
|
ppiksmada
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:56 am Posts: 564 Location: Behind a DarKlone, trying to pierce its fudging armor!
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
Let the thread die. And change your avatar, it's disgusting.
|
Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:55 am |
|
|
NeoSeeker
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:13 am Posts: 1183 Location: eating sock's face like a cupcake
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
You know you want to lick it.
|
Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:56 am |
|
|
ProjektODIN
Banned
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:09 pm Posts: 432
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
NeoSeeker wrote: ITT
Rich ♥♥♥holes need a legitimate use for their useless physx card. NeoSeeker is winrar.
|
Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:10 am |
|
|
jaybud4
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:07 pm Posts: 511 Location: ☼The Infinite World☼
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
ProjektODIN wrote: NeoSeeker wrote: ITT
Rich ♥♥♥holes need a legitimate use for their useless physx card. NeoSeeker is winrar. Problem: Not physx card but Nvidia 8xxxx and up series GPU.
|
Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:25 am |
|
|
ProjektODIN
Banned
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:09 pm Posts: 432
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
jaybud4 wrote: ProjektODIN wrote: NeoSeeker wrote: ITT
Rich ♥♥♥holes need a legitimate use for their useless physx card. NeoSeeker is winrar. Problem: Not physx card but Nvidia 8xxxx and up series GPU. What are you talking about? The 8-series is perfectly good. I'm not sold on the 9-series yet but that's not the same as the PhysX card. All games support gpu. Not all support physx. y
|
Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:16 pm |
|
|
The Fat Sand Rat
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:56 am Posts: 1191 Location: outside the shithole called the University in the Forest
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
I think he meant that the driver updates allow the 8-series and up to function as PhysX cards to some extent.
|
Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:46 pm |
|
|
NeoSeeker
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:13 am Posts: 1183 Location: eating sock's face like a cupcake
|
Re: PhysX in CC?
It's still a piece of hardware most of us don't want to get to play a sidescroller.
Why invest resources in developing a seperate version that utilizes the physics processor when not that many people can take advantage of it anyways?
|
Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:08 am |
|
|
|