Havok

why relic use from havok engine for coh2 ? why not Nvidia physx
i think some FPS problems have related with Havok

Because they want AMD users to be able to play as well?
Its no secret that nvidia tech is superior, but its also no secret that they are holding tight to it, which in return makes AMD users suffer as the cards can't pull it off, meanwhile AMD tech isn't such a secret and nvidia doesn't have problems creating drivers for the game.

This could be one of the reasons.

I honestly love the Havok engine. Its use in Counter Strike is still the best and smoothest use of physics in a game I have ever seen.

Meanwhile in CoH2 trees fly around like planes, but that's still funny.

I remember a game that was casted maybe a month ago where a 'big attractor' somehow existed, meaning that everything with physics involved (trees, destroyed fences, etc.) slowly moved out of the area. That was pretty crazy.

BTT:

Nvidia PhysX is pretty cool, yeah, but

a) It's very hardware hungry and the game itself is already a disaster in terms of optimization.
b) PhysX only runs on Nvidia graphic cards. So the other 50% that use AMD wouldn't be able to play the game.

I remember a game that was casted maybe a month ago where a 'big attractor' somehow existed, meaning that everything with physics involved (trees, destroyed fences, etc.) slowly moved out of the area. That was pretty crazy.

Picnic ants! These were picnic ants! They were scavenging and salvaging everything to create the ultimate weapon!

Because they want AMD users to be able to play as well?
Its no secret that nvidia tech is superior, but its also no secret that they are holding tight to it, which in return makes AMD users suffer as the cards can't pull it off, meanwhile AMD tech isn't such a secret and nvidia doesn't have problems creating drivers for the game.

This could be one of the reasons.

but right now ~70% of market is under control of green army
was better if relic used from physx

but right now ~70% of market is under control of green army
was better if relic used from physx

And that 30% still can generate revenue for the gaming studios.

What good would it be to cut off potential players, just because some of the current ones want to feel even more superior?

Studios want their games to reach to as many people as possible, that includes hardware limitations.

I do not know a single game that relies on PhysX only, simply because it would be stupid to release a game that can be played by Nvidia only.

All the games I know use PhysX in addition to another physics engine for hair effects or clothing, etc.

Because they want AMD users to be able to play as well?
Its no secret that nvidia tech is superior, but its also no secret that they are holding tight to it, which in return makes AMD users suffer as the cards can't pull it off, meanwhile AMD tech isn't such a secret and nvidia doesn't have problems creating drivers for the game.

This could be one of the reasons.

Not even true, if you lack Nvidia hardware to accelerate it simply runs on the CPU instead - you're confusing PhysX in general with certain specific PhysX techniques that require Nvidia hardware to accelerate - that's the PhysX options you see in graphics menu of high profile games. PhysX, the workhorse, is baked into Unity, which is possibly the most widely used game engine in the world. Why? Because Havok is expensive proprietary middleware, while PhysX is free proprietary middleware. Not only does PhysX run on computers with AMD graphics cards, it also is featured in games on the Nintendo Wii (the original Wii, not the WiiU! The one so old it's still called "ATI" graphics) and smartphones from the late 2000's.

CPU executed PhysX is not generally worse than CPU executed Havok, although traditionally Havok has been considered to be the middleware with a better tool chain that was friendlier to work with. Casually, people believe that PhysX is "that evil Nvidia thing" because the only time anybody points out the fact that a game is using it is when it's using those aforementioned specific effects that requires an Nvidia GPU. Otherwise it's just the silent background middleware that helps make a ton of modern games run.

I do not know a single game that relies on PhysX only, simply because it would be stupid to release a game that can be played by Nvidia only.

Project Cars does iirc.

It can be played on AMD, but I remember reading something about it using PhysX for some shit on everything.

Not even true, if you lack Nvidia hardware to accelerate it simply runs on the CPU instead

Isn't the CPU physX deliberately inefficient though? Or did Nvidia update it?

I remember CPU physX used to be utterly crippled.

Isn't the CPU physX deliberately inefficient though? Or did Nvidia update it?

I remember CPU physX used to be utterly crippled.

Depends entirely on the developer's implementation. If you attempt to run very demanding effects with the CPU it will cause slowdown, which is unsurprising since GPUs are much better at certain kinds of physics calculations, hence why they are programmed to be GPU accelerated in the first place. There were accusations that certain implementation were deliberately inefficient to promote GPU sales or something in The Witcher 3 for its hair+fur effects. Although the comparisons where they said "they could do this in a much less performance intensive way if they halved the number of joints per hair strand!" were very spurious because they compared two static images as their "proof" when the whole point of the technology is to get hair that moves realistically, swaying in the wind and such. There is a metric assload of FUD spread about on the internet about this sort of thing, but when they get rebutted that doesn't pick up nearly as much press.

The vast majority of physX games are ones where people don't even realise it's being used (see: this thread), so it's safe to say that in general the library is quite efficient for what it does most of the time. If you're concerned that the HairWorks or some other specific subsystem aren't being used optimally, no developer is required to use that.

Nvidia released the PhysX source code for free to anyone who wants it last year, so nobody can complain that it's a black box anymore.

Depends entirely on the developer's implementation. If you attempt to run very demanding effects with the CPU it will cause slowdown, which is unsurprising since GPUs are much better at certain kinds of physics calculations, hence why they are programmed to be GPU accelerated in the first place. There were accusations that certain implementation were deliberately inefficient to promote GPU sales or something in The Witcher 3 for its hair+fur effects. Although the comparisons where they said "they could do this in a much less performance intensive way if they halved the number of joints per hair strand!" were very spurious because they compared two static images as their "proof" when the whole point of the technology is to get hair that moves realistically, swaying in the wind and such.

The vast majority of physX games are ones where people don't even realise it's being used (see: this thread), so it's safe to say that in general the library is quite efficient for what it does most of the time. If you're concerned that the HairWorks or some other specific subsystem aren't being used optimally, no developer is required to use that.

Nvidia released the PhysX source code for free to anyone who wants it last year, so nobody can complain that it's a black box anymore.

They must have fixed it then. I remember looking into it like ~8 years ago and there were issues like it being completely singlethreaded and using inefficient execution paths (Kind of like the intel compiler debacle on AMD hardware.) to basically make CPU usage unviable.

Also Hairworks could styand to lose some tessellation. It has overlapping pixels due to the intensity of tessellation.