PDA

View Full Version : PhysX



Kainlamond
04-15-2006, 03:05 PM
I say lightwave should integrate it, XSI has, and maya and 3DstudioMax are planning on plug-in integration.

It looks like ageia got a lot of support and its got some of the key players with its hardware already, so I say lightwave should look into integrating it into Lightwave... what do you guys think?

prospector
04-15-2006, 03:56 PM
IMHO, that's just the reason NOT to have it.
Why follow like sheep?

LW has never followed, we go off on tangents. much better that way.
More fun too

AbnRanger
04-16-2006, 11:39 PM
If something works, and because it does, more than one program implements it...why insist on being a whining Weenie decrying, "But I don't want to be like everybody else!" Let's keep an inferior product JUST BECAUSE we want to be DIFFERENT.
What a goober :thumbsdow

prospector
04-17-2006, 12:01 AM
OK, I'll say this much.

I'll agree with you when Hummer goes to the Lexus type bodys, just so they can be like everyone else, because the smooth flat bodys do work.

I think of LW as the 4WD of the 3D programs, all of them get you to the same place, but some take the boring freeway where all you see is post after post go by (follow examples, don't learn much, but your there and you say "next project"), whereas LW can take you thru the briars and brambles (where you think your stuck on one problem after another), the mud bogs (where you think sometimes going is slow), the woods (where you think you'll never get out of),and all of a sudden in 1 flash of an idea you've learned a new way, the whole program unfolds and you say to yourself "that's wonderful"...... (the fun route).

Emmanuel
04-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Well, I see it a bit more realistic: while I agree that this stuff is the future and hardware accelerated dynamics will become standard, I guess Nt won't add that to LW.
Heck, normal maps have been here for 3-4 years, and NT has until now NOT been able to integrate normal map preview into the OpenGL implementation,
while every other app can do that.
I guess NT just love their implementation of dynamics and won't bother.

RedBull
04-17-2006, 07:10 PM
Realistically it's a $50,000US dollar licence fee for a yet unproven game based physics engine,
which will need further hardware accelearated technology and cost to really take
full advantage of.

And these cards are not even available publically yet....
Furthermore Lightwave is the cheapest professional 3D package for both PC and Mac.
PhysX stuff is only for PC.....

I don't think the MacLW crowd would like it, if say LW's current Dynamics were only available
in the PC version of LW. :)

And when the cards are only tested to improve dynamics calculations over software by 30% - 50%
Personally i think it's unlikely to see this in LW, and this has been requested in another forums.
Don't get me wrong, if you want it ask for it....
I just think personally it's unlikely.

ODE would likely be a better choice.... due to it's opensource and multiplatform nature.
but it definately has some disadvantages over PhysX currently.

Personally i'd like more advanced dynamics and fluids in LW, and i'm not sure Ageia's physics
are as advanced as i'd like it to be, plus i want CFD capabilities in LW, quite a lot......

Captain Obvious
04-17-2006, 08:34 PM
I think of LW as the 4WD of the 3D programs, all of them get you to the same place, but some take the boring freeway where all you see is post after post go by (follow examples, don't learn much, but your there and you say "next project"), whereas LW can take you thru the briars and brambles (where you think your stuck on one problem after another), the mud bogs (where you think sometimes going is slow), the woods (where you think you'll never get out of),and all of a sudden in 1 flash of an idea you've learned a new way, the whole program unfolds and you say to yourself "that's wonderful"...... (the fun route).
Soooo... basically, you want to keep the dynamics in LW at the crippled and almost useless state they are in now, is that right? It's mo' fun to keyframe! :thumbsup: I'm sorry, but I just cannot see any sense in this. NewTek should strive to make Lightwave as good as possible. One of the things they need to do is improve the dynamics. One of the ways they can do this is by licensing someone else's engine.

Ageia also licences out their physics SDK, without the need of their hardware. I'm pretty confident that doing physics calculations using their SDK is a LOT faster than LW's native dynamics. And since the SDK will allow the dynamics to work with the hardware as well, this seems like a rather good approach.

prospector
04-17-2006, 09:25 PM
you want to keep the dynamics in LW at the crippled and almost useless state they are in now, is that right?

Did I say that?
don't think so
Just said just because everyone else does it , doesn't mean LW has to.


NewTek should strive to make Lightwave as good as possible. One of the things they need to do is improve the dynamics
Agreed

And they can do it with thier own engine


basically, you want to keep the dynamics in LW at the crippled and almost useless state they are in now


I don't agree it's crippled and almost useless.

stevecullum
04-18-2006, 06:04 PM
Lightwave dynamic engine works well for small scale stuff, but really can't handle any major scale sims that xsi, maya or houdini can.

I don't do alot of dynamics work, but when I do I get frustrated by all the jitters that always need loads of ironing out. That may just be me being a bit inexperienced with the dynamic stuff though.

Personally, I would like to see a completely new dynamics system for fluids, particles, hard bodies, soft bodies, cloth and hair. I don't think its asking that much really, when you consider Poser and Blender has solutions for some of these 'high end' things.

I would probably do alot more of this kind of work if the tools were there.

mattclary
04-19-2006, 05:44 AM
OK, I'll say this much.

I'll agree with you when Hummer goes to the Lexus type bodys, just so they can be like everyone else, because the smooth flat bodys do work.

I think of LW as the 4WD of the 3D programs, all of them get you to the same place, but some take the boring freeway where all you see is post after post go by (follow examples, don't learn much, but your there and you say "next project"), whereas LW can take you thru the briars and brambles (where you think your stuck on one problem after another), the mud bogs (where you think sometimes going is slow), the woods (where you think you'll never get out of),and all of a sudden in 1 flash of an idea you've learned a new way, the whole program unfolds and you say to yourself "that's wonderful"...... (the fun route).

Prospector, are you still watching a black and white TV? Do you still prefer to use a stove to heat up leftovers rather than jump on this fad called "microwaves"? Do you eschew this whole "3d acceleration" thing and choose to stick with you trusty Trident video card from circa 1993?

Your argument on this subject simply sounds ludicrous.

prospector
04-19-2006, 07:00 AM
Prospector, are you still watching a black and white TV?

No, it broke


Do you still prefer to use a stove to heat up leftovers rather than jump on this fad called "microwaves"?


Yes, it makes bread too gummy, I like my meat red inside, not the other way around, and macaronie comes out like leather.


Do you eschew this whole "3d acceleration" thing and choose to stick with you trusty Trident video card from circa 1993

Tho I still have them here, they are used in the renderfarm, but not on main computer.



Your argument on this subject simply sounds ludicrous.

because I would rather see Newtek develope thier own stuff rather than just using outside programs just to follow other programs that I think are inferior?
That's not unreasonable

I suppose I have more confidence in people that Newtek hires than others here. They'll get it all straightened out.

colkai
04-19-2006, 07:15 AM
Oh I dunno, I read a comment somewhere else about a lack of any animation facilities in a package not being a problem as not everyone wanted it, so it was ok for it to be "crippled". The statement was met with universal agreement. :p

Just because everyone else implements 'Product A' into their system, does not mean 'Product B' should not be used. I think Emmanuel put the point very well. Oh and yes, I do not own a 5:1 dolby 34" widescreen TV with 15 "surround-sound" speakers.
(for many reasons, not least of which is, I'm half-deaf so ALL sound comes from one direction to me :p)

Kainlamond
04-19-2006, 10:16 AM
Realistically it's a $50,000US dollar licence fee for a yet unproven game based physics engine,
which will need further hardware accelearated technology and cost to really take
full advantage of.

And these cards are not even available publically yet....
Furthermore Lightwave is the cheapest professional 3D package for both PC and Mac.
PhysX stuff is only for PC.....

I don't think the MacLW crowd would like it, if say LW's current Dynamics were only available
in the PC version of LW. :)

And when the cards are only tested to improve dynamics calculations over software by 30% - 50%
Personally i think it's unlikely to see this in LW, and this has been requested in another forums.
Don't get me wrong, if you want it ask for it....
I just think personally it's unlikely.

ODE would likely be a better choice.... due to it's opensource and multiplatform nature.
but it definately has some disadvantages over PhysX currently.

Personally i'd like more advanced dynamics and fluids in LW, and i'm not sure Ageia's physics
are as advanced as i'd like it to be, plus i want CFD capabilities in LW, quite a lot......
I have use PhysX on macs using Unity, and there planing on making a mac and linux verson and by the time NewTek puts this in that won't be a problem.

The cards are available in the Alienware Aurora 7500, Dell XPS 600 & XPS 600 Renegade, Falcon Northwest limited yes, but shows that it will happen.

mattclary
04-19-2006, 10:47 AM
because I would rather see Newtek develope thier own stuff rather than just using outside programs just to follow other programs that I think are inferior?

So, what you are saying is, NewTek should abandon OpenGL acceleration and instead, write their own API to make video displays more zippy?

prospector
04-19-2006, 10:53 AM
Actually, I'd rather go back to the system they had for Ver5, ver 6 came with OGL and there was a massive slowdown in display, and it hasn't cought up yet.
I also run Ver 5.5 because of the Text tool, which is better in 5.5, and the speed of refresh is way better.

But seeing as it comes on the Grafx cards, I would rather they implament it to thier system of working, than to follow someone elses
system.

In other words I want all Newteks stuff to be 'inhouse', developed and implimented by Newtek. And to make it as fast as it can be untill one of thier coders find a better way.
Because if you don't have faith in the people you hire...why hire them?

colkai
04-19-2006, 11:13 AM
Because if you don't have faith in the people you hire...why hire them?
Knowing how some folks operate, hire 'em because they're cheap. :p ;)

Not that I think for 1 minute that's the case with Newtek. I think you're right myself, love to see them do something left-field. Going with the herd isn't always the best option.

Captain Obvious
04-19-2006, 11:43 AM
In other words I want all Newteks stuff to be 'inhouse', developed and implimented by Newtek. And to make it as fast as it can be untill one of thier coders find a better way.
Because if you don't have faith in the people you hire...why hire them?
I'm sorry, but if this is your reasoning, why are you even using Lightwave? Version 8 was just version 7 with slightly changed widgets and a bunch of integrated third party plugins. Version 9 also seems to include a LOT of third party plugins.





But seeing as it comes on the Grafx cards, I would rather they implament it to thier system of working, than to follow someone elses system.
There is no alternative to OpenGL. If NewTek made their own system, it would turn out worse than OpenGL, and it would take a LOT of engineering effort. People don't use OpenGL in 3D apps because it's the de facto standard. They use it because it's good.

mattclary
04-19-2006, 11:48 AM
It's really inefficient to try to reinvent the wheel. It is smarter to let someone else write the boring stuff like OpenGL and physics algorithms, let the NewTek team focus on new and innovative 3D stuff.

Captain Obvious
04-19-2006, 02:26 PM
It's really inefficient to try to reinvent the wheel. It is smarter to let someone else write the boring stuff like OpenGL and physics algorithms, let the NewTek team focus on new and innovative 3D stuff.
I agree. Being different just for the sake of being different doesn't make sense. If NewTek thinks they can do things better than the competition by doing something in a different way, sure, go ahead and do that. That's where innovation comes from. But there is no logic behind the reasoning that they should do it differently just for the heck of it.

RedBull
04-19-2006, 03:23 PM
I have use PhysX on macs using Unity, and there planing on making a mac and linux verson and by the time NewTek puts this in that won't be a problem.

The cards are available in the Alienware Aurora 7500, Dell XPS 600 & XPS 600 Renegade, Falcon Northwest limited yes, but shows that it will happen.

According to Ageia they definately are not planning on Mac SDK support. Ageia is deigned for games, Macs don't play games well.....
They don't have DirectX, etc....

As for the cards I'm not sure i understand what a Dell XPS 600 has to do with anything...... I'm not buying one......

If i did it would be in my XSI PC machine, hence the reason i don't need PhysX
in Lightwave, i already have XSI's implentation and it's always going to be better... Following the "others" is a waste of time....

I just think people need to be realistic.....

$50K for a licence fee for a PC only technology, for which we already have a viable alternative which was developed by INO/Greg... And works on Macs.
One that has so many similarities, with PhysX already....
It's not like LW does not have dynamics at all....

I've looked at a lot of demo's at the Ageia stuff, i was very unimpressed..
I'm not sure the algorhitms are that advanced.....
Realflow and Blenders CFD technology is something i'd like a lot more...

Considering the overhaul LW is in need of, 50K for licencing a dynamics
system seems like a great way to kill a development budget to me...
Avid is a BILLION dollar company, they could give a SonyPs3 into every XSI6
and still make money... NT not so.

Anyway this is the third or fourth thread, about Ageia.....
Obviosuly if XSI has it, and 3DSMax are making a plugin for it.....
It just must be something LWers' cant live without it.....?

I'm with prospecter, i think it's always fun to watch the "Maya has feature X"
i want LW to have it too crowd.
When people realised ODE was in XSI people asked for ODE dynamics...
Everybody wants to be like everybody else... sigh!

The irony is i believe LW's current dynamics algorithms are not too far from PhysX anyway..... Sure calculations with large amounts of particles are much better on PhysX.... But not worth a complete overhaul, of a technology that's been around for years, and still has not really made a splash....
I mean if people really want PhysX, go and buy XSI Essentials..

mattclary
04-19-2006, 03:56 PM
Redbull, that's what Bootcamp was invented for! ;)

RedBull
04-19-2006, 04:15 PM
:)

Yeah, well i don't think Mac addicts would be happy to use Bootcamp...
Many don't own new Intel macs, and wont for sometime...

LW and Modo have around a 60/40 split 60%PC/40%Mac.... sales...
To upgrade only 60% of your users dynamics capabilites, with 50K licence fee.... Seems like an expensive way to add value to software.
I mean that cost has to be repaid to NT by it's users.
And then all you get is a slightly faster dynamics system...


Hey i would like to have Direct3D support like i did in LW5.6.
Because D3D is mostly faster these days.....
But because we have to support Mac's too, we won't have it anytime soon.

Bah Humbug!

Stooch
04-19-2006, 04:30 PM
Actually, I'd rather go back to the system they had for Ver5, ver 6 came with OGL and there was a massive slowdown in display, and it hasn't cought up yet.
I also run Ver 5.5 because of the Text tool, which is better in 5.5, and the speed of refresh is way better.

But seeing as it comes on the Grafx cards, I would rather they implament it to thier system of working, than to follow someone elses
system.

In other words I want all Newteks stuff to be 'inhouse', developed and implimented by Newtek. And to make it as fast as it can be untill one of thier coders find a better way.
Because if you don't have faith in the people you hire...why hire them?

I wouldnt hire you.

prospector
04-19-2006, 05:41 PM
not looking for work :D

Qslugs
04-19-2006, 09:53 PM
Dont know if anyone mentioned this yet, the boards are supposed to be in the 300 dollar range.



I have use PhysX on macs using Unity, and there planing on making a mac and linux verson and by the time NewTek puts this in that won't be a problem.

The cards are available in the Alienware Aurora 7500, Dell XPS 600 & XPS 600 Renegade, Falcon Northwest limited yes, but shows that it will happen.

Pavlov
04-20-2006, 11:55 AM
Prospector, no offense here but i think "doing our way" phylosophy is what almost killed NT.
Half assed, partial and uncomplete implementations, patchy hacks to mimic ***industry standard*** features contributed to almost kill LW.
I hope NT understood the opposite way is the good one. Industry standard are what they are for a reason. So i hope NT will just make a *plain copy* of a lot of other software's features, and i can grant we'll have a much better tool than now this way.
I dont care about "funny" issues, a tool must work and offer the highest degree of control possible. Interpretations are good if they offer something better than industry standards; otherwise they are just a time loose, or a way to claim "look, we have XYZ feature now!" even without putting the needed effort into a correct implementation.
Until now, NT's "interpretation" was a kind way to say "bad, partial, uncomplete implementation".
So i hope NT just makes a plain copy of whatever they cannot significantly improve.

Paolo

prospector
04-20-2006, 12:57 PM
i think "doing our way" phylosophy is what almost killed NT

Hu?
When?

when the Amiga stopped?
When the delay in 5 to 6?
Everytime that someone says that if they don't intergrate they will be dead that we been hearing since ver4 on PC?

Been hearing about Newteks death since Amiga days.
Still here, winning awards, doing movies, making home buisness bigger.

Newtek? Are you dying? Cuz I need to know ahead of time so I can Update VT2 and Get those last LW updates before you do.

:D

prospector
04-20-2006, 01:02 PM
Industry standard are what they are for a reason
Um..because people like to jump on any bandwagon that happens to be going by at the time?

prospector
04-20-2006, 01:30 PM
Are you trying to say that LW is not far behind the competition?(In many areas)

I don't think we are behind at all.
I see the websites they post stuff from other proggys and I see no difference to what LW can put out.

In order to be behind, you'd have to match them tool for tool out of the box and be slower at it.

Out of the box, LW much better
renderer better (don't have to go out and buy ANOTHER)
modeler better (different but better)
all the rendernodes you could possably use.....FREE

Program overall easier to use
LW users more friendly and willing to help


I see no downside

and MOST IMPORTANT.....NO ICONY thingies

I never see a 'half empty glass'

Captain Obvious
04-20-2006, 02:16 PM
I don't think we are behind at all.
I see the websites they post stuff from other proggys and I see no difference to what LW can put out.
That right there is the problem with your reasoning. The fact that you can produce as good results in LW as you can in XSI doesn't mean LW is as good as XSI. It's a widely accepted fact that the latter has better character animation tools. And that's just one example. Many tools in Lightwave ARE lacking, compared to the competition. The fact that you can still produce as good results shouldn't be an excuse for NewTek to not bothering catching up. What matters is how easy it's created. Sure, I can produce Vray-level architectural shots in LW's default renderer, but it takes a LOT of work, and a LOT of render time. But since I can get the same end result, LW's renderer is just as good as Vray at architectural visualization? I'm sorry, but this is just not logical.



Out of the box, LW much better
renderer better (don't have to go out and buy ANOTHER)
modeler better (different but better)
all the rendernodes you could possably use.....FREE
While I agree that Lightwave's renderer is probably the best standard renderer in any 3D application, there is still a LOT of room for improvement. I've switched more or less completely to using Kray.

I do my modeling in "the other app," and I will keep doing so until NewTek A) fixes the modeling-layout worklow, B) makes OpenGL performance acceptable, C) gives us proper edge tools and D) consolidates the tool set. I don't want ten different tools that do sort of the same thing, as it is right now.

Please note that I'm not saying LW is bad! I still use it daily, and I still like it! But there is a lot of room for improvement.

RedBull
04-20-2006, 03:34 PM
I hope NT understood the opposite way is the good one. Industry standard are what they are for a reason. So i hope NT will just make a *plain copy* of a lot of other software's features, and i can grant we'll have a much better tool than now this way.on".

So i hope NT just makes a plain copy of whatever they cannot significantly improve.

Paolo

Sorry, but that's totally incorrect in my opinion...
So we should be using Mental Ray and not FPrime, Shave and Not Sasquatch.
because they are industry standard?

Why not just use Industry standard software like Maya or Max?

NT is a small privately owned company, Autodesk and Avid are billion dollar empires.... How much sense does it make, to contantly play leapfrog with billion dollar competitors?

Take PhysX for example...... So NT pay $50K licence a PC version of PhysX.
And now XSI has PhysX and Lightwave has PhysX.
Which PhysX is the better implentation... ????

XSI's is..... Because the underlying XSI engine, is a million times faster than LW. So even though they are industry standard, XSI's deep pockets and newer core gain far more from having those features.

And then NT have to put up with "Make LW as fast as XSI" messages because
PhysX is handled better by one of the competition...

And no offence, But Havok, Novodex, Ageia, ODE are all industry standard
physics engines.... So who decided which standard is standard.
And next month, when Ageia is old news, it happens all over again...

If A = Billion Dollar Company, B = Billion Dollar Company C = Almost a Million dollar company.... It does not make sense for company C to compete with A+B..... Could company C make as good a car as company A or B........ No! It cannot.

Company C needs to compete in areas without money, innovation and design for example...... It can't compete on exact features.....

It's stupid to try and turn LW into Maya, XSI or MAX......
These products already exist, and have their strengths and weaknesses...
It's pointless to make another clone, who will just share there same weaknesses.

It's like saying NT should develop FaceRobot for LW and sell it for $40,000
that will really compliment there $800 3D software?

Apples with Apples and Oranges with Oranges, mixing the two
Apporanges creates a new fruit that nobody wants.. :)

There should be some commanility, features should coincide with industry developments and new technologies should be standardized...
But we should not just be blindlessly following others, NT has ship to steer
and it's not Maya or XSI..

Let's go copy Maya's plain standard interface, how about XSI's crappy viewport displacments... No LETS NOT!!!

LW needs it's own identity, it should not mimic the others....

On the Vray - Kray thing,
Isn't Kray faster and better quality than Vray?

Pavlov
04-20-2006, 04:38 PM
ok you have some points here; my question was pointed as "absolute" and obviously it should be taken for what it is: a generalistic statement.
I can repeat what i said, but btw i said "industry standard TOOLS", not "softwares". Mine was a small-scale thought, and it regards tool's implementation. I.e: a modeler MUST have Osnap, and we have not. We have now several plugins but they dont run at core level, so we have not an "I.S." Osnap implementation. And btw, the Osnapping toolset at our disposal is way worse than any other on the market, just because of the way it's implemented: a plugin instead of core code.
Another one, coming APS does not seem to be true SPD, and imho it has some limitations in respect to this. So, i would like more a common SPD implementation like Cinema's one.
Same goes for lot of tools and the way they were implemented into LW until now: partial and incomplete.
In the upcoming 9 there are several well implemented things, so i hope it's the start of a new age and a brand new phylosophy for LW development.
If you mention fprime, well Fprime is the main reason i use Lw for, and it's not developed by NT. For further claryfying, Fprime is an awesome, extremely smart implementation of MLT/montecarlo algorythms, and maybe it's the best incarnation of an interactive renderer. It is "the" industry standard, in its own area.
Hope i have been clearer,

bye
paolo

Captain Obvious
04-20-2006, 05:58 PM
On the Vray - Kray thing,
Isn't Kray faster and better quality than Vray?
As far as I've seen, it's both better and worse. Some things are a LOT better in Vray (like anti-aliasing), while it seems that Kray really gives it a run for its money in photon map/final gather type renders... Oh well. The thing is, Kray doesn't really work as a replacement for LW's own renderer, since it can't render volumetrics, shaders, etc. Again, this seems to be a situation where Lightwave needs a more versatile SDK.





Another one, coming APS does not seem to be true SPD, and imho it has some limitations in respect to this. So, i would like more a common SPD implementation like Cinema's one.
When it comes to this, it seems to me that APS gives excellent granularity in its control. Being able to control the displacements with one texture and the polygon density with another seems like a very efficient way of letting you control the render times.

Pavlov
04-21-2006, 02:34 AM
sure it has a good control, but i guess it has limitations respect traditional SPD. Let's see when 8 is out, it seems we're getting there soon.. ;)

Paolo

colkai
04-21-2006, 03:00 AM
As far as I've seen, it's both better and worse.

I do like a man who is clearly on one side of an point of view. ;) :p

RedBull
04-21-2006, 03:00 AM
Same goes for lot of tools and the way they were implemented into LW until now: partial and incomplete.
In the upcoming 9 there are several well implemented things, so i hope it's the start of a new age and a brand new phylosophy for LW development.
If you mention fprime, well Fprime is the main reason i use Lw for, and it's not developed by NT. For further claryfying, Fprime is an awesome, extremely smart implementation of MLT/montecarlo algorythms, and maybe it's the best incarnation of an interactive renderer. It is "the" industry standard, in its own area.
Hope i have been clearer,

bye
paolo

Yeah no worries, and i do agree with many of your points...
And especially on the partial or incomplete bits...
NT do have a bad habit of not going far enough with new tools..
Worse they don't just update or revise anything that needs enhancing, quickly or at all... I think that is a real problem..

Anyway LW9 is a larger change than 8... So i hope they gather momentum
and that the changes i've seen are not really an indication of the work under the hood.....

Bog
11-19-2006, 09:41 AM
Just had a quick play with a software-mode demo of Ageia - I'd give a lot to be able to use this directly in LW. Being able to hand-off dynamics to a bit of dedicated silicon would be:

1) Cool.

2) Fast.

3) Sensible - why re-invent the wheel when there's a really good dynamics solution just there for the licencing?

stevecullum
11-19-2006, 11:06 AM
XSI uses this system or a varient of it and its great. Fast, stable and with the results you expect that are easily tuneable. I would love to see LW intergrate this, but as the cost of licencing is high, I think NT would do well to use the ODE engine and make a hybrid from that and their own ideas.

ODE is free, so really there is no excuse not to have at a dynamics engine thats at least as good as the one in Blender.

Red_Oddity
11-19-2006, 06:23 PM
I've used it a couple of times (either in XSI or via Nima) and i'll tell you this, atleast it works on production type vfx work (and very good at that).
To put it into perspective, if i want to make a box colide with a plain in a unrealistic way i'll use LW (yes, bash and flame my ***, but the LW dynamic engine is crap, period, if it takes a month to learn a single feature and another month to tweak a heavy scene (inbetween the ridiculous amounts of crashes and hangups when doing the actual dynamics calculations) said dynamic engine has failed), if i need to make 3000 objects interact dynamically and still make my deadline, i'll use the PhysX engine (not even with the accelerator card.)

Werner
03-15-2007, 11:00 AM
I agree with Red_Oddity. I'm currently doing rigid body dynamics in XSI using the PhysX engine, and man, it's awesome. I will never use LW dynamics again. They do suck.

Qslugs
03-15-2007, 09:15 PM
The cards are cheap too. It's not like Newtek would be programming for out of reach obscure hardware.

Lamont
03-19-2007, 08:35 PM
I don't think NT would want to leave Mac guys out in the cold on this since the card is PC only. I'm not a Mac guy, but if NT did do this, it's just one more thing for them to complain about ;).

PC running Windows XP Pro, Home or Media Center Edition or Windows Vista.I could see a 3rd party plugin created for this. No point in asking/pleading Newtek.