Among various bug-fixes, this version also features support for GPU acceleration on Linux platform (CUDA-capable devices only) and reworked documentation.
Previously it was done on the CPU for Linux gamers which would be a lot slower.
This really excites me as the effect PhysX has in the Borderlands series is pretty cool. Hopefully support will be enable within Borderlands 2 shortly and perhaps we'll have launch day support for Borderlands the pre-sequel.
The updated PhysX SDk can be found here. You can also see the official changelog here.
What are your thoughts?
A video of PhysX in action in Borderlands 2:
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Patreon
PayPal
Do we have something to install?
right now we don't benefit from that. We'll have to wait for developers to release games with linux ports and physx or wait until games that already have ports can work with it that couldn't before.
So yeah, we have to wait until it gets implemented by the devs. there is a package for it in the arch user repos but it will probably take a few days til the different distributions push the new updated packages to the repositories. It doesn't help us right now- but it will as soon as devs start implementing it.
I remember that Shadowgrounds and Shadowgrounds Survivor titles use it.
It use it in software (CPU) mode. And they're not precisely games that demand GPU force to run on it.
But still a curious example, thought.
It's kind of sad to say, but this is just another reason now to not get an AMD card on Linux... I hope they start catching up soon because some more competition and choice would be nice.
PshysX is a shame, it's truly an argue to NOT buy an nVdia card.
It's well nown, we could do all what whysX do with OpenCL. And better. On a lot more games. And for every one, not just for nVidia's card owner.
I wonder how some people can love GNU/linux and be happy to see soft like physX appear on it.
Because even if we don't like closed standards, the other more used platforms don't care and if a developer decides to use PhysX I want it to work as it's suppose to. I don't care if a game uses PhysX or another more open physics engine like Havok or Bullet. What I care about is that there are games coming to Linux NOW that were already programed to use it and we have been limited in it's implementation due to not having GPU enabled PhysX. I DO have the hardware for it, so I would like it to work.
PhysX isn't used a ton, but when you are accustomed to having it in a game such as Borderlands 2 and that game comes to Linux missing it, it's noticeable and missed. Not all games even use it to an extent that not having it makes much/if any noticeable difference. The Borderlands franchise is not one of those though. Could be why even with low PhysX in Borderlands 2 on Linux it is not up to snuff performance wise (in my case) compared to windows where it offloads all the PhysX to my 1st and/or 2nd GPU.
I'm all for open standards, but we are talking about gaming here... unless you ONLY play open source games, it's all closed off and proprietary. I think it would be great to run the Nouveau drivers too, but it's not really an option for an Nvidia gamer on linux and I don't consider AMD/ATI even a remote possibility personally. I run AMD processors, but their GPU's just are not up to snuff IMO. Even if they kind of compete on a benchmark level their TDP's and heat output are off the charts. It's not a good sign when you start having to ship your GPU's with a built in water cooling solution. Should that ever change I may consider it.. but I'm not seeing it happen anytime soon.
I also mentioned that currently setting to medium/high (via config file editing) results in a crash upon encountering a physX effects in-game. On other OS's this just runs physX on the CPU (when acceleration is not available). Hopefully with the released SDK this should now be possible.
Exactly, if closed software is needed better use Windows anyway.
Supporting them is not a manifestation of freedom as it may seem to some of you, but quite the contrary in the mid/long term.
I know a lot of people advocate nothing but FOSS on Linux, but if you ever want the platform to become truly successful, and be able to challenge the likes of MS and Apple, the old saw of "you can't have your cake, and eat it too" comes to mind.
I'll admit that I'm not that much of a stickler when it comes to open source software. I think of it as a choice, and freedom as far as software goes has more to do with me being able to choose what I like best, vs. the freedom of having everything on the platform open source, so I can do what I want to with it.
The OS itself is open source. Everything from the graphical shell to the kernel can be tweaked, swapped, forked, and changed to my own specifications. Everything beyond that is either/or. Do I choose the proprietary drivers for my graphics card, or go open source? It's my choice. I have the freedom to choose. The availability of the proprietary drivers on Linux isn't diluting what Linux is about (in my opinion), nor is it limiting me in any way. Quite the opposite, in fact. I now have two choices, and I can pick whichever one best suits me.
So no, if you're using closed source software, it isn't necessarily better to use Windows, because it isn't an all or nothing situation. So long as the base is open sourced, everything on top of that is just more choice.
...but if you demand everything be open source for the sake of your definition of software freedom, you'll only be losing that choice, and ultimately limiting yourself.
If this do not matter for you, I don't care, but it matters to me, and I say the same: it is an option to use Windows instead of Linux whenever I please, my choice is derivative by the free will that I have. That's why I think: if I need to use closed software them I will use it on the best scenario possible where I'll be must pleased.
I don't feel right using and advocating for an open platform and them contradict myself by not supporting it. I only recommend Linux to Intel users because they are the best on Open Drivers, but if anyone wants to try it with AMD or NVidia closed solutions, doesn't matter to me, it matters to them. But, I'm really looking forward for the new open driver strategy AMD is doing right now, hopefully NVidia follow its steps soon enough, and them maybe I switch to LInux full time.
And PhysX is just bad for all industry. Seriously, why the hell would anyone ask developers to close their eyes to the rest of the market when there are alternatives to it? Don't you want choices on your future? This doesn't makes any sense to me and I don't feel like discussing about this right now it is a bit late now.
Peace.
It sucks, but that IS the way things are. AMD is a much better company compared to Nvidia when it comes to not locking things to their hardware.. but their hardware isn't as good. Not calling it bad.. just not as good (unless we are talking OpenCL). I wouldn't even call it a monopolistic move either, they let others use it, it's just locked to the CPU (EDIT* its not even locked to it, non Nvidia GPUs just lack Nvidia's CUDA which PhysX uses). AMD's TressFX runs much better on their GPUs than it does on Nvidia's. I don't complain, I just turned it off in the latest Tomb Raider.
Like I've said before there are not many games that use it, but if those games that do use it are coming to Linux then I would like it to work. The same goes if I were an AMD gpu user.. I would want TressFX to work as well. We should be GREATFULL we are getting what we are getting games wise right now.. no matter what tech they have in them. I am POSITIVE of this though, a developer is not going to strip out PhysX and put in Havok or Bullet because those are less proprietary and monopolistic just to appease the purists.
Just curious because you are here, did you compile all of the games you play on linux from their legally available source code? Or at the very least is the COMPLETE source code available for those games? If so then kudos to you! If not then I have some "bad" news for you..
EDIT* I wasn't going to go here.. but meh. So you are saying that I should "just use windows" because I NEED the proprietary Nvidia drivers to run Linux on my system? (Nouveau DOES NOT work just to be clear)
If GPU PhysX is even working on day 1 in Linux for Borderlands:TPS.. well.. I don't even know.. I may strip down to my socks and run around my neighborhood in my bday suit. I'm trying NOT to hold my breath... but GPU PhysX for Linux gets announced on the same day one of PhysX flagship franchises is coming to Linux on day 1. Coincidence? I HOPE NOT!
I buy lots of closed-source games. If they run better with closed-source drivers, so be it. Just because I am a Linux diehard (just ask my friends and family) does not preclude my use of the nVidia drivers, nor, iMHO, should it.