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
I guess the happy medium would be to say that proprietary stuff on Linux is okay, so long as it doesn't limit people who want to use open source stuff exclusively. I guess one part of that philosophy of freedom is the ability to opt out of something entirely if you don't like it, and continue using your OS as you have been previously.
I'm honestly surprised that PhysX and CUDA are still around. Not because they suck, they're both actually pretty good, but because single vendor stuff tends to fall by the wayside more often than not.
I guess they're still around because no one's bothered to make a just as good, if not better alternative for them yet. CUDA does have some competition from OpenCL, but I don't know how widely used it is in comparison yet. And PhysX? There's nothing else like PhysX out there. It's either it, or nothing.
It'd be nice if there were. Cuz I don't want to feel like I'm being hobbled some way if I decide to grab an AMD card in the future.
I wonder how anything could run better than the open source amd drivers on my archlinux system.
Not going to try out a nvidia on my main gaming righ tho ;)
So what the problem? You may ignore buying games with PhysX. And even more, you can ignore all selling games, because almost all of games are closed source.
That's the question.
If it's not for the ideology, why ?
Again, the problem is not closed source vs. open source in this case.
It's the vendor lock-in coming with PhysX and CUDA.
This has prefectly nothing to do with it being closed source.
If developers can`t include PhysX in game, I see no reason to port it on Linux. If developers can include PhysX in game, I see no problem.
And I get an idea, why we wait for Metro Redux on linux. Maybe, they want to add PhysX in Linux version.
I didn't think NVIDIA would make a move in such short notice, but it shows that Aspyr are really pushing for this. I'm grateful, and I hope NVIDIA continue to support us as best as they can. Continual improvements are always welcome :)
Linux is cheaper :). Now MS wants to push new windows version every few years and force us to buy it. I do not like it.
This is rather fantastic news.
I see this as a continuation of the extensive flexibility of Linux in the face of other OS'es locking themselves down.
I love how my Linux laptop can read/write pretty much all major filesystems, most file formats, and a huge amount of older hardware that often fails to get updated on OSX/Windows.
While the kernel of Linux must always be untainted by proprietary software, I'm happy to have Linux be as compatible with as many other software formats out there, proprietary or not....like supporting .docx in LibreOffice for example.
The Linux immune system just got a little stronger, like a giant amoeba (think Akira) absorbing all in its path!
Are you trolling or just plain ignorant? :S:
Why do you like it ?
Why do you want to play on steamos ?
Why would give just a single sh*t about what is on plateforme that you doesn't use ?
Why would you choose to work, or game, or watch movies ... on GNU/linux, better than on windows ?
The only real advantage of GNU/Linux against windows is the ideology of free(as in freedom) software.
Price, or possibility to choose your desktop is strictly nothing compared to the freedom that provide GNU/Linux.
I like to say only a little thing about this debate.
While I like Linux for their ideology and I would prefer an OpenPhysX that would run flawlesly on all cards of all vendors than a restricted closed source solution, I see that nVidia it's not guilty in this case for release its SDK.
nVidia is filling an empty hole. Before nVidia's release there wasn't another open source alternative avaliable that we are aware (in Linux).
Now it would be nice that game developers start to make use of it to make games gain more realism, and graphic cards open source developers try to implement it in their drivers.
As for the people who were angry with nVidia for making PhysX avaliable only on nVidia hardware, I remember that one directive at nVidia (I don't recall if was Jen Sung itself) a long time ago propose AMD to use CUDA (needed for PhysX) on its chips too, to make a coherent development and standarization of the API.
But they refuse at AMD. They argued that they plan to use Bullet API and OpenCL.
So it was AMD who didn't want to implement either CUDA nor PhysX on its cards.
Which API it's better I don't know.
It's up to the game developers to make the best aproach that make happy their customers, while benefit for the extra features and performance for each card, thought.
In reply to my support ticket they said acceleration PhysX is also not available on OSX due to using an old version of the old SDK and "we will not be adding it to the game". They seems to skip over CPU/non-accelerated support and their login system is broken so I can't reply to the issue any further.
Hello Ivan.
AMD refused to use CUDA, and it's seems normal for me.
If AMD used a proprietary software from a competing company for their hardware, they would have no control on the performances and stability.
You don't know which APIs is best, and I tell you I know. OpenCL is best.
Because it is 'libre'. Performance isn't the more important point.
It is nVidia, that refused to use libre stantards, and prefered to make something by themself, for themself. Also OpenCL can perfectly be compilated for GNU/Linux. The thing is that developpers don't really care about physics.
CUDA is something bad for all users that want to use GPGPU for any purpose.
Firstly because such a closed format can't take off. It can't be popularized because it is anecdotic for developper, require more work, and work for only half of costumers. Sort of lost of time. And also sort of blackmail : play with our cards to have the complete experience.
Secondly because it is a try to impose them on the market. And when the market is not equilibrated, price and offers are bad for costumers.
French economists say "concurrence pure et parfaite" which mean pure and perfect competition, and which is a paradigm of market where they would be plenty of little companys in competition. We only got 2 company on the video card market(for gaming), if furthermore one is much bigger than the other, the market will be horrible for costumers.
Finally, if you truly like the ideology of GNU/Linux, I beg you to say GNU/Linux, and not just Linux. GNU is precisely the ideologic part of GNU/Linux systems.
If you had not seen it yet, watch this brief talk about "libre" software :
View video on youtube.com