Nvidia PhysX Source Code Now Available Free On GitHub

Does this mean that games like Borderlands 2 could still receive PhysX support on Linux?

Does this mean that games like Borderlands 2 could still receive PhysX support on Linux?

Only if Aspyr were willing to update their port for it.

I still don't get it. Why should we support technology that are and have always been vendor specific.
Okay AMD's drivers may not be in their best state on Linux, but they have always been more open - so has intel, which is why both companies have pretty decent open-source drivers.

I get it that this move "opens" physx much more than it has previously been, however it still doesn't change the fact that this is vendor specific.

I must admit that I'm biased since I have AMD gpu's in my main rig and intel in my laptop, but I still don't get it that I should have a "worse" experience in some games only because I went with the open solution from AMD and intel.

For an example AMD's TressFX was open, which meant nvidia could optimize their hardware for it too. Hopefully ^this move by nvidia makes the same possible in the opposite way, which would be a nice move from nvidia.

Even after my statement I still think this is very good, since it shows that nvidia really wants to support Linux, thus may move more game developers to our beloved platform and start to become more serious about Linux.

Hopefully ^this move by nvidia makes the same possible in the opposite way, which would be a nice move from nvidia.

No chance, considering that their license says

(a) use, reproduce, display and perform the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software or portions thereof, internally only solely as a reference for understanding the functionality of the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software and for purposes of developing and integrating such NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software into Demos, Expansion Packs and/or Games, for purposes of distribution as set forth in (c) below;
(b) modify those portions of the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software that are provided in Source Code form solely (i) for purposes of compiling or integrating the same or portions thereof as Object Code into Games, Expansion Packs, and Demos related to same, or (ii) to correct any bugs or errors that You may identify in the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software, each as subject to the further source code modification requirements as set forth below;
(c) distribute the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software (including Source Code Modifications that You make thereto) to third parties who are otherwise separately licensed by NVIDIA to use such NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software and have rights under its license to the same version of the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software that You are distributing, such licensees having the license rights to such distributed Software as outlined in this Section 1.1 herein and for no other purpose; and
(d) reproduce and distribute the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software, in Object Code form only, solely as integrated into inseparable Games, Expansion Packs and Demos on the Windows, Linux, and Android platforms (the “Authorized Platforms”) developed by You that incorporate the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software, subject to certain license procedures for distribution of Games and Demos (including, for PC-based titles, through use of a end user license agreement which explicitly disclaims any representations, warranties, conditions, and liabilities related to the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software), either by You or through Distributors (subject to and as further detailed in Section 1.2 below). For the avoidance of doubt, Your license rights under this Section 1.1(d) do not extend to platforms other than the Authorized Platforms; use of the NVIDIA GameWorks Licensed Software with platforms other than the Authorized Platforms requires entering into a separate commercial license agreement with NVIDIA.

(bolding mine)

I.e. the access to the source code of PhysX is only to integrate it into games, and only on "Authorized Platforms". That's it.

I must admint that I'm biased since I have AMD gpu's in my main rig and intel in my laptop, but I still don't get it that I should have a "worse" experience in some games only because I went with the open solution from AMD and intel.

Thats like saying "I don't get why I should have a worse experience in games because I have a 60hz monitor instead of 120hz"
If you want Physx buy an Nvidia card.

Some hardware have different features, buy the hardware that has the features you want.

Only the CPU-portion, so very uninteresting. I hope PhysX dies and devs dump it and use Havoc, Bullet or an even better non-proprietary solution.

I must admint that I'm biased since I have AMD gpu's in my main rig and intel in my laptop, but I still don't get it that I should have a "worse" experience in some games only because I went with the open solution from AMD and intel.

Thats like saying "I don't get why I should have a worse experience in games because I have a 60hz monitor instead of 120hz"
If you want Physx buy an Nvidia card.

But I do NOT want PhysX, I want games and sadly some of these use proprietary technology of one of the *beep* companies on this planet.

AMD >>> nvidia. Not for performance, but for openness. I really don't get how anyone can switch to Linux and still support a company that nearly solely uses proprietary technology.
Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness. But then again, the money one could save not buying totally overpriced hardware you could buy the operating system from the good company in redmond :)

Thats like saying "I don't get why I should have a worse experience in games because I have a 60hz monitor instead of 120hz"
If you want Physx buy an Nvidia card.

No, it's like saying "I don't get why I should have a worse experience in some games, because I have a 120hz monitor that some game developers chose not to fully support, whereas that same game developer chose to support the other 120hz monitor."
What I am saying is that there really isn't anything special about physx that couldn't have been done in the engine on a level where all vendors/consumers could have benefited from it.

I bet the only reason for this move is Vulkan - with all its compute stuff that now gets streamlined with the pressure of Valve. Listen to what Gabe Newell says in the video of one of the previous posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ayB6U3l2g&t=263 (4:23)

"We're supporting Vulkan. So, Vulkan is previously known as OpenGL Next. It was... From my POV, you have a lot of interesting things happen in graphics technology right now. But it tends to be restricted to a specific platform or to a specific vendor's hardware products - and Vulkan solves that problem. It is a cross platform - you know it works on Mac, Linux, Windows, SteamOS. It's gonna be supported by Valve, Blizzard, EPIC and Unity and it works with NVidia's graphics hardware and Ati's graphics hardware."

Sounds like the last breath for PhysX from NVidia, trying to keep their API covered in games.
Sure, it won't work...

Does this mean that games like Borderlands 2 could still receive PhysX support on Linux?

Only if Aspyr were willing to update their port for it.

I opened a support ticket about this back when Nvidia added Linux support to PhysX, they said it's not planned due the game using a old and modified version of PhysX (OSX is also apparently missing PhysX).

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

Some people want their computer to work, actually.

Come on, now it's stupid bashing.

Windows works. Of course sometimes you run into errors and stupid design decisions, but in the end it doesn't work worse than Linux for the average user.

I'm not talking about scientific approaches here, because that would turn out to be a bit silly in regards to gaming. The gaming-group is mostly made up by average users and they could game on Windows as good as (or even better than) on Linux.

I'm still waiting for comprehensible arguments for switching to Linux - coming from Windows - that do not involve in any way monetary thoughts nor idealism.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

That question answers itself. Why would you dual-boot if you don't need or want another, inferior (in my subjective opinion) OS on your system. Linux simply works better than the competition for many people. But this is getting way off topic. Par for the course for me I guess...

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

I own Windows XP, XP64bit, and Windows 7 (I also own OSX from a few years ago) I don't, however, dual boot and use only an Arch Linux install. I'm also not particularly concerned with the whole proprietary/open source argument, I mean I wish I cared more but then I watch the news and realise that my care could be better directed somewhere else.

I just like to use a system that I have control of, that teaches me more about how computers work, and does not either get support dropped, or seem adamant to destroy my ssd drive, i.e. that works how I want it to, for as long as I want it to.

There are plenty of reasons that people use Linux, not just the free as in cash, or free as in freedom part of it.

Point taken.

I'm also not particularly concerned with the whole proprietary/open source argument, I mean I wish I cared more but then I watch the news and realise that my care could be better directed somewhere else.

A well, I have enough care for both here. I do care a lot about this world and many things that have nothing to do with computers.

But personally I think one can always make a difference, hence I try to choose the right thing for the majority (and myself) even in small things.

I do think that it would be a very, very bad development if companies like nvidia (once again) get a monopoly. Not just because of the gaming or other gpu-based things, but for the message it carries.

Whenever I have the chance to support open source, I do it. Be it with my own programming skills or via money or other means.

I'm an arch-user as well and I could not be bothered to use the proprietary drivers, neither on my notebook with an nvidia, nor on my desktop with and amd gpu. The proprietary amd drivers always performed worse for me and the updates on arch wouldn't go as smoothly as with the open source ones. For the nvidia ones the second argument still holds, so I always used the open source implementation.

Of course on my nvidia-rig I couldn't and can't play many games, but the notebook - although a gaming one - is outdated anyway, so I couldn't care less.

For university I had to reinstall a windows version because the game I'm working on has to be able to run on a windows-7 pc, else I fail the course.

Back to topic: I see things as Nvidia's PhysX very critically because it always only ran on their platform in an acceptable way. And I don't see this as an argument like "you may need a 120hz monitor to run this game", because every vendor could potentially create a 120hz monitor, while not every manufacturer can create a PhysX-card because it's proprietary technology.

And again: I don't think many people out there buy nvidia because they think "Hell ya, I want my games with PhysX, baby!", they buy for other reasons.

But if games (like Dungeon Defenders) can't be played on Linux with AMD in highend (progress-wise) then, because of PhysX I think it's time for this technology to die.

Come on, now it's stupid bashing.

You’re obviously a Microsoft fanboy trolling for the fun of it, so I’ll just patiently wait for Liam to implement user blocking features…

Oo. What have I done to receive such harsh words? In case you wonder: I've not been using windows in over a year, until last week.

"Bashing" proprietary technology by a certain graphics-card manufacturer is now being the same as being a Microsoft fanboy trolling around? I guess it's really time for me to leave here. Have a wonderful Sunday everybody!

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

Yes, but (I've not made this clear I guess, sorry) I was referring to the context of gaming. You would not play "today's" games with a 1998 laptop, no matter the operating system.

I - as a hardcore linux advocate - see no benefit in using linux for the purpose of gaming alone. Not today, not any time soon (although I'm hyped as you're).
Really, if gaming was that important to me I'd still have dual-bootet during the last year.

Well, I get it. Some people just switch to Linux for the bucks, not for its openness.

You don't get it at all if you think money and idealism are the only valid reasons one could have for using Linux.

Then enlighten me! What other reasons are there for *solely* using Linux and not having a dual-boot system?

Revivng laptops from 1998 seems to kinda impossible using Windows unless you're going for win98. Other than that.. mostly whatever Apple says to advertise their products - just works, no viruses, ease of use which translates into almost no time spent in maintaining my family's and my girlfriend's computers. My mother doesn't care if she uses Windows or Linux and certainly doesn't care if it is "free" or "free".

Yes, but (I've not made this clear I guess, sorry) I was referring to the context of gaming. You would not play "today's" games with a 1998 laptop, no matter the operating system.

I - as a hardcore linux advocate - see no benefit in using linux for the purpose of gaming alone. Not today, not any time soon (although I'm hyped as you're).
Really, if gaming was that important to me I'd still have dual-bootet during the last year.

What I can think of right now is that you don't have to wonder if newer version of Direct3D is coming to your OS or not. I still remember visiting the Tropico5 Steam forums on Day1 as I had some minor problems with getting the game to actually run and there were an awful lot of threads demanding refunds and generally being rather verbally aggressive as the game wasn't compatible with XP and Vista... So I guess that's an advantage in terms of gaming?