PhysX a "big step forward"

By Robert Purchese Published 7 February, 2007

Reckons Infernal developer.

More and more developers are adopting PhysX technology to power upcoming games, and among them is Metropolis Software, which believes this physics solution is a big step forward for world simulation.

"The engine is very efficient, it allows for a fast physics simulation while not eating too much processor power, so developers can build more 'living' worlds, with a higher level of interaction," the developer's PR manager Pawel Miechowsk told Eurogamer. "I wouldn't call that a revolution, but surely it's a big step forward."

Metropolis' PC title Infernal aims to put the new power to good use, incorporating PhysX into its Nitrous engine to deliver a visually spectacular feast. To show just how much difference it makes, publisher Eidos released new screenshots showing non PhysX-powered captures next to fully enhanced stills; you can find these elsewhere on the site.

The game itself is a celestial third-person shooter that mixes real-world and supernatural themes through agencies on Earth representing Heaven and Hell. You'll play as the unusual Ryan Lennox, an agent outcast from the Etherlight (Heaven) agency for his heavy-handed methods, who now finds work for the Devil (Abyss agency). Naturally he's got a few nifty tricks up his sleeve, like teleportation, or telekinesis, and even Infernal vision - which lets him see things the human eye normally can't pick up.

The graphics are set to be a strong point of the game, apparently, but more in the way the technology is used than for sheer polygon count.

"We put a lot of work into the graphical atmosphere of the game to get a new, distinct feeling," Miechowsk added. "The architecture of the buildings and the whole design in Infernal is something never seen before."

The game is due for release in Q1 this year for PC, and decision on a console port, of which "360 is amongst the most suitable," is yet to be made.

Unfortunately there'll be no multiplayer included, but Metropolis has plans for the future depending on how well Infernal does.

Psst, don't forget the recently released demo for the game either.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Rodster #1 5 years ago

    I can assure you EA will never use someone else's superior technology in any of their games if it wasn't developed by them. It would be nice to see this technology employed in their Sports titles instead of the canned animations we see in their games.

  • Eldritch #2 5 years ago

    ATI and nVidia will allow you to use an extra GPU for physics, so why invest in a dedicated board?

  • TheMoonRat #3 5 years ago

    Eldritch: There is an addon board for it yes, but its not needed. Software wise its just like what Havoc does.

    Speaking of which PhysX API seems to be gaining momentum over the Havoc API recently. Is there anyone who knows what the differences - advantages/disadvantages each one has?
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/07 @ 13:01

  • Eldritch #4 5 years ago

    "PhysX API seems to be gaining momentum over the Havoc API recently."

    I've heard the exact opposite! LOL

  • riz23 #5 5 years ago

    Rodster: Although EA have licensed the Unreal 3 engine to power some future games haven't they?

  • SBfistfun #6 5 years ago

    The more I wipe the more it smears

  • PearOfAnguish #7 5 years ago

    Yeah, it's a big step forward if you want to shell out for a card.


    Which developers won't support because nobody buys it.

  • teabagger #8 5 years ago

    "I can assure you EA will never use someone else's superior technology in any of their games if it wasn't developed by them. It would be nice to see this technology employed in their Sports titles instead of the canned animations we see in their games."

    I'm reasonably convinced that EA are using NaturalMotions procedural animation technology for some of their games.

  • septimus #9 5 years ago

    Big step forward in terms of getting developers to push more physics. But the card is a loss. As Dual/Quad Core becomes more prevalent that card will become pointless.

  • UncleLou #10 5 years ago

    Slightly off-topic, sorry - I played the Infernal demo, and while the game isn't really my cup of tea, the engine is a bit of an optimisation miracle. It looks great, and runs incredibly silky-smooth even with everything maxed out. Hats off.

  • brooza #11 5 years ago

    a console port, of which "360 is amongst the most suitable,"

    That's quite obvious, I'm sure the 360 is amongst the most suitable. It's definately in the top 2 most suitable console to handle a new high-level PC game

  • mkreku #12 5 years ago

    What is it with my brain this week? First I read a drooling write-up of STALKER and pre-order that on a whim.. Then I read news like this and suddenly it feels like I NEED a PhysX card!

    Gaah!

  • Xerx3s #13 5 years ago

    I can assure you EA will never use someone else's superior technology in any of their games if it wasn't developed by them. It would be nice to see this technology employed in their Sports titles instead of the canned animations we see in their games.

    So EA owns a EU3 licence for show then?

    EDIT: Riz already beat me.
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/07 @ 14:56

  • subtlesnake #14 5 years ago

    "Yeah, it's a big step forward if you want to shell out for a card. "

    Actually, no. He was talking about the SDK, which is meant to be very efficient.

  • wizbob #15 5 years ago

    "PhysX API seems to be gaining momentum over the Havoc API recently."

    I think the momentum is down to the fact that PhysX make their API available for free and generate revenue by selling cards.

  • smelly #16 5 years ago

    "I can assure you EA will never use someone else's superior technology in any of their games if it wasn't developed by them"

    Yes they will.. they'll just buy the company (renderware?)

  • smelly #17 5 years ago

    "Which developers won't support because nobody buys it. "

    It wasnt long back people said the same thing about 3d acceleration.

    It wasnt until a console (ps1) started doing it that pc gamers realised what they were missing out on, and the rest is pc gaming history.

  • smelly #18 5 years ago

    "As Dual/Quad Core becomes more prevalent that card will become pointless. '

    Not necessarily. Some overhead is still going to happen between passing new matrices/etc between cpu and gpu (especially if physics starts to alter geometry (shooting at a plank for example). Now if you can put the physics card on the graphics card so that they work in tandom.. THEN you get a better bang for buck

    A dedicated physics card is gonna be better than a generic cpu anyhuws.. Leave the other cpu's for other things..
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/07 @ 19:59