naa, I'd say its always nice to have the option for additional content, regardless of its efficiency. I can guarantee not all of us choose to turn off PhysX in any of the (33 released + 13 known to be in development) games that use it. keeping num about it will bring us nowhere. I mean even if we choose to disable some option in game I'd still prefer they push it rather than not. if nothing else, for the sake of its future advancements and popularity...

yea but does 1ms include rendering of these million blades of grass, or just the dynamic simulation side of it? I'm not sure how many millions are presented in that video, but if there were only 1 million it should have run at 1000fps on GTX680 according to your calculation, as they render nothing but grass (and a bunch of cubes). they say "Grass blades can be represented with a resolution as low as 3 triangles to several 100 triangles per blade by using continuous level of detail", so adding a million grass blades to a scene would require additional render time for 3 million polygons at the very least. is this supposed to be included in 56fps (w/ grass) out of 60fps (w/o grass) comparison, or you mean 60fps already rendered at least 3 million polygons of static grass...

Yeah, that's a good point about whether or not the actual rendering of the whole grass vs just it's physics simulation was taken into account. When I viewed that YouTube vid I just remember taking home the message that the cost of GrassFX was 1ms per frame, which is what I based my calculations on in my previous post. Perhaps the vid is misleading, I can't be bothered to watch it again though, so I will live in ignorance!

I think that I saw this one for the first time when CD Projekt RED did reveal the Witcher 3, along with the wolf furs.

i don't think Witcher 3 has this grass, not even on pc. Nvidia fur yes.

Now we need an virtual lawn mower.