OpenUru.org

With the recent removal of PhysX 2.6.x drivers from the NVIDIA, we've seen a number of users complaining about difficulties with PhysX versions, PhysX installation, and much more oddness. This likely stems from an outdated PhysX_Setup.exe that we are distributing with pretty much all shards. PhysX_Setup.exe is invoked when Uru detects PhysX 2.6.x is not installed. The legacy driver provides us with a unique opportunity in that it should never change, so, I have repackaged the PhysX Legacy Driver msi as an executable using NSIS. This way, we have a drop in replacement for the outdated installers we are distributing with our clients. I think it would be a good idea for all shards to start using this with their clients--especially MOULa.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/203 ... _Setup.exe

There were oddities with PhysX install right from the outset, especially if you have to use the 2.6.4 SDK, as I recall. Anyway, that sounds like a reasonable proposition - It didn't occur to me that the Legacy Installer might actually have a side benefit like this.

Just wanted to bump this thread and thank Hoikas for the pointer. I ran into this today after a reinstall.

nVidia, in their wisdom that escapes my grasp, keeps moving their link to the legacy installer. It used to be at the URL mentioned in this thread on MOUL forums: http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=26801 ... but that link is gone.

As of the time I'm writing this, the official download link is at http://www.nvidia.com/object/physx-9.12 ... river.html . But even that link may die someday.

So I recommend others use either Hoikas' dropbox link above, or use Google to search for "PhysX Legacy Driver".

Was nice to find the solution to my problem today so quickly.

I'd noticed that, while doing an update of display drivers a couple of months back. I thought I'd commented on it at the time, but it looks like I just imagined that .
Nvidia seem to have the PhysX legacy installer version number track the main version number, though I'm unconvinced that there's actually any difference from previous versions of the legacy installer. I guess at some point the scope of what is excluded from the main PhysX software will change and then there will be a significant difference to legacy package, assuming that what gets dropped from "core" will be picked up by "legacy".

I need to check the build manifest for the install bundle.

Mac_Fife wrote:I guess at some point the scope of what is excluded from the main PhysX software will change and then there will be a significant difference to legacy package.

Not that this really matters--we only care about 2.6.x. The new PhysX 3 doesn't require a system software package AFAIK, so the main installer shouldn't be changing much (if at all) at this point.

Yep, I was thinking that at the time I made my post, Hoikas. Niggling in the back of my head was that someone might also have a 2.7.x application installed and find in due course that they need a different legacy installer, but it's probably very much a corner case.