You do know that AMD changed the device ID to an nvidia one and they got great results with AA applied in BAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Printable View
You do know that AMD changed the device ID to an nvidia one and they got great results with AA applied in BAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
This is Nvidia's bad... They did the same thing with Directx 10.1 support for TWIMTP game. Excluding new techs and not letting other cards use features such as AA/AF is a weak move.
They could have done something to decrease the AA performance of 58xx or something else. What Nvidia says right now "ATi can work with them, etc" basically means ATi should give money to batman developers and after several months a batman game patch will be released to remedy this problem.
Nvidia you are becoming more and more like Intel, what happened to you. Where is the Nvidia i bought the Ti 4400 from ???
Is this a joke? Smoke, steam, spider webs, cloth, leaves, sparks? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
The game really shines with physX? Really? Pretty easy when you stripe the non physx version from visual effects that have been around since 1978.
But it works, there's always morons who will buy a GT300 to be able to play games that have smoke and steam... :ROTF: (see youtube comments)
Nvidia fanboys are going over the top, Nvida put effort time and money to make AA possible with nvidia cards? Right, that's why you just need to change the ID of the card to make it run on ATI. The only "hardwork" nvidia had, was the same kind of "hardwork" that made 10.1 disapear from Assassin creed.
It's not exactly stopping competitors from using basic features as AA or AF, since the "basic" default AA doesn't work with deferred shading. It's more a matter of developing code that only can run on the own hw.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
To make it more clear, it's not like if you pick a game G (with forward rendering) and lock the basic AA, but like if you pick a game G, code a screen space ambient oclusion shader and you only let that shader run on your own hw.
I don't think that's the path to follow. And I think the same about what you're saying about "make it run slower on competitors hw": from my POV, to make the sw purposely run slower than it could on competitors hw is a sabotage in the same exact way.
The way that both NVIDIA and ATI have been focusing their developers support programs until now is the way to go from my POV, because everybody has their benefit. The point was: "hey, I give you free support to develope your game, that way I can ensure that your game is well optimized (at least for my hw, the competitors one is their problem), it has not bugs, and even I can give you some code that makes your game better, and that I know that it's better running on my hw than on competitor's (because I know which are my strengths and weaks and the competitor's too). And I even have early access to the code to have an optimized profile on my drivers when the game is released". The game is better, better optimized, drivers too, and everyone wins (the IHV, the developer, the consumer).
NVIDIA has been doing an excellent support work until now, better than AMD in my opinion, and it has given them a competitive advantage. But the way they are turning it now (Batman AA "support" is very ugly step, I think), it's no longer benefitial for the regular consumer. It's ugly, it's harming us, and we should try to stop it before it becomes the norm (maybe for both companies, which would be even worse...)
+1, and you can run PhysX on CPU as long as yours is up to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by LesGrossman
What I did not like is one of the mods over there calling FUGGER a troll for actually trying to get an answer on the Batman forum. http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=96872
I actually think everyone with a question to Eidos/Rocksteady should post it right on their forums like fugger did, or well at least just go +1 on Fuggers initial post, in case one agrees with the questions asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
Yeah that Batman PhysX video shows two different games really.
All it does is "omit" what would be the equivelent effect if it didn't have PhysX, how stupid.
Wow, you can walk thru some trash cans..oh, and they actually move. Hey geniuses, I could do that in Half-Life 2. Yes, I could pick them up and throw them too..Oh and yes, they would hit other objects and move them too. Many games already have that and they don't need PissX to get it either. FAIL!
The falling tiles off the walls, yes this can be a set programmed thing too, doesn't mean we have to interact with it..but so what, all the PhysX stuff is mostly just eye candy anyway, right? FAIL!
The flying objects that into the sky, this also could have been programmed with something equivelent. Leaving it off so the PissX difference is a "night and Day" SELLING point for NVidia..simple as that!. Another FAIL!
And don't get me started on smoke, steam and fog. This is simply stupid. Just because it doesn't do PissX smoke and steam let's not do any at all?? What?? How about put some "normal good 'o boy smoke" in there. Smoke and fog and steam have been in just about EVERY newish release title since who knows when. How about we don't put in fire or explosions either unless it's PhysX? Yeah, noone knows how to program for that..why not? That moves around too. Again, FAIL!
Oh, and just leave out the "Caution, Do Not Cross" tape, towel hanger, hanging cloth signs, spider webs, extra leaves on the ground, falling leaves completely if it can't be done with PhysX. I'm sure none of this could ever be done normally. FAIL!
And the end where there are sparks, jeez, NEVER seen any non-PhysX games do sparks before..holy crap, what an invention.:down: Oh, and look, there IS smoke there. What do you know? The game can actually do smoke after all without PhysX. Programming FAIL!
The no ATI AA thing is just a minor perversion they did with this game. The real sham is the whole "ours moves and yours doesn't" so let's remove the whole thing crap!
Every time they OMIT something in place of PhysX they probably could have replaced it with something more rigid but similar...but of course they didn't. What, it takes too much time to do? Oh yeah, all your resourses were being taken up by NV stooges trying to get their proprietary crap to work. Way to go guys. Epic FAIL! :down::down::down:
Agree with you Your_Boss, I wish Nvidia never touched that game. :shakes:
Your_Boss The problem is that too many people like the getting one over someone else syndrome & cant see the bigger picture that they themselves are being short changed on that feature as they are getting less usage of that feature than if that feature was there for all to use & its not the NV userbase getting one over its NV getting one over on everyone including there user base.
As far as i'm concerned AMD are more concerned with PR & marketing than actually pulling their fingers out & getting developers to make PC Gaming better. I'm not saying I condone nVidia's/Eidos's actions but at least nVidia worked with the developer on getting a feature added to the game. What happened after that is not in best taste but AMD in my opinion just look worse for moaning & still not attepting to make AA available for their cards.
NV has been more about marketing then anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
The AA issue is marketing on NVs part as somehow AA is an emerging technology.
You see all over the web from review sites saying that Physx is being used more of a marketing tool than making any real physics changes to games that it is used in.
Ther Dx11 titles in development are being made with AMDa invoment & sometimes AMDs money as well.
It looks like you have fallen more for the marketing than the real facts.
Question for all the bleeding hearts. Nvidia spends far more money on developer support. You think ATI consumers should benefit equally. Why? What business model supports that strategy? Is ATI a poor orphan that needs to suckle from Nvidia's tits?
Cut your nose to spite your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Consumers are not the competitors.
The example you have put forward is in many other fields without the silly restrictions of usage on competitors products.
In what way? The only people pissed off are current owners of non-Nvidia cards. How does that hurt them?
ATI is spending money in getting games with Dx11 features that they would not otherwise have & ATI have no intention of using well there was no DX11 NV hardware for testing the games & seeing as we put the money up for DX11 in these titles then DX11 will be disabled on NV cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
I mean its only fare.You think NV consumers should benefit equally. Why? What business model supports that strategy.
There are many custom picture enhancing features & methods in today's LCD TVs from each brand & none are disabled if used with input media from other brands.
Because games have to be playable for all users and when features are disabled for ATI then there can not be any gameplay changing physx features.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Imagine the gravity gun not working on half the userbase....
Puzzles using it would not be in the HL games.
As long as nvidia restrict features, those features will have nothing related to gameplay mechanics
How about if ATI disable DX11 for nvidia users in the games they paid to have it included?
Is THAT fair? Shoe on the other foot and it's kicking YOU this time.
Do you still feel restriction doesn't hinder consumer experience?
DX11 is an API, AA is a technical feature; in this specific case, a technical feature developed by nVidia and the game developer in order to work with nVidia cards, due to UE3 issues with AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
Once nVidia doesn't have to do testbeds and quality tests with rivals hardware, and apparently developer didn't care about it, they disabled AA with non-tested hardware, cause they couldn't guarantee 100% working scenario.
Amd whines about it; dev says they are open to work with Amd in order to fix it; Amd doesn't do anything.
Pretty regular situation, if you ask me.
Must have missed this. Where did devs say they are open to work with AMD and where does it say AMD didnt want to work with devs? Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
Where did I say Amd didn't want to work with devs? I said they don't do anything about it, according to lack of news...Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerT
However:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=47
I couldn't care less about ATi, NVIDIA or anyone of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
The point you (and some more people by here) are missing is that this is not a matter about balancing or unbalancing the race between them, or trying to make a more or less fair competition/game between them for us to watch.
I repeat, I couldn't care less about they IHVs. Those are their business, not mine, so what they have regarding to advantages, disadvantages, or what they want, is not my problem.
I care about my situation as a consumer. And I think that a turn from a situation A where support means optimizing game / debugging / developing additional contents to a situation B where support means developing exclusive contents that only can be run on a certain brand of sw is harming / damaging my situation as a consumer.
Oh, and you continue about your theory about ATi/NVIDIA consumers. There's no such things. OK, yeah. There are a little few people who IS NVIDIA consumer (they only buy NVIDIA) and a little few people who IS ATi consumer (they only buy ATi). Most of us are simply hw consumers, and we buy videocards regardless the brand. We buy the product we prefer each time we need to buy one. If one of those people were about to buy a card now, for example, he/she would be being punished by the decision of Eidos to not allow to run the feature in half the cards in the market (probably the good half right now to make things worse).
Ah ok so you assume they are not doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I think it's far more reasonable than assuming they are indeed doing anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerT
It's easier to kick up a fuss with the press than fix the problem.
How can someone make a question like this after 15 pages is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Maybe you should read more and write less, AA Runs in ATI with ZERO developer support, so what has Nvidia help develop?
Nvidia money doesn't develop nothing, it just makes 10.1, AA and basic visual effects in non physx version disappear, and make benchmarks tools give higher scores to a card with Nvidia ID.