Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

[Bojamijams]

Lets not forget that Nvidia purposely forces CPU PhysX to only work on 1 core as to demonstrate how pathetically slow it is and how you NEED a gpu to do PhysX and thus need to buy nvidia cards.

However there is a hack out there that properly distributes PhysX to additional cores, the ones that are 95% unused in most games, and it flows beautifully, regardless of whether you have ati or nvidia.

Get the hack, enjoy physx and give nvidia a big finger.

[lockee]

Looks like the outrage was all for nothing.

The response was standard PR to deflect the argument, claim the moral high ground while promoting their own products. I didn't see anything explaining why ATI cards run the Batman demo with AA just fine when you change the device_id.

[Bodkin]

Lets not forget that Nvidia purposely forces CPU PhysX to only work on 1 core as to demonstrate how pathetically slow it is and how you NEED a gpu to do PhysX and thus need to buy nvidia cards.

However there is a hack out there that properly distributes PhysX to additional cores, the ones that are 95% unused in most games, and it flows beautifully, regardless of whether you have ati or nvidia.

Get the hack, enjoy physx and give nvidia a big finger.

Could not agree more, Nvidia are onto a winner with Physx as it is a big part of batman but if they keep it locked its screwed

[Sadasius]

It's like I said many times. Vote with your wallet. You as the consumer basically trains how business's act. If they get out of hand and product don't get sold then they shape up. If you bit$h but buy it anyway then you are really not doing anything but helping support their bad behaviour. I for one will not buy this game as it is an obvious stepping stone in hurting us as the consumer and will help cause a rift in games. The line was drawn in the sand for me.

[OCguy]

The response was standard PR to deflect the argument, claim the moral high ground while promoting their own products. I didn't see anything explaining why ATI cards run the Batman demo with AA just fine when you change the device_id.

Because nV put up the money to make sure AA works on nV cards for that particular game, in an engine that does not normally support it.

Anyone who doesnt believe they have a right to reap the benefits of that investment should not ever attempt to operate their own business.

[marten_larsson]

Because nV put up the money to make sure AA works on nV cards for that particular game, in an engine that does not normally support it.

Anyone who doesnt believe they have a right to reap the benefits of that investment should not ever attempt to operate their own business.

Well, then ATI should just tell Codemasters to disable DX11 on Nvidia hardware then? And DX10.1 support in HAWX? This is nothing that is beneficial to consumers and therefore NOT something we should accept!

[Splave]

Because nV put up the money to make sure AA works on nV cards for that particular game, in an engine that does not normally support it.

Anyone who doesnt believe they have a right to reap the benefits of that investment should not ever attempt to operate their own business.

^speaks the truth

Its like complaining about someone that just made 100k on the stock market, while you sat on your hands. You could have invested and taken the time but you didnt so you dont reap the rewards.

[TheGoat Eater]

I downloaded the demo and I must admit the Physx really make the games visual experience complete. Without it, it would be rather bland.

I have that same feeling with UT3 - the visual experience are just not the same w/o Physx... I would certainly not be as happy with the game had UT3 not implemented Physx at all...

[OCguy]

Well, then ATI should just tell Codemasters to disable DX11 on Nvidia hardware then? And DX10.1 support in HAWX? This is nothing that is beneficial to consumers and therefore NOT something we should accept!

If there was a game that was going to be DX10 only, and ATi put up the $$ and worked with the developer to make sure that DX11 ran on their cards, I would not see a problem with it.

Of course there is a benefit to the consumer. There wasnt going to be in-game AA at all, and now there is.

[Luka_Aveiro]

So this is what we know:

- UE3 engine -> problems with regular AA (everyone knows that);

- nVidia worked with devs so their costumers could use AA with B:AA;

- their AA method is compatible with ATI cards (tricking the game into thinking you are using an nVidia card but using an ATI makes AA work - don't know if it flawless, however...);

- apparently, AMD was expecting to have AA enabled to their hardware, but since AA was brought up by nVidia+devs, it was only available with nVidia hardware;

If you ask me, I think AMD should publicly apologize nVidia+devs and start immediatly working with devs in order to make AA available with their hardware, in their own interest: if this situation gave them the will to complain, then it should give them aswell the will to fix the problem.
I mean, in the first place, AMD should have contacted devs in order to know why AA was disabled in the game instead of coming to public making this assumptions...

If it were in some other companies, some heads would roll...

[Darakian]

Isn't this game on the 360? Doesn't it have AA on the 360? Who made the GPU for the 360?

[Shadov]

I have that same feeling with UT3 - the visual experience are just not the same w/o Physx... I would certainly not be as happy with the game had UT3 not implemented Physx at all...

Personally I would be happy if Nvidia never touched the game, then we could have the same effects running optimized on a CPU, without special workarounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUOr4cFWY-s (Batman with physics on a CPU)

[Luka_Aveiro]

Of course there is a benefit to the consumer. There wasnt going to be in-game AA at all, and now there is.

This.

[Shadov]

This.

Ok I vote that Battleforge DirectX 11 code path should be ATI exclusive, since Nvidia didnt even have hardware to support the devs.

Like it as a consumer?

[marten_larsson]

If there was a game that was going to be DX10 only, and ATi put up the $$ and worked with the developer to make sure that DX11 ran on their cards, I would not see a problem with it.

Of course there is a benefit to the consumer. There wasnt going to be in-game AA at all, and now there is.

You mean like Dirt 2? I accept that PhysX don't run on ATI hardware, that's not something to complain about (but disabling it because of ATi card is), but not when it's something that obviously works(?). If Nvidia want to keep PC gaming alive this is not the way to do it...

[DilTech]

Isn't this game on the 360? Doesn't it have AA on the 360? Who made the GPU for the 360?

No AA on the 360 version...Trust me, I know.

Ok I vote that Battleforge DirectX 11 code path should be ATI exclusive, since Nvidia didnt even have hardware to support the devs.

Like it as a consumer?

I doubt anyone would care...battleforge isn't a good game to begin with.

Although, saying NVidia hasn't put out DX11 developer cards is a grave mistake....

[jaredpace]

So you are saying the engine does natively support AA, and nV paid the developer to remove it?

I'm going to have to disagree on that one.

Yes the engine supports AA. It's they type of scene specific MSAA that is locked out. check out this thread to learn more about it:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54786

Then you can agree/disagree when you're done!

[Final8ty]

Because nV put up the money to make sure AA works on nV cards for that particular game, in an engine that does not normally support it.

Anyone who doesnt believe they have a right to reap the benefits of that investment should not ever attempt to operate their own business.

NV are reaping the benefits of that investment by getting AA whether it run on ATI cards or not.

But what your really saying is that only NV should benefit from it.

Then you will be ok with ATI getting the guts ripped out of Dirt2 when run on NV cards.

[Bojamijams]

Most of are going to get a crack that lets Batman:AA have AA with ATI .. its been done before and it'll be done again

[Vinas]

Who knows if Batman is even a good comparison for what AMD is talking about... I mean, titles like AA3 had an AA box that doesn't work. Again based on the Unreal 3 engine.

So I believe AMD is telling the truth because it does seem that if a developer is working with GPU company A *and being payed for it*, they're not exactly going to be forthcoming in working terms out with GPU company B. Even though nvidia is putting in the time and effort, they supposedly are paying for the development costs to the game developers... But I seem to remember ATi did this back before AMD bought them with (Half Life 2)...

[Luka_Aveiro]

Ok I vote that Battleforge DirectX 11 code path should be ATI exclusive, since Nvidia didnt even have hardware to support the devs.

Like it as a consumer?

DirectX is a bit different of AA, AF, vSync, Tripple buffering, Edge Detect AA, Tesselation, etc...

Directx is an API, the rest are features supported or not by each GPU vendor and supported or not by each game engine.

Able to see the trick here?


Edit: I was watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GyKCM-Bpuw and the PhysX effects are really what makes the game shine.

I wish these effects could be available for any hardware vendor, someone has to do something about it...

[jaredpace]

Rocksteady (Batman devhouse) already made a statement about the demo:

The form of anti-aliasing implemented in Batman: Arkham Asylum uses features specific to NVIDIA cards. However, we are aware some users have managed to hack AA into the demo on ATI cards. We are speaking with ATI/AMD now to make sure it’s easier to enable some form of AA in the final game.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54786&page=2

[LC_Nab]

So this is what we know:

- UE3 engine -> problems with regular AA (everyone knows that);

- nVidia worked with devs so their costumers could use AA with B:AA;

- their AA method is compatible with ATI cards (tricking the game into thinking you are using an nVidia card but using an ATI makes AA work - don't know if it flawless, however...);

- apparently, AMD was expecting to have AA enabled to their hardware, but since AA was brought up by nVidia+devs, it was only available with nVidia hardware;

If you ask me, I think AMD should publicly apologize nVidia+devs and start immediatly working with devs in order to make AA available with their hardware, in their own interest: if this situation gave them the will to complain, then it should give them aswell the will to fix the problem.
I mean, in the first place, AMD should have contacted devs in order to know why AA was disabled in the game instead of coming to public making this assumptions...

If it were in some other companies, some heads would roll...

Why should AMD apologize ? If anything Nvidia should for depriving the game for the consumers , monopolizing the market to make it so as in " If you want all the eye candy and physx get Nvida " Its like a kick in the face for us consumers . They should make it so to be compatible in all hardware . I don't care about physx , what I do care is dont make a game run half of its potential just because Im not using Nvidia , samething if ati did the same . Consumer wise is not good and not fair for our pockets .

[LC_Nab]

Rocksteady (Batman devhouse) already made a statement about the demo:



http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54786&page=2

Some form of AA ? rofl they should not bother at all , if its not 100 % .

[Cybercat]

Most of are going to get a crack that lets Batman:AA have AA with ATI .. its been done before and it'll be done again

That might be a bit difficult for the same reason that the PhysX hack only worked on the demo. They'd likely have to circumvent SecuROM, which is far from an impossible task but it would no doubt break the game's EULA or something.