Nvidia responds to Batman:AA

[randomizer]

I'm interested to hear?

To be more specific, it's MSAA that is the problem. You can still supersample but nobody really wants to do that because of the performance hit. Have a read of this, it's old but explains the problem somewhat:

http://http.download.nvidia.com/deve...ed_Shading.pdf

[Mads321]

It would seem strange that a PC games developer would not have at least one card from both vendors, its not like it would break the bank.

Maybe the help from NV was with installing the card.

[Final8ty]

Come on now.
Not everyone one who knows how to drive knows how to fill the tank.

[Farinorco]

Oh, wait a moment. I had decided not to write more on this topic (I think is fairly obvious that at this point everyone here has form an opinion about it, and it's not going to change it) but come on, there are some strange ideas around here.

Some of you are sounding like if the developpers were some guys who put the hand palm up waiting for ATI/NVIDIA to do the games for the them and then selling them or something. Let's clear some aspects:

GAME DEVELOPERS AND IHV's SUPPORT

*The developers (the name comes from the fact that they are the ones who develope the software) are some nice guys who make software through a process that includes an analisis and design of the project, its implementation (including coding and creating artwork), and testing and debugging, before the project is commercialized. Everything related to the product, and each and every of these phases is complete responsability of the developer.

*Developers are supposed to make their games without any external help. They have all the means to do that. PCs are shaped in a way that you can work over standards that have to be follow by side one (software) and the other side (hardware) so what a developer has to know, is how to develope over those standards. Once they have learned (studying, practicing...), they can start doing software.

*Hardware vendors are not needed across the process. Testing the software to not be buggy on the platforms advertised as compatible (every PC with usually some restrictions usually because OS and because of performance, known as "minimal requirements") is the developers responsability, like everything else regarding the game/sw (it's their game, heck, and they're getting money from this!). You don't need a hw vendor to teach you how to install a videocard to test your game (and you don't need a hw vendor to teach you how to install or run your game). You may need someone to teach you how to test sistematically and debug a program, or how to optimize or even develope a sw project, but that's not the hardware vendors affair. For example, I learnt at university.

*Hardware vendors (both ATI and NVIDIA in this case, even though NVIDIA advertises more to the public this fact) started a practice consisting in "supporting" the most known and influent software titles offering the developpers help to finish the titles. Why? Because sponsorings, because this way they could be sure that the most known and influent software, which is called to be the reference to test and compare the hw with, it was not horribly unoptimized for their hw, or had any bug specific to their hw, and so on, because this way they have early access to the software so they can address any issue with the hardware in drivers or develope profiles specific to the game to optimize the hw driver behaviour when running that sw since the moment of the release, making their hw look like better than competitors... image and media value, mainly.

That deal between the most influent games developers and the IHVs bring a secondary effect to the consumer: main titles and most influent sw comes to the market less buggy, more optimized and with hw more prepared than it would be without. So come on, great idea, no one's losing, everybody wins.

The reason why I tell all that is to finish with an obvious conclusion: even when that (interested) "help" that, potentially, a hw vendor may be giving you (as a developer), is being given, every responsability about the product you are selling is yours. If the game doesn't work properly with certain hw, you are the one who had made and are selling a defective product. If the game lacks some features that competitors have, you are the one who had made and are selling a 2nd line product. You can have the privilege of being helped by an IHV (if they're somewhat interested) but if not, it should be the normal situation, and if they do, the product continues being your product, not theirs.

Stop saying that "if X refuses to help, then it's their fault if XX things in a game don't work or aren't present". You are giving too much weight to a question that is merely image and advertising. The IHVs make hw, not games. And the developers make the games, not only ask a price for them (actually, who ask the price usually are the distributors, but oh well...).

[Heinz68]

So, what we knew:

>UE3 has not any AA method implemented, and Batman:AA is coded over UE3.

>NVIDIA has helped the developers of B:AA to implement a custom AA filter.

>That custom AA filter developed in colaboration with Eidos is nothing exclusive to NVIDIA, since it's been proven to work with other D3D cards.

>Since NVIDIA has helped to implement (or completely implemented) that AA filter, they feel with the right to not allow people with hw of other IHVs to run their code, and "encourage" other vendors to implement their own code if they want that feature running on their hw, even when that code is perfectly compatible with any standard hw.

That bring us again to the main point of the discussion until now: is that right? Where those practices lead us, the consumers?

It would be the same thing if DIRT2 DX11 features (or part of them) don't work on NVIDIA DX11 hw when they release any, since AMD has supported the developement of that features.

It would be the same thing if OpenCL acceleration of Havok only works on AMD and Intel hw for the same reason.

The same for OpenCL acceleration in Bullet Physics.

Great for all consumers. There was a time where software coded over standard interfaces could be run on any hardware compliant with those standards. That was the whole point of those standards. There was a time... thanks, NVIDIA.


And I would like to add something to the discussion. I see lots of the people who are defending both NVIDIA and Eidos basing their arguments on the fact of UE3 not having AA:

A game engine is nothing else than a library (code implementing functions) to pack some of the work of doing a game. It includes some work generalizable to games in general, and then you (the developer) write the rest of the code of the game over (or under, or in) the game engine. That's one of the things about programming. You got some code, then you can use that code as a part of other programs, that can add code over, under or in it.

Saying that UE3 don't support AA may be true (it was when it was launched, I don't know now, I assume it's the same). But the UE3 don't support the Batman 3D model too. Or probably other shaders used specifically on that game. I'm sure that the developers have written other code apart from the UE3. Heck, I'm so sure that if you try to run the UE3 directly without any more code, you won't be playing Batman AA.

What I try to say, it's that there's no difference between the custom AA, the models used, any custom shader, or any game specific logic. It's all additional code that didn't came in the engine.

If you think that helping a sw company to develope some code, and then not allowing compatible hw of other vendors to run that code is fine, then it's your respectable opinion. But saying that "this is a special case because it didn't came in the engine", it's saying nothing.

I simply don't like a world where some sw is special to NVIDIA, some sw is special to ATI, some sw is special to Intel, some sw is special to AMD, and depending on the brands you chose you can run some things or some others.

Supposedly, standardization was introduced to avoid this. And it was a great benefit for all consumers. We are getting back to a time we had left behind long ago. It's only my opinion, though.

Some people are ONLY NVIDIA consumers so I guess they don't care. I believe if AMD would start using the same tactics, the same people would be screaming bloody murder.

[Ket]

The engine doesn't natively support it... Just check the menu for UT3.

I use AA on my HD4830s fine with UT3, pretty sure the option is even in the game settings dont need to use ccc

Well PhysX is just pure unadulterated crap imo. I'm just past the point of caring about it, Nvidia knows it's a scam, we all know it's a scam. Just that there's nothing that can be done about it.

I just don't see Nvidia telling the devs, "btw you'd better not enable AA for ATI or we'll stop giving you checks."

That would cause such a *censor*storm, and for what? So they could have "exclusive" rights to AA in Batman? All my friends who play PC games daily don't even understand what AA is, they're not going to care either way franky. And I suspect that's pretty representative of the general population.

Seems like the simplest explanation is Nvidia made sure AA worked on their hardware so the devs enabled it. ATI didn't (to no fault of their own, they shouldn't have to babysit the developers), so they devs decided to be lazy buggers and disable it by default.

Could be wrong, but I just don't see what Nvidia could gain by this.

2 words: "Market Share". Nvidia will do anything for that. They have already sold their soul to the devil, and their grannys soul.

Regardless, it probably doesn't work exactly as it would with an ATI card. It's no secret that Unreal Engine 3 does not natively support AA (it uses deferred lighting) and the claim that being TWIMTBP certified locks out ATI from working with the developers is completely untrue.

I wouldn't say that.. who do you think the devs are going to work hardest for? The side that throws them the most money. From this standpoint, ATi can't compete. They have never had as much money as nvidia. Its one thing to have a legitimate advantage, and its quite another having unfair competition. I can understand why ATi are calling unfair, but at the same time I would stop whining about it and just do what they have done before - Add the support for AA into their drivers.

ED - To make it clear, when I say add AA support I'm talking about a invisible bit of code that detects if said game is being launched, and autmatically applies a ATI optimised AA path built into the driver.

[Apokalipse]

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!

Not to mention GDDR5, BC6/BC7 texture compression, GPU tesselation

[xman01]

since the developers probably didn't plan for ati owners to play the game
just pirate it

they probably don't need for ati gpu users to buy it since nvidia probably covered the overheads well.

[Xoulz]

Not to mention GDDR5, BC6/BC7 texture compression, GPU tesselation

Exactly.. !!

quoting myself from another thread: "Looks like Nvidia is trying to gain a foothold in the CPU market, somewhat conceding on the gaming end of the business."

[Final8ty]

In the demo directory there is a file named BaseEngine.ini. I found these lines:
[Engine.ISVHacks]
bInitializeShadersOnDemand=False
DisableATITextureFilterOptimizationChecks=True
UseMinimalNVIDIADriverShaderOptimization=True
PumpWindowMessagesWhenRenderThreadStalled=False

Don't touch them.
The DisableATITextureFilterOptimizationChecks if enabled by putting False, runs a inbuilt OCCT GPU subroutine.

[flippin_waffles]

It's a joke. And it seems to me that anyone defending NV's actions either has something to gain, directly or indirectly, or hasn't thought it through very well. It seems pretty simple I'm not sure why it's necessary to complicate the hlel out of it, unless of course the goal is to seed a little FUD.
And they are no doubt grateful for this kind of discussion, because even though it's clear to see that their actions are blatantly wrong, a little FUD goes a looooong way to muddy the water.
But all that needs to be remembered are: Assasin's Creed, Futuremark Vantage, and now Batman. And those are just the titles that we know about because they are so obviously skewed in nv's favor.

Yeah, TWIMTBP is such a benefit to consumers, but as long as the sheep keep blindly following along, nv will milk them for all they're worth.

[Ket]

Mmmm.. waffles. I'm hungry now

[Final8ty]

But the thing is & the points which some seem to over look & not for reasons of comprehension is that the so called Nvidia specific implementation does work on ATI cards but has been deliberately disabled.

There is no such things as guaranteed to work on everything on the PC because of its open platform nature & the only time features or SW is stopped from working is if it is known not to work.

Many games when installing on vista64 pop up a warning that it has only been tested on windows 32bit & never does it deliberately stop you installing unless it is known not to work which i have yet to come across besides 16bit installers.

So the guaranteed excuse does not cut it.

[Ket]

Tapping on the shoulder of a company busy creating a game isn't going to get anything done. Nvidia has an entire marketing strategy and department based on this single thing called "The way its meant to be played" ATI has, hmm........idk....

Its called AMD Game http://game.amd.com/us-en/

[teh_beanie]

So, the game doesn't support AA (which is not required of the game but a nice to have) because of this deferred rendering issue. NVIDIA volunteers to spend time and money to implement such a feature, which they test on their cards. Since they know this works on their cards, they enable a check to see whether an NVIDIA card is installed, in which case enable (because you know it'll work) otherwise disable (because you don't know whether it'll work, might use the NVIDIA hardware in a specialized way for all we know). Now everyone is upset because the developers didn't enable it across the board? Would you have NVIDIA spend more money buying hardware made by other manufacturers, test the code, if it works enable it for them and effectively lose the advantage gained by whatever time and effort was spent?

ATI/AMD, go to the developer, devote some time and money to work with the developer to ensure that there is a form of AA which works 100% on your cards (even if it's the same code that NVIDIA helped develop) and test it on your cards if you want said feature to be available to your clients. Be proactive if there's a feature that you want which a developer can't/won't include on their own.

[highoctane]

Yeah, TWIMTBP is such a benefit to consumers, but as long as the sheep keep blindly following along, nv will milk them for all they're worth.

No amount of marketing & promotion is going to keep the sheep blindly following if the consumer in the end doesn't get what they want or feel done wrong.

I personally don't see nothing wrong with a company pushing value added services to cater to their customer base.

EDIT: This debate should really be taken to the developer of the game, if you want AA take the fight to ATI/AMD and the developer to add the support.

[Decami]

Hmmm

I'm not going to say that isn't the truth, but business is brutal, and you cant call aggressive marketing corruption, unless NV actually did purposely disable AA, that would be the corruption part and unacceptable.

But man, ATI, seriously needs to consider being more aggressive with marketing. They are going to keep getting plowed into the ground if not. Corruption or no.


and for some other posts. Yes ATI should have the same advantages as NV. But who would you give more/all your time to. Someone who shows up with a bunch of hardware and money, on the ball and ready to work, or the company who calls 3 weeks late asking to be a part cause Nvidia is there and they are jelous?

[Ket]

I run my own IT business, and I can say right now compaines like nvidia I turn away at the door. Companies like ATi I deal with frequently. A harmonious partnership is much more productive than a dictatorship of a partnership. However, ATi do need to do a significantly better job in the marketing area.

[DilTech]

I run my own IT business, and I can say right now compaines like nvidia I turn away at the door. Companies like ATi I deal with frequently. A harmonious partnership is much more productive than a dictatorship of a partnership. However, ATi do need to do a significantly better job in the marketing area.

So you're one of the 5 companies that ATi will actually answer phone calls and requests for? Most people can't even get them to send test hardware...

[Ket]

I don't deal with ATi directly, just companies with principles similar to ATi, thats what I meant

[DilTech]

I don't deal with ATi directly, just companies with principles similar to ATi, thats what I meant

Then you have no idea what it's like trying to work with them... There's a reason everyone in the know says they give NO support to developers.

So, by your statement, you say a company that never assists with anything is the type of company you like to work with, and that's a harmonious relationship?

[Ursus]

It's a joke. And it seems to me that anyone defending NV's actions either has something to gain, directly or indirectly, or hasn't thought it through very well. It seems pretty simple I'm not sure why it's necessary to complicate the hlel out of it, unless of course the goal is to seed a little FUD.
And they are no doubt grateful for this kind of discussion, because even though it's clear to see that their actions are blatantly wrong, a little FUD goes a looooong way to muddy the water.
But all that needs to be remembered are: Assasin's Creed, Futuremark Vantage, and now Batman. And those are just the titles that we know about because they are so obviously skewed in nv's favor.

Yeah, TWIMTBP is such a benefit to consumers, but as long as the sheep keep blindly following along, nv will milk them for all they're worth.

Well said. Add to this the fact that they deliberately make physics not work on a computer that has catalyst installed and i think we have enough reason for anyone that cares about the consumer to boycot nvidia.

[DilTech]

Ursus, you're clearly still new to the hardware scene... A boycott of NVidia, ATi, Intel, or AMD would be worse for the hardware market than you'd ever imagine. If any of the 4 fell and died, their competitor would have free reign to do as they please, which would lead to a stagnation, unbelievably high prices, and eventually the end of pc gaming.

I mean, if that's what you want, then so be it...

[Ket]

Then you have no idea what it's like trying to work with them... There's a reason everyone in the know says they give NO support to developers.

So, by your statement, you say a company that never assists with anything is the type of company you like to work with, and that's a harmonious relationship?

Quite the contrary, the phillosophy with the companies I work with who have similar principles to ATi is very clear, their message is; any troubles let us know and we will help you out.

Ati can't be blamed because somebody at a games dev couldn't be bothered to pick up the damn phone.

[Ursus]

Ursus, you're clearly still new to the hardware scene... A boycott of NVidia, ATi, Intel, or AMD would be worse for the hardware market than you'd ever imagine. If any of the 4 fell and died, their competitor would have free reign to do as they please, which would lead to a stagnation, unbelievably high prices, and eventually the end of pc gaming.

I mean, if that's what you want, then so be it...

I do not think me boycotting nvidia is going to make them die. You are right of course, a world without nvidia would suck. So how should consumers let nvidia know they are going too far?