Nvidia implements 'time bomb' for ATI users running PhysX

[Solus Corvus]

So what if debris flies around differently on different clients. They aren't critical to the gameplay anyway, it's just visual. Just like entire PhysX thingie.

But it doesn't have to be - that's the point. PhysX or any other GPU physics could easily be used for gameplay physics. It's not used that way currently because developers don't want to cut half their potential customer base.

[STEvil]

and its done client side and is a huge problem

No, not really, on both counts.

Go play a couple games of deathmatch with the gravity gun.

[RejZoR]

But it doesn't have to be - that's the point. PhysX or any other GPU physics could easily be used for gameplay physics. It's not used that way currently because developers don't want to cut half their potential customer base.

Well, that's the main reason why we hate NVIDIA and current implementation of PhysX.

[Dami3n]

They are castrating their own cards, screwing their clients, loosing some extra sales and gaining bad reputation/haters in the process (even more).....
I can´t understand how this guys of Nvidia are making business with those "brilliant" ideas

[prava]

It sounds perfectly feasible to me.

Because we already have it.

I play a game of pool on-line with 12 others watching each game is random & so is each hit, everyone sees that ball fly around & interact with the other balls on the table exactly the same as everyone else, because the server is sending out the same results to everyone even tho the the balls gets it differently every time i take a shot.

I'm sorry but...where is random in a pool match? If you were talking about dice; but pool? There is nothing random on it.

So what if debris flies around differently on different clients. They aren't critical to the gameplay anyway, it's just visual. Just like entire PhysX thingie.

That debris can actually kill you in HL2: deathmatch...

[Final8ty]

They are castrating their own cards, screwing their clients, loosing some extra sales and gaining bad reputation/haters in the process (even more).....
I can´t understand how this guys of Nvidia are making business with those "brilliant" ideas

When you look at some of the comments here its clear why Nvidia are making business

[Final8ty]

I'm sorry but...where is random in a pool match? If you were talking about dice; but pool? There is nothing random on it.




That debris can actually kill you in HL2: deathmatch...

Oh right! I didn't notice that i was hitting the ball in the same place & power & spin every time & every shot was exactly the same & every game had the same out come.
Dice has a less predictable outcome because you have initially less initial control over it. but once things are set in motion then it gets calculated all the same.


And yeah HL2: deathmatch... is great fun.

[Ket]

I have a Asus M3N78 with a GF8200 IGP, which is currently disabled in favour of a overclocked HD3870 512MB. Anyone interested in the results if I enable the IGP and install the drivers and hack?

[MrMojoZ]

I have a Asus M3N78 with a GF8200 IGP, which is currently disabled in favour of a overclocked HD3870 512MB. Anyone interested in the results if I enable the IGP and install the drivers and hack?

What kind of options do you have for the IGP when using a card? I'm used to boards shutting down the IGP in this scenario if you don't choose them as the boot device.

[Ket]

If I remember correctly the BIOS has a option of what it looks for first when the IGP is enabled, but doesn't disable any add-in graphics card. Wouldn't take much effort if people want any specific details.

[Hell Hound]

I have a 3870 512 gddr4 that I can plug in,so we can compare Ageia ppu vs onboard Geforce 8200.

[Ket]

You're on I'll get to it later or tomorrow. I'm going to meet a hot girl in 3 months or so so deadicating lots of time to buffing up again

[Sn0wm@n]

am i the only one who realise the hydra chip solution by msi will not work...........

[pixelsptlk]

So nVidia spent money buying Ageia, developing Cuda, porting PhysX to run on Cuda capable hardware to when it's all done, offer PhysX for free (as most people here want) to it's direct competitor.

I would like to live in that business world where every company spends cash on something to improve it's own product and then runs directly at it's direct competitor to show it and share. It would be so cool.

As has been pointed out, this phrasing is a strawman.

No one wants Nvidia to offer Physx to ATI for free.

What people want, is the product that they purchased to work.

This isnt about ATI it is about paying Nvidia customers who bought an NV card for physx. Again, nowhere on the package does it state "Physx will not run if you have an ATI component in your system".

In one sense, NV could be considered guilty of false advertising.

[Luka_Aveiro]

Its not offering anything for free.

You need a NV card to run all that you have mentioned & i far as i know NV cards are not free so yes NV gets paid because people still have to buy a NV card.

And no one is asking & expecting Cuda & PhysX to run on ATI hardware.
It seems that you have not got a clue & think that this hack makes CUDA & PhysX run on ATI cards.

And you talk about worlds when yours is not even in the present one.

Still, you can't expect that a FEATURE of a specific product of a certain manufacturer to be compatible with it's direct competitor product as well, even though they share the same "functioning" environment. It makes no sense.

I am pretty sure no court would blame nVidia for not guaranteeing proper functioning of a feature of it's own hardware when a competitor's hardware is present on the same platform.

They are not obligated to make a feature of their own compatible with their competitor's products, therefore, they can avoid exposing it's own product/feature to a supposed non enjoyable/ non compatible/random experience by simply disabling that feature under specific conditions.

It's their feature, they decide how you can use it or not.

Don't agree? Don't buy.

Problem solved.

[Luka_Aveiro]

As has been pointed out, this phrasing is a strawman.

No one wants Nvidia to offer Physx to ATI for free.

What people want, is the product that they purchased to work.

This isnt about ATI it is about paying Nvidia customers who bought an NV card for physx. Again, nowhere on the package does it state "Physx will not run if you have an ATI component in your system".

In one sense, NV could be considered guilty of false advertising.

Except PhysX will run even if an ATI card is present. The catch is, PhysX and rendering must be processed exclusively on the very same nVidia GPU, while ATI will be doing nothing.

I repeat, they (nVidia) are not obligated to make a feature of their own compatible with their competitor's products, therefore, they can avoid exposing it's own product/feature to a supposed non enjoyable/non compatible/random experience by simply disabling that feature under specific conditions.

And do you know what you can do about it? Hack it, like it has been done before, or moan about it on some internet forum.

[Ket]

Omg not again. How many more times do you people need it spelled out? Allow me to try; I'll do it bullet-point style to keep the needed comprehension to a minimum.

1. People are not complaining about PhysX not working on ATi hardware
2. People ARE complaining about features not working on nvidias own hardware, which they paid good money for, just because a ATi card is detected.

By your logic, your saying if you bought a car and the accelerator / brakes didn't work together properly you wouldn't care. Their designed and work within the same "operational environment", just like graphics cards. Win 7 makes it possible for 2 graphics drivers to work together on the same system harmlessly, and synchroneously. Just like you would expect the relationship to work in a car engine and all of its components. nvidia have disabled their own hardware in a system simply if a ATi product is detected. Something which you can comparatively compare to a child throwing a tantrum because he/she has to share their toys. Only in the case of nvidia, they are disabling a feature which in no part communicates with the ATi card just because they don't want a consumer to run a card from the competition alongside their card. Again I must stress the nvidia card in NO way, shape, or form communicates with the ATi card. These practices from nvidia are nothing short of anti-competitive and intended only to be used to try and monopolise. If AMd/ATi chose to persue legal action, they would have another intel scenario on their hands, namely, getting a load of cash in compensation.

[Final8ty]

Still, you can't expect that a FEATURE of a specific product of a certain manufacturer to be compatible with it's direct competitor product as well, even though they share the same "functioning" environment. It makes no sense.

I am pretty sure no court would blame nVidia for not guaranteeing proper functioning of a feature of it's own hardware when a competitor's hardware is present on the same platform.

They are not obligated to make a feature of their own compatible with their competitor's products, therefore, they can avoid exposing it's own product/feature to a supposed non enjoyable/ non compatible/random experience by simply disabling that feature under specific conditions.

It's their feature, they decide how you can use it or not.

Don't agree? Don't buy.

Problem solved.

Its not about not agree because your simply wrong about that facts just as much as 4 + 4 = 6.

Phyxs GPU acceleration is not compatible with anything else but an NV GPU because its only running on the NV GPU.

If Phyxs was running on the ATI card then it would be called compatible. so unless the hack is making Phyxs run on the ATI or that people are asking for Phyxs to run on the ATI card then your comment is totally null & void & makes no sense at all, 4 + 4 = 6.

Phyxs is just a program that does not even need to be graphical aware just like the thousands of other programs running on windows that don't care or even need to know what the output GPU is.

[Solus Corvus]

Omg not again. How many more times do you people need it spelled out? Allow me to try; I'll do it bullet-point style to keep the needed comprehension to a minimum.

1. People are not complaining about PhysX not working on ATi hardware
2. People ARE complaining about features not working on nvidias own hardware, which they paid good money for, just because a ATi card is detected.

As I read it, hes saying that legally Nvidia doesn't have to give accelerated Physx to Nvidia card owners that want to run it beside an ATI card rendering because that's an untested environment. I agree but personally find that to be about the weakest excuse for corporate laziness ever. Yeah, ATI and Intel don't legally have to test their chipsets with competitor's hardware either, but you can bet that people would be complaining if either or both decided that their chipset drivers shouldn't work with Nvidia cards because they didn't feel like testing in that environment.

And we all know that it isn't about not being a tested environment, that's just an excuse. It used to work fine with older versions and works fine with the hack.

Don't agree? Don't buy.

False dichotomy. I'll take option 3: Don't agree, buy (if the product otherwise compares favorably), and hack. Or maybe I should just take your second option and not buy.

[Final8ty]

As I read it, hes saying that legally Nvidia doesn't have to give accelerated Physx to Nvidia card owners that want to run it beside an ATI card rendering because that's an untested environment. I agree but personally find that to be about the weakest excuse for corporate laziness ever. Yeah, ATI and Intel don't legally have to test their chipsets with competitor's hardware either, but you can bet that people would be complaining if either or both decided that their chipset drivers shouldn't work with Nvidia cards because they didn't feel like testing in that environment.

And we all know that it isn't about not being a tested environment, that's just an excuse. It used to work fine with older versions and works fine with the hack.


False dichotomy. I'll take option 3: Don't agree, buy (if the product otherwise compares favorably), and hack. Or maybe I should just take your second option and not buy.

But its impossible to test any hardware or software in every environment on a non closed platform, so that ones null.
Just imagine if all PC hardware & software came with such complete BS restrictions.

[zanzabar]

what happens if u have an intel igp will phsyX work.

also if u bought an NV card in the EU can u get a partial refund every time NV takes features away like this. people who bought fat ps3s got like 100 euros back when linux support was removed so since they removed the use as a PPU u should get money back from the retailer who then would get some back from the manufacture

[Solus Corvus]

But its impossible to test any hardware or software in every environment on a non closed platform, so that ones null.
Just imagine if all PC hardware & software came with such complete BS restrictions.

I agree that it's a weak excuse, but companies do it all the time. I don't know if it would stand up in court, but that's a different issue.

As for imagining a software and hardware industry where eulas are filled with such BS I don't have to - we live in that world right now.

[Final8ty]

I agree that it's a weak excuse, but companies do it all the time. I don't know if it would stand up in court, but that's a different issue.

As for imagining a software and hardware industry where eulas are filled with such BS I don't have to - we live in that world right now.

The difference with eulas is that they can & do get ignored.
And companies do it all the time but much more subtle & not so blatantly obvious on common activities.

[zanzabar]

The difference with eulas is that they can & do get ignored.
And companies do it all the time but much more subtle & not so blatantly obvious on common activities.

the EULA is supper seeded by any advertising from the manufacture or distributor, and the packaging. the EULA is also not leagaly binding in most places including the US and the EU if it goes against local, regional or national laws

[Final8ty]

the EULA is supper seeded by any advertising from the manufacture or distributor, and the packaging. the EULA is also not leagaly binding in most places including the US and the EU if it goes against local, regional or national laws

Indeed.