Batman Arkham City, no physics at all if you don't use physx ?

[BFG10K]

You are good with words, but not really good at reading or remember what you ask for. Let me remind you.

Please stop with the irrelevant rhetoric and provide evidence of your claims. You made the statement on top of that, AMD and Nvidia needs to pay MS for Dx, as well as studios who make games that uses it.

You need to provide evidence of that statement or retract it.

If you ain't searching for my evidence, but why do you ask me to provide one to begin with?

You made the statement so you provide the evidence. That’s how it works. I don't search for evidence of your statements.

About IP licensing and IP licensing policy.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal...ng/Policy.aspx
Official enough?

Please highlight on that page where it states there are licensing fees for DirectX on Windows. Thanks.

Show me the part where it explicitly stated that it does not require any additional rights when it comes to game developments. If you can't find it, then it isn't free.

Please highlight on that page where it states there are licensing fees for DirectX on Windows. Thanks.

The ball is at your court BFG.

Nope, it’s in yours. You made the statement so you either back it up or your retract it.

 

[ocre]

Am I asking for too much.....

What I have a hard time coming to terms with is the smoke and that stuff not looking all that impressive to begin with but once you turn it on...cripples performance. It's a little crazy....

how long have you been in PC gaming?

Lets take a review of skyrim...

http://benchmark3d.com/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-benchmark

"Going for maxed out settings might be a bad idea as you will lose 33% performance while gaining almost no image quality.....
"Maximum settings does not mean Ultra but all the available settings were checked and maxed out. You’ll see later that running the game on Ultra will improve performance dramatically without loosing too much image quality."

the ultra preset doesnt max out the shadows. you can go to the advanced tab and drop down the advanced functions to Max out the game. When maxing out the game this way the reviewer runs into some major issues at points in the game where:

"there are huge performance drops and stutter, the game becomes unplayable and FPS goes to below 5. While this happens the CPU at 100% usage and the GPU load goes to 30%. The reason behind this huge problem is that the shadows are “rendered” by the processor, a childish move from Bethesda. After lowering shadows detail to something lower than Ultra (not the preset setting), the issue was gone completely"

Welcome to PC gaming. The IQ gained from going past the ultra preset to Max in this title is almost undetectable. guess what? PhysX adds very noticeable objects to the scene which are from millions of calculations.

The highest (max) settings in skyrim adds very little anyone could ever noticed and has a huge massive 33% performance hit across the board and then at times the fps drop less than 5. unplayable! And its this way from pushing up the in game settings, which barely make any difference at all.

Advanced PhysX is something you will not miss in a game when enabled, it stands out to anyone looking. Its not only noticeable, it adds objects and smoke that interact to the movement of characters, etc. Its way noticeable.

Max settings on skyrim isnt.

If you dont think the effects are worth hit dont play wit it on. PC gaming. But to go on and on about physX like its such a terrible thing, well thats strange.

In PC gaming. everyday we enable settings with huge performance hits while adding almost indistinguishable, tiny bumps to IQ. I mean, seriously.

You dont have to like physX. When i dont like a setting, i turn it off. meaning i dont use it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You dont have to like physX. When i dont like a setting, i turn it off. meaning i dont use it.

Oh no, not the dreaded logic.
If you don't like something, you have to start threads about, posts about it, whine about...even if you think it's a waste of time and FLOPS...otherwise you are not one of the "cool" PhysX hatorz...*chough*

 

[Carfax83]

EA Origins has Batman AC on sale for 24.99 in case anyone's interested.. All the other retailers are still selling for full price, so it's a great deal..

 

[Seero]

Please stop with the irrelevant rhetoric and provide evidence of your claims. You made the statement on top of that, AMD and Nvidia needs to pay MS for Dx, as well as studios who make games that uses it.

You need to provide evidence of that statement or retract it.


You made the statement so you provide the evidence. That’s how it works. I don't search for evidence of your statements.


Please highlight on that page where it states there are licensing fees for DirectX on Windows. Thanks.


Please highlight on that page where it states there are licensing fees for DirectX on Windows. Thanks.


Nope, it’s in yours. You made the statement so you either back it up or your retract it.

First, I don't see any forum rules supporting what you are demanding from me. I don't need to comply to your demand in case you don't know that. If I feel like defending myself, I will. If you believe I am wrong, then prove it.

Keep in mind that most of those legal craps can't be used in any forums as that violates the NDA or EULA. Yes, I can't even quoted them without written permission. You can read the EULA yourself, but then you don't want to, so what can I do? Even if I can quote them, you will still take your spin at it, so why should I bother?

Is it my problem that you don't know how MS make its money? Not in my books.

As to your demand? Try again.

 

[Carfax83]

Man, this game is badass! :thumbsup: I've been playing for the last 3 hours, and I'm very impressed! I wish the DX11 path was working, but the game still looks and plays awesome in DX9 mode.

And the physx effects are cool as well. Although the game recommends a dedicated GTX 460 for physx on high, it runs just fine on my GTS 250 (GPU utilization hasn't breached 80% so it's got plenty of power)..

Should have figured though. Nvidia always exaggerates the physx hardware requirements. In Mafia 2, they recommended a GTX 285, but it also ran fine on my GTS 250 D:

 

[ViRGE]

First, I don't see any forum rules supporting what you are demanding from me.

The thing is that you're making a pretty great claim. BFG is not alone when he says that it's the first time he's ever heard that - I haven't heard anything like that before either. Traditionally developers don't need to license operating system APIs as the purpose of APIs is to encourage development, and Microsoft definitely wants developers to continue developing for Windows. So to claim that MS is charging AMD, NVIDIA, and software developers is a pretty extraordinary claim. And when you're making an extraordinary claim, it's always best to back it up with extraordinary proof.

 

[taltamir]

If you believe I am wrong, then prove it.

How? You claim it costs money, we claim its free.
If its free, how do you prove it?
You can download the directX development kit from MS website without paying anything
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=6812

That's is as far as you can go proving that its free, because its not like MS has written down "btw, directX doesn't cost money!" somewhere official.

But if it DID cost money, that would be written down.

 

[BFG10K]

First, I don't see any forum rules supporting what you are demanding from me. I don't need to comply to your demand in case you don't know that. If I feel like defending myself, I will. If you believe I am wrong, then prove it.

It’s been proven repeatedly. Free links to download the DirectX SDK and runtime, not to mention that quick searches on various developer forums reveal no licensing costs are present (e.g. http://www.gamedev.net/topic/362155-directx-license/).

There’s also no mention of DirectX licensing costs anywhere in the DirectX section of Microsoft’s website or any MSDN entry that I’ve been able to find.

Your “evidence” thus far has been telling us to Google “DirectX10 ION” and a link to some generic page about IP. That’s not evidence of what you’re claiming.

You told us there are DirectX licensing costs so it’s your job to explicitly demonstrate that these costs exist. If you can’t do that then your statement is unfounded in reality.

Keep in mind that most of those legal craps can't be used in any forums as that violates the NDA or EULA. Yes, I can't even quoted them without written permission. You can read the EULA yourself, but then you don't want to, so what can I do? Even if I can quote them, you will still take your spin at it, so why should I bother?

Are you implying you have some kind of insider information that you’re not allowed to share with us?

Is it my problem that you don't know how MS make its money? Not in my books.
As to your demand? Try again.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself further and just admit you were wrong.

 

[Outrage]

DirectX would never have grown to be the leading gfx api if it would cost the soft/hard devs money to use.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Nvidia pays the developers money to incorporate it. So its understandable if there's non on a non nvidia card. What are they paying for then. That's the gaming industry these days. If someone throws money around you take it. Minimize losses on the pc front

 

[wahdangun]

First, I don't see any forum rules supporting what you are demanding from me. I don't need to comply to your demand in case you don't know that. If I feel like defending myself, I will. If you believe I am wrong, then prove it.

Keep in mind that most of those legal craps can't be used in any forums as that violates the NDA or EULA. Yes, I can't even quoted them without written permission. You can read the EULA yourself, but then you don't want to, so what can I do? Even if I can quote them, you will still take your spin at it, so why should I bother?

Is it my problem that you don't know how MS make its money? Not in my books.

As to your demand? Try again.

hmm i think you forget one thing, if DX is not free then why there are TONS of FREE GAMES on windows that USE DIRECT X, heck the reason why PC games is much cheaper than thair console part is because there are no license fee.


please just admit it you are wrong:sneaky:

 

[wahdangun]

Nvidia pays the developers money to incorporate it. So its understandable if there's non on a non nvidia card. What are they paying for then. That's the gaming industry these days. If someone throws money around you take it. Minimize losses on the pc front

yeah i can understand it too, but why the heck they blocking my hard earned nvdia card from using it as a physix card with my AMD card ????

 

[taltamir]

You told us there are DirectX licensing costs so it’s your job to explicitly demonstrate that these costs exist. If you can’t do that then your statement is unfounded in reality.

To be fair, in an argument its the job of both sides to present evidence. If neither can present any then they are BOTH talking out of their nether regions and anyone listening in should file this as "unknown". Although sometimes its a lot of effort for a repeated argument with someone who isn't going to change their mind so they are just not willing to waste their time.
It isn't fair to say he is the only one that should present evidence...

However, we did present evidence! Our evidence is that the SDK is free to download and makes no mention of any price.
He posted a link to a page about IP unrelated to directX and claimed it as evidence (it isn't).
Googling it I found lots of forums where people asked this and the answer was always "its free", with some mention of pre 2005 years where it required MS visual studio (which cost money)... then again, it still requires MS windows... which costs money. But that is a highly indirect link.

So, I am going to go with "it's free" based on the current presented evidence.

 

[Seero]

The thing is that you're making a pretty great claim. BFG is not alone when he says that it's the first time he's ever heard that - I haven't heard anything like that before either. Traditionally developers don't need to license operating system APIs as the purpose of APIs is to encourage development, and Microsoft definitely wants developers to continue developing for Windows. So to claim that MS is charging AMD, NVIDIA, and software developers is a pretty extraordinary claim. And when you're making an extraordinary claim, it's always best to back it up with extraordinary proof.

I have no problems being challenge on the validity of my statements. I have problems with the attitude from some.

Am I the only one who know that Directx is proprietary to MS? Does people even know what that means? It means, you need a license to use it in any way. Like any EULA, it grants the right to use, but there are more. It is very specific and can not be assumed. As to the SDK, you can use it and program with it. They don't change you extra by using it to program, but they want cover any other license upon using any other things.

You stated that is a extraordinary claim, but clearly you need a license to use it. No license are really free. Some doesn't charge you money if you are willing to use it in a certain way. Some license can be brought, some license can only by rent, some cannot by acquired, and there are some other.

If you think it is ridiculous by acquiring license on DirectX usage(the terminology inaccurate, but you know what I mean) from MS, then you have not seen ANYTHING in the read world. Did not you know the lawsuit going on between Apple, Google and Samsung? It is nothing but patient license infringements. Free? Yeah right. From a button to the slider you unlock the phones with, if one does have the appropriate patient, then you NEED to have the appropriate license to use them. If you are not making money from it, then there is nothing to sue. If you are making money, then they want their share. They don't have to expressly state what you cannot do. If they did not state that you can, then you cannot. If you are above to sell a piece of software that will make millions of dollars, that use DirectX API and believe that you don't need to pay anything to MS, and take my advise and get a lawyer to find out for you.

Guess what, MS is claiming half of the Android phones infringed their patient license and are asking them to pay. Well I don't see what is propriety to MS on an Android phone, so I immediately say that is BS, but then may be due to my lack of knowledge to see the whole thing. Maybe MS rightfully deserves their share. Someone will know the answer to that, but not me.

Back to square one, again, DirectX covers a lot of things, not just gaming. Direct3D API is what most called DirectX, which is just a subset of DirectX. DirectX doesn't come with Windows OS, it operates under Windows OS. It is something that either comes with games or you need to download. We don't own everything MS created or own just by getting a license to use windows. Whenever a EULA pops, it means you are about to be given the license to some types of usage under its defined condition. You see EULA all the time, but you probably never read one completely, which is usual, but you can't say you were not informed.

Other than the license granted by accepting EULA, one can also acquire different forms of licensing. Another often used form of licensing is Commercial licensing, which 10x more expensive than the personal licensing. Unigine Dx11 benchmark is free right? Well it is free only under a specific condition. If you want to use it to make money, you will need Heaven DX11 Benchmark Pro. shocked?

DirectX runtime is the same, feel free the use them, but before you do, read the EULA. If you are going to simply use it to play games or run programs that needs it, then you know need any other licenses not included within the EULA. XNA is not free, and is a tool to code for xbox. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA

The creator is paid 70% of the total revenue from their game sales as a baseline. Microsoft originally planned to take an additional percentage of revenue if they provided additional marketing for a game, but this policy was rescinded in March 2009, leaving the flat rate intact regardless of promotion.[20]

Yeah that is right, they pays you 70% as a baseline, not you pay them 30% as a baseline. Shocking? Don't be, as the tool itself requires yearly fee, or license that last only one year. Yes, you think XNA has nothing to do with DirectX right? Well the first X of Xbox refers to the X in DirectX. In other words, Xbox really means DirectX box. You need to pay MS with or without using toolset from MS for a game that runs on Xbox.

It seems it isn't an extraordinary claim when people say AMD needs to pay Nvidia to support PhysX. It is an extraordinary claim when I say AMD needs to pay MS to support DirectX. Yes, the terminology is wrong, and if you are picky, you can wrote books on the wrong terminology I use. That doesn't change the fact that AMD and Nvidia needs to acquire license from MS for DirectX.

Who is actually paying all this money? US!!!!!111!!!

 

[NIGELG]

Huge wall of text,,,,but you are wrong.

 

[Seero]

Huge wall of text,,,,but you are wrong.

You can claim that I am wrong. I won't ask you to retract or submit detail proofs as quotes in a post. If you really wants to show that I am wrong, then it is another story.

 

[Seero]

...
He posted a link to a page about IP unrelated to directX and claimed it as evidence (it isn't)...

I don't disagree what you said about evidence, but was that statement in question what I really wanted to say about PhysX? Or did someone simply try to derail the topic?

The prove of SDK is that one can use it, and codes that are written from it does not require extra licensing. Unread engine is also free to use. You can build a program out of it without the need of paying extra. However, if you want to make money out of it, then it is a completely different story.

Again, you need to read the EULA carefully. If it does not state that you can, then you can not assume you can. Here is a list of trademarks that belongs to Microsoft. You need a license to use it in your webpage or print them on the box of your product. The symbol ® is from federal registration which can only be acquired after the USPTO actually registers a mark. See directX there?
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/IPLicensing/Policy.aspx

Do you see anything about MS' IP are freewares? I don't. I see them saying that they license their patents under varies terms.

Why can't PS3 runs DirectX? Is it because they simply don't want to run what belongs to MS, or is it because of licensing issues. You decide.

If you wonder why you never seen anything about pricing, then take a look at the first step of certifying as a Games for Windows.

 

[ViRGE]

Seero, you make several good points. However I think you're conflating several issues, which is how you're getting to the idea that AMD and NVIDIA are paying MS.

Am I the only one who know that Directx is proprietary to MS? Does people even know what that means? It means, you need a license to use it in any way. Like any EULA, it grants the right to use, but there are more. It is very specific and can not be assumed. As to the SDK, you can use it and program with it. They don't change you extra by using it to program, but they want cover any other license upon using any other things.

You stated that is a extraordinary claim, but clearly you need a license to use it. No license are really free. Some doesn't charge you money if you are willing to use it in a certain way. Some license can be brought, some license can only by rent, some cannot by acquired, and there are some other.

I can't speak for BFG, but at least in my case I was referring to paid licenses. You are technically correct (the best kind of correct!): you do need to license DirectX in the form of a EULA to use it. But no money exchanges hands, it's free (as in beer) for developers to use. No one is paying MS for any license rights to develop hardware compliant with Direct3D, or to develop games for Windows using DirectX.

If you think it is ridiculous by acquiring license on DirectX usage(the terminology inaccurate, but you know what I mean) from MS, then you have not seen ANYTHING in the read world. Did not you know the lawsuit going on between Apple, Google and Samsung? It is nothing but patient license infringements. Free? Yeah right. From a button to the slider you unlock the phones with, if one does have the appropriate patient, then you NEED to have the appropriate license to use them. If you are not making money from it, then there is nothing to sue. If you are making money, then they want their share. They don't have to expressly state what you cannot do. If they did not state that you can, then you cannot. If you are above to sell a piece of software that will make millions of dollars, that use DirectX API and believe that you don't need to pay anything to MS, and take my advise and get a lawyer to find out for you.

Guess what, MS is claiming half of the Android phones infringed their patient license and are asking them to pay. Well I don't see what is propriety to MS on an Android phone, so I immediately say that is BS, but then may be due to my lack of knowledge to see the whole thing. Maybe MS rightfully deserves their share. Someone will know the answer to that, but not me.

At this point I believe you're conflating the Android issue. MS is indeed going after Android device manufacturers. They believe that Android infringes on their patents, and that they are not receiving just compensation for the use of those technologies. The key concept here being that MS only receives compensation for their patents when users buy a phone using Windows Phone 7; Android users are not paying MS to use Android, hence the patent claims to collect royalties from phone manufacturers.

There is no similar patent claims involving DirectX and Microsoft that I am aware of, and I can't find anything on MS's licensing page. Even if MS owns patents relevant to DirectX, software using the DirectX API would be in the clear because the implementation of the technology would be in DirectX itself.

Back to square one, again, DirectX covers a lot of things, not just gaming. Direct3D API is what most called DirectX, which is just a subset of DirectX. DirectX doesn't come with Windows OS, it operates under Windows OS. It is something that either comes with games or you need to download. We don't own everything MS created or own just by getting a license to use windows. Whenever a EULA pops, it means you are about to be given the license to some types of usage under its defined condition. You see EULA all the time, but you probably never read one completely, which is usual, but you can't say you were not informed.

Actually DirectX does come with Windows. It has for years. MS frequently updates the API however - both to fix bugs and to add features - which is what we're downloading. We don't own it because we don't own Windows (you're licensing it to use it when you "buy" it), hence the need for EULAs.

Other than the license granted by accepting EULA, one can also acquire different forms of licensing. Another often used form of licensing is Commercial licensing, which 10x more expensive than the personal licensing. Unigine Dx11 benchmark is free right? Well it is free only under a specific condition. If you want to use it to make money, you will need Heaven DX11 Benchmark Pro. shocked?

I don't think anyone would be shocked. 3DMark is the same. Even Unreal Engine 3 follows this method. Non-commercial use is free, commercial use is not. However I must admit I don't see what this has to do with DirectX. All of those packages are tools/middleware, they are not Windows APIs.

DirectX runtime is the same, feel free the use them, but before you do, read the EULA. If you are going to simply use it to play games or run programs that needs it, then you know need any other licenses not included within the EULA. XNA is not free, and is a tool to code for xbox. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA


Yeah that is right, they pays you 70% as a baseline, not you pay them 30% as a baseline. Shocking? Don't be, as the tool itself requires yearly fee, or license that last only one year. Yes, you think XNA has nothing to do with DirectX right? Well the first X of Xbox refers to the X in DirectX. In other words, Xbox really means DirectX box. You need to pay MS with or without using toolset from MS for a game that runs on Xbox.

At this point you'd seem to be conflating the Xbox with DirectX. DirectX is one of the APIs that can be used to program for the Xbox, but that's where the similarities stop. The Xbox is a closed device that is operated on the razor & blade model: MS sells the hardware for cheap (razor), and then makes their profit on the software (blade).

Any game developed for the Xbox, including indie games as part of the XBL Indie Games program, must be approved by MS and MS is paid a portion of all sales as part of that agreement. This is enforced by the hardware requiring a MS cryptographic signature in order to run the game. XBL Indie Games takes that one step further by having MS be the publisher, which means they collect the sales and then pay the developer their share. This is consistent with other "app store" models such as the Android Market and iTunes App Store.

Getting back to DirectX, there is no such system in place. Developers do not need to pay Microsoft to publish a game for Windows using DirectX. There aren't any crypto keys required to run an executable on Windows.

It seems it isn't an extraordinary claim when people say AMD needs to pay Nvidia to support PhysX. It is an extraordinary claim when I say AMD needs to pay MS to support DirectX. Yes, the terminology is wrong, and if you are picky, you can wrote books on the wrong terminology I use. That doesn't change the fact that AMD and Nvidia needs to acquire license from MS for DirectX.

Who is actually paying all this money? US!!!!!111!!!

Without getting too far sidetracked on DirectX, it's middleware from NVIDIA. NVIDIA will not port it to run on AMD's hardware unless it's paid. It's nothing like DirectX, which is an API with a hardware abstraction layer (HAL) that allows anyone to develop a device that the API can work with by implementing the functions of the API. AMD literally can't run PhysX without NVIDIA's approval.

Meanwhile, yes, it is an extraordinary claim to say that NVIDIA and AMD need to pay MS to support DirectX. I'm in complete agreement that they need licenses, which MS grants freely. But there's nothing to support the notion that they're paying MS for those licenses.

Why can't PS3 runs DirectX? Is it because they simply don't want to run what belongs to MS, or is it because of licensing issues. You decide.

I would hope this is self evident: this is because MS owns DirectX and declines to license it to Sony (or anyone else) to implement a complete DirectX-compatible API. There is a large difference between using an API as a developer, and implementing that same API on another platform.

If you wonder why you never seen anything about pricing, then take a look at the first step of certifying as a Games for Windows.

Games for Windows is not DirectX. It's a Microsoft-backed brand for consumer users. "The brand represents a standardized technical certification program and online service for Windows games, bringing a measure of regulation to the PC game market in much the same way that console manufacturers regulate their platforms". A game does not need to be GfW certified to be sold for Windows, as evidenced by the very large number of games that are not (BF3, Portal 2, etc).

 

[Seero]

It’s been proven repeatedly. Free links to download the DirectX SDK and runtime, not to mention that quick searches on various developer forums reveal no licensing costs are present (e.g. http://www.gamedev.net/topic/362155-directx-license/).

You call forum post as "A link to a reputable page "? Well you should be more specific next time.

There’s also no mention of DirectX licensing costs anywhere in the DirectX section of Microsoft’s website or any MSDN entry that I’ve been able to find.

NDA. DirectX is MS's IP, and therefore that is the most relevant page you can find about MS's IP License policies.

Your “evidence” thus far has been telling us to Google “DirectX10 ION” and a link to some generic page about IP. That’s not evidence of what you’re claiming.

So Nvidia ION LE was not certified as Dx10, yet with the correct "hack", it runs with any issues. Why? This is actually the exact scenario of Batman:AA's AA.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/nvidia-ion-le-hack-adds-directx-10-support-raises-interesting-q/

...we think it's a pretty good guess that NVIDIA is merely adhering to Microsoft licensing requirements here, and that in the long run crippling an existing chipset is cheaper than developing an entirely new one for an OS that's likely to be phased out sooner than later.

What we know is it does not officially work, but it does by simple "hacks". SLI on AMD mobo is the same thing. Once licensing issue is solved, then hardware magically works. You probably believe it magic, I don't.

You told us there are DirectX licensing costs so it’s your job to explicitly demonstrate that these costs exist. If you can’t do that then your statement is unfounded in reality.

My job? Are you paying me?

...AMD/nVidia is not paying Microsoft for DirectX and neither are developers making commercial games with it.

Right, your forum quote is a solid proof. Mine from Microsoft's official site? Well I need to quote those particular lines out.

Are you implying you have some kind of insider information that you’re not allowed to share with us?

Please, stop embarrassing yourself further and just admit you were wrong.

Embarrassing myself? Is this a personal attack or simply a troll? Educate me.

 

[Seero]

Too long, didn't quote them all. Let me know if I miss any questions you will like me to answer.

...I would hope this is self evident: this is because MS owns DirectX and declines to license it to Sony (or anyone else) to implement a complete DirectX-compatible API. There is a large difference between using an API as a developer, and implementing that same API on another platform...

My claim has 2 parts,
a) HW manufacturers needs to acquire license from MS if any IPs are used.
b) Software creator needs to acquire license from MS if any IPs are used.

To be more precise, I said that Nvidia/AMD paid to implement Dx10/11, and game developers also needs to pay MS for that matter.

There are really no need for me to defend a or b, it is trivial. Can I found solid proof of Nvidia/AMD paid to implement Dx10/11? No, I can not. Can I get a piece of evidence indicating that Nvidia and/or AMD may need to pay to operate Dx10/11 on their hardware? Yes, the ION LE case. It is suppose to be simple, but no, the thread is severely derailed by BFG10K.

I used the word PAID, which can easily be understood as direct money transfer. That isn't not what I mean, not this specific as I don't know if it is in the form of money. Instead, they give something out in return. Yes, I should have said "they need to acquire licenses", but really? This is like picking bones from eggs.

Lets pick Batman AA: AA is an example. PhysX, Rocksteady use PhysX as their physics engine. Did they have the licenses from Nvidia? Yes, did they pay for them or exchange something for them? I don't know, but I will think it is the latter. We do know the game came with the Video card upon purchase. Does Eidos get a cut from the sales? I don't know. Does Rocksteady get a cut from the sales? I don't know. I do believe that Rocksteady gets paid for those coupons, and I don't think Nvidia paid full price for this coupons either. How did Rocksteady PAID Nvidia if it isn't with those coupons, then what else? It is obvious that they have features that only works on Nvidia cards right? Didn't we have pages and pages of arguments based upon something that is actually so close to my extraordinary claim? Did anyone EVER asked for solid proof of direct money transfer from Nvidia to Rocksteady or retract the statement? Please enlighten me.

Does that mean PhysX is free? Well no. It is free for you to play with in terms of programming. I honestly don't know if Nvidia will take a cut on the sales. Well, having TWIMTBP over there and offer help and stuff, I would only say it is fair. Does PhysX work on AMD setup? No, not even if they actually have a Nvidia card to drive it. Can AMD write a driver and run it on an Nvidia card so people with AMD setup can enjoy PhysX too? No. There are lots of hacked drivers out there which enables this setup, but none is for sale, why? Well, do I really need to explain?

How did Rocksteady Paid MS? Well I really don't know. I believe they paid by sharing revenue (not profit) per unit sold. I don't know if those from coupons are counted. Oh wait, What is Games of Windows Live doing in the game? I brought it from steam and I really don't need it. How can I uninstall GFWL?

The key is, we all know DirectX is proprietary, and some of us will like to believe that MS will simply give them out for free. Well, I don't recall anything from MS is free. Windows 7 Home Basic 64 bit Edition 8 GB RAM cap? Software limitation such? Yes, off topic to the new topic, I know. In the real world, nothing is free, but money isn't the only medium for exchange or trade. May be you can persuade me to believe that Santa Claus is actually the nick name of Bill, but I have yet been convinced.

The real issue was some of us like to see PhysX FREE for everyone's use. People tried OpenGL claim in the name of Open-standard, and some even suggested DirectX, as it is a standard. I have a problem with that, and went on explaining. DirectX is proprietary, platform specific code path, with is not better than PhysX, which is proprietary, has code paths on specific platforms. Why is having AMD paid Nvidia for PhysX such a bad idea, where it is perfectly okay for both Nvidia/AMD paid for DirectX? This was what I really wanted to say! Review my original post and see if I am lying.

Now, the more I explain, the more that appears that I am bad mouthing MS. Well you work to get paid. DirectX isn't free, but it is far better then OpenGL. The time saved by coding under DX far surpass its price. On top of DX, other tools are needed, like debugging tools. Some are free, some are not. You guess with one works bettter. When you are working under gun, having gamers QQing all over the web for a 2 week delay, the cost of tools really ain't a problem if it existed. It always has been like that.

 

[ViRGE]

My claim has 2 parts,
a) HW manufacturers needs to acquire license from MS if any IPs are used.
b) Software creator needs to acquire license from MS if any IPs are used.

To be more precise, I said that Nvidia/AMD paid to implement Dx10/11, and game developers also needs to pay MS for that matter.

There are really no need for me to defend a or b, it is trivial.

Agreed. There's no argument that hardware and software developers are licensed.

Can I found solid proof of Nvidia/AMD paid to implement Dx10/11? No, I can not. Can I get a piece of evidence indicating that Nvidia and/or AMD may need to pay to operate Dx10/11 on their hardware? Yes, the ION LE case. It is suppose to be simple, but no, the thread is severely derailed by BFG10K.

Unfortunately the ION LE isn't the smoking gun you think it is. A quick trace on the "MS did it" line of thought goes back to Slashgear, an unreliable blog with no real editorial control. Not to drag them through the mud, but they've published many poorly sourced statements in the past. For a statement like that I would want to see it from AnandTech or another site with a high editorial standard and who specializes in PC hardware.

ION LE is NVIDIA's doing. NVIDIA is the master of price discrimination; the same GPUs are used in anything between a $300 GeForce card to a $3500 Quadro card. ION LE was a discounted ION chipset to go after the netbook/nettop market by disabling DX10 in return for a lower cost. NVIDIA was willing to take a lower margin to move more IONs, and doing it in this manner would avoid undercutting the DX10-capable ION.

Lets pick Batman AA: AA is an example. PhysX, Rocksteady use PhysX as their physics engine. Did they have the licenses from Nvidia? Yes, did they pay for them or exchange something for them? I don't know, but I will think it is the latter. We do know the game came with the Video card upon purchase. Does Eidos get a cut from the sales? I don't know. Does Rocksteady get a cut from the sales? I don't know. I do believe that Rocksteady gets paid for those coupons, and I don't think Nvidia paid full price for this coupons either. How did Rocksteady PAID Nvidia if it isn't with those coupons, then what else? It is obvious that they have features that only works on Nvidia cards right? Didn't we have pages and pages of arguments based upon something that is actually so close to my extraordinary claim? Did anyone EVER asked for solid proof of direct money transfer from Nvidia to Rocksteady or retract the statement? Please enlighten me.

If you check the PhysX developer agreement, it's free for use unless you need the source code. I don't know if Rockstead needed the source, but it's unlikely. As for the free copies of the game, NVIDIA has done this promotion many times before: they buy a vast number of copies in bulk, getting a discount due to that along with the fact that they provide advertising for the game. Rocksteady didn't pay NV, NV paid Rocksteady.

The key is, we all know DirectX is proprietary, and some of us will like to believe that MS will simply give them out for free. Well, I don't recall anything from MS is free. Windows 7 Home Basic 64 bit Edition 8 GB RAM cap? Software limitation such? Yes, off topic to the new topic, I know. In the real world, nothing is free, but money isn't the only medium for exchange or trade. May be you can persuade me to believe that Santa Claus is actually the nick name of Bill, but I have yet been convinced.

MS isn't giving it out for free. You're paying for it when you buy Windows. Developers get to use it for free because it's applications that make Windows worth using.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

yeah i can understand it too, but why the heck they blocking my hard earned nvdia card from using it as a physix card with my AMD card ????

Because if a Amd card is detected physx is disabled. Nvidia payed for it and its a nvidia function or whatever its called only thing. But we all know that hacks on how to bypass that so thats not much of a issue anymore unless they stop updating it

 

[cmdrdredd]

how long have you been in PC gaming?

Lets take a review of skyrim...

http://benchmark3d.com/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-benchmark

"Going for maxed out settings might be a bad idea as you will lose 33% performance while gaining almost no image quality.....
"Maximum settings does not mean Ultra but all the available settings were checked and maxed out. You’ll see later that running the game on Ultra will improve performance dramatically without loosing too much image quality."

the ultra preset doesnt max out the shadows. you can go to the advanced tab and drop down the advanced functions to Max out the game. When maxing out the game this way the reviewer runs into some major issues at points in the game where:

"there are huge performance drops and stutter, the game becomes unplayable and FPS goes to below 5. While this happens the CPU at 100% usage and the GPU load goes to 30%. The reason behind this huge problem is that the shadows are “rendered” by the processor, a childish move from Bethesda. After lowering shadows detail to something lower than Ultra (not the preset setting), the issue was gone completely"

Welcome to PC gaming. The IQ gained from going past the ultra preset to Max in this title is almost undetectable. guess what? PhysX adds very noticeable objects to the scene which are from millions of calculations.

The highest (max) settings in skyrim adds very little anyone could ever noticed and has a huge massive 33% performance hit across the board and then at times the fps drop less than 5. unplayable! And its this way from pushing up the in game settings, which barely make any difference at all.

Advanced PhysX is something you will not miss in a game when enabled, it stands out to anyone looking. Its not only noticeable, it adds objects and smoke that interact to the movement of characters, etc. Its way noticeable.

Max settings on skyrim isnt.

If you dont think the effects are worth hit dont play wit it on. PC gaming. But to go on and on about physX like its such a terrible thing, well thats strange.

In PC gaming. everyday we enable settings with huge performance hits while adding almost indistinguishable, tiny bumps to IQ. I mean, seriously.

You dont have to like physX. When i dont like a setting, i turn it off. meaning i dont use it.

*Yawn* I can guarantee I've been PC gaming longer than you have...

Further I never said I hate physx. Your particular quote from me mentioned performance hit. NOBODY, and I do mean NOBODY will say that physx in Batman: AC runs good unless you're running a crazy card like a 570 just for Physx. Maybe if you have SLI it'll be alright, crossfire doesn't have good scaling from what I've read. I find it pretty unbelievable that my GTX 295 being used for physx still gets below 20fps and in Batman: AA and every other game/test I have for physx reflects great performance from it. Maybe the game just needs an update, maybe drivers at this point. Who knows. This is in DX9 BTW.
Also...where did you get 5fps in skyrim? I'm running everything maxed, sliders and all. Never below 20.

yeah i can understand it too, but why the heck they blocking my hard earned nvdia card from using it as a physix card with my AMD card ????

hack it like I did. Still, this game runs below 20fps at many times when I set physx on normal when I run my GTX 295 for physx and my 6950 runs everything else in DX9 at 1920x1200 no AA. Turn AA to 4x MSAA and physx off and it never drops below 40. It's pretty bad.

Maybe you just need SLI to get it working or something. With as old an engine as this game uses I think it's pretty sad that it runs as poorly. The textures are horrid at times.

 

[railven]

Not sure if anyone even cares anymore about this, but:

For AMD users, get the 11.11b Hotfix driver, it increased my performance in the 80% range on a 5870.

For those using AMD + GeForce hardware for PhsyX (ie me) don't use the latest PhysX software - it has a bug. Use the version including with the Forcware 285.62 WHQL driver, ending in 1062.

Installed the PhysX Mod from NQHF and remove the physixdevice.dll file from the binaries folder.

System:
Core i7 930 @ 3.6Ghz
12GBs G.Skill Pi DDR3 1600
Radeon HD 5870 2GB using Cata 11.11b
GeForce 9800 GTX+ (PhysX Card) using 285.62
PhysX 9.11.1062


DX11 + PhysX