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

[ViRGE]

Why am I the only one who needs to backup my statements where others can just state it? Where is the proof that MS doesn't get a share from the revenue made by a game that use Dx code path? All I see is "Oh MS wants ppl to use DX, so it is free as we brought windows." Really? To end user, that is the case. To the studio that made the game? I don't think so. My claim is said to be extraordinary.

Your claim is extraordinary because it flies in the face of both common knowledge and how APIs traditionally operate. You've never had to pay an OS vendor to develop a product for a computer OS. The APIs for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS have always been free to develop against. This is because it's applications that add value to an OS; without applications an OS is useless.

You don't have to pay to use Win32. You don't have to pay to use .NET. You don't have to pay to use Cocoa. You don't have to pay to use POSIX. So what makes DirectX so different that you're convinced that Microsoft is taking a share of revenue from every single developer out there who has used DirectX? And why isn't there anyone out there whining about the fact that they're being charged, or complaining that they've been sued by Microsoft for using DirectX without paying Microsoft?

Microsoft XNA is a tool made by MS to develop games. Did you miss that? It has a yearly license fee of 99 USD. Did you miss that? Creators, referring to game developers are being paid 70% of the revenue of sales as a baseline. Is that not a proof of game devs payment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA

Of course, it doesn't explicitly state that part of it is for licensing a certain right to feature DirectX. It isn't a proof, but an evidence.

You're confusing the XBLA App Hub with DirectX. You have to pay to develop for the Xbox 360, because it's a closed system and Microsoft recovers their costs by taking a share of revenue from developers. This is not how Windows operates.

 

[Seero]

Your claim is extraordinary...

In that case, supply proofs to your claims, you made quite a few.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Cmdrdredd what your gpu usage when running batman ac on dx9, my usage stays in the 50's yet I'm getting similar dip in frames. Just curious cause the game looks like it should be pushing my Gtx 570 much more then that.

Definitely wouldn't be surprised if its another bug with this game.

Vsync off it goes from 20-50% on the main GPU and the physx GPU never goes past 40% that I ever saw.

I just finished the game and it's actually quite good. DX11 didn't work right and I don't think I'll be playing through it again or trying to 100% it just to see the DX11 stuff.

Anyway it doesn't seem to be using the GPU a ton.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is the explanation a knowledgeable guy (Novum) on another forum had to say concerning the body of water:



I'm not a graphics programmer so I can't say for certain why the body of water is there, but it seems ridiculous to attribute it to some conspiracy against AMD and AMD hardware users.

He's saying basically the same thing I did. I will grant that in the original game the load was "minimal". I don't know that to be fact, but I'll accept it. Although their engine is very inefficient in the way it calls models if that's the case. As I said, and he states also, the load calculating the tessellated geometry (vertices) is substantial. It's hurting everyone's performance. It doesn't effect nVidia users as badly as it does AMD users. This is why it's fine with them. It's not a big stretch to apply the same reasoning to nVidia themselves, who are a major sponsor of the game. They are fine with it because it hurts their competition more. As a result it skews benchmarks in their favor. It does nothing positive to nVidia users game experience though. People who demand a written confession from nVidia or the devs are just being obtuse, because that's never going to happen.

 

[toyota]

Vsync off it goes from 20-50% on the main GPU and the physx GPU never goes past 40% that I ever saw.

I just finished the game and it's actually quite good. DX11 didn't work right and I don't think I'll be playing through it again or trying to 100% it just to see the DX11 stuff.

Anyway it doesn't seem to be using the GPU a ton.

it has a 62fps like all UE 3 engine games so of course its not going to fully use your gpu.

 

[cmdrdredd]

He's saying basically the same thing I did. I will grant that in the original game the load was "minimal". I don't know that to be fact, but I'll accept it. Although their engine is very inefficient in the way it calls models if that's the case. As I said, and he states also, the load calculating the tessellated geometry (vertices) is substantial. It's hurting everyone's performance. It doesn't effect nVidia users as badly as it does AMD users. This is why it's fine with them. It's not a big stretch to apply the same reasoning to nVidia themselves, who are a major sponsor of the game. They are fine with it because it hurts their competition more. As a result it skews benchmarks in their favor. It does nothing positive to nVidia users game experience though. People who demand a written confession from nVidia or the devs are just being obtuse, because that's never going to happen.

No demands, I just fail to see how a game like Battlefield 3 can run above 50fps on ultra and another game gets 20 and doesn't look half as good or have half the stuff going on. Yeah the engines are completely different and I get that. In my opinion it's either laziness or bloat to make the numbers look low on purpose so people would say "hey this is the most demanding thing ever!".

it has a 62fps like all UE 3 engine games so of course its not going to fully use your gpu.

I was answering a direct question. I don't need a refresher course on a 4 year old engine.

 

[AdamK47]

The PC version is getting 91% on Metacritic despite this huge DX11 problem. Go figure.

I certainly have the hardware for it, so I'm going to wait for a DX11 fix.

 

[ViRGE]

In that case, supply proofs to your claims, you made quite a few.

Fundamentally I can't prove something absolutely doesn't exist, that's logically flawed. But you are the one claiming MS is charging developers, and that is something that if it were true could be proved.

I can find ready proof that they're charging Xbox developers, I can find ready proof that they are charging Windows Phone developers, I can find ready proof that Apple is charging iPhone developers, I can find ready proof that Sony is charging PS3 developers. Do you know what's different about all of those systems? They're all closed systems.

Computers are open, you have never, ever needed to pay to develop for them. And that's why it can't easily be proved, because no one writes down "developing for Windows is free" because it's implicit - it has always been free. Honestly I don't know how else to explain it to you. You're driving everyone up the wall here because you're making such a ridiculous claim, when that's not how things have ever worked.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The PC version is getting 91% on Metacritic despite this huge DX11 problem. Go figure.

I certainly have the hardware for it, so I'm going to wait for a DX11 fix.

Cause it's a good game that's all. I finished it and didn't miss DX11 one bit. I didn't get 100%, but did a few of the side missions and challenge levels.

 

[toyota]

No demands, I just fail to see how a game like Battlefield 3 can run above 50fps on ultra and another game gets 20 and doesn't look half as good or have half the stuff going on. Yeah the engines are completely different and I get that. In my opinion it's either laziness or bloat to make the numbers look low on purpose so people would say "hey this is the most demanding thing ever!".




I was answering a direct question. I don't need a refresher course on a 4 year old engine.

what is with your attitude? all these gpu usage numbers can be misleading since the game is capped at 62fps. and forgive me for not realizing you know everything but others may not realize thats why their gpu is not getting fully utilized.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Because AMD has 1/8 the tessellation performance, because it thought such high capability for tessellation is not necessary and improved the chip in other aspects. And the claim is that such high levels of tessellation as to crash performance on AMD cards does not improve discernible visual quality. Aka, cheating.

I have yet to see enough evidence to settle those claims. But they don't seem totally baseless. See crysis 2 invisible ocean
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21404/3

Note that this DOES harm performance for nvidia cards. It just harms AMD cards much much more.


I am going to need to see proof of that claim.

Not this BS again.
Both Crysis and Crysis 2 does this...and you want to blame tessellation? :thumbsdown:

You already forgot this thread?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2185654

Stop with the false accusations in defence of AMD's subpar tesseation engine.

 

[railven]

Are we all playing the same Batman game?

I'm getting 90% + GPU load and 50%+ PhysX load on my setup. I'm using my Radeon 5870 and a 9800 GTX+ for offloading.

Here is a screenshot of the benchmark I took to prove this to someone else:

 

[toyota]

of course you get high gpu usage in the benchmark since there is no framerate cap there.

btw you are running DX11? so are you going to claim DX11 runs fine for you?

 

[taltamir]

@Railraven: Force vsync on in the driver and tell us what your GPU load is then.

 

[Seero]

Fundamentally I can't prove something absolutely doesn't exist, that's logically flawed. But you are the one claiming MS is charging developers, and that is something that if it were true could be proved.

Did I or did not I showed that DirectX is proprietary to MS? Did I or did not I linked the general IP policy about MS? You too agreed that licenses are needed, but there are so many different types of licenses. I am not a lawyer, I don't even know the name of the types of licenses that are required, but I know they are there. You are claiming that these types of licenses are all FREE on all DirectX API. Well, if it is true, you should easily free proofs, right?

Again, I said it many times too, there is a NDA in place on stuffs like that. If you want the quote? Sign the NDA first. You know what that means. If it is free however, there is no point of having NDA.

Like the PhysX SDK, if it is free, it can be found. Some DirectX SDKs are also free, which also can be found. I found XNA which is from MS and it isn't free, contradicting what you said about "brought windows = the right to use everything for free in anyway, including Dx." XNA is special not because of its yearly license fee, but the 70% revenue to creator as a base line that I have brought up over and over again. Clear to define that is the meaning of "base line"? Where did 30% go? Charity? So did or did not game creators share their revenue with MS?

Computers are open...

Prove the point above first. Unix vs Windows, OpenGL vs DirectX, I don't think you can touch them all for now.

 

[3DVagabond]

XNA has nothing to do with paying a fee to use DirectX.

Seero, you're running around in circles. You don't pay M$ if you develope a game that uses DirectX. You were mistaken. The longer you carry on with this the harder it's going to be to admit the mistake.

 

[Grooveriding]

This game runs like a ripe dog turd in DX11.

Tried to start it up again tonight and was re-introduced to how broken this game is under DX11. I really want to play it as well.

Are they going to fix it or just leave it in the mess it is in currently ? Should give it a go in DX9, comparing the two, I'm not seeing any differences in screenshots.

 

[Seero]

XNA has nothing to do with paying a fee to use DirectX.

Seero, you're running around in circles. You don't pay M$ if you develope a game that uses DirectX. You were mistaken. The longer you carry on with this the harder it's going to be to admit the mistake.

Did anyone who had publish a game featuring DirectX spoke? Or are we just arguing? If we are arguing, then I need to quote proofs, not evidence, or retract my claim, which is said to be extraordinary claim. On the other hand, there is no need, those are ordinary claims that doesn't require backups. Is that what you are saying?

Again, you said it as if you know for a fact. Well, show me the fact.

 

[taltamir]

Did I or did not I showed that DirectX is proprietary to MS?

You didn't, but we all accept that claim.

Did I or did not I linked the general IP policy about MS?

You did, which EXPLICITLY states that some of the licenses are FREE.

You are claiming that these types of licenses are all FREE on all DirectX API. Well, if it is true, you should easily free proofs, right?

No, you wouldn't. That is the whole point of the argument. If it cost money that would be very very easy to prove. The opposite is hard to prove.

 

[Lonbjerg]

This game runs like a ripe dog turd in DX11.

Tried to start it up again tonight and was re-introduced to how broken this game is under DX11. I really want to play it as well.

Are they going to fix it or just leave it in the mess it is in currently ? Should give it a go in DX9, comparing the two, I'm not seeing any differences in screenshots.

You could always go AMD...that way DX11 will still be borked...but you don't have to worry, whine and cry about PhysX...:whiste:

 

[Seero]

You didn't, but we all accept that claim.

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
See if you can find DirectX in it.

You did, which EXPLICITLY states that some of the licenses are FREE.

Which part of the some? If the licenses related to DirectX is not expressly stated as free, then it is not free.

No, you wouldn't. That is the whole point of the argument. If it cost money that would be very very easy to prove. The opposite is hard to prove.

I was not the one who start this "Bring proof or retract" idea. This is actually a new idea that I have NEVER EVER SEEN USED HERE BEFORE! I guess, I need to stick with the new rules.

Now if some forum post work as a proof, then consider this.http://osdir.com/ml/org.gnu.discuss/2004-06/msg00018.html
He isn't even trying to program a game and sell it, he was afraid of using the wrong library with the wrong licensing. Yes, you probably need to read the whole sublink about GPL.

 

[3DVagabond]

I just read my DirectX SDK license. It clearly states that I have the right to distribute my software. The only limitations it puts on it is it must be clearly marked as my own software, it can't use M$ logos or appear to be a M$ product, M$ is not liable for any damages as a result of my software, I can not distribute software that is intended to damage or otherwise compromise the system it is installed on, and it must be for the Windows platform. It does not state that the license is for non commercial use only. There is definitely no commercial limitation put on the software I make using the SDK.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Just to recap.
The OP was a rant about PhysX (that WORKS ingame)...but now it's about DX being borked?
(and a sidedebate about DX licensing?)

So PhysX works (and add immerison and more detail)...and DX11dosn't work (tanks performance)?

Ad neven the added I.Q of Dx11...is less that the visual impatc of PhysX.

So in this game PhysX > DX11

 

[ViRGE]

Prove the point above first. Unix vs Windows, OpenGL vs DirectX, I don't think you can touch them all for now.

Applications can be freely developed with no restriction on their distribution, and no locks on their execution. A closed system is defined by its restrictions - only being able to acquire applications from certain sources, requiring applications to be signed, and an authority vetting applications before approving them - none of these apply to Windows, Linux, or Mac OS. That's open.

And for the last damn time, free as in speech is not the same thing as free as in beer.

Did anyone who had publish a game featuring DirectX spoke? Or are we just arguing? If we are arguing, then I need to quote proofs, not evidence, or retract my claim, which is said to be extraordinary claim. On the other hand, there is no need, those are ordinary claims that doesn't require backups. Is that what you are saying?

Again, you said it as if you know for a fact. Well, show me the fact.

Actually that seems like a good way to settle this. So I hit up a friend of mine, an indie developer who has a commercial game on Steam, Coniclysm.

Q: What license fees did you have to pay to publish Conicylsm?

A: i only had to pay Valve as pre [sic] the standard Steam distribution contract, which im not sure I can go into. they got a certain percentage of revenue for hosting and sales

Q: You didn't have to pay anyone else?

A: no. who are you thinking I had to pay?

Q: Microsoft in particular. The point of this being to settle a debate over whether MS charges to use DirectX.

A: microsoft?! no. now if I had distributed it for the xbox360 sure I would have to pay. but why would I have to pay microsoft on windows? developing for windows is free

So there you go: words straight from a developer. He sold a commercial game (in plain sight no less!) and did not have to pay Microsoft to use DirectX.

 

[Seero]

And for the last damn time, free as in speech is not the same thing as free as in beer.

I thought we had agreed on that somewhere around post 371. Just to by precise, I know you are looking for evidence in terms of money, and I already told you I couldn't prove it on post 371. You agreed about the need of licensing on 372. I said, lets resolve the Dx issue first before building your argument based on an assumption that it is indeed free.

Actually that seems like a good way to settle this. So I hit up a friend of mine, an indie developer who has a commercial game on Steam...

Q: What license fees did you have to pay to publish [removed]?

A: i only had to pay Valve as pre [sic] the standard Steam distribution contract, which im not sure I can go into. they got a certain percentage of revenue for hosting and sales

How did you know the cut from Valve did not include the cut from MS? Did your friend check and see if libraries s/he that is IP of some other identify used do not need extra licensing?

http://www.valvesoftware.com/legal.html

Anyways, this is far better than forum quotes. I believe it can be a strong evidence, but cannot be used as a proof. I, on the other hand, was asked for a proof, or retract my statement. Why did not you address my inquiry since my first post to you?

My turn for evidence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_video_game_development

Licensing fees

Personal computer platforms (such as Linux, Mac OS, and Windows) are traditionally financially more accessible to independent game developers than video game consoles. Aside from basic development costs, console game developers are required to pay fees to license the required Software Development Kits (SDKs) from the console maker. Manufacturers often impose a strict approval process and take a percentage of the game's net profit in addition to yearly developer fees. As of this writing[when?], to develop for Nintendo Wii, Xbox 360, or PlayStation 3 requires an SDK license fee of between US$2,000 and $10,000, in addition to yearly developer fees and profit cuts, although development for Xbox Live Indie Games only requires a $99/year Creators Club membership and Microsoft takes 30% of sales (though it's free for students thanks to the DreamSpark program).[5][6][7][8][9] Indie game developers can also use homebrew development libraries, which are free of charge, and usually open source.

I don't think traditionally financially more accessible means free. The cut to Valve is not we are talking about, the cost of tools also not what we are talking about, we are talking specifically cuts towards MS.