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

[railven]

LOL
No, it's their bad coding of DX11 causing that....nice try on a spin though...but utterly worthless.

Haha, okay - because I'm in here dragging your precious PhysX through the mud.

Hey, guy - not everyone is out to tarnish the rep of a product clearly you have a lot invested in

Nice try though

 

[ocre]

Who's whining about features?

You

Added features cause performance hits? How come Battlefield 3 runs with HBAO, Tessellation etc and doesn't get 10fps?

Why does my ford get 32 miles per gallon and my kia get 28? Why is the sky blue?

I am not your daddy!

The reason is the massive difference in the way they work. And 100% related to the developers engine. If you think BF3 is a perfect example of how a game should be, why not just play BF3 over and over. Game engines arent the same. there is many ways of doing things. Maybe its too complex for your understanding.

Questions like so sound like something my 4yr old ask me. And i am not making fun of you, i am dead serious.

You can make a game look good and not run like a turd. You actually defend the idea of running tessellation underground just to make performance tank on AMD hardware? Really? That IS what you are implying.

No. No one purposely tanked AMD hardware. The game wasnt even released with the tessellation patch. You have to:
1) download it
2) install it
3) play with it enabled
4) go find out that its worse than an nvidia card
5) and complain to the world how AMD got "cheated"


I dont even have a card to play physx with. I used the CPU setting on mafia2. I am just really familiar with PC gaming and understand how it works. The same as its always been. Different settings for different systems. This is what makes gaming evolve.

BTW: I do own consoles, all of them in fact and I play them as well. Thing is, I choose certain titles for PC because they look better. Why do you have a problem with someone expecting them to, well you know work without getting 10fps? Shouldn't we all expect more from a PC game? Yes I think we should.

Your mad cause your budget hardware cant play games maxed? Dont feel bad, mine cant either. I am okay with turning down settings till i get playable frame rates. Its something you only have to do on PC. Get used to it.

You and others like you are the reason game companies release garbage ports at times that only work on one set of hardware correctly. You put up with it and just tell everyone to go buy a console.

Hahaha. Again, this seems like something a child would claim. I am not the reason your PC cant run a game on max. You could have better performance by buying a system that is capable of the features you whine about. Or just play the games without those settings.

NO one took anything away from the game. They only added features that come with a great tax on HW. These are added features and you do not have to use them.

You dont seem to get that. You also dont seem to understand these new add ons are in their infancy. As of now they get added to older engines. This is what we have. In time when the engines mature, they may improve. If they even sticks. This is they way it works. BF3 is a game with a really great engine. Thsi takes time and money to developer. In time most companies do evolved their engines. PC is always at the verge of technology that is in its infancy.

Your not asked to even play with these features. Stop whining about them already.

It isn't that hard...I

Then start your own company up and teach us all the way to do it correctly!

Stop claiming someone artifically crippled your card. Especially when you yourself enabled the features your card cannot handle. It is no different than me trying to play a game at 8x AA and crying all over the place point fingers and kicking my feet.

 

[Seero]

The problem is that the entire basis of your claim is "prove me wrong or I must be right"....

What? When did I even hinted that? BFG10K is the one who said bring in solid proof or retract your statement. I have been going around this explicitly and implicitly. Now you are saying that my claim is based on "prove me wrong or I must be right?" Really, re-read post 371. I already said I can't prove it, but does that mean I am wrong? I simply turn the table and ask you for proofs in return. The only difference is, I did not ask you to retract your statement if you ain't prove it.

How did we ended up arguing like this? Where is the middle ground? Argument within threads are usually state and leave. Yes, there are times people challenge each other. I have no problem taken on your challenge as it is peaceful. You and I both went out do research trying to back up what we said. What is wrong with that? I continuously said that you believe in one thing and I believe in another. I never said that I am right and you are wrong if you can't prove otherwise. Not once I said "You are embarrassing yourself" right? Did I even said that you are wrong throughout this argument?

The problem originated by the demand BFG10K made, I demand that I have problems with. I said I don't see violation of forum rules in my part, and that is when you came in. Remember?

So If I can't get proofs than I must retract the statement. Who started this? Who started this idea? Why am I so wrong to ask others to bring in proofs/evidence on their statements where if I can't proof mine, I have to retract it? Why? Based on your definition, mine is extraordinary. Well, isn't that by itself an extraordinary claim? I repeatedly challenged that, only to be ignored.

Again, free as in beer is not free as in speech. Proprietary means it is not free as in speech; proprietary can still be (and in this case is) free as in beer.

Again, I understand that, and I have told you over and over again. The game is simple, I search for proofs/evidence to back my believe, that it isn't free, and you search for proofs/evidence to back your believe, that it is free. No, I am not talking about the code must run on windows OS, I am (we have been) talking about devs need to pay MS.

No, I can't find a proof, but I believe they do have to pay money, share revenue, or include features that devs don't really wanted to put in. You believed that lots of things are free too, like TWIMTBP? (Yes, I put this one in your mouth. This is the type that I am willing to retract if it offends you.) I personally hated the 30 second to 1 minute logo play. I hated them, but I understand why they are there. It is a trade, a fair trade, between however created the game, published the game, and/or have everything to do with the game that deserves it. Do you know PhysX effects are better with Nvidia video card? Why would devs want to hurt half of their potential customers by using it? Well, it is a trade between developers and Nvidia. I can't break down those terms, but it really isn't as extraordinary as you claimed it is.

You believe that the trade off is the fact that Dx code path runs only on windows, this itself is a fair trade and therefore the license should be free. It is clear that you can't prove that, and I can't prove otherwise either. We could have left at that 3 days ago. Why are we still at it? Is it me who wanted to prove you wrong? Or is it you who wanted to prove that it is really an extraordinary claim? I am the defendent all these times. Please don't turn it around as if I am trying to prove that you are wrong. Clearly, I can't. At best, I can only say "well none of us can prove one way or the other," which leads back to the problem of "bring proof or retract" demand from BFG10K. If I have to retract, then you and I both have a lot of deleting to do. Am I correct?

Look at it another way. You saw my post, and have a problem with it, will you jump in and say "proof it or retract it" at the first place? I am fine with "Seero, that is a bold claim, can you back it up?" Which is what you said more or less. Unfortunately, you used the term "extraordinary", which is not an accident. You probably use it to justify BFG10K's demand. Be honest, did I think to much? or was that the case?

Homebrew only applies to consoles. I explained this before. You're trying to take a concept from consoles (a closed system) and apply it to computers.

GPL, LGPL and copyleft are all types of licenses that are related to free software. Believe doesn't work in court. If you get caught taking an item off a shop and your reasoning is "I believe it is free because...", then you probably gonna explain it in great details in the police station. If there is a label on it that saids "free to take", then it is different. Here you have a set of propreitary API, not only you are using it, which is free, but you are trying to sell a product that requires it to work. You are saying to the rest of the readers that it is okay to assume it is free, and I am saying that you need to pay for that. We can simply leave it here, or go on. Your call.

 

[taltamir]

@Seero:
WTF! Why are you still going on about that?
Did you miss the part where a game developer was EXPLICITLY ASKED and said he never had to pay MS a dime for DX?
You must have because you answered the post immediately after yet ignored it as if it wasn't there.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32629709&postcount=424

And how can you claim that the directX SDK license EXPLICITLY saying that it is free does not count because it is IP and the IP page says MS IP is proprietary? Do you not realize that proprietary is not the same as costs money?
The IP policy page EXPLICITLY STATES that MS licenses some of its IP Gratis. Gratis means "costs you no money"... free as in free beer, not free speech.

As for your store analogy. I get free samples in stores ALL THE TIME. You can tell because they SAY they are free. A correct analogy is you taking a free sample and then an insane shopper starts yelling "thief! theif!" point at you. And when you explain you only took a free sample, one that clearly said free sample, that other shopper insists that it is not free because it is a product and products cost money, ergo this must cost money.

The game is simple, I search for proofs/evidence to back my believe, that it isn't free, and you search for proofs/evidence to back your believe, that it is free.

Correct

No, I can't find a proof

Of course you can't, you are wrong. On the other hand there is overwhelming proof for the other side. Including direct referencing of the license that comes in the DirectX SDK, the IP page you listed (stating some things are licensed Gratis, free as in beer), and ViRGE actually asking a developer.

PS. Virge, under what company does your friend publish games? I would like to check out his work.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Haha, okay - because I'm in here dragging your precious PhysX through the mud.

Hey, guy - not everyone is out to tarnish the rep of a product clearly you have a lot invested in

Nice try though

No, you didn't think, you just tried to point the finger at something else and failed utterly in doing so.
But when the DX11 patch for Batman AC comes out, I guess you will be all like this:

But we all now the dishonesty now...you "retort" wasn't even a nice try...it was a facepalm-fail.

 

[Seero]

@Seero:
WTF! Why are you still going on about that?
Did you miss the part where a game developer was EXPLICITLY ASKED and said he never had to pay MS a dime for DX?

See post 445 in case you missed it.

Of course you can't, you are wrong.

Can you prove that?

 

[SirPauly]

I can understand that, about the DX11 issue. I got use to it since, again, it seems to mostly tank just at the start of every zone. After that initial hitch, my frame rate hasn't tanked below 30 FPS, and the only hitches I get are direct to, my guess, lots of PhysX effects (even used in the shockwaves when knocking out enemies - really? haha.)

Here are just some comparative pictures I took a while back. It is EVERYWHERE. I don't understand how anyone can't see it.

Tess Off:

Tess Normal:

Tess Off:

Tess Normal:

Tess Off:

Tess Normal:

Tess Off:

Tess Normal:

If the performance hit is acceptable, the game does look better with DX11 on. While I wish I could maintain solid 60 FPS, I've yet to experience truly game breaking FPS drops after that initial hitch. I can Glide around town and pan around, FPS drops but again - still not below 30s.

Thanks for the comparison shots, very welcomed!

 

[SirPauly]

Zogrim has a nice talent with creating these PhysX comparisons:


GPU PhysX in Batman: Arkham City

http://physxinfo.com/news/6837/gpu-physx-in-batman-arkham-city/

 

[SirPauly]

Really like the dynamic carpets, dynamic bank notes, hehe and the rigid bodies!

 

[Outrage]

Can you prove that?

this is a quote from a dev rel guy @ Nvidia

The terms are included in the redist license in the SDK. But, no, there are no fees of any sort to pay to Microsoft.

He was answering this question: If I was to code a game and sell it commercially, would I need a license (or something similar) to use DirectX?

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Fo...1/thread/bd79bc9c-11e8-4469-b202-b9d0ae32cbc3

 

[Seero]

this is a quote from a dev rel guy @ Nvidia

He was answering this question: If I was to code a game and sell it commercially, would I need a license (or something similar) to use DirectX?

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Fo...1/thread/bd79bc9c-11e8-4469-b202-b9d0ae32cbc3

This is the best evidence so far, except that this was written in 2006. If I may ask, is that for Dx9.0c or Dx10/11?

http://www.koders.com/cpp/fidD0E5A5C3E22C238B5617EDCFFB4F715301769CE3.aspx

here is a bunch of GPL code, some of them are through DirectX, except that the copyright is expired. It runs through d3d8.h. When I tried to search for d3d10 GPL, I found nothing.

Trying to verify the scope, it appears that Dx10 is out ealier than 2006, finding my way to get to that txt containing license.

I couldn't find any source defeating my claim better than the one you have. I you win, I was wrong.

 

[ViRGE]

I already said I can't prove it, but does that mean I am wrong? I simply turn the table and ask you for proofs in return. The only difference is, I did not ask you to retract your statement if you ain't prove it.

Generally, yes. You should be able to prove a positive statement. Without getting too much into formal logic, it would be an argument from ignorance to claim a positive statement is true based on a lack of evidence to the contrary. Remember, you are specifically claiming that DirectX costs money to use. That is a positive, provable statement.

How did we ended up arguing like this? Where is the middle ground?

There isn't any middle ground, it's a binary outcome. Either MS does or doesn't charge for DirectX.

The problem originated by the demand BFG10K made, I demand that I have problems with. I said I don't see violation of forum rules in my part, and that is when you came in. Remember?

To be clear, this has nothing to do with the forum rules. Moderator actions are always in bold on their own. You have never been instructed by a moderator to do anything - you have been asked by several forum members to submit proof of your claims.

Why are we still at it? Is it me who wanted to prove you wrong? [...] I am the defendent all these times.

Because claiming that we have to pay MS is not only wrong, but it may very well be the most genuinely insulting assertion on these Video forums in years. The fact that we don't have to pay MS is a large part of what meaningfully defines computer gaming as something different from console gaming.

This is the best evidence so far, except that this was written in 2006. If I may ask, is that for Dx9.0c or Dx10/11?

http://www.koders.com/cpp/fidD0E5A5C3E22C238B5617EDCFFB4F715301769CE3.aspx

here is a bunch of GPL code, some of them are through DirectX, except that the copyright is expired. It runs through d3d8.h. When I tried to search for d3d10 GPL, I found nothing.

What on God's green earth does the GPL have to do with anything? We've already established that free as in speech is not the same as free as in beer. You can have the latter without the former (otherwise someone should tell Valve that TF2 breaks the fundamental laws of copyright).

I couldn't find any source defeating my claim better than the one you have. I you win, I was wrong.

Thank you. That's all we asked. I hope you come out of this also understanding why DirectX is free to use, given the importance of them being free.

 

[railven]

No, you didn't think, you just tried to point the finger at something else and failed utterly in doing so.
But when the DX11 patch for Batman AC comes out, I guess you will be all like this:

But we all now the dishonesty now...you "retort" wasn't even a nice try...it was a facepalm-fail.

Haha, okay guy. I'll just let the brass handle this.

For starters, I don't appreciate my character being attacked inproperly. If you only read a few posts prior to my assumptioned.

Oh well.

Trolls gonna troll, eh?

 

[ocre]

I can see what Seero was saying. But it appears the use of DX is free for indie game developers. A free library to use as you will. This is pretty expected, but i wouldnt say it ends there. A big time developer, making , multimillion dollar per each release is a different story. This doesnt mean they have to pay cash, but they have to get a license. They have to make an agreement. I dont see them releasing titles without M$ involved, where as the indie developer may never be noticed.

With open source alternatives being a tiny few on the PC, it seems DX isnt costing much of anything. But then there is a good reason. M$ knows they cannot charge too much of anything or games wont use DX. This is a key thing to realize. M$ owns DX and they do have the market cornered. Part of the its popularity is the policy they have in place. Its working well now. Just a few yrs ago their were many games that were DX alternative. M$ is successfully taking over. This is happening fast. It isnt free, they are just letting us get hooked on it for free, Lol! Addicted to DX yet?

But for now it appears, its proven. Indie developers pay nothing for the DX they use in games. Can we say its the same all the way up to real developers and hit titles? Thats not something i would bet money on nor is it something we can even debate. Its corporate business, a different world. Dont think i am saying they charge though, this i am not. But i am saying, nothing is free. The license shows M$ intends to have complete control, and control is power. What they do wit it is their decision. All i see is a corporation.

So to me DX isnt free, but for now it may not cost any extra money.

 

[apoppin]

For starters, I don't appreciate my character being attacked inproperly.

Please let us know the proper way to attack your character and i'll be happy to oblige.
:whiste:

i have Batman AC, and i got a 27" ASUS 3D Vision 2 and a 23" 120Hz Viewsonic (passive/HD3D) display on Friday and i am stuck evaluating this VC under NDA and haven't even opened the boxes or even played a second of the game yet.
-- i'd be glad to play in DX9.
:$

 

[railven]

Please let us know the proper way to attack your character and i'll be happy to oblige.
:whiste:

i have Batman AC, and i got a 27" ASUS 3D Vision 2 and a 23" 120Hz Viewsonic (passive/HD3D) display on Friday and i am stuck evaluating this VC under NDA and haven't even opened the boxes or even played a second of the game yet.
-- i'd be glad to play in DX9.
:$

and why would you wish to attack my character?

 

[taltamir]

So to me DX isnt free, but for now it may not cost any extra money.

there is no "to me", either it costs money or it doesn't. There is no middle ground, there is no subjective feeling or preference. This is a discussion of factual binary statement.

Could MS charge SPECIFIC developers? Yes but only if the license under which they distribute it explicitly says so. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented here. Like that one guy who actually bothered combing through the license that comes with the SDK and saying it stated to be free.

MS does not require that you CONTACT THEM to acquire a license. Anyone can go to their website, download the SDK, and with it get a free license to make and distribute games. Since there is no individual negotiation then there is no way for them to selective charge companies for its use.

 

[apoppin]

and why would you wish to attack my character?

There is a certain implication in your words:

For starters, I don't appreciate my character being attacked inproperly.

Since you complained about improper character attacks, the implication is that you might appreciate a proper one.
^_^

 

[railven]

There is a certain implication in your words:

Since you complained about improper character attacks, the implication is that you might appreciate a proper one.
^_^

Ah, gotcha. Good to know.

 

[ocre]

there is no "to me", either it costs money or it doesn't. There is no middle ground, there is no subjective feeling or preference. This is a discussion of factual binary statement.

Could MS charge SPECIFIC developers? Yes but only if the license under which they distribute it explicitly says so. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented here. Like that one guy who actually bothered combing through the license that comes with the SDK and saying it stated to be free.

MS does not require that you CONTACT THEM to acquire a license. Anyone can go to their website, download the SDK, and with it get a free license to make and distribute games. Since there is no individual negotiation then there is no way for them to selective charge companies for its use.

maybe my post was a little too deep. I was attempting to add to what has already been discovered. your beating a dead horse.

As far as saying their is no individual negotiation? Are you saying major (cross platform) releases dont have individual negotiations?

As far as charging, i still dont think they have to charge anything. I was speaking of power. Power is worth more than money. This power to make exclusives and delayed releases for specific platforms. This power is from the strong arm, and developers are forced to do what others want. This is a whole other debate, and i only spoke of it cause someone brought up the delay in this title. Most ppl simply look at it as, "M$ payed them" when often upfront money never exchanges anyone's hands.


Its really not important, your more worried about being right or wrong. I am not contesting anything you are saying. Your right.... factual binary whatever you want to call it. We pretty much all see that their is proof that (at least) indie games pay M$ no money to use directX.

 

[AdamK47]

nVidia released new drivers today. Does it do anything to make DX11 playable? I'm going to guess no.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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 know, DX9 doesn't look that bad and I don't see the hype for DX11 in this game. It's not coming close to BF3 or Crysis 2 by any stretch. That said, the game is extremely high quality. I highly recommend playing it through in DX9 instead of waiting.

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.

The benchmark is not capped though which is where I pulled my numbers from. No attitude, just comes off as such because it's just text and late night.

The whole point was though, this game at least in DX9 doesn't tax a modern card very hard. DX11 of course but it's broke right now so it's not worth mentioning.

 

[toyota]

You know, DX9 doesn't look that bad and I don't see the hype for DX11 in this game. It's not coming close to BF3 or Crysis 2 by any stretch. That said, the game is extremely high quality. I highly recommend playing it through in DX9 instead of waiting.



The benchmark is not capped though which is where I pulled my numbers from. No attitude, just comes off as such because it's just text and late night.

The whole point was though, this game at least in DX9 doesn't tax a modern card very hard. DX11 of course but it's broke right now so it's not worth mentioning.

my gtx570 is at nearly 100% in the benchmark with DX9 very high settings and low FXAA.


image hosting jpeg

 

[cmdrdredd]

my gtx570 is at nearly 100% in the benchmark with DX9 very high settings and low FXAA.

Probably because your 570 is doing Physx too? My Physx are offloaded to a 295 while my 6950 does everything else.

edit: from your screenshot it doesn't look like you have physx on (no broken ice particles from the projectiles)

Your mad cause your budget hardware cant play games maxed? Dont feel bad, mine cant either. I am okay with turning down settings till i get playable frame rates. Its something you only have to do on PC. Get used to it.

Budget hardware? You think I built this yesterday trying to cut corners? I've had this system for about 3 years, maybe longer. No reason to upgrade so I didn't. Only changed the GPU. Anyone claiming a 3.8Ghz C2Q is slow is quite foolish if you ask me(don't give me a line about bottlekneck SLI/Crossfire cause I'm not running that setup). As I said before and will repeat again. Battlefield 3 doesn't get 10fps and it's one of the best looking games out there. Yeah the engine is better. I'm simply stating that if a company cares about PC gaming, they can make an engine run as efficiently as that. Simply put...they don't care.

Here's what I know for a fact and it's not disputable. Battlefield 3 looks better and runs better. Some games that don't look as good have poorer performance. What I'm saying and you don't seem to understand...is there are companies who take PC gaming seriously and those who treat us like an afterthought. Guess who gets my support first?

 

[toyota]

Probably because your 570 is doing Physx too? My Physx are offloaded to a 295 while my 6950 does everything else.

nope thats with physx off and I added a screenshot. gpu usage actually goes down with physx on.