I think (ii) covers nv using it for optimizing their cards unless they break it with AMD processors.
As I have gone over multiple times on this forum, that is a standard software EULA. It does not mean you can't optimize for it, whoever claimed that to begin with has no idea what they're talking about. The code is there for you to see and work with. Of course you cannot modify it, the code does not belong to the user.
AMD's Radeon SDK (which includes TressFX) includes the same wording:
"b. Except as expressly licensed herein, You do not have the right to (i) distribute, rent, lease, sell, sublicense, assign, or otherwise transfer the Materials, in whole or in part, to third parties for commercial or for non-commercial use; or (ii) modify, disassemble, reverse engineer, or decompile the Software, or otherwise reduce any part of the Software to any human readable form."
http://developer.amd.com/amd-license-agreement-sample-code-w_distribution-rights/
Looks like the link needs to be followed from another link... Go here and scroll to the bottom, click any of the links in the "Downloads" section (I clicked the TressFX one), and the license agreement should be the next page.
After reading it some more, this is just above in section a...
Does anyone know what this means?
grants You the following non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free, limited copyright license to (i) download, copy, use, modify ...
You shall not (nor allow, authorize or assist others to): decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify...
So AMDs new driver is out with a ~17% performance increase. So the issue was with AMDs driver and not the game.
Flawed logic is flawed.
Game and driver optimizations arent exclusive to each other. The game can be pretty much broken and you could still get some performance increases via drivers.
This is not about the game being broken.
The retoric from the AMD camp was that: since physX is proprietary (and closed!) AMD cannot or will struggle to optimise physX. The blame for AMD's poor performance in project cars was placed squarely on physX's shoulders, no?
This is not about the game being broken.
The retoric from the AMD camp was that: since physX is proprietary (and closed!) AMD cannot or will struggle to optimise physX. The blame for AMD's poor performance in project cars was placed squarely on physX's shoulders, no?
So AMDs new driver is out with a ~17% performance increase. So the issue was with AMDs driver and not the game.
Flawed logic is flawed.
Game and driver optimizations arent exclusive to each other. The game can be pretty much broken and you could still get some performance increases via drivers.
And what do you know of what AMD optimized in this driver for Project Cars? They may very well improve other areas of the game code (the ones they can at least look at) and still you could get an improvement.
The problem isn't AMD's rethoric. Its the logic spilled from the users on this forum, who can't think outside 2+2=4.
I struggle to see why the most simple explanation is not the most likely: AMD took their eye off the ball.
Then, in the same sentence(!), you criticise the logic of people who believe in truisms? Or can't think outside of truisms? Or can't think outside of logic? Please do explain.
So AMDs new driver is out with a ~17% performance increase. So the issue was with AMDs driver and not the game.
If doctors can reduce cancer by 17% then obviously cancer was the doctors fault all along. It just makes sense.
So says you with zero evidence to back it up. You can't just make something up, claim it's true, and expect everyone to dismiss everything else they've heard from AMD and developers.
No, but if a driver can improve performance by 17% (marketing numbers so the real increase will be significantly lower) then some of the problem lies with AMD not having game ready drivers at release.
It doesn't mean that they were blocked by gameworks and it doesn't mean that they weren't. What it does mean is that their drivers at the time of release could have been significantly better. It means that those who said drivers were holding back AMD's cards were correct (though the full extent cannot be known yet).
... not even king off all drivers nvidia does this.
So AMDs new driver is out with a ~17% performance increase. So the issue was with AMDs driver and not the game.
I remember reading a post here (or somewhere) from someone who used to writing GPU drivers.
A summary of what he said: extensive driver retooling wouldn't be necessary if games were coded perfectly. Due to that not being the case, drivers end up serving as the bridge and they code all kinds of somewhat messy hacks to take what the game is trying to do and translate that, refine it, to access the underlying hardware more efficiently.
Thus, games that can be improved upon with excessive performance improvements simply through driver retooling, are games that are further from the mark of "perfect code." As there are countless lines of code and strange ways of doing things, all GPU drivers have to constantly add further refinements (with the help of the game developer, trying to find out where the code problems are for one company's driver, and what code is causing problems with the another company's driver).
Drivers translate, and nobody's driver is coded in such a way that predicts all the weird ways a developer might come up with to achieve a certain desired result, weird ways that are less efficient than what the driver would prefer to see. The more efficient the raw code execution, the less that has to be added to drivers in order to intercept.
I remember reading a post here (or somewhere) from someone who used to writing GPU drivers.
A summary of what he said: extensive driver retooling wouldn't be necessary if games were coded perfectly. Due to that not being the case, drivers end up serving as the bridge and they code all kinds of somewhat messy hacks to take what the game is trying to do and translate that, refine it, to access the underlying hardware more efficiently.
Thus, games that can be improved upon with excessive performance improvements simply through driver retooling, are games that are further from the mark of "perfect code." As there are countless lines of code and strange ways of doing things, all GPU drivers have to constantly add further refinements (with the help of the game developer, trying to find out where the code problems are for one company's driver, and what code is causing problems with the another company's driver).
Drivers translate, and nobody's driver is coded in such a way that predicts all the weird ways a developer might come up with to achieve a certain desired result, weird ways that are less efficient than what the driver would prefer to see. The more efficient the raw code execution, the less that has to be added to drivers in order to intercept.
I doubt that.