How to enable Nvidia Phsyx on Ati cards in Batman:AA

[akugami]

"due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter."

So it WAS created by Nvidia. The code for AA in that game. They wrote it. Implemented it with Eidos. And through a Vendor ID wanted it to be Nvidia specific. And through much outrage by AMD and co. pressured to remove the Vendor specific ID so that their IP is forcefully surrendered. Because AMD and co. believed they had every right to that IP. Keep going guys, maybe you can get them to give up PhysX as well. After all, AMD surely deserves it, they worked so hard on it and must have spent a fortune.

The problem I have is how there was a huge outcry against AMD by someone like Wreckage because he thought that AMD does not support developers. AMD does provide funding in certain cases to help implement advanced features. Notice that the games that do get AMD funding, at least to my knowledge, does not have any code implemented to make the game look worse on one platform vs their own. We all know if the situation was reversed that someone like Wreckage would be making a huge outcry about how anti-competitive AMD is.

I think that this change was because of pressure by consumers to Eidos and nVidia when they discovered how they were screwed over and not so much by pressure from AMD/ATI. If I was nVidia I could care less how much AMD screams if I think I have a leg up on them. So long as it's not illegal by the laws of the countries you operate in, do it. All's fair in love and war. Business is pretty much war.

This is a slap in the face to consumers by both nVidia and Eidos. I can absolutely understand why nVidia did what it did and from a business point actually applaud the move even though it backfired and brought a lot of negativity. But as a consumer I'd be more PO'ed at how Eidos is screwing over their customers. I don't have a problem picking up an nVidia card even today but I'd have to consider a competitor with all other things being equal due to practices like this.

We all know the rumors about how nVdia got DX 10.1 killed in Assassin's Creed because it'd give a performance edge to ATI in an nVidia sponsored game. Seems a little more true at this point.

Why do you keep going on about this? Everybody knows ATi/AMD doesn't own DirectX. Everybody also knows that Nvidia doesn't own Eidos either.

Nvidia spent time and money to have AA added to Batman:AA and is now blocking access to that AA on any non-Nvidia video card. (maybe we should now start referring to it as Batman:noAA)

ATi is spending time and money to have DX10.1/DX11 features added to current and upcoming games, not to mention the time and money they spent helping Microsoft develop DX10.1/DX11 in the first place.

So, Wreckage, do you feel that Nvidia cards should not be able to display any DX10.1/DX11 content that involve ATi assistance?

I hope you're not expecting any real answer because he already dodged this question a few times. As in the past, he'll dodge questions when it suits him but is always others of hypocrisy and question dodging when he does that a fair amount of times.

 

[Wreckage]

The problem I have is how there was a huge outcry against AMD by someone like Wreckage because he thought that AMD does not support developers.

This is a clear case of them not supporting a developer and their customers are suffering for it. Stop trying to spin things.

I hope you're not expecting any real answer because he already dodged this question a few times. As in the past, he'll dodge questions when it suits him but is always others of hypocrisy and question dodging when he does that a fair amount of times.

I respond with the truth. Just because you can't handle the truth, does not mean I'm dodging the question. It means you are dodging the answer. ()

 

[Schmide]

This is a clear case of them not supporting a developer and their customers are suffering for it. Stop trying to spin things.

I respond with the truth. Just because you can't handle the truth, does not mean I'm dodging the question. It means you are dodging the answer. ()

The irony in this statement is since I read the BSN article, as I understand it, it seems that AA model used was the one shown in the 2005 ATI sdk. LOL

 

[dflynchimp]

There's nothing stopping AMD users from forcing AA in CCC. The only problem with that is that the formulae used for forced AA is archaic and inefficient by today's standards. The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Nvidia's AA in Batman:AA was the result of Nvidia's providing its IP resources to the game developers.

DX10.1 and DX11 on the other hand is not in the same boat. The Direct 3D feature set is an open standard that all hardware makers must meet if they wish for their product to be viable to that generation of software. This gives game/software developers a baseline to work off of.

That AMD is working with developers on DX11 titles is commendable, but it doesn't give them any functional leverage over Nvidia other than a headstart in refining their drivers. Once Nvidia's hardware comes out it should be expected that all DX11 games will run on GTX300 due to it being an open standard.

Game engine development on the other hand isn't an open standard as Direct 3D because all engines are IP belonging to 3rd parties. From the looks of it AA was not a native feature to the Batman:AA, which is why ATI hardware aren't supported by default. If anyone were to complain it shouldn't be at Nvidia or AMD, but rather the people who made Batman:AA. Most other games have modes of AA for both Nvidia and AMD.

 

[akugami]

This is a clear case of them not supporting a developer and their customers are suffering for it. Stop trying to spin things.


I respond with the truth. Just because you can't handle the truth, does not mean I'm dodging the question. It means you are dodging the answer. ()

Yep. We can't handle the truth. We know you would never stoop so low as to post falsified information for the sole express purpose of painting nVidia in a good light or ATI in a bad light.

You're also above bringing up and repeating the same issue that was resolved months ago in an attempt to prove ATI is selling faulty hardware.

 

[Schmide]

There's nothing stopping AMD users from forcing AA in CCC. The only problem with that is that the formulae used for forced AA is archaic and inefficient by today's standards. The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Nvidia's AA in Batman:AA was the result of Nvidia's providing its IP resources to the game developers.

Let me correct you where you're wrong. HDR/MSAA is not nVidia's IP and as far as I understand what they did, the MSAA was originally shown in the Oblivion driver hack and the 2005 ATI SDK.

Game engine development on the other hand isn't an open standard as Direct 3D because all engines are IP belonging to 3rd parties. From the looks of it AA was not a native feature to the Batman:AA, which is why ATI hardware aren't supported by default. If anyone were to complain it shouldn't be at Nvidia or AMD, but rather the people who made Batman:AA. Most other games have modes of AA for both Nvidia and AMD.

If you write DirectX compatible code, it should make rendering decisions based on the CAPS bits. If you write lame marketing code, it should make rendering decisions based on the vendor sting and the all mighty dollar.

 

[BFG10K]

ATI did not develop nor do they own DirectX.

nVidia did not develop nor do they own AA.

Maybe if ATI actually created something...someday we can discuss it.

They did; they created DX10.1/DX11 cards that were used to develop such render-paths in games, given nVidia cards didn’t exist at the time.

They also created DX10.1/DX11 render-path contributions and assistance for developers.

So again I’ll ask whether you advocate nVidia being blocked out of any contributions or assistance that ATi provided developers for DX10.1/DX11?

ATI could have done the same and chose not to. Your complaint should be with them.

nVidia could’ve developed DX10.1/DX11 boards, but they chose not to. Your complaint should be at nVidia if they become locked out of such games as a result.

Again they don't own DirectX so they have zero say in how it's used.

nVidia doesn't own AA so they have zero say in how it's used.

Again ATI does not own DirectX so it is a pointless argument.

But ATi owns any code contributions and assistance they provided for DX10.1/DX11 developers, the same type of assistance nVidia provided for Batman’s AA that you’re arguing ATi should be locked out of.

What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Let me know and I’ll try to explain it better for you.

This is a clear case of them not supporting a developer and their customers are suffering for it. Stop trying to spin things.

This is a clear case of nVidia not supporting developers with DX10.1/DX11 and their customers are suffering for it. Stop trying to spin things.

 

[Wreckage]

nVidia did not develop nor do they own AA.

In this case they did develop it and they do own it. Are you saying any code written in a game is public and free?

They did; they created DX10.1/DX11 cards that were used to develop such render-paths in games, given nVidia cards didn’t exist at the time.

They created cards based off of Microsoft's proprietary DX10.1/DX11. The credit goes to MS.

They also created DX10.1/DX11 render-path contributions and assistance for developers.

Again Microsoft's DX10.1/DX11

So again I’ll ask whether you advocate nVidia being blocked out of any contributions or assistance that ATi provided developers for DX10.1/DX11?

Again I will tell you. ATI does not own DirectX. Microsoft owns it, so ATI has nothing to block. You really should read up on DirectX.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/aboutGFW/pages/directx.aspx

nVidia could’ve developed DX10.1/DX11 boards, but they chose not to. Your complaint should be at nVidia if they become locked out of such games as a result.

Why would I complain? With no real DX11 games worth playing. They will have cards ready when games are ready. Will ATI have Physx though? No, probably will have more titles they don't support AA in though.

nVidia doesn't own AA so they have zero say in how it's used.

You really don't understand the subject matter at all do you? If I write code to enable AA in pong, I own that code. You are using a broad generalization of the term to try and shore up a failing argument.

But ATi owns any code contributions and assistance they provided for DX10.1/DX11 developers, the same type of assistance nVidia provided for Batman’s AA that you’re arguing ATi should be locked out of.

Their "assistance" may be no more than letting them borrow a video card or buying them coffee. Can you please detail exactly which code they are writing. Also are they writing non-standard code?

What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Let me know and I’ll try to explain it better for you.

Explain to me how ATI owns DirectX in your world. How non-standard code written in a game should be free. How ATI's lack of support for game developers is NVIDIA's fault. Take off the red glasses for a second and see this from a logical standpoint.

 

[BFG10K]

In this case they did develop it and they do own it. Are you saying any code written in a game is public and free?

No, you are when you’re happy to allow code contributions and assistance by ATi to be used on future nVidia boards.

They created cards based off of Microsoft's proprietary DX10.1/DX11. The credit goes to MS.

You can’t be serious. You must be trolling; there’s absolutely no way that someone could truly be that unaware of the situation.

Let’s try it another way: explain to me how nVidia’s Batman AA code functions without DirectX.

Given the code won’t function without DirectX that means it’s based off it, so I guess you also feel Microsoft owns Batman’s AA code too?

Again I will tell you. ATI does not own DirectX. Microsoft owns it, so ATI has nothing to block. You really should read up on DirectX.

But ATi owns any code they developed for DX10.DX/11.

I’ll just repeat your same question again: “are you saying any code written in a game is public and free?”

Why would I complain? With no real DX11 games worth playing. They will have cards ready when games are ready.

They’ll have cards ready when games have been prepared with ATi’s assistance, and you’re too happy for nVidia to leech off that work and get benefits for free.

But your rampant double standard and hypocrisy doesn’t allow the reversed situation for Batman’s AA because “ATi shouldn’t be getting benefits for free”.

You really don't understand the subject matter at all do you? If I write code to enable AA in pong, I own that code.

Likewise, if I write code to enable DX10.1/DX11 then I own that code.

Or what, are you claiming all game code written for DirectX is owned by Microsoft because they developed the standard?

Again, by that metric, Microsoft owns Batman’s AA code since it follows that standard too.

Your behavior here must be intentional; there’s simply no other explanation for it.

Their "assistance" may be no more than letting them borrow a video card or buying them coffee. Can you please detail exactly which code they are writing.

Ask Huddy: “AMD is already working with games developers on over 20 forthcoming games which feature DX11 tech.”

What assistance is nVidia providing for DX11 development at this time? Have their boards even been tapped out yet? Likewise, what DX10.1 assistance did nVidia provide to past games before they launched such hardware?

Also are they writing non-standard code?

What’s your definition of “standard code”? Something that uses DirectX? Then no, it’s standard, just like Batman’s AA code is.

Explain to me how ATI owns DirectX in your world.

Explain to me how nVidia owns AA in your world.

How non-standard code written in a game should be free.

Again, what is your definition of “standard”?

How ATI's lack of support for game developers is NVIDIA's fault.

How nVidia’s lack of support of DX10.1/DX11 for game developers is ATi’s fault.

Take off the red glasses for a second and see this from a logical standpoint.

Take off your green glasses for a second and see this from a logical standpoint.

 

[Janooo]

In this case they did develop it and they do own it. Are you saying any code written in a game is public and free?


They created cards based off of Microsoft's proprietary DX10.1/DX11. The credit goes to MS.


Again Microsoft's DX10.1/DX11


Again I will tell you. ATI does not own DirectX. Microsoft owns it, so ATI has nothing to block. You really should read up on DirectX.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/aboutGFW/pages/directx.aspx


Why would I complain? With no real DX11 games worth playing. They will have cards ready when games are ready. Will ATI have Physx though? No, probably will have more titles they don't support AA in though.


You really don't understand the subject matter at all do you? If I write code to enable AA in pong, I own that code. You are using a broad generalization of the term to try and shore up a failing argument.


Their "assistance" may be no more than letting them borrow a video card or buying them coffee. Can you please detail exactly which code they are writing. Also are they writing non-standard code?


Explain to me how ATI owns DirectX in your world. How non-standard code written in a game should be free. How ATI's lack of support for game developers is NVIDIA's fault. Take off the red glasses for a second and see this from a logical standpoint.

Unbelievably stupid arguments.

 

[Wreckage]

No, you are when you’re happy to allow code contributions and assistance by ATi to be used on future nVidia boards.

Please detail the code contributions. You keep bringing it up. Detail the specific examples.

You can’t be serious. You must be trolling; there’s absolutely no way that someone could truly be that unaware of the situation.

Yet somehow you are unaware.

Let’s try it another way: explain to me how nVidia’s Batman AA code functions without DirectX.
Given the code won’t function without DirectX that means it’s based off it, so I guess you also feel Microsoft owns Batman’s AA code too?
But ATi owns any code they developed for DX10.DX/11.

Again. Please detail what code they wrote. You seem to have secret knowledge the rest of us are not privy to.

I’ll just repeat your same question again: “are you saying any code written in a game is public and free?”

That's what you are suggesting.

They’ll have cards ready when games have been prepared with ATi’s assistance, and you’re too happy for nVidia to leech off that work and get benefits for free.

NVIDA did this with DX10 cards. However you are using the staw man argument again. What non-standard code did ATI write for these games. Are you just making it up or do you have actual documentation?

But your rampant double standard and hypocrisy doesn’t allow the reversed situation for Batman’s AA because “ATi shouldn’t be getting benefits for free”.

What double standard? You are saying that ATI should block DX11 which they don't own and that they should get to freely use code created by NVIDIA. You are the one with a double standard.

Likewise, if I write code to enable DX10.1/DX11 then I own that code.

There you go again. What non-standard code did ATI write? Are you saying now that ATI wrote and owns DirectX??? That's a pretty bold statement even for you. Please provide proof.

Or what, are you claiming all game code written for DirectX is owned by Microsoft because they developed the standard?

You keep making claims that ATI developed the standard.

Again, by that metric, Microsoft owns Batman’s AA code since it follows that standard too.

No by your metric ATI owns DirectX.

Your behavior here must be intentional; there’s simply no other explanation for it.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you.

Ask Huddy: “AMD is already working with games developers on over 20 forthcoming games which feature DX11 tech.”

Since you 2 are so close. Please provide what non-standard code they are writing.

What assistance is nVidia providing for DX11 development at this time? Have their boards even been tapped out yet? Likewise, what DX10.1 assistance did nVidia provide to past games before they launched such hardware?

Ask Microsoft. They were the ones promoting NVIDIA and not AMD at a recent Windows 7 launch event.

What’s your definition of “standard code”? Something that uses DirectX? Then no, it’s standard, just like Batman’s AA code is.

No Batman AA is not standard. If it was additional work would not have been needed to get it to work. We already had this discussion and you even admitted to trolling in that discussion.

Explain to me how nVidia owns AA in your world.

If you write a game and you write your own code for AA to work in that game. Who owns it?

Again, what is your definition of “standard”?

Buy a dictionary.

How nVidia’s lack of support of DX10.1/DX11 for game developers is ATi’s fault.

10.1 was a failure that is ATI's fault. 11 is not really even here yet so there is no lack of support there.

Look I understand this is a very pro-ATI forum and what side your bread is buttered on. But you keep using the straw man argument and have yet to provide me with any facts what so ever. I know you are just baiting me to fuel the fire to ban yet another person who is not pro-ATI. I would ask you to take it to PM but that would detract from your goal. I can't change the color of your glasses so nothing will convince you. Just go ahead ban the last 2 or 3 NVIDIA fans left and create your AMDzone II. Mob rules has it's way.

 

[Schmide]

Please detail the code contributions. You keep bringing it up. Detail the specific examples.

ATI Software Developer's Kit 2005 sample 3

High Dynamic Range Imaging New! MinSpec: RADEONTM X1000
This sample application illustrates a real-time, fast technique for rendering true HDR without the requirement of floating-point filtering hardware. (DIRECTX)

QED

 

[Forumpanda]

Again ATI does not own DirectX so it is a pointless argument.

Circles.

sorry if I am slow, but can you explain to me what the difference between designed an AA implementation that uses dx API calls and designing dx11 features that uses dx API calls, because I am not seeing it.

What is so magically different between the 2?

 

[BFG10K]

Please detail the code contributions. You keep bringing it up. Detail the specific examples.

Uh-uh, we aren’t playing this game of yours. You repeatedly get asked questions which you fail to answer, then you trot off to another thread and your trolling cycle begins anew.

Answer the questions:

• Should code implemented with the assistance of an IHV be usable by another IHV?
• What is the definition of “standard” code?
• Does code using the DirectX standard belong to Microsoft?
• Does hardware following the DirectX standard get credited to Microsoft?
• Does Batman’s AA code rely on Microsoft’s DirectX standard to function?

And from the last time, which you’ve still failed to answer:

• Do you agree PhysX an open standard like nVidia claims it is?

Answer the questions Wreckage, and stop trolling.

Yet somehow you are unaware.

Answer the questions.

Again. Please detail what code they wrote. You seem to have secret knowledge the rest of us are not privy to.

Answer the questions, then we can ask Huddy for specific details. Until you answer them there’s no point playing your little trolling games.

That's what you are suggesting.

No, you are; you’re claiming Microsoft owns it because it follows the DX spec.

NVIDA did this with DX10 cards. However you are using the staw man argument again.

Did what exactly? According to you Microsoft gets the credit for that hardware because they developed the standard. Here, I’ll quote you again from this very thread:

”They created cards based off of Microsoft's proprietary DX10.1/DX11. The credit goes to MS.”

So does Microsoft get credit for nVidia’s DX10 technology or not, Wreckage?

Or perhaps you’d prefer nVidia gets credit for their DX10 parts, but Microsoft gets credit for ATi’s DX10.1/11 parts, right?

What non-standard code did ATI write for these games. Are you just making it up or do you have actual documentation?

What non-standard code did nVidia write for Batman’s AA?

Or to put it another way, demonstrate to me how nVidia’s AA code functions without DirectX.

What double standard? You are saying that ATI should block DX11 which they don't own and that they should get to freely use code created by NVIDIA. You are the one with a double standard.

Nope, I’m saying they should block any DX10.1/DX11 code they assisted the developer with. That’s your argument for Batman’s AA, not mine.

Then you run around and claim that because that DX10.1/DX11 code is “standard” (whatever that means) since it runs on DirectX, it belongs to Microsoft, even though Batman’s AA relies on DirectX exactly the same way.

There you go again. What non-standard code did ATI write? Are you saying now that ATI wrote and owns DirectX??? That's a pretty bold statement even for you. Please provide proof.

Answer the questions.

You keep making claims that ATI developed the standard.

Stop lying.

No by your metric ATI owns DirectX.

No, by your metric nVidia owns AA.

Since you 2 are so close. Please provide what non-standard code they are writing.

Answer the questions.

Ask Microsoft. They were the ones promoting NVIDIA and not AMD at a recent Windows 7 launch event.

What do I need to ask Microsoft if I know DX11/DX10.1 hardware from nVidia wasn’t around at the time certain code-paths were developed?

No Batman AA is not standard. If it was additional work would not have been needed to get it to work.

So if I’m reading this correctly, your definition of standard code is something that requires no work to implement?

So since you’ve called DX10.1/DX11 standard, I assume you think all those DX10.1/DX11 render-paths in games magically sprang into existence without any work from developers? Is this seriously your position on this matter?

Please, just stop it; your arguments are comical beyond belief.

We already had this discussion and you even admitted to trolling in that discussion.

Put up a direct quote of the bolded bit or retract that lie. Seriously, your statement will be reported if you don’t do either of these things.

You might choose to spread lies and misinformation to promote your biased agenda, but I won’t tolerate you spreading lies about me.

Again, put up a direct quote of me “admitting to trolling”, or retract your false claim. If you don’t do either you’ll be reported.

If you write a game and you write your own code for AA to work in that game. Who owns it?

If you write a game and you write your own DX10.1/DX11 code to work in that game, who owns it?

Buy a dictionary.

Answer the questions.

10.1 was a failure that is ATI's fault. 11 is not really even here yet so there is no lack of support there.

We aren’t asking for your opinion of DirectX, we’re asking you to answer the questions, so answer them.

Look I understand this is a very pro-ATI forum and what side your bread is buttered on. But you keep using the straw man argument and have yet to provide me with any facts what so ever. I know you are just baiting me to fuel the fire to ban yet another person who is not pro-ATI. I would ask you to take it to PM but that would detract from your goal. I can't change the color of your glasses so nothing will convince you. Just go ahead ban the last 2 or 3 NVIDIA fans left and create your AMDzone II. Mob rules has it's way.

“Woe is me, I’m poor Wreckage. I don’t do any wrong, but everyone is out to get me”.

We had another guy here that used to exactly the same thing. Perhaps you might remember him?

If you want to troll and spread lies then be prepared to get called out. If you don’t want to get called out then don’t do it.

 

[dflynchimp]

sorry if I am slow, but can you explain to me what the difference between designed an AA implementation that uses dx API calls and designing dx11 features that uses dx API calls, because I am not seeing it.

What is so magically different between the 2?

Direct 3D is an open standard, but AA coding for proprietary game engines aren't, even if they make use of the same DX API.

But apparently, according to the link someone posted in a similar thread, it's not the AA coding itself that is incompatible with ATI hardware, but rather a vendor-specific line of code that disables AA functionality if ATI hardware is present. This is the so called Nvidia IP that's being talked about. The AA code itself works fine for ATI hardware if users change their vendor ID to Nvidia, fooling the game into thinking Nvidia hardware is present.

 

[dflynchimp]

BFG since you're a mod would you mind cleaning up several threads here? last night the forum posting tool was glitchy as hell and wouldn't update/refresh after the post button was clicked, resulting in a myriad of people hammering on it multiple times resulting in massive clone-posting.

 

[Creig]

Octuple post? That's gotta be some kind of record.

 

[BFG10K]

Duplicate posts have been deleted.

Video Mod BFG10K.

 

[Janooo]

sorry if I am slow, but can you explain to me what the difference between designed an AA implementation that uses dx API calls and designing dx11 features that uses dx API calls, because I am not seeing it.

What is so magically different between the 2?

There is no difference from the ownership point of view.

Nvidia did not develop nor do they own Batman:Arkham Asylum.

It is 100% owned and proprietary to Eidos.

Straw man back at 'ya.

So then Eidos has every right to block ATI cards. Good point.

When a SW house develops a game it does not matter if DX API call is related to AA or DX11. The code belongs to them.
If it's OK to block ATI because NV IP got into the game then I guess it's OK to block Fermi if AMD helps and contributes with some DX11 code.

@Wreckage - your argument is crazy and stupid!!!

 

[evolucion8]

Yeah, Wreckage is pathettic, I don't know how's possible that he hasn't been banned yet for all the derails, threadcrapping, misbehavior, stirring and spreading FUD, lies, cheap marketing crap that even nVidia would be ashamed off if they were able to see it, , but he doesn't matter., he's worthless.

I found out a way to enable Hardware PhysX with Batman using an AGEIA PPU thanks to GenL, from the NGOHQ froums. He sent me a patch (Also to other members with PPU) that allows Hardware PhysX acceleration with the latest PhysX System Software 9.09.14 which blocks PhysX Acceleration when ATi hardware is detected. Batman looks incredible and runs great with my PPU, the same goes for Fluidmark. As soon as the patch is released, I will post it here, so we can get apple err; I mean nVidia PhysX for our ATi cards for free!!!

 

[Wreckage]

Since you won't answer any of my questions BFG and I know your agenda won't allow you to take this to PM I will just finish the conversation with this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28693105&postcount=104

Fine BFG since you keep dodging the issue. I will make it nice and simple.

Either

A.) Batman is a DX10 only game and the developers and or NVIDIA are doing something fishy.

B.) Batman is not a DX10 only game and extra work\testing had to be done to get AA working.

If it's A I will admit to being wrong and publicly apologize. If it's B, you are intentionally ignoring that just to bait\troll me.

So which is it....A or B?

You responded.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28693177&postcount=107

It?s ?B?, and here are some more ?B? statements:

Like I said "if it's B, you are intentionally ignoring that just to bait\troll me.
". Since you admitted it was B and did not dispute you were doing it to bait\troll me. That's an admission of trolling. If you remember you were intentionally leaving a quote about DX9 out of your posts. Either way I'm not going to be able to convince you our any of the other Red Army so, feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

If you don’t do either you’ll be reported.

I'm sure I get reported constantly for not being pro-ATI. I'm sure they will remove me for it eventually just like the others.

 

[dflynchimp]

Since you won't answer any of my questions BFG and I know your agenda won't allow you to take this to PM I will just finish the conversation with this.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28693105&postcount=104

You responded.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=28693177&postcount=107

Like I said "if it's B, you are intentionally ignoring that just to bait\troll me.
". Since you admitted it was B and did not dispute you were doing it to bait\troll me. That's an admission of trolling. If you remember you were intentionally leaving a quote about DX9 out of your posts. Either way I'm not going to be able to convince you our any of the other Red Army so, feel free to talk amongst yourselves.


I'm sure I get reported constantly for not being pro-ATI. I'm sure they will remove me for it eventually just like the others.

I think this question has already been answered.

1. Yes, Unreal Engine 3 does not support AA natively, and developers have to code it in by themselves.

2. Yes, Nvidia helped B:AA devs test and debug their AA code for the game. Kudos to them.

3. No, the implementation of AA ingame is not a method unique to Nvidia hardware, ATI hardware have no problem running the code.

4. The Nvidia IP that B:AA devs can't legally remove due to their contract is a vendor block that disables AA functionality for ATI cards. This is why ATI can't get AA in B:AA without paying for Nvidia to remove the vendor block OR changing their hardware ID's to fool the computer into thinking it was running on Nvidia juice.

From a legal perspective neither Nvidia or B:AA devs are at fault here. This was a business agreement that Nvidia will donate its resources to the devs to finetune AA in the game. ATI either has to sucker up and pay for the vendor block removed, or quit complaining. With DX11 dawning on us ATI has its hands full working with other devs to push its own DX11 gen hardware. IMO given AMD's financial predicament it's not surprising that they aren't allocating limited and valuable resources for the sole purpose of getting one game to run AA. This is especially since the game AA isn't a technical problem for them to begin with, and is a problem of business.

From a PR perspective this is a bad move by Nvidia because no matter how you explain it, with or without logic, they look like the ass to end users who don't care about company politics and just want their eye candy on their technologically qualified hardware. I was considering getting a ageia ppu to run the PhysX in B:AA but now that they locked that pathway off as well it doesn't really garner any goodwill from me. The situation looks anti-competitive, which is why you see so many of us complaining.

And btw I'm pretty sure half the people you acused of being AMDzone-born hacks or ATI fanboys aren't anywhere that conceited. They just happen to own ATI hardware and/or dislike Nvidia's marketing strategy. There are more legitimate reasons for disliking a company besides the fact that some of us have our penises painted red or green, you know.

 

[Red Irish]

I'm sure I get reported constantly for not being pro-ATI. I'm sure they will remove me for it eventually just like the others.

I reckon your preference for one graphics manufacturer over the other has little to do with the constant reporting.

Moreover, I think that, like me, most of the posters here have no bias towards either manufacturer and purchase hardware for reasons other than the brand sticker in question.

The fact that you strive so hard to defend an untenable position, even after Nvidia itself has backtracked, suggests that you are a zealot who finds it impossible to take an objective view. Most people are probably convinced that you are an Nvidia employee, dismissing everything you say as poor company PR. Therefore, they probably get annoyed when you repeat the same tired slogans over and over again.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

And he again ignored BFG10K's questions LOL! Then, as predicted, he slowly walks off the argument without ever providing a reasonable answer, as seen in the "sister" thread:

I'm not going to further comment on the issue anymore because it's been beaten to death. In fact the more I think of it, I will probably just pick up the game for the PS3 because you can play as the Joker. Which interests me far more than which kind of AA it uses.

Yeah, its beaten to death alright, I think you mean "waaahhh no matter how much I spin the facts and spread misinformation no one believes me waahhh damn zoners"

The funny thing is you can go to other hardware forums and find the exact same points of view by the majority of its users... So I guess AMD does not own DirectX, but they own the Internet

 

[Schmide]

Wreckage

Where's the BEEF?

BFG10K put an incredible amount of effort to clarify your arguments. It would be nice if you acknowledge them and answer them. Otherwise you truly are here just to stir up trouble.