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

[golem]

Originally posted by: Creig
C.) Nvidia is engaging in business practices that will only serve to further fragment the PC gaming industry and they deserve all the scorn being directed at them until they can learn to play nice with others.

Since when have competitors played nice unless it was in their best interest to do so?

 

[JSt0rm]

well whatever the reason nvidia has pie on its face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPgEQ8PcC7s <---whats funny about this video is this guy who owns some rc website knows more about marketing then nvidia.

 

[Mr Fox]

Originally posted by: Creig
C.) Nvidia is engaging in business practices that will only serve to further fragment the PC gaming industry and they deserve all the scorn being directed at them until they can learn to play nice with others.

We have a winner !!

nV business practices... are the key here ...

But not to further disrupt the thread..

at one point I was a dyed in the wool nV green fanboi...(AMD Days)

Until i was the victim of their " SLI Lock-out, and lock-in" Crapola..

Then there was the US-DOJ Price fixing investigation.

Now I have a $1000.00 H/P DV 9000 Laptop that is two years old that is a piece of Junk....

At every turn nV messes with their customers.

If they continue at this rate no amount of shills will keep the doors open...

"The Voice Of The Customer" will send the Grand Nagus to Chapter 11 land..

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Creig
C.) Nvidia is engaging in business practices that will only serve to further fragment the PC gaming industry and they deserve all the scorn being directed at them until they can learn to play nice with others.

Since when have competitors played nice unless it was in their best interest to do so?

seems like it might be in their best interest eh? All that focus group crap turned a bunch of people off their product. Removing 10.1 features from that assassin game turned some people off. Doing this has turned off even more people. How long until they just turn off more?

forgot to add the physics lock out as well for customers who own both ati and nvidia.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Creig
C.) Nvidia is engaging in business practices that will only serve to further fragment the PC gaming industry and they deserve all the scorn being directed at them until they can learn to play nice with others.

Since when have competitors played nice unless it was in their best interest to do so?

seems like it might be in their best interest eh? All that focus group crap turned a bunch of people off their product. Removing 10.1 features from that assassin game turned some people off. Doing this has turned off even more people. How long until they just turn off more?

forgot to add the physics lock out as well for customers who own both ati and nvidia.

From the point of the focus group thing to now... hasn't their marketshare actually increased?

Nvidia mobile chips --- hard to argue this one, nvidia messed up big time.

SLI lock out -- hardly customer friendly but understandable from a business standpoint

Physics lock out -- see sli lock out.

Price fixing... This one is a head scratcher... Is there a way for a single party to price fix... Wouldn't another companies business's practices also have to be questioned at the same time for this one? Or do they get a free pass?

 

[JSt0rm]

I posted this in the other thread but its probably worth posting here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPgEQ8PcC7s

Maybe one of you knows the right people at nvidia to show that to? lol

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: akugami

The nVidia program, The Way It's Meant to be Played, which provided "support" is basically a marketing campaign by nVidia. The "support" is essentially money paid to a developer as well as extra tech support with part of the agreement being to put up an nVidia splash screen in the final game.

http://alt.3dcenter.org/artikel/2004/10-08_english.php

Not one dollar will change hands between either side in an agreement on a title for that title to be included in the "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" program.

BS. If there are zero incentives involved, a developer will not pull such shenanigans. I guarantee that if I were nVidia I can follow the exact letter of the agreement in not providing a single penny to the developer and still essentially provide funding. Hell, we all know Microsoft was sabotaging linux. They contributed millions to FUD campaigns and stuff against linux. An example being MS buying linux licenses from SCO. And yet in many of those cases MS can be said to have contributed nothing in the fight against linux.

The interview that you link to gave away what support nvidia is giving to developers. It is in the form of hiring coders to add in code that benefits nVidia's hardware. You'd have to be stupid to miss it. I'm sure it's not just code that benefits nVidia and actually helping with solving coding issues but someone would have to be stupid to think nVidia is doing this for altruistic reasons.

I hope you're not serious about ATI not implementing physics. I think you meant to say ATI is not implementing PhysX, a proprietary standard from nVidia.

Feel free to link games using GPU physics for ATI.

How in the heck is ATI delaying games? Please explain. This is on the same level of funny as the ATI not implementing physics claim.

http://forums.steampowered.com...howthread.php?t=913278
AMD delayed Dirt 2 to add DX11 as a marketing feature. And not just a delay of a few weeks. You can play it now on the consoles but not until the end of the year on the PC. It's been rumored that AMD paid them over $1,000,000. So if you want to accuse a company of payola there you go.

DX11 is a marketing feature? What? I hope you're not serious. If anything, this seems like ATI is helping them implement DX11 but we don't currently know if there is any lockout of nVidia DX11 hardware. But judging from the past "Get in the Game" program where ATI has provided help, we can at least assume that nothing bad was going on. We'll have to wait for the GT300 to truly find that out.

However, there is more than just rumors and actually strong circumstantial evidence in that nVidia helped to lock out ATI hardware in Arkham Asylum. That's not even accounting for the DX10.1 features in Assisin's Creed being pulled because it would give ATI a lead. Much more insidious than Dirt2 being delayed to implement DX11. Arkham was delayed as well so at best it's a wash on the delay but we do have some proof that ATI is being locked out.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Wreckage

BFG your whole argument ignores that the developers had to add AA themselves to the game and that NVIDIA helped them do this.

Until you come to grips with that fact... you have no argument.

From the first post in this thread...

Batman is based on Unreal Engine 3, which does not natively support anti-aliasing. We worked closely with Eidos to add AA and QA the feature on GeForce. Nothing prevented AMD from doing the same thing.

http://www.evga.com/gaming/gaming_news/gn_100.asp

Originally posted by: Tim Sweeney

The most visible DirectX 10-exclusive feature is support for MSAA on high-end video cards. Once you max out the resolution your monitor supports natively, antialiasing becomes the key to achieving higher quality visuals.

I was unaware that Batman was a DX10 only game.

Are you aware that games can talk different rendering paths and that the game could have been a DX9 and DX10 game with the features like MSAA enabled on DX10 without all this lockout mumbo jumbo? Then again probably not since DX10 hardware is so new. It's only been for sale for the last 3+ years.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Shaq

The fact that it can be enabled by changing the vendor ID proves nothing but that people can circumvent the check and get it for free. If AMD would have paid the devs to put the AA in the game it would be there. Complain to ATI that they don't support owners of their hardware and don't tear down companies that do to make ATI look better.

The point is that it?s an artificial block by the developer. We know there?s nothing inherently special about nVidia?s hardware to make AA work in-game because AA works when you defeat the vendor check. Since nVidia stated they weren?t responsible for the block in the other thread, that leaves the developer to blame.

I got the same framerate forcing AA or using it in-game.

If that?s the case then why bother implementing in-game AA in the first place?

Nvidia scratched their back so they got theirs scratched in return. I guess in gaming companies aren't entitled to make money since a lot of gamers are apparently very immature and complain if they don't get the same features as someone else got. ATI can pay devs and get any added features they want. This is the game of the year most likely and Nvidia chose to invest some money in it. If they got a "bonus" from the devs it's not Nvidias fault and that is who almost everybody is blaming.

In-game AA is easier to set as you don't have to go into the drivers and set it. I have tested several modes of AA and only 2X AA set in-game or in the drivers is still smooth at 1920x1080. Any more then there is an unacceptable slow down-- frame rate gets cut in half a lot.

 

[Schmide]

From what I've understand about this issue, the Unreal Engine 3 under DX9 can do MSAA no problem. However, it can not do MSAA and HDR lighting at the same time because of the way HDR is implemented in the pixel shaders. Unless you fudge it you need a floating point render target to properly do HDR. Guess what, DX9 doesn't support MSAA under a floating point render target. The solution is that many engines fudge the HDR in a non FP target and up-sample the calculations for HDR. It's called a RGBE surface. (the E is an exponent value to allow greater range for the values)

The true irony in this is it was originally showed in a Radeon SDK 2005.

Edit: I just wanted to add that all these tricks are done with standard directX calls and should run on any hardware that supports them. (Which is every card after the 9600+ series for AMD and 6000+ series for nVidia)
Edit: I was wrong here. All 9.0 shader models support FP16 render target and none of the above tricks require a one.

Wreckage: CHANGE THE POST BACK! (page 3) YOU EDITED IT TO MAKE ME SEEM TO SAY SOMETHING I DIDN'T!!!

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

If not for NVIDIA the feature would not even be there in the first place. So you are basically trying to reward AMD for doing nothing. It's like welfare or something.

I wonder how much Nvidia benefited from AMD working with TSMC to iron out the bugs on the 40nm process...

AFAIK, both AMD and Nvidia paid TSMC to manufacture their GPU's. Both participated, both get something in return. Product.

AFAIK, only Nvidia spent resources to get AA working on it's hardware when it wasn't even present in the engine in the first place.

Total grasp at straws there. But keep trying. Throw enough sh*t against the wall type of thing. This whole argument is beyond BS to me at this point. :thumbsup:

I'm afraid your argument against breaks down in one little area - AMD is capable of and did provide "resources" to TSMC in order to improve said product. However nVidia isn't in the business of process technology, so they're freeloading on TSMC's gains from AMD's "investment". The difference here is that TSMC likely licensed tech from AMD, ergo asked AMD for help.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? AMD could have easily told TSMC that any technology advancement in 40nm from whatever process technology could only be used for AMD products, but they didn't. Unfortunately for you, this thrown shit did stick, right on your face.

The main point is the question of why didn't the DEVELOPER ask AMD for assistance? Why do these "developer relations" payoffs even exist? As a developer, I would want my title to work equivalently across as broad a platform as possible to encourage sales. The only reason I'd not do so is if I was bound by a contract (read: payoff) not to.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: BFG10K
This is an artificial block.

The AA code may not have been fully tested on AMD hardware. So it may cause problems to enable it.

LMAO. Besides the "reaching for straws" argument, many games have shipped with horrible bugs as long as I can remember, some of which take years to get fixed, if they ever do. Something like AA would be the least of my concerns for possible problems.

The work has already done

By NVIDIA. AMD should work with developers more so games won't run poorly on their hardware.

No, the work was done by developers, that's what they get paid for. NV just paid them off to block a feature from AMD cards that would otherwise work.

there?s nothing inherently special about nVidia?s hardware,

They still have the fastest video card out there, that's kind of special.

Too bad it's a whole generation behind the competition... :roll:

and we know in-game AA works on ATi?s hardware when the vendor check is defeated.

We know this from an AMD marketing blog. The game developer seems to think otherwise.

As does NV marketing... which isn't any more credible than AMD marketing.

Since the OP?s quote states nVidia isn?t responsible for the block, that leaves the developer to blame.

No it leaves AMD to blame for not working with the developer.

No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Schmide

Or working with open standards like DX11, DirectCompute, OpenCL, etc that benefit all instead of a few kickback receivers.

NVIDIA was the first to offer an OpenCL driver. In fact I don't even know if AMD offers one to the public yet. Nice try though.

Also DX11 is not an open standard. It is closed source that only runs on Microsoft operating systems.

Originally posted by: Schmide

On a Mac. :shocked: Nice try though.

DX11 works on a Mac?

Pathetic.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

My post above

Originally posted by: schmide
The true irony in this is it was originally showed in a Radeon SDK 2005.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

You've used that on me before and I truly think it's a false choice. Dumb decisions do not necessary exclude malice.

Edit Example: It was really dumb when the punk kids lit a bag of poop on Old Man Clemens' porch, therefore there was no malice.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Nvidia paid them to implement in-game AA so Nvidia, while they were at it, should have paid even more just so their competitor could have AA too? Wow I wonder in what other industries this is the norm. It would be great news for their shareholders too.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Shaq
Nvidia paid them to implement in-game AA so Nvidia, while they were at it, should have paid even more just so their competitor could have AA too? Wow I wonder in what other industries this is the norm. It would be great news for their shareholders too.

This is sort of the way I see it.

Everyone uses Gears of War as an example of in game AA for a UE3 game, but this seems like the ONLY UE3 PC game that had in game AA before Arkham, and this was only in DX10. Every other game seemed to require some work around or driver force to enable AA.

So either all other developers using the UE3 engine are lazy/incompetent (possible), or there is actually some effort to enable in game AA, especially in DX9 (since even the engine developers didn't have this in their game). If Nvidia paid/helped the developers to implement this, why shouldn't they be allowed to restrict it to their cards?

 

[BenSkywalker]

How is that relevant to my point that Eidos hasn't put out a decent game since Blood Money?

Eidos is a marketing label at this point, DQIX got stellar reviews and made huge money, it is put out by the same publishers.

NVIDIA has 100 million "PhysX capable" GPUs out there. So that's what, every card since the 8 series? Now that number isn't nearly as high as it once was.

How many cards that can run PhysX can't run Batman? We aren't talking Crysis here

Console games aren't all of a sudden going to stop being porting because NVIDIA doesn't come in and give them cash, give me a break.

How many games get improvements when going from consoles to the PC? I can think of two so far this year on the PC, both of them nV financed. That is my point. I would like to see more games get improvements when they come over, and ATi is more then welcome to jump on the same boat. If they want to start paying to get enhancements for their boards that will certainly make them a more attractive offering IMO, along with most typical non flag carrying consumers.

Oh, and your posts are comedy gold sometimes. Batman: AA PC GOTY? lmfao

Capable of reading more then good at comedy. At this moment, Batman is the best reviewed game on the PC this year. Personally I'm not a big fan of that type of game and would much rather seen Dragon Age take the honors(if it makes it out this year) but where I live, in the real world, Batman is the highest rated game to come out for the PC this year. That, if you want to come to grips with it or not, tends to have an impact come GOTY awards.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

If not for NVIDIA the feature would not even be there in the first place. So you are basically trying to reward AMD for doing nothing. It's like welfare or something.

I wonder how much Nvidia benefited from AMD working with TSMC to iron out the bugs on the 40nm process...

AFAIK, both AMD and Nvidia paid TSMC to manufacture their GPU's. Both participated, both get something in return. Product.

AFAIK, only Nvidia spent resources to get AA working on it's hardware when it wasn't even present in the engine in the first place.

Total grasp at straws there. But keep trying. Throw enough sh*t against the wall type of thing. This whole argument is beyond BS to me at this point. :thumbsup:

I'm afraid your argument against breaks down in one little area - AMD is capable of and did provide "resources" to TSMC in order to improve said product. However nVidia isn't in the business of process technology, so they're freeloading on TSMC's gains from AMD's "investment". The difference here is that TSMC likely licensed tech from AMD, ergo asked AMD for help.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? AMD could have easily told TSMC that any technology advancement in 40nm from whatever process technology could only be used for AMD products, but they didn't. Unfortunately for you, this thrown shit did stick, right on your face.

The main point is the question of why didn't the DEVELOPER ask AMD for assistance? Why do these "developer relations" payoffs even exist? As a developer, I would want my title to work equivalently across as broad a platform as possible to encourage sales. The only reason I'd not do so is if I was bound by a contract (read: payoff) not to.

Think about what you are saying. TSMC "licensed" tech from AMD. Doesn't licensed mean TSMC has to pay AMD some sort of fee? This fee becomes part of TSMC cost structure which is then passed on to it's customers. So in no way is Nvidia freeloading on AMD's investment, they are paying for it in increased fees to TSMC due to the cost of licensed tech.

AMD gained from thier helping of TSMC in actually getting a product made and licensing fees. So why are you arguing that Nvidia shouldn't gain something by their helping out the developer implement ingame AA.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

There's also Nvidia's track record of malicious practices.(Extreme driver cheating to have competitive benchmark results, disabling the ULI chipset from supporting SLI and Crossfire at the same time, blocking PhysX from working if an ATI card is present)

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: golem

So either all other developers using the UE3 engine are lazy/incompetent (possible), or there is actually some effort to enable in game AA, especially in DX9 (since even the engine developers didn't have this in their game). If Nvidia paid/helped the developers to implement this, why shouldn't they be allowed to restrict it to their cards?

If they used calls specific to the nVidia hardware, (very didn't), sure they can restrict it, I doubt any other cards understand nVidia instructions. (see my post above) If they specifically told (bought) the developer to ignore Microsoft DX compatibility flags, then they not only went against AMD(ATI) but also Microsoft, which touts itself on setting standards that game developers should follow.

 

[Tempered81]

The big question is, "Has there ever been a PC game that had 'Nvidia AA' or 'Ati AA' as its sole in-game option?"

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

You've used that on me before and I truly think it's a false choice. Dumb decisions do not necessary exclude malice.

Edit Example: It was really dumb when the punk kids lit a bag of poop on Old Man Clemens' porch, therefore there was no malice.

Holy crap, you mean there are exceptions to rules of thumb? :Q

And here all this time I thought they were immutable laws of physics or something. Glad you took the time to clear that up, I was rather confused till now.

So yes, as you say, since we can envision a non-zero number of scenarios in which malice is truly afoot this most certainly negates the invocation of the premise that a priori it stands to reason to first suspect stupidity before malice.

Hanlon was such a dumbass, err that's not right as that would imply he acted out of stupidity. I meant to say he most likely knowingly and intentionally made up his statement out of malice, fully expecting the validity of his statement would become the progenitor of much angst across forums and intarwebz from here to neptune.