SM3.0 is a scam.

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Why is it "not close to reasonable"? Isn't this along the lines of what Doom3 does for its lighting?

No, D3 does a Z pass to determine straight line visibility- childs play in comparison to what you are talking about.

Ah, you're right. They "cheat" (in a sense ) by using hardware-supported shadow volumes for the visibility tests.

If the point you're concerned about on the surface can 'see' the light, the light can 'see' the point on the surface (barring single-sided surfaces between them, but most dynamically lit game engine objects are 'solid'). It shouldn't matter if you trace light->surface or surface->light for visibility and lighting calculations (although one or the other may be faster in a particular case, if you don't have to invert any of the vectors).

You are ignoring reflection, refraction and scatter.

Seriously, do any current game engines 'really' calculate reflected or refracted light from dynamic sources, or attempt to do much beyond approximated ambient lighting? I've seen some tech demos (like rthdribl) that do these things (as well as shader-based HDR), but they run so slowly as to be useless in a game engine with any of today's cards.

I'm talking about trying to determine 'is there an unobstructed line of sight between point A and point B'. Something that, I would think, has to be done for any nontrivial shader/fragment-based dynamic lighting system.

Why do you need "six or eight different full frame sized textures"? You need one full-frame buffer (presumably 24bpp) to store the dynamic lighting contribution for each pixel (or you might be able to work directly with the framebuffer). But you only need one per-pixel bitmap (with 1bpp) to mark the pixels that will be illuminated.

As long as your hardware supports conditionals you can do it that way- SM2.0 doesn't support conditionals. You can't exit the shader based on a simple flag- THAT IS THE PROBLEM. What you would have to do is create a shader per pixel and then store that for each frame.

I was under the impression that you didn't have to run a pixel shader on every single pixel on the screen (which you seem to be saying you do have to do). Admittedly, my knowledge of shaders stops somewhere before knowing how you would actually implement this in a program. If you can't do this... how do pixel shaders for things like water work? Certainly they're not running that shader on the pixels that are not part of the water... or are those sorts of things always done with vertex shaders? Or do they actually create a new set of shaders per frame as you are suggesting (and if so, wouldn't that indicate that this is still a viable technique?)

I did find some links that discussed ways of doing this in SM2.0 (mostly by hacking up the depth buffer and sorting out pixels that way), so it definitely seems like it should be possible.

With multiple lights, you either need one bitmap per light (and then do one pass per light to sum up the contributions), or you could just 'tag' each pixel that is visible to one or more lights, then calculate the contribution of each light to each tagged pixel (which may turn out to be 0 for some of the light/pixel combinations, and would be 'wasting' GPU time).

All requiring conditionals, which you can't do with SM2.0. We are not talking about fully programmable hardware here- SM3.0 isn't either it just removes some serious restrictions.

It only requires the capability of running a (non-branching) shader on a specified subset of pixels. You do not actually need conditionals within the shader if you can do this.

Other people would probably say that being more 'future-proof' for "only" a 10% increase in cost is obviously worth it. There's nothing wrong with this view; you're basically 'betting' that SM3.0 will turn out to be worth it at some point in the future.

It is a certainty that SM3.0 will be a major feature in the gaming industry- it is looking like every next gen console is going to be built around that exact feature set. No emerging gaming technology has had that level of support across the board to date.

I agree that it will be adopted more widely than SM2.0, but I still think the timeframe will be on the order of a few years.

 

[piddlefoot]

ive just ordered one of these 7800 gtx cards, and they are better than my 800xtpe, 24 pixle pipes, opens aa up nice and smooth, ati is still at 16 pipes, but ATI have a card with 512 meg ram on it, the 7800gtx l ordered is 256, but smashes the x800xtpe, its in the core thats improved , more than clock, archutecture, it is a very nice card , though l went for one not two as sli just doesnt seem worth 2000ish !
Im at a delemer as to whether to put it in the fx55 tower or the 4400+ duel core tower, the 4400+ only has 1 gig of ram at the moment, fx55 has 2gigs.
Though its probably just a matter of time untill ATI unleash another piped monster and raise the stakes like they did when introducing the x800 range...

 

[BenSkywalker]

Seriously, do any current game engines 'really' calculate reflected or refracted light from dynamic sources

Reflections- lots of games use them.

I was under the impression that you didn't have to run a pixel shader on every single pixel on the screen (which you seem to be saying you do have to do).

You don't- but you need to have a shader assigned to a surface. If your surface doesn't interact with a light you need a way to flag it to skip the shader- you can't flag it under SM 2.0.

I did find some links that discussed ways of doing this in SM2.0 (mostly by hacking up the depth buffer and sorting out pixels that way), so it definitely seems like it should be possible.

But how would you flag each surface is the question? I know how you could calculate out which surfaces need to be shaded and which don't- but what good would it do you when you can't create a conditional?

It only requires the capability of running a (non-branching) shader on a specified subset of pixels.

How do you specify the subset without a conditional? You have your surfaces already scheduled to have a shader run on them- how are you supposed to exit this command when you cross it under SM 2.0?

I agree that it will be adopted more widely than SM2.0, but I still think the timeframe will be on the order of a few years.

I don't see why ports to the PC would be dumbed down that much for that long. I can understand them scaling some things back, but rewriting a SM3.0 native engine to work on scaled down PC hardware isn't likely to be a viable alternative for the overwhelming majority of ports.

 

[hans030390]

What i'm confused at right now is that on the UE3 website, everything is in "normal mapping" which is a Sm2 feature...yet the developers keep talking about how heavily Sm3 will be used in it...From what i've heard, Displacement mapping, if doing the exact same thing the normal mapping would be doing, is actually less stressful on the cpu or gpu. I heard it...i could be wrong, or i could have misunderstood.

Still, it does raise another question...but there's no doubt that the next gen games WILL run SM3, so even if SM2 gets the exact same graphical features (which i'm assuming it wont get all, but most) I could still get a performance boost anyways. Which is nice.

Hm...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: BouZouki

Originally posted by: botd4u

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
After owning both a sm 3.0 nVidia card & an X800XL, this is how I feel about SM 3.0

Obviously their plan worked because I see people everyday saying SM 3.0 is a reason to buy a video card. Well it isn't. Call it my opinion, baszh me, or do whatever else you fanboys feel you must. This is coming from the unbiased observation of someone who has owned both & really appreciated the quality of the x800xl's display.

In conclusion, if you think Sm 3.0 is some big deal & tell people that future games will have it, you are only telling nVidia "Yes, I want you to pay game developers to let you hack their graphics engine up & add some useless program so I can say i have the better video card".

LOL when Half-Life 2: Aftermath, lost coast comes out with HDR (a smart shader 3.0 technology), for nVidia users iz gonna own, I'll be able to run the game at 1800x1380 on 8x AF, you can be super envy of me at that time and regretting u bought an ATI card ROFL.

HDR works just fine on ATI cards.

Sure it works with Pixel Shading. But it doesn't look near as good as FP Blending, nor perform as good.

-Kevin

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: botd4u

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
After owning both a sm 3.0 nVidia card & an X800XL, this is how I feel about SM 3.0

Obviously their plan worked because I see people everyday saying SM 3.0 is a reason to buy a video card. Well it isn't. Call it my opinion, baszh me, or do whatever else you fanboys feel you must. This is coming from the unbiased observation of someone who has owned both & really appreciated the quality of the x800xl's display.

In conclusion, if you think Sm 3.0 is some big deal & tell people that future games will have it, you are only telling nVidia "Yes, I want you to pay game developers to let you hack their graphics engine up & add some useless program so I can say i have the better video card".

LOL when Half-Life 2: Aftermath, lost coast comes out with HDR (a smart shader 3.0 technology), for nVidia users iz gonna own, I'll be able to run the game at 1800x1380 on 8x AF, you can be super envy of me at that time and regretting u bought an ATI card ROFL.

too bad 6 series users wont be able to run at those settings. only 7 series will be able to run hdr at such a high res and aa/af

 

[Regs]

That was the worst persuasive argument I heard in awhile. The "In Conclusion" transition made me laugh.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

Originally posted by: botd4u

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
After owning both a sm 3.0 nVidia card & an X800XL, this is how I feel about SM 3.0

Obviously their plan worked because I see people everyday saying SM 3.0 is a reason to buy a video card. Well it isn't. Call it my opinion, baszh me, or do whatever else you fanboys feel you must. This is coming from the unbiased observation of someone who has owned both & really appreciated the quality of the x800xl's display.

In conclusion, if you think Sm 3.0 is some big deal & tell people that future games will have it, you are only telling nVidia "Yes, I want you to pay game developers to let you hack their graphics engine up & add some useless program so I can say i have the better video card".

LOL when Half-Life 2: Aftermath, lost coast comes out with HDR (a smart shader 3.0 technology), for nVidia users iz gonna own, I'll be able to run the game at 1800x1380 on 8x AF, you can be super envy of me at that time and regretting u bought an ATI card ROFL.

too bad 6 series users wont be able to run at those settings. only 7 series will be able to run hdr at such a high res and aa/af

Too bad neither 7 Series, nor R520 (AFA We Know) will not have the logic required to run AA and HDR simultaneously.

Just dont respond to botd4u... he is just another mindless fanboy. His spelling, punctuation, and logic alone should tell you that.

-Kevin

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: hans030390
But honestly, even though i CAN use it, i'm just not picky about seeing textures from far away or smooth out aliasing.

So I see AA/AF as an IQ improvement, but nothing I'm concerned about. It's not worth the framerate, even if i can use it.

What's the point of running a game with textures on High and then having the screen a blurry mess? (see AF shots 1/3 way down page)?. with stretched textures because you can't run no AF? IQ wise, AF is virtually a must. In some older games the low res. textures were kinda blurry anyway so AF didn?t make as much as a difference, but in newer games it makes a huge difference. I would take medium textures and 8AF over high-textures and no-AF.

 

[hans030390]

The screen is a blurry mess? sorry i really don't look at the textures when they're far away from me. If i ever do some texture/shader admiring, its usually right in front of me.

Sorry if you've never heard of someone who could care less for AA/AF...there's plenty of others like me. And its not vital to the game...

 

[Gamingphreek]

The screen is a blurry mess? sorry i really don't look at the textures when they're far away from me.

Well i guess we know who is horrible at gaming.

Sorry if you've never heard of someone who could care less for AA/AF...there's plenty of others like me. And its not vital to the game...

I doubt there are "plenty" like you. Im sure some people think that the cost of using it outweighs the benefits. Not Vital to the game. Couldn't one argue that High Quality, HDR, SM3, and what not are not vital to the game. Especially HDR, and SM3! I would hardly say that more people use those 2 combined than they do AA or AF.

Hans, you are making no sense and really have no argument.

-Kevin

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Honestly though, by the time these games come out the R520 will be out so it really is a moot point. At that point one would hopefully the price & performance of the cards in their budget & choose wisely instead of buying into hype. But hey, keep feeding fairy tales to the good people in these forums. I will continue to dance around the flames, enjoy.

1. Speak truth.
2. ?!?!?!?!?
3. Profit $

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Pr0d1gy
Honestly though, by the time these games come out the R520 will be out so it really is a moot point. Add to this the fact that nVidia cards are terribly overpriced initially and lose their value quicker then you have a recipe for buyer's remorse. But hey, keep feeding fairy tales to the good people in these forums. I will continue to dance around the flames, enjoy.

1. Speak truth.
2. ?!?!?!?!?
3. Profit $

Go away troll, along with this flamebait thread.

Your ignorance, and lack of any logic what-so-ever, are pitiful.

Come back yo have a valid topic to discuss.

-Kevin

 

[hans030390]

I'm not arguing, im just saying i dont use AA/AF and i dont see a point in it. Its FINE if other people use it, but the graphics are good enough for me as they are.

I've seen quite a few posts where people are looking for video cards and they say "not interested in AA/AF"

I personally know someone who doesnt care about AA/AF.

And what do you mean im not a good gamer? just because i dont stand to admire textures looking great from 100ft away? I game plenty. I'm decent at battlegrounds, CS:S, BF2, etc.

So i dont really see your argument as "vaild" either.

 

[fstime]

How's this thread going?

 

[BFG10K]

Since I know my performance won't be good with AA/AF in next gen,

Modern cards do 16xAF for free and in many cases 2xMSAA as well. To claim there's a "performance hit" and then turn around and claim HDR/soft shadows are viable (especially on old hardware) is quite frankly ludicrous.

It's not worth the framerate, even if i can use it.

Riiiight, but the massive performance hit of HDR and soft shadows is more than worth it on your 6600GT?

sorry i really don't look at the textures when they're far away from me.

You don't? So you stare at walls all day long? Do you even play games that have a z-axis? I guess AF & AA aren't too useful for PacMan...

But it doesn't look near as good as FP Blending, nor perform as good.

HDR doesn't run fast on nVidua cards either. Also it's possible that ATi's pixel shader HDR may work with AA because it's done in a different part of the pipeline.

 

[Gamingphreek]

HDR doesn't run fast on nVidua cards either. Also it's possible that ATi's pixel shader HDR may work with AA because it's done in a different part of the pipeline.

Never said it did ... but from what i hear, running it through the Pixel Shaders is much more innefficient, and also has lower IQ than FP Blending. I guess we will have to wait for a review on it, because i dont know every in and out about the front end of a pixel pipeline.

-Kevin

 

[hans030390]

What i meant is when i play games, i dont tend to look at far away objects for detail. I concentrate on whats important (such as where i'm trying to get or killing something). It's like real life, you don't see "details" unless you look straight at something when its usually pretty close. Same goes for games. If I look at details, I get close to it and look straight at it. Otherwise, I dont really concentrate on anything accept the game...no, not even how pretty it is.

Besides, I dont mind jaggies. I dont see whats so bad about em. Or the texture thing.

You do know that some people don't mind that? so why argue with me about it if i dont care. This whole argument is pointless because you're just trying to tell me that AA/AF is good, and it is, but i dont use it.

And wait, BFG10K, i never said anything about HDR. So where are you pulling that from? No where. I dont use HDR or soft shadows either, not because I dont like them, but they also provide performance hits, and usually not enough graphical quality that I notice (most heavy gamers do, but i dont). Now, for HL2 lost coast, HDR is kinda the focus of it, so i might see how it runs on my system.

I'm fine playing games at low settings, as long as i can play them.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I'm fine playing games at low settings, as long as i can play them.

Then why the hell are you constantly pimping SM3!?!?

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: hans030390
Woot! I like to be annoying!

I would like to discuss SMs in a nice manner, but no one seems to do that. Its all flame and bash.

So sorry, i'll leave you all to talk about something else. have fun!

Sorry if you got insulted, but you are arguing that quality means BS and all we need is performance.
You have set all the work ATI and Nvidia have made through years of research and investments on fire by throwing a Cuban cigar at it and saying oops I did it again.

You're missing the point. I'd rather have eye candy (bump mapping, displacement mapping, Sm2 stuff and upcoming Sm3 features to be used). I hardly consider AA/AF as eye candy because they just smooth out lines or show textures at higher quality from farther away.

Honestly, which would you rather have, a crappy looking game with AA/AF on, or a game that looks really good but you dont run AA/AF on because it would kill performance?

I guess I'm just not into AA/AF...to me, the "eye candy" it adds isn't worth the framerate loss.

I would rather have a "according to you, crappy looking game" with AA on because jaggies are usually only visible on games with very high resolution textures already (therfore negating the "crappy looking game thing" so now I need to smooth out these textures so I use AA then AF. AF is not really needed as much except in situations/games with very large draw distances.

 

[hans030390]

Wow, someone hasnt read all of my posts. Ok, let me rephrase that.

I dont mind playing games at low settings IF I HAVE TO. obviously, for next gen i will probably have to. Still, theres a chance that i will at least get medium quality settings to run fine. AA/AF and HDR/soft shadows wont help performance, so they'll be off most likely. and even though i COULD use AA/AF, i dont see a need to. HDR/soft shadows kill performance anyways, so i dont use those.

Besides, even if it is on low settings, there will probably be a SM3 rendering mode that will boost performance. Can't go wrong with that.

Ha...pimping Sm3...that sounds funny.

You'll have to excuse me, I can't argue worth crap ask my family. But i'm trying.

 

[BFG10K]

And wait, BFG10K, i never said anything about HDR. So where are you pulling that from?

So that really only leaves SM 3.0 to get (potentially) a free performance gain. It's fine to say it gives a particular card an edge but the way you talk it sounds like you're expecting the second coming or something.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: hans030390
What i'm confused at right now is that on the UE3 website, everything is in "normal mapping" which is a Sm2 feature...yet the developers keep talking about how heavily Sm3 will be used in it...From what i've heard, Displacement mapping, if doing the exact same thing the normal mapping would be doing, is actually less stressful on the cpu or gpu. I heard it...i could be wrong, or i could have misunderstood.

Still, it does raise another question...but there's no doubt that the next gen games WILL run SM3, so even if SM2 gets the exact same graphical features (which i'm assuming it wont get all, but most) I could still get a performance boost anyways. Which is nice.

Hm...

Problem is with next gen games, we will all own next gen graphics. Anyways silly thread, as we all know sm3 is usefull, just how usefull it will be for the 6800 line and below is hard to say. I suspect that most will have upgraded by the time several games won't run worth shyt on the x800 line. Of course once Ati has sm 3.0, there will be two companies with a vested interest in seeing everyone have to upgrade - but game developers want to sell games - so sm 2.0 will likely hang around for a while yet. Hell there was a minor uproar when some game or other did not support 1.3.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

And wait, BFG10K, i never said anything about HDR. So where are you pulling that from?

So that really only leaves SM 3.0 to get (potentially) a free performance gain. It's fine to say it gives a particular card an edge but the way you talk it sounds like you're expecting the second coming or something.

Well yeah, thats the edge i wanted on this card over the x800, and people claimed that its soo much faster (especially with aa/af). So thats where the whole AA/AF thing came up, and I'm not trying to make SM3 sound uber important (though it will be just like SM2 is today someday) but its kinda hard when you recommend a video card because it has the slight edge of SM3, and someone turns around and says "no you're stupid." I mean what if people want to keep the card for a few years, ya know? Can't hurt to recommend it.

So that's why i get a little defensive about it sometime. or all the time.

But yes, i do like the edge sm3 gives. I think it was worth getting. or will be.

 

[Intelia]

Hans you do have a valid point . But some of your argument is really useless . I like all my eye candy turned on . Thats the whole point of top of the line gaming . If your online gaming using high res. and eye candy on full. It can make a big differance in first person shooter games I might beable to see you were as you can't see me at distances . that means your dead. Any good gamer knows this . Also for right now today its a nosense argument. But a very valid point.


Zinn2b.