Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Holy antialiasing Batman!

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 10:53:32 AM

More about : holy antialiasing batman

a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 12:17:21 PM

Just in time:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=791

The article is about the current state of NVIDIA; the portion that applies to this discussion is as follows:

Quote:
Another recent controversy around NVIDIA (they seem to find them frequently) has to do with the company's The Way It’s Meant to Be Played (TWIMTBP) program and the relationship between it and game developers. Recently a marketing rep from AMD claimed that some recently released titles were "proprietary" and NVIDIA's involvement in development caused those software teams to unfairly tweak their games for NVIDIA's hardware. The titles in question? Batman: Arkham Asylum, Resident Evil 5 and Need for Speed: Shift. Batman was especially controversial as it enabled in-game antialiasing support ONLY on NVIDIA hardware while AMD cards were required to use control panel based AA. The difference there is that there are definite performance advantages to letting the game engine itself decide how and where to apply the image quality feature rather than "brute forcing" the entire scene.

In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. The truth is that both sides of the coin work as closely as possible with developers to make sure the latest titles work as well as possible on their own hardware. But without a doubt, NVIDIA's development efforts in this area are much more extensive. The developer relations team at NVIDIA is significantly larger, has a significantly larger budget and in general works with more developers than AMD's. In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware. Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.


This was pretty much my stance from day 1 of this discussion. ATI didn't put forth the effort to get an AA engine built for the Unreal Engine, thus ATI users get hosed. Unlike some peoples initial claims that AA had been "disabled" for ATI users...
a c 274 U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 12:44:47 PM

That was pretty much my response when JDJ first brought the issue to light a couple of months ago, but it's still not going to prevent the ATi fans from crying foul. A bit more fuel for the fire can be found here.
Related resources
October 6, 2009 2:10:39 PM

Misleading pcper article, not the best way to defend that incident :sarcastic:  Injecting some common sense and disclosing some lies by that author.

Quote:
In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

Nonsense. Working relationships with devs are NOT what these issues are about, its about extending TWIMTB Payed from working with devs to support certain features (which is totally fine), to deliberately harming opponent (and players). Call me when AMD forced devs to remove something like DX10.1 if they didnt had it themselves, or to disable AA to harm performance and quality for gamers with opponents cards, or to disable features if other manufacturers card is detected. NONE of that has happened yet AFAIK, therefore Ryan Shrout claim is baseless.

Quote:
In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware.

Now he is lying, and not because AA "didnt exist in the game engine", but because "it didnt exist before that" and "NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos". Both bogus claims. AA was implemented and run fine on ATI cards on xbox360 (Nvidia had zero to do with it) and run just fine when ATI block was removed on PC port as well. Therefore AMD didnt even had to "implement" something that wasnt there, all Rocksteady had to do is to enable the feature already in place.

Quote:

Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.

I dont believe for a second AMD refused to cooperate with devs, it makes no sense whatsoever. Either it didnt happened, or was done in a wrong way. I.e. if mail says something like this "Nvidia helped us with PhysX, why dont you do the same? CUDA is cool, implement on your cards", then I wouldnt be surprised if AMD declined :kaola: 
a c 274 U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 2:23:14 PM

Harrisson said:
Misleading pcper article, not the best way to defend that incident :sarcastic:  Injecting some common sense and disclosing some lies by that author.

Quote:
In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.

Nonsense. Working relationships with devs are NOT what these issues are about, its about extending TWIMTB Payed from working with devs to support certain features (which is totally fine), to deliberately harming opponent (and players). Call me when AMD forced devs to remove something like DX10.1 if they didnt had it themselves, or to disable AA to harm performance and quality for gamers with opponents cards, or to disable features if other manufacturers card is detected. NONE of that has happened yet AFAIK, therefore Ryan Shrout claim is baseless.

Quote:
In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware.

Now he is lying, and not because AA "didnt exist in the game engine", but because "it didnt exist before that" and "NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos". Both bogus claims. AA was implemented and run fine on ATI cards on xbox360 (Nvidia had zero to do with it) and run just fine when ATI block was removed on PC port as well. Therefore AMD didnt even had to "implement" something that wasnt there, all Rocksteady had to do is to enable the feature already in place.

Quote:

Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.

I dont believe for a second AMD refused to cooperate with devs, it makes no sense whatsoever. Either it didnt happened, or was done in a wrong way. I.e. if mail says something like this "Nvidia helped us with PhysX, why dont you do the same? CUDA is cool, implement on your cards", then I wouldnt be surprised if AMD declined :kaola: 

I can only assume that you did not see randomizer's answer in the other thread.
randomizer said:
Er... Batman is DX9, and it uses the Unreal 3 engine which is a deferred shading engine. Deferred shading does not allow for the typical implementation of hardware-based MSAA due to the separation of the geometry and lighting stages. You can't just turn it on.

October 6, 2009 2:47:02 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I can only assume that you did not see randomizer's answer in the other thread.

I did, and why do you think they used initial version of engine and havent modified it? You would say Nvidia did? They did a good job on ATI cards on xbox360 :kaola:  I.e. it doesnt matter what initial engine they used, as long as they adapted it for their game, and AA works on ATI cards on both console and PC (if you remove block). But probably its an illusion, some eyefinity mirage, because it shouldnt work, because Unreal3 engine doesnt have it. :hello: 
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 3:31:30 PM

Quote:
In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware. Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.


Does anybody actually believe that Eidos would have released this game with no AA if Nvidia hadn't decided to 'lend a hand'?

The whole argument about each company helping out is a nonsense also. Hell why not get ATI to do all the graphics, never mind the AA. Anyone else see how ridiculous that argument is?

Are we supposed to believe that ATI (and Nvidia) are gonna send people around to each company to help with every game that is ever made? What did Eidos do to deserve preferential treatment anyway - especially from ATI? Would they have splashed the ATI logo ingame? Or does that take a bit more than just 'helping out'?

If ATI had gone with this on Batman, what is to stop every other TWIMTBP title's devs from making the same demands of them? Why not if they can get ATI to do the AA in their game for them why would they bother doing it? That would be great, getting Nvidia's TWIMTBP cash and ATI to do the AA (at first, I'm sure more can be added later) in their games.

That is just how ludicrous this is.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 3:39:09 PM

Since we're going on the word of PR departments, I'm going to bet it lies somewhere in the middle. I doubt we will ever know the truth, but if it really was as simple as 'sending a couple engineers' why wouldn't ATI do it? Just so they could complain about NVidia? I doubt it. So I'm inclined to think that there may be truth to NVidia 'helping' and ATI being 'invited', but it is not as simple as the article portrays. I have a feeling an 'entrance' fee was involved, and ATI probably just decided one game wasn't going to hurt sales too much and decided to pass.
a c 274 U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 3:45:23 PM

EXT64 said:
Since we're going on the word of PR departments, I'm going to bet it lies somewhere in the middle. I doubt we will ever know the truth, but if it really was as simple as 'sending a couple engineers' why wouldn't ATI do it? Just so they could complain about NVidia? I doubt it. So I'm inclined to think that there may be truth to NVidia 'helping' and ATI being 'invited', but it is not as simple as the article portrays. I have a feeling an 'entrance' fee was involved, and ATI probably just decided one game wasn't going to hurt sales too much and decided to pass.

I agree with you but a lot of the discontent seems to arise from the fact that they were not catered for in their absence, using their competitors money.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:04:14 PM

In the end, if Nvidia weren't 'helping out', these games would still be getting released and you can be sure that Batman would have had some form of AA that worked on both competitors cards.

There are plenty of games being released that aren't stained by TWIMTBP or whatever ATI's offering is called these days. Somehow they manage to have AA and the rest of the eye-candy that we *expect* of any title.

I fail to see why ATI should be expected to create AA for any software dev. It isn't their job to make games, or make AA for every title that doesn't have it.

In the end I doubt anyone has won here. Eidos must have lost sales, I've seen a bunch of people say on other forums that this was the final straw and they are now quitting Nvidia for good, and now ATI's name is being dragged down when the chances are they have done nothing wrong.

It could all have been easily avoided, and both Eidos and Nvidia must have known that this was going to cause controversy.
October 6, 2009 4:07:31 PM

TWIMTBP is like a bribe. Fix your game for our GPUs and we'll give you dosh, plain and simple.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:36:34 PM

No way the Nvidia logo is being displayed fullscreen without money changing hands.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:41:21 PM

Yes I read it all!

I'm sticking to it too. Aint no way nvidia are getting TWIMTBP full screen without money changing hands. Real money, not work = money.
October 6, 2009 4:45:17 PM

Quote:
Hmm, AFAIK no money per se, ever changes hands with the TWIMTBP program.

The money that is involved is access to a team of nvidia's people who will test the game, find bugs, provide optimisations and ensure good driver support.

It is time=money rather than plain money.

Could be wrong but I don't think nvidia will obviously give bribes, they will take a more legit sounding route.


It is still a bribe. Not directly.

They are buttering them with engineers. It's just like paying a company with cocoa beans. Still payment. Nvida pays for all those engineers and gives them for free to the game makers. How is that not payment?

Mmm... cocoa beans...
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:48:34 PM

SS, c'mon, even logic should tell you that that TWIMTBP ad costs money.

It doesn't change hands for the 'development program', however it definitely changes hands for the free PR from nV and the paid for Ads.

It's like saying no money changes hands for a senator when they go on junkets to Barbados paid for by a lobbyist. No, no money ever changes hands. :lol: 

I'd care about this if I thought ANY of the parties were telling the truth and weren't spinning this; and also if it were a good game. :pfff: 

I also like the defered rendering argument, doesn't seem to pose a problem to someone like Humus; but hey, I'm sure the tight timeline with the nV guy 'going on vacation' made it difficult to optimize something without Big Brrother there to 'help', I guess they just didn't care enough to release it as such.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 4:54:22 PM

I still think actual cash is changing hands here. Nvidia are sitting on $billions, they can afford to throw a few $million at games devs.

Think how much they stand to lose if they are seen being behind in benchmarks. Any 'lead' that Nvidia have is based on software optimisations in TWIMTBP games, without it they would be nowhere.

I read somewhere that ATI spent $6 million on HL2. I dunno how much of that was marketing or work done by engineers but $6 million is a lot. It makes you wonder just how much Nvidia must be spending on TWIMTBP.
October 6, 2009 4:59:24 PM

I like grapes.
October 6, 2009 5:15:12 PM

The cheap stuff you get drunk on.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 5:20:15 PM

haha.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 5:41:59 PM

jennyh said:
Does anybody actually believe that Eidos would have released this game with no AA if Nvidia hadn't decided to 'lend a hand'?


Actaully, yes. Other unreal games (Mass Effect anyone? Or maybe the half dozen other Unreal games that you have to force AA through the control panel?) shipped without AA, for the very same reason thats been said over and over again. The Unreal Engine does not nativly support AA, and adding it takes time, effort, manpower, and most importantly, money.

As for the 360, I should point out the 360 also has PhysX, so I guess based on the argument some people are giving, there is no reason why ATI can't port it to the PC platform? Its apples and oranges. Nevermind the fact that while ATI designed the GPU, Microsoft actually owns it.

Fact is, AA in an Unreal game is an extra feature, just like PhysX would be. NVIDIA is willing to work with devs (gets the devs locked in, which benifits them), and for whatever reason, ATI will not (or can not) do the same.
October 6, 2009 6:08:59 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
SS, c'mon, even logic should tell you that that TWIMTBP ad costs money.

It doesn't change hands for the 'development program', however it definitely changes hands for the free PR from nV and the paid for Ads.

It's like saying no money changes hands for a senator when they go on junkets to Barbados paid for by a lobbyist. No, no money ever changes hands. :lol: 

Exactly, money can change hands in many forms (dev support, free HW, PR, etc), and in some cases IMO in cash as well. For example ATI made several quite open leaks how they payed millions for some games bundles (I remember at least several occasions), while Nvidia is much more rich and aggressive. Also I dont remember ATI strong-arming devs like Nvidia does, and not because of morality, simply there is different level of money involved IMO. In what way - we dont know, but I'm positive its much more than ATI ever did.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 6:17:21 PM

Quote:
Actaully, yes. Other unreal games (Mass Effect anyone? Or maybe the half dozen other Unreal games that you have to force AA through the control panel?) shipped without AA, for the very same reason thats been said over and over again. The Unreal Engine does not nativly support AA, and adding it takes time, effort, manpower, and most importantly, money.


What about the other 100 or so games running it?

Quote:
Fact is, AA in an Unreal game is an extra feature, just like PhysX would be. NVIDIA is willing to work with devs (gets the devs locked in, which benifits them), and for whatever reason, ATI will not (or can not) do the same.


Physx is one of the 'integrated partners' of the unreal engine. ATI know better when to leave this stuff alone but unless we know exactly what the conditions were for them to 'help out', we'll just forever be guessing at what really happened.
October 6, 2009 9:22:51 PM

And then what about the 100 games no supporting it?

Throwing out arbitrary numbers to make a point is not helpful imo.


There is about 50 games out and like 35 games coming out that use the UT3 engine. Not all of them have AA and not all of them are on the PC

Really it brings down your vastly exaggerated numbers.

If i check only games that are out that run on windows i get roughly
30 games and most of them are crap games i never knew excised

So if i just take what mass effective, batman aa and +1 and then assume all of the shitty games i never head of also have native AA support that makes 1 out of every 10 games that use the UT3 engine (hell if some of them even count cuz they are more like UT2.5 with some extensions)

I get 1 out of every 10 games on windows running UT3 doesn't have native AA and i'm sure the ratio is much higher.

I used wikipedia as a source and a few other random places that list UT3 games got the jist of the numbers check which games were on windows and just divided by 3

So nice try making random shitty claims being ultra conservative with games that are out now it's 1 out of every 10 games that use UT3 engine because i doubt all of the shitty games i never heard of have any AA.

Hell if i take the good games and i'll just assume half i'm not counting tom Clancy 10 times over that brings it down to 1 out of every 5 games lack AA on the windows using UT3
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 10:39:05 PM

jennyh said:
Does anybody actually believe that Eidos would have released this game with no AA if Nvidia hadn't decided to 'lend a hand'?

Perhaps. STALKER (also a TWIMTBP title) uses deferred shading and required a driver workaround to enable AA when using DX9 instead of DX8 post-release that only worked on 8 series and higher GPUs. I am unsure if AMD ever released a workaround.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 10:41:50 PM

Ok wait.

You know that...3 or 4 games using Unreal 3 don't have AA? Actually you mentioned all of 2 while guessing at the rest?

How about instead of just dividing by 3, find out if those games support AA or not?

Then we'll see if more do or not.

So far it's Batman and Mass Effect out of the entire list of Unreal 3 engine games and until you can prove otherwise then these games *are* in the minority.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 10:43:06 PM

randomizer said:
Perhaps. STALKER (also a TWIMTBP title) uses deferred shading and required a driver workaround to enable AA when using DX9 instead of DX8 post-release that only worked on 8 series and higher GPUs. I am unsure if AMD ever released a workaround.


It's possible, however so far I've seen Batman and Mass Effect named as the only games that don't include AA.
October 6, 2009 10:52:45 PM

sorry im at work dont have time to read the thread, but all I gotta say is dirty dirty dirty!
October 6, 2009 11:03:28 PM

jennyh said:
It's possible, however so far I've seen Batman and Mass Effect named as the only games that don't include AA.

I'm not going to defer an hour or two of my life to check if all 30 games in depth to see which use AA. And besides the point of about 4 of them are only in foreign languages.

It's easy to be the negative hate machine but my numbers are alot more accurate then any pure random conjecture that has been thrown around in this thread.

Why don't you do the research?

I have already done my proof and what have you proved besides a guess? Unless you can prove your own numbers that aren't pulled out of your ass my numbers still stand.

If 2 well known games don't have AA it's easy to assume that there should be at least 1 one in that random list of games that use UT3 engine. Also while you are looking up games that use the UT3 engine why don't you disclose the ones that use UT2 with some extensions from the UT3 engine like bioshock.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 11:14:02 PM

Nope.

Gamerk316 said...

Quote:
Other unreal games (Mass Effect anyone? Or maybe the half dozen other Unreal games that you have to force AA through the control panel?) shipped without AA, for the very same reason thats been said over and over again.


In response to my point that it was very unlikely that Eidos would have shipped the game without AA.

Now, in order for his point (and now yours) to be valid, *you* have to provide evidence that the majority of the games created on Unreal 3 shipped without AA. He said 6 games or so? I only see 2 games being mentioned. What is it 6 or 2?

You seem to have figured out 30 pc games or thereabouts use Unreal 3. Do 15 of those games have AA and the other 15 don't? Or maybe its 25/30 that dont?

Or is it just Batman and Mass Effect, out of 30, 60, 100 Unreal 3 engine games?

No, the onus isn't on me to prove it. You are the ones saying it, therefore it's up to you to prove it otherwise the total number of unreal engine 3 games that don't have native AA are Batman and Mass Effect, for 2 out of 30+ games. That doesn't look good for Nvidia or Eidos does it?
October 6, 2009 11:33:11 PM

I didn't mean to prove that the majority of the games lack AA it's meant as a proof that it's not a tiny minority that Harrisson throws out there, that it is a much better ratio then one would assume. he makes it seem like it's absurd that a game dev would make a game without built in aa like it would have to be the work of an evil organization! zeesh

The 15 games is in imeant as half of those 30 games are so obscure i never even remember seeing them in passing. And to keep it on topic we are talking about popular main stream games. Sense mass effect and Batman AA are popular games

And to keep it more on topic i'm only talking about the games that are on windows, hell if i just look at windows ports the number should shrink down to about 20 games in which case it would still be 1 out of 10

There aren't even 100 unreal 3 engine games listed in the wiki including games that aren't out yet that includes ps3, 360 and windows don't pull numbers out of your ass to prove a point it just makes you look like a lair. Even if wiki is off there are something like 85 listed so it would barely break 100 but i doubt you looked it up so agian you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.

All i suggest is when porting a game to PC the devs don't care as much anymore.

*I didn't read everything in the whole threads to the t, also i don't know what 6 games he listed so i can assume hes pulling a number out of his ass so i assumed 3. 2 for well known and 1 as an assumption.

Again im not going to waste an hour or two of my time to get exact data i do better things in my time between checking up on things like these posts.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 11:47:43 PM

It doesn't matter if they are mainstream or obscure izzy, all that matters is - are the other games devs using Unreal 3 adding AA to their games?

My point is, Gamerk316 used Mass Effect 'and another 5-6' as his reasoning for why.

"The Unreal Engine does not nativly support AA, and adding it takes time, effort, manpower, and most importantly, money."

Is it really so difficult that *most* games on unreal 3 don't have AA? That is what Gamerk316 is suggesting here. Using Mass Effect as the only other example doesn't really do much for the case if it's a total of 2 games without and 30 games with AA does it?

If 25 out of 30 unreal 3 engine games didn't support AA, then sure I'd be the first to state that chances are Batman wouldn't either. But it's not 25/30 is it? So far it's 2 out of 30, being generous and using *your* numbers izzy.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2009 11:58:30 PM

Rant? Did you even read the thread?

Gamerk316 suggests that most unreal 3 engine games come without AA. Don't you think that's a pretty important point in terms of the overall discussion?

If not, perhaps you should think a bit harder stranger?
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:00:43 AM

Maybe Eidos are just bunch of incompetents and needed to outsource AA implementation to whoever could get it done quickest. We know NVIDIA has more resources to do that than AMD, bribes aside.
October 7, 2009 12:01:33 AM

Again i never mean to prove gamerk316 just disprove Harrisson who has some disillusion that games possibly can't ship without AA. That's it's so impossible that nvidia the evil empire must have had their hand in it.

Sigh no one seems to understand what i type
October 7, 2009 12:06:22 AM

It seems pretty cut and dry to me...

AA doesnt work on ATI cards by default in the new Batman game, however if you do a little editing in a config file you can make it work. Therefore its not some magic nVidia bullet, its the dev sh*tting on ATI because nVidia payed them off.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:06:34 AM

Of course games can ship without AA, they have done.

It *is* actually important to find out how many games using the unreal 3 engine do however. Gamerk316 insinuated (if not suggested) that most unreal 3 games do not have AA. If that is true then Nvidia and Eidos might have a strong case.

If it turns out that Mass Effect is the only game that didn't ship with AA? You already know what that is likely to mean, don't you.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:18:45 AM

We need to know if Eidos and Nvidia are using the Unreal engine as an excuse or if they actually have a decent point.

Look stranger - If some two-bit operation can create a game using Unreal Engine 3, and add AA to it on both competitors cards...then you can be fairly sure that a company the size of Eidos can.

That is why it is important to know just how difficult is it to implement AA in games with the Unreal engine.

When Gamerk316 cited Mass Effect, that sure looked like good evidence, however...so far it is Mass Effect, and *only* Mass Effect that hasn't had some kind of AA using the Unreal engine.

There probably are more, but I don't know that for a fact.

If it is Mass Effect, and *only* Mass Effect that doesn't include AA? Then that pretty much lays to rest the excuse that implementing AA in Batman is difficult, surely?
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:49:30 AM

Bioshock also requires driver workarounds last I checked.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 12:55:06 AM

Bioshock was Unreal 2 wasnt it?

I have the game (yes lol i fell for the hype), let me reinstall it and I'll see.
October 7, 2009 12:58:07 AM

Regarding the Unreal 3 engine and AA...

Bioshock - This game has some AA issues, but at the same time, I believe the engine used for this game is a Unreal 2 / Unreal 3 hybrid. Check out the middle of this page... http://www.tweakguides.com/Bioshock_5.html ...for more information.

Gears of War - A definite product of the Unreal 3 engine. Nevertheless, after searching our friend, the internet, a bit, it seems that this game's AA issues are moreso related to the difference between DX9 and DX10.

Rise of the Argonauts - I never played this game, but thought that the following post... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/101916-13-rise-argona... ...was midly interesting.

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas - I believe at least one of the two versions lacked an in-game AA option.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 1:01:59 AM

Wow, the manual still smells new :D 

Page 4 is interesting.

"An Important Note Regarding Graphics and Having the Best Possible Experience"

Bioshock uses some of the most advanced rendering techniques available today for special effects and to achieve real-time performance for a great game playing experience. The game was largely developed and tested on NVIDIA Geforce 6 series, 7 series and 8 series graphics cards and the intended experience can be more fully realized on NVIDIA Geforce 8 Series graphics hardware. On an NVIDIA Geforce 8600 or better you will be able to turn on all of the NVIDIA special effect features at higher resolutions in the game.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 1:03:56 AM

jzsang said:
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas - I believe at least one of the two versions lacked an in-game AA option.



I wasn't aware of two diffent versions, however one of them *definitely* has AA enabled.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 1:16:51 AM

randomizer said:
Bioshock also requires driver workarounds last I checked.


No ingame AA option (or mby thats just because I have an ATI :D ).

The game does have real time reflections however. Isn't that what causes the issues with AA in the unreal engines?
October 7, 2009 1:49:29 AM

jennyh said:
I wasn't aware of two diffent versions, however one of them *definitely* has AA enabled.


There were two versions... Vegas and Vegas 2.

Nevertheless... now that you are really making me think about all of this... perhaps I misplaced my earlier thoughts with my faint memory of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter... an Unreal 2 engine game with AA issues... sorry...
October 7, 2009 2:21:34 AM

Mmm Jenny, stop posting like me when I was 13.

I'm too old to keep up such a high post count.

To be honest, if you turn the res. high enough, you don't need AA...
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 3:04:21 AM

Quote:
Hmm, I will listen to your opinion grape as you do know how things work but for some reason people have a problem with the concept that money comes in many forms and the cost of the services that nvidia supplies are probably worth more than a flash screen that most gamers probably never even look at.


Oh it's definitely mainly about the support and the man-hours, but it's like the trip to Barbados is mainly about the Flight and Hotel, Green Fees and Dinner/Gala, not about someone actually giving out 'walking around money' but that happens too.

And so Tony Tamasi admits to Fuad;

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15834/1/

"Senior Vice President, Content and Technology Tony Tamasi has confirmed this to Fudzilla and he also said that for some marketing purposes “money does exchange some hands”. This is mainly for in game and external advertising. Mr. Tamasi said that his software division of approximately 220 people cost Nvidia tens of millions and Jensen joked that these guys do not make any money, they just cost Nvidia money."

Which is actually different from their previous statements that were adamantly to the contrary. :sarcastic: 

Anywhoo it's up to EIDOS to risk the perception of wrong doing, whether it happened or not, the perception that it did or didn't can often be more damaging.

There's no doubting though that AMD didn't come through with their promise to improve on ATi's existing program, which obviously isn't the case since most of the n00b Knobz in those threads can't even figure out that their is a competing program, let alone name it.

It would be nice to think that companies would do what's in the best interest of all users, which is what standards are supposed to be about, but it's unlikely when there's so much money involved. It's just like the HD-DVD vs BluRay fight where it's about the tie-ins, not the consumer benefits.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 3:20:47 AM

gamerk316 said:

As for the 360, I should point out the 360 also has PhysX, so I guess based on the argument some people are giving, there is no reason why ATI can't port it to the PC platform? Its apples and oranges. Nevermind the fact that while ATI designed the GPU, Microsoft actually owns it.


Or it's based on the fact that the X360 doesn't use the Xenos to do PhysX, it uses the IBM PowerPC chip-Xenon, in the same way that the non-GPU PhysX phsyics can be used in Batman on any PC (with or without an ATi or nV card [S3 or intel too]). The debris-physics version of PhysX is PC-only. So don't bother pointing it out. :pfff: 

You seem to keep confusing the two, either on purpose (to be obtuse to confuse the n00bs who don't know better) or because you don't understand it, but it's about the 4th time this has been explained to you, that the 360 (and Wii) implementations, have nothing to do with either the GPU or PPU implementations of PhysX on the PC. The only thing even close it the PS3 which uses FPUs to replicate what the GPU or PPU does on a PC.
October 7, 2009 3:22:13 AM

You listen to Fuad?

Seriously?
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2009 3:44:29 AM

It's not Fudo I'm listening to here, it's his nV supplied talking point that counters their own previous talking points. It's not his perception or hopes and dreams of what may or may not be, it's Tony's own words on the subject, unless you think Fuad never asked him and Tony never said what was quoted, in an article meant to defend the program.

Other than that, I don't put much faith in the rumours and the InQ-II.... errr..... Fudzilla.
October 7, 2009 5:50:00 AM

IzzyCraft said:
Again i never mean to prove gamerk316 just disprove Harrisson who has some disillusion that games possibly can't ship without AA. That's it's so impossible that nvidia the evil empire must have had their hand in it.

Sigh no one seems to understand what i type

Where exactly did I say games cant ship without AA? ;)  FEW games mentioned isnt an issue as well, as strangestranger mentioned, the issue is "It is more the why and how the develop chose to implement it."

To sum it up, if Batman wouldnt have AA at all, it wouldnt be the best gaming experience for some players, thats it. But the way they did it, made it controversial and brought back issues with nvidia and devs, again. Since you are fan of the Nvidia, maybe its hard for you to understand why its wrong, when company forces dev to remove DX10.1 (here goes ~15% extra speed in AA...), or when it "gives a hand" for a devs, and they block AA for specific manufacturers cards (again, AA works if you remove the block, there was no need for another implementation of AA by ATI).

Maybe it will be easier for you to understand with this example - lets say AMD works closely with Dirt2 devs to bring out DX11 features ASAP (and they did). Now lets imagine Fermi is finally launched, happy IzzyCraft with gamerk316 starts the Dirt2 and... they have to use DX10 path in the game, because DX11 is blocked on Geforce cards. Why? Because AMD helped with DX11, and Nvidia didnt, therefore Geforce owners cant ask for Dx11 :whistle:  Those very same fans who defended Nvidia in previous cases (DX10.1, AA, etc), would be in rage and torch the lights, wouldnt you? ;) 
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!