[Richard]

Bluesnews has a story on a recently created thread on the official 2k forums where a couple of guys are trying to make the game work on these cards (mostly Radeon Xxxx series though there is a guy there with a Mobility Radeon 9000 - ouch).

While the TWIMTBP status of the game can explain Bioshock's SM 3.0 requirements, it's also true it was probably easier for Irrational to use the same level of shaders for both PC and XBOX.

Still, it's annoying that, if officially supported, a X800 series card would have run the game faster than the minimum supported 6600/X1300 cards.

Do you guys think ATI will step in like they did with Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory?

[Sobek]

Originally Posted by Richard

Bluesnews has a story on a recently created thread on the official 2k forums where a couple of guys are trying to make the game work on these cards (mostly Radeon Xxxx series though there is a guy there with a Mobility Radeon 9000 - ouch).

While the TWIMTBP status of the game can explain Bioshock's SM 3.0 requirements, it's also true it was probably easier for Irrational to use the same level of shaders for both PC and XBOX.

Still, it's annoying that, if officially supported, a X800 series card would have run the game faster than the minimum supported 6600/X1300 cards.

Do you guys think ATI will step in like they did with Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory?

I love this kind of tinkering, kudos to them.

Out of curiosity, what did ATi do with Chaos Theory? I never heard anything odd about them when it was released (and when I played it).

I hope they get to complete their task and get the game functioning on SM2.0 hardware, that'd be very cool.

[digitalwanderer]

I hope they don't!

If they pull it off my son is REALLY gonna be bugging me to let him play it, he has an X800TT....

[Skrying]

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

I hope they don't!

If they pull it off my son is REALLY gonna be bugging me to let him play it, he has an X800TT....

Whatever, I really wouldn't give in on this game. In all the news about Bioshock I can't believe the pure violence of some of it. The opening scene when you finally "arrive" at Rapture... the way it was done. That made even me feel a bit uneasy.

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing this. Though like the widescreen situation I really hope this doesn't get blown over because 2K didn't include a SM2.0 path to begin with. It simply made the work a lot easier I would guess as a pure SM3.0 minimum game. At this point I find it reasonable that SM3.0 was used as the minimum, its been 3 years since Xx00 series launched. Also, the person with the Mobility 9000 is simply stupid, that's not even a DirectX 9 GPU...

[swaaye]

They will just stop making PC games altogether and go with consoles that make them more money and don't need backwards compatibility. I can't believe the rageful fury some of the tools out there can bring forth because their 9800 won't play a game in 2007. People are such disappointments. LoL.

Yeah, my Voodoo1 couldn't play Comanche 4 either. Oh the despair. Quake wouldn't run worth a damn on my 486 either!

I can only assume the whiny morons are kids who are clueless.

[slapnutz]

Originally Posted by swaaye

They will just stop making PC games altogether and go with consoles that make them more money and don't need backwards compatibility. I can't believe the rageful fury some of the tools out there can bring forth because their 9800 won't play a game in 2007. People are such disappointments. LoL.

Yeah, my Voodoo1 couldn't play Comanche 4 either. Oh the despair. Quake wouldn't run worth a damn on my 486 either!

I can only assume the whiny morons are kids who are clueless.

Sure older technologies can hold back games but heres a bit of information for ya...
The older SM2.0 ATi 800/850xt cards can outperform the following newer, supposed more advanced SM3.0 cards in most benchmarks...

Ati - x1300, x1350, x1600, x1650
nVidia - ALL 6000 series cards (excluding the one 512mb model), 7300, 7600

So in conclusion, no, not everyone are whiny morons kids wanting an equivlent of Quake on a 486.

Oh wait, you wanted a source... sure!
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html

btw ... I have a Sm3.0 card.

[SugarCoat]

Originally Posted by Sobek

I love this kind of tinkering, kudos to them.

Out of curiosity, what did ATi do with Chaos Theory? I never heard anything odd about them when it was released (and when I played it).

I hope they get to complete their task and get the game functioning on SM2.0 hardware, that'd be very cool.

CT was 1.1 or 3.0 only at launch, there was no 2.0 middle ground which was asanign. Obviously 1.1 looks far worse than 2.0/3.0.

[swaaye]

Oldblivion is the most impressive of these projects yet, IMO. Play the game on your Radeon 8500 today!

[Humus]

Originally Posted by Richard

Do you guys think ATI will step in like they did with Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory?

What would be the gain? SCCT was released in a time when ATI had SM2.0 hardware and Nvidia had SM3.0 hardware, but SCCT didn't really need SM3.0 other than for convenience (static branching in pixel shader etc.)

[AlStrong]

I'll take that as an unofficial "no".

For the less shader-...matically (shadermatics!) inclined, what are those dynamic branches checking and doing

[Humus]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

I'll take that as an unofficial "no".

Don't take my words to mean anything, even unofficially. I don't even work there anymore.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Humus

Don't take my words to mean anything, even unofficially. I don't even work there anymore.

No fair, I don't check up on your blog everyday. Good luck with the game studio (and keep a vivid side-blog on any Creatures you encounter )

[Davros]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

(and keep a vivid side-blog on any Creatures you encounter )

Its Norway that has the parrots not Sweden

Ps: Humus since your here I have a request if i may be so bold, next time you make a demo any chance of it being a firework display (soz for the OT)

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Humus

What would be the gain? SCCT was released in a time when ATI had SM2.0 hardware and Nvidia had SM3.0 hardware, but SCCT didn't really need SM3.0 other than for convenience (static branching in pixel shader etc.)

I'm well aware of that. The gain would be supporting ATI customers who did NOT buy into nVidia's "Power of 3" campaign and have video cards that will run the game faster than the minimum supported by the game. For instance, using the unofficial fix I linked to lets me run the game at around 50fps with max details (except DX10 effects) at 1024x768 with a X850XT PE. Even though many textures are missing I think the X8xx series card would be fast enough to run the game at 800x600 at min quality.

But let me be clear, this is not ATI's fault (the same way it wasn't back in the SC: Chaos Theory affair).

[AlexV]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm well aware of that. The gain would be supporting ATI customers who did NOT buy into nVidia's "Power of 3" campaign and have video cards that will run the game faster than the minimum supported by the game. For instance, using the unofficial fix I linked to lets me run the game at around 50fps with max details (except DX10 effects) at 1024x768 with a X850XT PE. Even though many textures are missing I think the X8xx series card would be fast enough to run the game at 800x600 at min quality.

But let me be clear, this is not ATI's fault (the same way it wasn't back in the SC: Chaos Theory affair).

Why is it a fault?

[swaaye]

This "small" variation was apparently large enough for Irrational to decide to skip it. I think you should go yell at ATI for making 2 generations of SM2-only cards. R420 was out of date from the get go. Not to say I didn't enjoy my X800GTO2, but it wasn't putting out at 1920x1200 and so it got tossed once a decent alternative was available when I could do my 2 generation jump.

And I bet the reason your X850 XT is running the Bioshock mod so well is because they haven't gotten all of the shader effects working. Considering they probably won't be able to, that will also probably cause the card to be uncharacteristically fast; sort of like X850 XT vs 6800 Ultra in Oblivion with and without HDR, which X850 couldn't support.

I see they are hacking in fake HDR for Bioshock, just like Timeslip did with Oblivion.

You can begin to see why Irrational may have decided to skip the limited number of R4x0 people. The cards can't run with the same effects. And 360 just happens to be SM3-esque as well, so the popularly of SM3 would vastly outstrip R4x0 numbers. I'd imagine Irrational just decided that since they'd have to rework the game visually to run on SM2 hardware, and that only perhaps R4x0 cards could really handle it well, they decided to skip it.

P.S. wow is that a NASTY post I made earlier!

[ANova]

Originally Posted by swaaye

This "small" variation was apparently large enough for Irrational to decide to skip it. I think you should go yell at ATI for making 2 generations of SM2-only cards. R420 was out of date from the get go.

No.

How many games now have been SM3 exclusive three years later? Oh that's right, enough to count on one hand and all TWIMTBP if I remember correctly.

And I bet the reason your X850 XT is running the Bioshock mod so well is because they haven't gotten all of the shader effects working. Considering they probably won't be able to, that will also probably cause the card to be uncharacteristically fast; sort of like X850 XT vs 6800 Ultra in Oblivion with and without HDR, which X850 couldn't support.

I see they are hacking in fake HDR for Bioshock, just like Timeslip did with Oblivion.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the game couldn't be playable. If a 6600 GT can play the game an X850 XT can handle it. The fake HDR is the result of one individual playing around, I really don't much care for HDR at any rate nor do I see how this relates to the subject.

You can begin to see why Irrational may have decided to skip the limited number of R4x0 people. The cards can't run with the same effects. And 360 just happens to be SM3-esque as well, so the popularly of SM3 would vastly outstrip R4x0 numbers. I'd imagine Irrational just decided that since they'd have to rework the game visually to run on SM2 hardware, and that only perhaps R4x0 cards could really handle it well, they decided to skip it.

Well, la dee da. I guess I should thank 2K for not caring. They supported SM3 because the game was a port and because they didn't want to use the time to implement SM2. The number of R4x0 owners is larger than you think. The thread at 2K is 209 pages and a petition that someone created has 6138 signatures and growing.

[AlexV]

OMG, it's a bloody revolution...oh wait, ppl tend to gang up when it comes to bitching, so that's hardly surprising. The thread about the supposed rootkit is of a similar size, no?And the fact that an online petition exists certainly lends credence to the claim, yes sir!

Look, I have nothing against the fact that you and a bunch of other dudes don't want to upgrade. Everyone's entitled to their choice...but why you feel that your choice must result in freezing everything in time and torturing those of us who actually realise that sooner or later one has to move forward, if he plans on entertaing a hobby that is anything but cheap(yup, that hobby would be gaming), that I cannot understand.

Is it so hard to process the fact that SM3.0 brings some significant(IMHO) benefits in terms of flexibility WRT your shaders?So, of course 2K could've spent a lot of time researching how to fit their stuff into SM2.0, unlooping shaders, compiling metric fucktons of little shaders instead of using uber-shaders and so on. The question is, why would they?Because there are about 10000(considering the petition's rate of growth) time-frozen customers they'll lose?I think between the x360 and the PC-version they can handle that loss.

Don't you think it's fairly childish to consider that the only alternative is to be a disgruntled x800 owner or a haughty q6600+8800GTX one?There are cards and CPUs in-between. At more than decent prices. If you want to entertain your hobby...with the price you pay for three major titles, you could get one of those decent cards.

[ANova]

Don't you think it's childish to be attacking users of hardware in defense of the little old corporations that don't give a flying fuck?

That thinking is irrational (no pun intended) and illogical. Hey, when something doesn't work lets just throw money at it and ridicule those who don't regardless of whether the hardware is fast and capable enough!

Ah the way of thinking in the idiotic e-penis world.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by ANova

Don't you think it's childish to be attacking users of hardware in defense of the little old corporations that don't give a flying fuck?

That thinking is irrational (no pun intended) and illogical. Hey, when something doesn't work lets just throw money at it and ridicule those who don't regardless of whether the hardware is fast and capable enough!

Ah the way of thinking in the idiotic e-penis world.

It's not about ridiculing users of old hardware, it's about having realistic expectations, i.e. not expecting 3+ year-old graphics cards to play the latest greatest new shiny thing. Such is the cost of evolution.

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by ANova

How many games now have been SM3 exclusive three years later? Oh that's right, enough to count on one hand and all TWIMTBP if I remember correctly.

Add this to your list of things to bitch at ATI about because NV apparently has a seriously superior dev relations program going.

Originally Posted by ANova

Yes, but that doesn't mean the game couldn't be playable. If a 6600 GT can play the game an X850 XT can handle it. The fake HDR is the result of one individual playing around, I really don't much care for HDR at any rate nor do I see how this relates to the subject.

Maybe Irrational wanted to have the game look a certain way for everyone? Maybe they didn't want to work around SM2 limitations to cater to a small audience? Possible options.... I guess pure, unbridled, evil greed could be the one and only cause too!

[Reputator]

It should be noted that not everyone who signed that petition is "frozen in time". I know because I'm not one of those folks, but I signed the petition. Mainly because I figured, what the hell.

It's like Morgoth said. You have to admit, getting Oblivion to run in SM1.1 is pretty damn neat.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by ShaidarHaran

It's not about ridiculing users of old hardware, it's about having realistic expectations, i.e. not expecting 3+ year-old graphics cards to play the latest greatest new shiny thing. Such is the cost of evolution.

And the lack of gracefull fallback for such hardware (that cost $400+ 3 years ago) is a good reason why PC gaming is hardly what it used to be. And I say this as someone who bought an SM3.0 part 3 years ago

The SM3.0 path really isn't very good on my 6800GT, but I guess the check box is useful in this case. But the fact there is 3 year old hardware that stomps on newer hardware that can play the game does strike odd. Surely a resource issue, and with the 360 being SM3.0+ and the bigger sales platform Irrational chose the best path for the game in general, but slamming people who invested in still quality hardware with the expectation they should need to upgrade is just as irrational.

This sort of business model is excessive. I agree that progress is important. Yet looking at it, an X800 will outperform on an SM2.0 path some newer cards playing it in SM3.0. But seeing as it is more work for Irrational, it seems to be as much a DX design issue as anything else. The lack of fallback and pricing of GPUs really creates an environment hostile to price conscious gamers.

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by Joshua Luna

The SM3.0 path really isn't very good on my 6800GT, but I guess the check box is useful in this case. But the fact there is 3 year old hardware that stomps on newer hardware that can play the game does strike odd. Surely a resource issue, and with the 360 being SM3.0+ and the bigger sales platform Irrational chose the best path for the game in general, but slamming people who invested in still quality hardware with the expectation they should need to upgrade is just as irrational.

This sort of business model is excessive. I agree that progress is important. Yet looking at it, an X800 will outperform on an SM2.0 path some newer cards playing it in SM3.0. But seeing as it is more work for Irrational, it seems to be as much a DX design issue as anything else. The lack of fallback and pricing of GPUs really creates an environment hostile to price conscious gamers.

The need for extensive backwards compatibility on PC is one of the reasons devs are slipping towards console development. The convergence of the PC and consoles, with the consoles basically being very controlled/restricted PCs with a gamepad, and the much more difficult piracy and lower tech support and testing demands, is quickly making the PC unattractive.

So really, I don't see an issue with them dropping support for SM2 when the only cards that would probably run it well with this game are X800/X850. They figured that it wasn't worth the effort. The market has changed dramatically since the X800/X850 days too, with games selling like wildfire on those annoying little consoles. Consoles that happen to be, as said, SM3+, unlike SM1+ Xbox or DX7-esque Cube/PS2.

From another angle, maybe ATI didn't bother with relations with Irrational? Or maybe they were and they too have abandoned pushing for SM2 support? There is also the little fact that the Unreal engines have been built partly with NV sponsorship since UT2003... Blame Epic too!

There are lots of factors to think about with the next video card purchase, I would say.

[ANova]

Originally Posted by swaaye

So really, I don't see an issue with them dropping support for SM2 when the only cards that would probably run it well with this game are X800/X850. They figured that it wasn't worth the effort.

You don't see issue with support being dropped for older yet faster cards relative to many newer ones? Simply because there may be rationale behind it doesn't mean it is sound. Why shouldn't customers be dissappointed when they are dropped because a company didn't want to spend a little more time implementing a function? Look at Valve, they supported a huge range of hardware and they're game sold exceptionally well. I don't understand how some developers can rationalize not spending another week when it could mean potentially thousands more in sales. It's very shortsided if you ask me.