Beyond3D Forum

ByteMe · 25-Sep-2003, 06:47

Hey dig or anyone,

So what has Fururemark done now after the guidelines have been released? Have they droped scores off the ORB that used "illegal" drivers? Have they done anything?

crystalcube · 25-Sep-2003, 07:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

I know!

How about the person that discovers the cheat gets to be the one to flog the offending IHV's CEO?

As someone here said that NV is encrypting their drivers , so probably the guy who discovers it will get a letter from NV's legal dept. for violating DMCA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByteMe

Hey dig or anyone,

So what has Fururemark done now after the guidelines have been released? Have they droped scores off the ORB that used "illegal" drivers? Have they done anything?

yeah, they probably just collected another payment from NV

ByteMe · 25-Sep-2003, 07:53

Another thing slightly OT. Has Nvidia ever responed to the blast from TardOCP a few weeks past? Or to any other sites findings? Are they hoping that by ignoring this it will just go away?

The "T" was for you dig.

Quitch · 25-Sep-2003, 09:25

Until the latest nVidia driver scores get dropped from ORB, I think we can safely label this whole exercise as a waste of time.

Dio · 25-Sep-2003, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borsti

Maybe not the application itself. But since benchmarks like 3DM03 are static, it may be possible to detect and analyze the traffic between driver and card to find out if thereÂ´s something happening in the driver. But the question is if such a tool can be used without detection (would only matter if it costs much performance).

Probably somebody could make a motherboard that allowed copying of all the AGP bus traffic. I don't see there being much point though. It would be very expensive, and I don't think it would tell you much useful.

The AGP traffic is likely to change between driver revisions anyway - there are always small changes to drivers. Some of the most common ones would be registers sent down in different order, or the changing of memory management schemes.

Without a full spec for the chip and the ability to decompile the commands sent to it, this is likely to be a futile exercise, and it would still fall foul of the 'I fixed a bug, and now you won't rate my driver because something changed' problem.

ByteMe · 25-Sep-2003, 17:23

Another question, is there any legitiment reason why you would want to encrypt your drivers? I can't think of any.

digitalwanderer · 25-Sep-2003, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByteMe

Another question, is there any legitiment reason why you would want to encrypt your drivers? I can't think of any.

Sure, to keep them nasty geek-types from finding any cheats in 'em!

ByteMe · 25-Sep-2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalwanderer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByteMe

Another question, is there any legitiment reason why you would want to encrypt your drivers? I can't think of any.

Sure, to keep them nasty geek-types from finding any cheats in 'em!

I said legitiment smartas.

Nautis · 25-Sep-2003, 21:46

legitimate? To keep people from modifying them and releasing them (ex. omega). Companies dont want to be held responsible if someone uses a modified driver and it does something nasty to their machine. Also because of things like the patches in rivatuner.

As for this situation.. It seems to me each side played their cards and fought it out a bit, then decided things were getting too out of hand so they cut their losses and here we are. It doesnt seem to be a big revolution to me nor does it seem like much progress really. Things are back to normal.

ByteMe · 25-Sep-2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautis

legitimate? To keep people from modifying them and releasing them (ex. omega). Companies dont want to be held responsible if someone uses a modified driver and it does something nasty to their machine. Also because of things like the patches in rivatuner.

Thanks, I didn't think of that. But then the questions is ... Is this encryption effort worth it? How much of a problem are modified drivers to companies like nvidia?

Nautis · 25-Sep-2003, 22:29

You wont find me making any excuses for nvidia.. there is no doubt it makes it easier for doing some of the nefarious things they are doing.

Is it worth it? Seems to have been so far.

How much of a problem are modified drivers? Not much but its a shot in the ego when more and more people are using modified drivers rather than your own. Alot of hard work goes into drivers to get them to work the way they do and they dont like people messing with their work. They also dont like people fixing their problems.

kyleb · 25-Sep-2003, 23:10

so what is the deal with this anyway? i just checked futuremark's homepage and right there is a link to the get the 45.23 drivers which i belive break the rules futuremark set forth. do the rules really have any value then our are they just for show?

Pete · 26-Sep-2003, 03:37

worm (or any other FutureMark employee who is qualified to answer),

How do nVidia's current drivers square with your newly clarified policy?

kyleb · 26-Sep-2003, 05:28

weird, the last three posts do not show in this thread for me, but they do show in the topic view of the reply page.

hu, fixed now.

bloodbob · 26-Sep-2003, 06:07

I think the ultimate answer here is gonna be to test we are going to have to either A) use the DVI B) not travel to USA or risk prosecution for violation of the DMCA. Because after last time nvidia got busted they got shamed and I don't think they plan on getting stuffed again. Most likely the will check if the camera has left the camera path way and all screen captures will be rendered at full quality and they will simple say screen captures take a preformance hit.

madshi · 26-Sep-2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nautis

legitimate? To keep people from modifying them and releasing them (ex. omega).

If I remember right, omega said that he would not be modifying any driver executables/dlls. He just puts files from different driver versions together and changes a lot of settings. So as far as I can see, encryption should not be a problem for such modified drivers.

I think the main reason for the encryption is to hide the internal workings like application detection etc...

Nick[FM] · 26-Sep-2003, 09:52

We are in the process of finalizing the QA now. It will be posted later today in PDF format. It took us a day longer than expected due to so many questions and we wanted to answer as many as possible. Thanks for all the questions and interest in the new guidelines!

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyleb

so what is the deal with this anyway? i just checked futuremark's homepage and right there is a link to the get the 45.23 drivers which i belive break the rules futuremark set forth. do the rules really have any value then our are they just for show?

Err, we have always posted links to the latest drivers. Even to beta and leaked drivers. I'm not really sure what you have against us posting news about new drivers, and link to them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByteMe

So what has Fururemark done now after the guidelines have been released? Have they droped scores off the ORB that used "illegal" drivers? Have they done anything?

We have been writing the QA and doing a lot of other things besides that. We haven't dropped any results from the ORB.

It seems that many of you think this is something so easy to do, and could be done in an instant. It's not exactly a "walk in the park". We are dealing with a large amount of BIG companies (and websites

), and that simply takes time.

Anyway, I'll give you guys a hint when the QA is online!

PatrickL · 26-Sep-2003, 10:09

Worn, you really don't see the irony to link drivers that are breaking FM own rules ?

Quitch · 26-Sep-2003, 10:46

Uh... it is easy to do. What work? There have been countless threads analysing the latest drivers, showing the cheats. I say again... what work? Fire up the drivers, confirm it's true, drop the results. You don't even need to find more than one of the cheats.

What were your tech people doing while your wrote the statement? I mean, did you really have NO idea what the guidelines will be. The longer you leave it before taking action, the longer they look like window dressing.

kyleb · 26-Sep-2003, 22:17

ya worm, do you really thing that you should distribute drivers that do not meet your own guidelines without even commenting on that fact? do you not see how deceptive it is do do otherwise? please don't use lack of time as an excuse either as this has been going on for the better part of the year now and we have got nothing but lip-service from you all.

Joe DeFuria · 26-Sep-2003, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyleb

ya worm, do you really thing that you should distribute drivers that do not meet your own guidelines without even commenting on that fact? do you not see how deceptive it is do do otherwise? please don't use lack of time as an excuse either as this has been going on for the better part of the year now and we have got nothing but lip-service from you all.

Just give them until Nov 1 before we start demanding things like this.

FM has set a very good and respectable course of action at this time. Give them a chance to execute on it.

I was just as hard as you, if not moreso, on how FM handled the aftermath of their reaction to the original cheat PDF. I am also disappointed that their response took this long in coming...but they have in fact now responded.

digitalwanderer · 26-Sep-2003, 22:39

I'm with you on that one Joe.

From what they've put out in their guidelines and the way they followed up and expanded on it in their Q&A, (in a pretty timely fashion too...even by my standards

), I'm more than willing to give them 'til Nov 1st before I start complaining.

After Nov 1st though if it hasn't been instituted and acted on...

Pete · 27-Sep-2003, 02:18

Optimization Guidelines QA

Edit: A more appropriate link.

The Q&A also answered my Q regarding allowed drivers: FM will post what drivers they do and don't approve of by Oct. 30th.

kyleb · 27-Sep-2003, 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Just give them until Nov 1 before we start demanding things like this.

ya my initial question was asked prior to the publication of the q&a, but demeanor of worm's response as well as the the fact that they are now apparently postponing the actual exposure of nvidia's cheats, until we get closer to the crhistmas season, absolutely wreaks of foul play to me and i can't rightly see much changing by october 31st either.

Quitch · 28-Sep-2003, 15:00

So we need to wait till 1st November? When did this all start? February? March? Wow, so we can really count on FM to act like lightning.

25-Sep-2003, 07:53	#53
ByteMe Naughty Boy! Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 136	Another thing slightly OT. Has Nvidia ever responed to the blast from TardOCP a few weeks past? Or to any other sites findings? Are they hoping that by ignoring this it will just go away? The "T" was for you dig. __________________ Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan

25-Sep-2003, 17:23	#56
ByteMe Naughty Boy! Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 136	Another question, is there any legitiment reason why you would want to encrypt your drivers? I can't think of any. __________________ Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan

26-Sep-2003, 22:39	#72
digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Winfield, IN USA Posts: 15,314	I'm with you on that one Joe. From what they've put out in their guidelines and the way they followed up and expanded on it in their Q&A, (in a pretty timely fashion too...even by my standards ), I'm more than willing to give them 'til Nov 1st before I start complaining. After Nov 1st though if it hasn't been instituted and acted on... __________________ Elite Bastards - Adminish “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James N. Mattis

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
About NVIDIA, Futuremark and HardOCP	Scali	3D & Semiconductor Industry	35	10-Dec-2003 20:41
About NVIDIA, Futuremark and HardOCP	Scali	3D & Semiconductor Industry	0	19-Nov-2003 11:22
About NVIDIA, Futuremark and HardOCP	Scali	3D & Semiconductor Industry	0	19-Nov-2003 11:21
Futuremark Driver Optimization Guidelines	Dave Baumann	Press Releases	8	25-Sep-2003 08:20
Futuremark & NVIDIA Statement	Dave Baumann	Beyond3D News	385	15-Jun-2003 21:34

25-Sep-2003, 06:47	#51
ByteMe Naughty Boy! Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 136	Hey dig or anyone, So what has Fururemark done now after the guidelines have been released? Have they droped scores off the ORB that used "illegal" drivers? Have they done anything?

25-Sep-2003, 09:25	#54
Quitch Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,521	Until the latest nVidia driver scores get dropped from ORB, I think we can safely label this whole exercise as a waste of time.

25-Sep-2003, 21:46	#59
Nautis Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25	legitimate? To keep people from modifying them and releasing them (ex. omega). Companies dont want to be held responsible if someone uses a modified driver and it does something nasty to their machine. Also because of things like the patches in rivatuner. As for this situation.. It seems to me each side played their cards and fought it out a bit, then decided things were getting too out of hand so they cut their losses and here we are. It doesnt seem to be a big revolution to me nor does it seem like much progress really. Things are back to normal.

25-Sep-2003, 22:29	#61
Nautis Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25	You wont find me making any excuses for nvidia.. there is no doubt it makes it easier for doing some of the nefarious things they are doing. Is it worth it? Seems to have been so far. How much of a problem are modified drivers? Not much but its a shot in the ego when more and more people are using modified drivers rather than your own. Alot of hard work goes into drivers to get them to work the way they do and they dont like people messing with their work. They also dont like people fixing their problems.

25-Sep-2003, 23:10	#62
kyleb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 4,164	so what is the deal with this anyway? i just checked futuremark's homepage and right there is a link to the get the 45.23 drivers which i belive break the rules futuremark set forth. do the rules really have any value then our are they just for show?

26-Sep-2003, 03:37	#63
Pete Moderate Nuisance Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 4,664	worm (or any other FutureMark employee who is qualified to answer), How do nVidia's current drivers square with your newly clarified policy?

26-Sep-2003, 05:28	#64
kyleb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 4,164	weird, the last three posts do not show in this thread for me, but they do show in the topic view of the reply page. hu, fixed now.

26-Sep-2003, 06:07	#65
bloodbob Trollipop Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,630	I think the ultimate answer here is gonna be to test we are going to have to either A) use the DVI B) not travel to USA or risk prosecution for violation of the DMCA. Because after last time nvidia got busted they got shamed and I don't think they plan on getting stuffed again. Most likely the will check if the camera has left the camera path way and all screen captures will be rendered at full quality and they will simple say screen captures take a preformance hit.

26-Sep-2003, 10:09	#68
PatrickL Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,315	Worn, you really don't see the irony to link drivers that are breaking FM own rules ?

26-Sep-2003, 10:46	#69
Quitch Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,521	Uh... it is easy to do. What work? There have been countless threads analysing the latest drivers, showing the cheats. I say again... what work? Fire up the drivers, confirm it's true, drop the results. You don't even need to find more than one of the cheats. What were your tech people doing while your wrote the statement? I mean, did you really have NO idea what the guidelines will be. The longer you leave it before taking action, the longer they look like window dressing.

26-Sep-2003, 22:17	#70
kyleb Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 4,164	ya worm, do you really thing that you should distribute drivers that do not meet your own guidelines without even commenting on that fact? do you not see how deceptive it is do do otherwise? please don't use lack of time as an excuse either as this has been going on for the better part of the year now and we have got nothing but lip-service from you all.

27-Sep-2003, 02:18	#73
Pete Moderate Nuisance Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 4,664	Optimization Guidelines QA Edit: A more appropriate link. The Q&A also answered my Q regarding allowed drivers: FM will post what drivers they do and don't approve of by Oct. 30th.

28-Sep-2003, 15:00	#75
Quitch Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,521	So we need to wait till 1st November? When did this all start? February? March? Wow, so we can really count on FM to act like lightning.

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.