Batman: Arkham Asylum Demo and its amazing Nvidia ONLY MSAA technology!

They didn't handicap it for XP. It seems illogical for them to do it on 7.

 

The analogy seems to be quite apt!

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17618/13

 

Aye, Nvidia goes out of their way to make sure PhysX hardware acceleration doesn't use more than 1 core of a CPU, much less even using 1 core very much.

But to do otherwise would make the "GPU acceleration" seem less impressive.

Then again, Ageia basically did the same to ensure their card looked better than it would have otherwise, although they at least had the excuse that multiple CPU cores still wasn't extremely common. But they still didn't attempt to use the CPU much at all when doing acceleration on the CPU instead of the Ageia card. IE - ignoring SSEx and just doing some token MMX instructions.

Regards,
SB

 

Wow, I assumed they wouldn't support non-console processors very well ... but this blatantly? You'd think they'd just run some bullshit work in extra threads. All the take over rounds in physics library land did far more harm than good (from the gamer's perspective). If we had had Meqon, Havok and Novodex battling it out on the open market game physics would have been farther along than it is now IMO.

 

So removing a pre-existing feature of your product is the same as deciding not to make your software multi-threaded in the first place? Like I said, poor analogy A developer has every right not to make something multi-threaded if they chose to, after all they're only hurting their own performance.

But those complaints will never gain traction until the CPU based libraries get better. Right now Havok isn't doing anything that makes CPU PhysX look like a poor implementation. So complaining just for complaining sake is a dead end.

Perhaps but the dynamic is shifted. The parent companies don't specialize in physics middleware. The acquisitions were simply to add value to their primary product lines so you should expect that their strategy for deploying those technologies will be in line with that.

 

There is a fairly heated discussion going at pcgameshardware.com forum. Is chizow making some valid points?

http://forums.pcgameshardware.com/showthread.php?t=1370&page=2

 

Short answer, no; long answer, NO! No way in hell, he's just spreading FUD as fast and as hard as he can.

 

So a Geforce 285 gets 53.9fps avg at 1680x1050 max settings and 4xAA/16xAF yet a 5870 gets 34.2fps avg? However we are talking about PCGH site which have a record with very inconsistent not-true-to-life benchmark numbers.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...with-Unreal-Engine-3-Geforces-ahead/Practice/


For the stuff about TWIMTBP seriously I doubt it is as if Nvidia wants to sabotage. Sure they want to highlight features that are on their GPUs and not rivals GPUs (DX10.1) but then why should they?

How about ATI 'rev their engine up' and does what Nvidia does with devs? That is give them support and help to use DX10.1, tesselation, etc etc to highlight ATI GPU features. I tell you I love my ATI (4870 -> 4890) card but I sure am ashamed of the ATI fanboys, disgusting. And where are my custom auomated profiles, persistent color settings, *fckload of features Nvidia users gets for their control panel*?

*Facepalm*

 

Control Panel force AA is obviously doing things in a brute force manner and may be applying AA to buffers / surfaces that may not be necessary. ATI Tray tools (in some instances) can be used to spoof the vendor ID and run AA in-game on the retail game - you can see the type of performance differences it yeilds here

As for other comments about the situation, Richard Huddy has recently commented on the situation behind this:

http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-net/1...s-nvidia-neglecting-gamers-5.html#post1808312

 

Yikes. Hopefully this was all just a big misunderstanding...

 

OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!

 

Thanks Dave for the info.

 

Told you right at the beginning. Nvidia wrote the code for Eidos, and gave it to them whilst keeping copyright over it so they could lock out competitors.

 

Doesn't sound like a miscommunication to me if that email's content has been accurately conveyed.

 

And Lars has effectively given up any rights Nvidia had to that copyright with his statement it seems, according to Huddy's reponse, placing the ball in Eidos' court. Probably don't care anymore, they've had a number of months with the "Nvidia only" feature and got any benefit out of it that Nvidia imposed on Eidos. Like MS paying devs for 1 month or so of exclusivity on 360 over PS3.

 

Only in a moral sense - there is no legal release for Eidos to remove the lockout based on that statement. Nvidia can continue to lie as much as they like in public, saying Eidos can do what they want regardless of the facts

Until Nvidia legal actually sign a contract allowing Eidos to own or change the lockout code, Eidos can't touch it due to the original agreement that gave Nvidia's code to Eidos under what we now know included strict restrictions.

 

More! They posted up the full e-mails.

 

So what's wrong? Provide code and they'll put it in, right?

 

Can you understand that AMD's position is that since removing the vendor ID check allows MSAA to work fine, it looks like standard API methods were used, as per Huddy's comments, that they really shouldn't have to do anything and that the only thing really blocking this is whatever arrangement Nvidia has with Eidos legal.

Those emails were also over a month ago, what has happened since then? Nada. Then Lars makes the comment that AMD has been doing nothing and were refusing to help out.....

 

It looks like Lee was asking for 'robust sample code', I trust that has been provided then? And subsequently ignored?