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

At this point you're just being willfully ignorant.

 

Really. You have on record email between Huddly and Eidos where Eidos is saying THEIR, not Nvidias, BUT THEIR Legal beagles say they can't reuse the code.

You have a panel saying Nvidia did the lock out, but provides NOT 1 SINGLE shred of line code that proves that.

So, instead of putting the blame where it appears to belong now, on Eidos. Everyone here + the world IS STILL blaming Nvidia for this.

 

I salute you!

 

The fact that changing vendor id enables AA support proves that there is vendor id lock, with or without lines of code pasted anywhere.

And seriously, no-one but nVidia can not be responsible for it, if Eidos legal department tells Eidos people that they can't change the code / reuse it without the vendor id lock.

 

Wait, unless I misread or misunderstood some of the other info/posts, isn't the original AA code actually from ATi which Nvidia then reuses and "someone" locks it from ATi?

 

Great article from Theo
I guess I was wrong thinking of him as a simple Ctrl C, Ctrl V marketing shill then

Can someone explain a bit about Assassins' Creed?
I know the general story but Theo says that the graphical glitches were on NV DX10 hardware?
I had assumed that they took out10.1 because there were rendering issues on ATI DX10.1 hardware that had been missed.

If it was just problems on DX10 hardware then which moron thought they could run a DX10.1 path on DX10 hardware?

 

No, the code is from nVidia, but ATI says it's just straight DirectX code for which they can't own any "copyright"

 

But we shouldn't forget, what Ian has said:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2009/09/1...-you-should-care/comment-page-3/#comment-1630

This is the keypoint.

My: Does anyone know, how Geforces with Radeon's Vendor-IDs run BAA with/without Ingame-AA?

 

So why doesn't AMD forward their own code and quit whining?

 

Yeah, that's the rub.

Does AMD have a beef? Sure, but the bitching is worse when they probably can address the problem at hand for their customer base. Considering, this suppose to be trivial to add, it seems AMD is making a mountain out of this and believe the real intention is to try to attack nVidia's developer relations and use this example -- to blanket nVidia's advantage as scoundrels and below the belt -- look see for yourself -- this is why they have an advantage with their developer relations -- and ours is like snow white -- and this is what the customers deserve.

PR to me.

 

Did you happen to miss my quote from just a few posts ago?

Why should they have to "forward their own code"? It's standard code! Does that mean that ATi should throw a simple vendor check on all GITG titles and disable AA unless Nvidia forwards identical code to the developer as well? What would that accomplish? This wasn't ever an issue until Nvidia suddenly decided to make it one.

I can't understand why people are still defending Nvidia on this. It's plainly evident that Nvidia is the one to blame for the inclusion of the Vendor ID lockout.

Do you people want the developers to start auctioning off in-game features to the highest bidder? Do you want to have to purchase a high end Nvidia card to see all the graphics of Game A plus have to purchase a high end ATi card to see all the graphics of Game B?

Call me crazy, but I would prefer that the games look identical no matter what company's card is in my PC. The only difference should be if one card is incapable of displaying a certain graphic. ie - DX10 card vs DX9 card.

 

I'm sure AMD are saying the method is the same as the one provided in their older SDK, so just implement that, or better yet, remove the ID check and it will work. I think as far as AMD are concerned, they've already provided sample code, and they don't really want to go down the road of having to code game paths for all the lazy developers when they've already provided samples and told them how to change the code to make it work.

Maybe AMD know that if they fixed this one issue, there would be some other excuse rooted in Nvidia's money to not implement a fix. Is this the dawn of some new revenue scheme from publishers? Eidos says "Pay us and give us dev man hours for free and you can lock out your competitors"?

Huddy has already said they could do vendor ID lockouts on all their DX11 code because they are the only DX11 hardware in town, but that's not how they work, so they've already got the moral high ground in my book. AMD know that going down that road simply screws over the customers, and they are not prepared to do that. That makes them worthy of my cash over Nvidia any day of the week. Heck, let's boycott the devs and pubishers that partner Nvidia in these scummy tactics whilst we're at it.

 

It is below the belt and they are acting like scoundrels. Why should ATi have to quietly put up with Nvidia acting like a bully in the sandbox?

Tell me, do you actually approve of this latest Nvidia move? Do you think it is good for us, the consumers?

Maybe if they quit trying to figure out new ways to sabotage ATi and simply got on with making video cards they wouldn't constantly be getting such bad press.

Ya think?

 

Imho,

I don't disagree and would be nice if nVidia would not of played politics with in-game AA -- thankfully this doesn't happen too often.

Considering Unreal - AA -- DirectX 9 -- this seems to be the exception to the rule - not the rule when it comes to AA. nVidia wanted to showcase GPU Physics and lets address the AA issues for our customer base since we are here, imho.

So nVidia is leveraging their advantage -- that's what they're guilty of to me. So, maybe ATI is a bit nicer but nVidia is much more pro-active. Take the more pro-active any day because of the over-all results over complaining about how we are nice.

That's where the problem is -- you can cloud the advantage but nVidia spends and invests much more in developer relations and their results speak for themselves. Complaining about it -- it's not even going to make a dent or scratch -- but by doing more, spending and investing more will.

 

So Nvidia can't be pro-active and still play fair at the same time?

This isn't about how much a company spends on developer relations. If a video card company wants to spend extra money to have a developer include a feature they feel will showcase their card's strengths, that's one thing. To artificially block that feature on a competitor's card, even though it is capable of displaying it, is another.

 

I'm sure there are already a decent number of people whom haven't purchased this title due to these actions. Unfortunately I doubt Eidos or nvidia care, I'm sure the amount of money Nv would have thrown at Eidos would outweigh any potential loss from the users who a) care about msaa and b) have a moral issue with their actions enough to vote with their wallet.

I'm one of those, despite wanting to get this title, and I went with ATI after my 8800 died recently, in part due to Nvidia's actions lately.

 

Cry my a river. If it is standard code then forwarding it should take about 1 minute. Unless AMD is lying and it is harder than they say, or they just want to score points at the expense of their user base.

 

You can define this anyway you want; it's okay. Considering it was DirectX 9 --AA - Unreal issue -- it's the exception to the rule but if you desire to force this as common place and the rule - knock yourself out.

Continue with your rally cry.

 

No, you dumb man. If lawyers are involved, it must be a contract enforcing Eidos to let Ati out .

 

There were also benchmarks done with using the vendor-id faking trick and there was a performance increase using ingame AA on the ATI compared to CP AA, again showing that it is standard DX code as well.

I don't believe anyone has tried that yet.