Can somebody explain?

[2senile]

...... In simple terms to a simple user.
Is it possible that CG can be used to enable GF FX cards to perform well under DX9, using a runtime compiler to enable stuff that is not supported by the API?

The reason I ask is that I was speculating in another forum on the circumstances that would possibly lead to Microsoft being slightly miffed with an IHV who messed with "their" product.

I'm not very eloquent so if you need me to expand or clarify my speculation just let me know.

 

[KimB]

...... In simple terms to a simple user.
Is it possible that CG can be used to enable GF FX cards to perform well under DX9, using a runtime compiler to enable stuff that is not supported by the API?

It's possible, but not likely at all.
It would require using the runtime compiled version of Cg. As of right now, I'm pretty certain that Cg is entirely separate from all other pieces of software. In order to enable features that DX9 does not support, Cg would have to compile not to assembly, but directly to the machine code, and send that shader to the video driver (or something similar...in any case, it would still need to talk directly to the video driver). Documentation of Cg makes it seem like this will never happen with Cg, as it compiles to assembly-language shaders (via a variety of specific targets).

 

[2senile]

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

 

[2senile]

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

 

[demalion]

Actually, it wouldn't have to. It could just use a special case driver behavior to make the driver operate out of spec again specifically for the Cg runtime compiler, not necessarily compile to machine code. I proposed that idea a while ago, and I think there was some confirmation posted that this possibility was indeed specified by nVidia somewhere.

Did I miss a correction to that confirmation?