FM puts up their FAQ on 3dm2k5

[digitalwanderer]

I am still convinced that FM decides what 3DMark05 is and what it isn't, not you, not PatrickL and not Beyond3D.

Well FM are the ones who decided to say it was a directX9 benchmark and not I, nor PatrickL, nor Beyond3D...go complain to them.

They're breaking their own stated policies pure and simple Scali, and I don't see how you can say they are not. Their FAQ today was an attempt at a justification of their wrong decision, nothing more.

 

[PatrickL]

You post are not about facts. They are only about some facts you chose to repeat ad nauseam, even if you can't backup them. And you obviously ignore all the facts that you can't twist easily. Just in that thread the way you are biasing facts is laughable. Go back and reread, you should be able to spot all you deliberatly ignored to pursue your campaign.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Also, aren't horizon maps specifically for selfshadowing in bumpmaps? Or is there another technique that also goes by the same name?

Interactive Horizon Mapping can be applied for both normals and geometry.

http://research.microsoft.com/~cohen/bs.pdf

 

[Scali]

Well FM are the ones who decided to say it was a directX9 benchmark and not I, nor PatrickL, nor Beyond3D...go complain to them.

It *IS* a DirectX9 benchmark, it is just *more* than that on hardware that supports DST, if you want it to be.
But as I said before, since when do *more* features make something *less* than compatible?
If 3DMark05 is not a DirectX9 benchmark, then ATi and NVIDIA don't make DirectX9 hardware.

They're breaking their own stated policies pure and simple Scali, and I don't see how you can say they are not. Their FAQ today was an attempt at a justification of their wrong decision, nothing more.

It's their policy, and if they choose to change it, that is their decision, and there is nothing wrong about that.
Are you going to nag about Beyond3D aswell, when they decide to review more than just 3d hardware? They're supposed to be a 3d review website!

 

[Scali]

Interactive Horizon Mapping can be applied for both normals and geometry.

http://research.microsoft.com/~cohen/bs.pdf

Regardless of that, it only works on heightmaps, and 3DMark05's canyon cannot be constructed from a heightmap, and therefore horizon mapping cannot be appled.
Any more nonsense you want to spout about 3DMark05, or do you think you've made enough of an incompetent fool out of yourself by now, during this whole affair?

 

[Scali]

You post are not about facts. They are only about some facts you chose to repeat ad nauseam

So those are still facts, and my posts were still about them.

even if you can't backup them. And you obviously ignore all the facts that you can't twist easily.

The things I couldn't backup myself, are now backed up by Futuremark's FAQ.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Regardless of that, it only works on heightmaps, and 3DMark05's canyon cannot be constructed from a heightmap, and therefore horizon mapping cannot be appled.

Regardless, if the lightsource is stationary, the no dynamic shadows are required at all for the static objects.

 

[Scali]

Regardless, if the lightsource is stationary, the no dynamic shadows are required at all.

I take that as a 'no'.

 

[Dave Baumann]

So, in your game engine you would waste cycles on dynamically calculating shadows for static objects and static lights?

 

[Scali]

So, in your game engine you would waste cycles on dynamically calculating shadows for static objects and static lights?

No, but I would like to stress once again that you only waste cycles if it's faster not to calc them.

 

[NocturnDragon]

Any more nonsense you want to spout about 3DMark05, or do you think you've made enough of an incompetent fool out of yourself by now, during this whole affair?

I guess the only one who made an incompetent fool out of himself during this whole affair would be you!

I guess that if ATI was the only one supporting DST and Nvidia the only one supporting 3Dc, your opinion would be rather different from what it is now..

 

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, I think it's pathetic that B3D is campaigning against FM.

There is no "campaign" (apart from possibly in your head), there is a disagreement of ideologies for what we consider a benchmark to be and this disagreement stems from the ideals that Futuremark had initially mapped out to us (albeit under different leadership). We are entitled to disagree with what we see as and incorrect choice.