NVIDIA Game Works, good or bad?

I am not sure, do you have a source for that?

This classification only deals with technologies locked to specific hardware, Neither TressFX or GameWorks are locked in this way.

I stand corrected, 2 games it is.

 

Siggraph 2015

http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/85388-ucla-demos-geforce-powered-augmented-reality-sandbox/

 

Non sequitur. A: AMD has no VR to push. Yeah, they've been talking about it, but it's just talk, and you, I and everybody else knows it. At this stage it's doubtful the company will still even be around by the time VR catches on in the mainstream (assuming it ever does, that is.) B: there's been no talk at all of any AMD-proprietary VR.

So not the same thing, at all.

 

So where is AMD's proprietary VR then? Where can I buy it? Where are the games that support it?

Oh. Nowhere, you say? Well, okay then!

 

Well, I didn't say anything about NV VR, so not sure what you're laughing about?

 

Originally open v1.0 + 2.0, Then locked to Creative hardware. Now opened to run on all CPUs using the OpenAL initiative

 

Nah, I'm against all kinds of artificial divisions in the marketplace, including platform exclusives and so on. Like, if Oculus is going to release games that only work with their 3D glasses, I won't be buying their product. Proprietary software puts the normal mechanisms of market competition out of order; you no longer compete with the product you have, but rather the size of your pocketbook, by buying additional mercenary support for your product.

I think it's crap, for that reason and also, what if my Oculus goggles break, and next time I desire a different brand of goggles because they're better? I'm just going to give up part of my software library as well then?

Proprietaryness almost always ends up holding the market back. 3dfx did that for several years, but the company went down the shitter because of their own incompetence, so that's OK. MS has successfully held the market back numerous times for many years each time - browser wars is just one such example. But we're going a bit off-topic here, so I'll wind this post down now...

 

I thought the only extensions that were made public with OpenAL were the ones up to EAX 4.0, and EAX 5.0 died a bastard's death.

 

How can someone read this next post and not see it as harmful behavior by Nvidia?

Crysis 2 tessellation was on USELESS objects, according to reports http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/2

 

I don't care what articles say what, unless you have tried to develop an application or game with Cry Engine 1, 2 or 3 you don't really know what the limitations of said engine are. I can go into a slew of limitations which will force a developer to make design decisions which would actually limit the way the artwork was created. Repectfully the article you have linked to, they are very good peeps and know graphics cards well, but as above without really understanding the engine and how that differs from what is being rendered and how its being rendered it falls short.

 

Yes, because obviously CryTek needed to make a concrete slab like this:



And whoever says otherwise doesn't really know what the limitations of said engine are.

 

I'm pretty sure that no version of CryEngine forces you to use thousands of triangles for utterly flat surfaces.

 

I don't see what this has to do with GameWorks, unless it has a 'tessellated rock' component that I'm unaware of.

 

It has to do with this post and this one.
Context is important.

 

Crysis 2 was never part of gameworks, gameworks wasn't even around then. Crytek made the tesselation code they didn't use any premade code from nV

And so what is this about again? If you only look at one or two objects that doesn't do anything. Unless your saying that one object is enough to crush AMD performance!

The engine doesn't force anything, but with default settings if a dev doesn't change the tessellation factors in the ini or cfg files, it will stay the same. Blaming this on nV is stupid for Huddy has nothing else he can do but point at nV because if he points at Crytek, you think Crytek will work well with AMD again?


http://docs.cryengine.com/display/SDKDOC2/Tessellation+and+Displacement

Tessellation even in Cry Engine 3 has limited factors but at each factor it is clearly visible that the highest setting looks better. You can also have different types of tessellation for even more detail, and tessellate shadows as well for increased realism, don't know how beneficial that would be in gaming but the feature is there.

Now the way the hull shader works, is it only gets data at certain times, so if there is one object or many objects being tessellated it won't really matter, but what matters is how much procedural geometry is created. In AMD's case it will stall the pipeline and this will also cause the shader array more pressure if complex shaders are being used at the same time.