Working with and spending loads of money on are two different things. Maybe if intel invested, we could all run this on GMA915 and not care at all?
- Status
Working with and spending loads of money on are two different things. Maybe if intel invested, we could all run this on GMA915 and not care at all?
That'd be great. But I don't see a lot of Intel GMA fans expressing their outrage at not getting AA in a particular title, or not having Physx support, or seeing their GPU computing not showing performance anywhere near the theoretical FLOPS throughput, and then booing Nvidia for taking care of its own customers. Looking for some feature? Talk to your ISV.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Ah. So when AMD/ATI lock out anyone using any Nvidia chipset or GPU, that'll be Nvidia's fault for not developing and selling a CPU? ATI/AMD products don't work with Nvidia products? It's Nvidia's fault for not having a full platform solution to sell their customers!
Lockouts based on vendor-id are bad in an open environment where standards and interoperability are the only things that keep the environment working. Vendor lockouts are simply a greedy land-grab that hurts the environment as a whole, and customers of that environment.
Sorry but that kind of hyperbole just doesn't make a lot of sense. Nvidia is doing a good job in making sure AA works on their hardware, and also in evangelising Physx. The Batman developers are responsible for their own product, and if they don't care about excluding ATI customers then go on and take it up with them, or make sure that ATI improves its dev relationships. That's hardly comparable to AMD making it impossible for Nvidia to sell chipsets or GPUs.
So, this.. no AA thing for non nvidia customers has absolutely god-honest NOTHING to do with it being a TWIMTBP game?
If the developers stayed independent we wouldn't have seen AA at all in AA? I'm sure they have some basic knowledge of DirectX or the skill to Google?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Sorry, but I don't see the difference. ATI/AMD could spend money to provide free code to devs and use lockouts to prevent Nvidia hardware working in the same way. Nvidia recently locked out anyone with a secondary Nvidia graphics card from operating if the main graphics card was non-Nvidia.
How would it be different if AMD/ATI decided to lock out any Nvidia graphics cards or chipsets? All AMD'd have to do is adjust the drivers for whatever product to lock out any non-AMD/Intel products in exactly the same way that Nivdia have. Using an Nvidia chipset? Sorry, no DMA mode on your hard drives, no caches on your CPU, no resolutions above 640x480, no 3D acceleration. You have to buy an AMD or Intel product to get that, or take it up with Nvidia. Ask Nvidia why they are not making their own complete platforms.
Surely this is a good approach for AMD, as it convinces people to buy AMD products instead of Nvidia products? This is how the market works according to Nvidia. Oh, that's right, it fucks the market and the customers if everyone does it.
Sorry but this is somewhat stupid. You sincerely think that the developers of Batman first used some resources to make sure that the AA works with the game and then they decided to write this code:
Code:
If (System.GPU.IsMadeByNvidia() == false)
GameOptions.AASupport = false;You don't think that there was some outside pressure to write those lines? It was just something that the developers decided to do?
Why don't you ask them?
Or buy an Nvidia, they spend a lot of effort on their game profiles that make image enhancing features available even in games that don't have native support.
I don't believe that the code works like that, nor that it was put in there under pressure. If it polls for vendor code then there is probably something missing/not rendered correctly on other hardware.
Nope, try again.
If you want to answer that question based on the prevalence of AA in other UE3 titles you would quickly find that all this crying over it is misdirected. The status-quo is to not have AA. Yet when Nvidia works with/pays developers to increase value for their consumers it's somehow translated into a slight against ATI?
Unless someone has proof that Nvidia's involvement has been detrimental to the experience of ATI users everybody should stop with the unfounded hysterics.
Whether or not it checks for Nvidia hardware first is irrelevant. People are using that angle to somehow imply that it's being explicitly disabled on ATI hardware. That would mean the game itself has native support for AA on all hardware - something we have not seen at all in UE3 games.
So are you asserting it is somehow impossible? Look not to be a jerk but you guys are being ridiculous. Spoofing the VenderID makes MSAA look exactly the same on my R700 as it does on my G92. No matter how much you don't want it to be true, Rocksteady is making it more difficult for AMD users to enable MSAA for no reason.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54786
It seems that renaming the exe to "UT3.exe" and forcing AA through the control panel with Catalyst AI set to "Advanced" you can magically get rid of most of the jaggies.
How can I assert something that is proven to be untrue? I have seen in-game AA in action myself.
Your probem is that you are looking at an outcome and making all sorts of assumptions about what has transpired. If Nvidia was in any way responsible for the enabling of in-game AA of course there would be a good reason for Rocksteady to only support that option for Nvidia users. You're too caught up in this notion of AMD users being slighted - how do you know that anybody would have had AA at all if left up to the devs? Past experience says no.
That says nothing about the state of in-game AA support before Nvidia's involvement. What's more likely?
1. Rocksteady codes doAA() method and Nvidia pays them to wrap it with "if (Nvidia) {}"
2. There is no doAA() method and Nvidia facilitates its development through financial or other means and in exchange gets the "if (Nvidia) {}" condition?
Accepting #1 requires you to believe Rocksteady has no integrity whatsoever. Accepting #2 is much easier because of the history of developers ignoring AA support in UE3 games. Of course, that bit of common sense isn't convenient for the "Nvidia is evil" crowd.
I may be completely off base but given the evidence on the ground there's no indication that AA support was ever taken away from AMD users.
'Cept for the whole "if you enable MSAA in the config file the game refuses to run because you don't have nVidia hardware" bit...but if you fudge the vendor ID it works.
Why are you even trying to argue this Trini? :|
Why are you even trying to argue this Trini? :|
'Cept for the whole "if you enable MSAA in the config file the game refuses to run because you don't have nVidia hardware" bit...but if you fudge the vendor ID it works.
Why are you even trying to argue this Trini? :|
Just trying to add logic to the discussion
The vendor ID check has nothing to do with the question of whether AMD users would have gotten AA before Nvidias interference.Really? If AMD helped a developer with their DirectX 10 code path, should Nvidia users be forced to use DirectX 9, even if there is no hardware/software limitation that restricts Nvidia users except for a VenderID check?
Newest thread on the AA forums say that you just need to adjust the AA level (from the standard 1) and enable DX10 (false to true) to allow for AA on ATI cards. Besides, what are the chances of any of the developers actually answering a single one of the questions why they do not allow AA on non nvidia cards.
(think of all the S3 users out there!)
(think of all the S3 users out there!)
Link please?
- Status
Similar threads
