RAGE: That's actually what you do when trying to get the PC version to work
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
i wonder does it work a dedicated cuda capable card only for transcoding.. just like a physx card ? it doesnt work at just cause 2 though..
I have a 3850 in the boss's kids' home comp but that's all I have around for old AMD PCIe hardware other than the X1950. AMD drivers are problematic in general right now though.
As is apparent from the article [strike]Vy[/strike] Farid linked to in the OP I was pretty bullish on MT. So, four years later, even on high-end nvidia hardware with gobs of ram and video ram being able to see textures fade in is... disappointing... to say the least. That's one advantage the first-generation MT tech in ETQW had over id Tech 5's: the MT LoD management was locality-based not frustum which meant you'd only see the fade in artefacts when running (or rather driving) pretty fast in a straight line. Seeing the artefact every time you turn your mouse must be distracting.
When we published that article my personal feeling was that MT was going to change the face of graphics because its drawbacks: huge storage (not allowing open world games - we even singled out Oblivion, little did I know there was a chance ES5 could use id Tech 5) and lower texel density because of that storage problem, seemed like good trade-offs for getting unique texturing (check), rock-bottom and constant memory requirements (nope, consoles are getting pounded, even top-end PCs with 4 times as much videomemory as consoles have RAM require huge caches). Even the baked lighting would be offset by the 60hz performance (which is a problem even for high-end pcs because of "API overhead").
Over time we learnt that AF would be a problem and the constant mention of DVD storage issues made it apparent texture resolution would take a bigger hit than we had antecipated.
The other thing I'm most disappointed is the lack of graphical options in the menu. All the keynote time spent on describing how the IHVs implemented a new way to reduce tearing could be better spent putting a VSYNC option in. Reliance on heuristics to determine quality options for PC should have sent alarms ringing in Carmack's head.
In the future, I just hope id learns from this. Especially for DOOM which always was the id Tech 5 game I was really looking forward to. At the very least Carmack should smash some skulls over at NV/AMD. Yes, nvidia, even they had to rush out a driver after the game's release. Or better yet, as Carmack said many times the renderer is API agnostic because of its multiplatform nature go ahead and ship for Direct3D, even as an alternative renderer (Unreal 1 style).
When we published that article my personal feeling was that MT was going to change the face of graphics because its drawbacks: huge storage (not allowing open world games - we even singled out Oblivion, little did I know there was a chance ES5 could use id Tech 5) and lower texel density because of that storage problem, seemed like good trade-offs for getting unique texturing (check), rock-bottom and constant memory requirements (nope, consoles are getting pounded, even top-end PCs with 4 times as much videomemory as consoles have RAM require huge caches). Even the baked lighting would be offset by the 60hz performance (which is a problem even for high-end pcs because of "API overhead").
Over time we learnt that AF would be a problem and the constant mention of DVD storage issues made it apparent texture resolution would take a bigger hit than we had antecipated.
The other thing I'm most disappointed is the lack of graphical options in the menu. All the keynote time spent on describing how the IHVs implemented a new way to reduce tearing could be better spent putting a VSYNC option in. Reliance on heuristics to determine quality options for PC should have sent alarms ringing in Carmack's head.
In the future, I just hope id learns from this. Especially for DOOM which always was the id Tech 5 game I was really looking forward to. At the very least Carmack should smash some skulls over at NV/AMD. Yes, nvidia, even they had to rush out a driver after the game's release. Or better yet, as Carmack said many times the renderer is API agnostic because of its multiplatform nature go ahead and ship for Direct3D, even as an alternative renderer (Unreal 1 style).
digitalwanderer
Legend
ftfy
The fabled OpenGL rewrite that supposedly happened sometime during the R500 days that nobody noticed because nobody really cared about OpenGL games at that time and it didn't help much anyway because Doom3 and Quake4 were not so great for R300-R580 due to hardware deficiencies with the rendering style compared to NV30+.
By the way, AMD broke KOTOR in the final driver pack (Cat 10.2) they released for R580 on down. Oops.
By the way, AMD broke KOTOR in the final driver pack (Cat 10.2) they released for R580 on down. Oops.
well ya know what would be good for reviewers is if they just compared it to other titles instead of giving it a numerical score, because its pretty much impossible to quantify fun. and thats what games are all about, and its a subjective kinda thing.
im still on the fence about this one, its a shame there is no demo, but the next best thing is real people, so maybe they can chime in with their experiences at least after they sort the technical issues out.
im still on the fence about this one, its a shame there is no demo, but the next best thing is real people, so maybe they can chime in with their experiences at least after they sort the technical issues out.
Get this - I just tried it on my old 8800GT 512MB that I have at work in a Phenom II X2 box. It pulls 60 fps at 1680x1050. I even tried the 8K texture tweak and it is still at 60fps most of the time with the exception of some stuttering when I do a sudden 180. This is barely fitting in 512MB (GPUZ says around 500MB VRAM usage).
Now that's more like it a exactly what I would expect from a well optimised PC game. Shame the game can't be that consistent on all hardware but hopefully the new drivers will sort things out....
I don't understand how the blame gets shifted to AMD and occasionally Nv for this one. If you release a game and you say it's playable on such-and-such brand of card then there better damn well be some extant driver for which that is the case. Seriously man, if this were not id but some indie company, how far would this blaming the IHVs shit fly? That's what I thought.
For those of you that have the game, does the readme indicate a certain amd driver that works?
For those of you that have the game, does the readme indicate a certain amd driver that works?
I agree, if it doesn't work on the latest released drivers what the hell were they even testing on??
Dude, AMD botched the driver release. Not id's fault at all.
If the game still doesn't work with the correct driver then yeah, id is mostly to blame IMO.
In reality it seems nobody is completely innocent in the debacle that is Rage PC.
I would say we need a table of which card/mobo/cpu do and don't work with the game. Im running a 4870x2 with a 950 i7 and 24GB RAM, @ 2560x1600, running just fine with the 8k texture "hack" at about 45-55fps. I'm getting the odd occasional gun poly glitch, but nothing game breaking, and alt-tabbing sometimes helps this. I'm running the driver Catalystmaker linked on his twitter account.
Oh, and I'm loving the game. The guns and movement are perfect, and the storyline is just fine.
Sorry Sxotty, I tried to copy the relevant post over, but my OP was relegated to the last post because the posts were sorted chronologically.
I've added two links to the previous thread in the OP. One to the thread itself and one to the point where the game release-related discussion begun.
The fabled OpenGL rewrite that supposedly happened sometime during the R500 days that nobody noticed because nobody really cared about OpenGL games at that time and it didn't help much anyway because Doom3 and Quake4 were not so great for R300-R580 due to hardware deficiencies with the rendering style compared to NV30+.
By the way, AMD broke KOTOR in the final driver pack (Cat 10.2) they released for R580 on down. Oops.
The OpenGL driver rewrite goes way back. It became a running joke at some point. Now, obviously OGL is pretty much irrelevant for gaming on WIndows, so it's the issue it was during the Quake 3 engine era.
The thing with Rage is that it isn't simply virtual texturing; it's virtual texturing combined with unique textuing.
I'm quite sure that an engine optimized for current game content with repeating textures would work a lot better. It would not have to fetch that much data from background storage, both the tile cache and the general pre-transcode cache would probably be a lot more efficient.
But id has decided to push the tech even further and take the risk of delayed texture loads. I suppose it was a decision made early enough in the development timeline so that they had no complete idea of its full ramifications. I'm sure the content created for the game is also a major factor in the results, it's a bit too demanding for both the consoles and the PC. There are PC systems that can manage with virtually no pop-in though, so it's a technology that'll keep on getting better with time.
I think the more important question is, how much could proper hardware support reduce the worst case scenarios? Let's not forget that the megatexture component of the Rage engine is mostly a DX6-7 based system, so a big hack around various hardware limitations. I'm sure the efficiency could be improved, but I wonder how much some dedicated GPU support would actually help...
I'm quite sure that an engine optimized for current game content with repeating textures would work a lot better. It would not have to fetch that much data from background storage, both the tile cache and the general pre-transcode cache would probably be a lot more efficient.
But id has decided to push the tech even further and take the risk of delayed texture loads. I suppose it was a decision made early enough in the development timeline so that they had no complete idea of its full ramifications. I'm sure the content created for the game is also a major factor in the results, it's a bit too demanding for both the consoles and the PC. There are PC systems that can manage with virtually no pop-in though, so it's a technology that'll keep on getting better with time.
I think the more important question is, how much could proper hardware support reduce the worst case scenarios? Let's not forget that the megatexture component of the Rage engine is mostly a DX6-7 based system, so a big hack around various hardware limitations. I'm sure the efficiency could be improved, but I wonder how much some dedicated GPU support would actually help...
Those guys are too busy: "You want an extension for what now? That's craaazy! Gentlemen, to your workstations!"
I played it for an hour or two last night on the 6950 vs the night before which was on my GTX 560 (TVPC). What I noticed immediately was that the texture loading seems a little slower. But when I got to the TV station mission, I had enemies with contorted, flickering models and a shotgun shell appearing and disappearing in the air as I ran around (I think it's supposed to be inside the gun model). And then it crashed a bit later at a loading screen. None of this happens on NV.
I also tried the cfg tweaks but ran into some really bad continuous stuttering. So I deleted the cfg file and loaded again. It still stuttered. So I quit and loaded AGAIN and then it was fine. Weirdness.