Reverend at The Pulpit #13

[[maven]]

Yeah, why not? I always curse friends! If they're wrong, then they should know!

Yup.

If they're a real friend, you owe them your honest opinion....even if it ain't the kindest thing.

There is still a decided difference between giving someone your honest opinion and cursing them...

 

[digitalwanderer]

]There is still a decided difference between giving someone your honest opinion and cursing them...

Not if cursing them IS your honest opinion.

 

[jvd]

From Patric 3DMark05 does not include 3Dc because we already use DXT5 for normal map compression. All hardware capable of running 3DMark05 support DXT5, the implementation is just as elegant and DXT5 is a DX feature, not even new for DX9, and not IHV specific. So DXT5 normal maps would have been needed anyway, but adding a set of 3Dc normal maps would have added probably 100-150MB more to the download package. It’s not just a few added lines of code, you would need all normal maps included also in 3Dc format. You can of course start playing with texture conversions, but we did that in an earlier 3DMark version and have no desire to go there again.

But future games will take time to use 3dc and since you want to emulate future games you should have taken the time and space to fit it .

Or do you feel in the future devs wont support 3dc because its to big for a download ? I already know one game publisher who will have you download thier game and include 3dc .

For DSt guess what there is another way of doing things in dx 9 already and all cards support it and you already had it in your engine !

... and yes, DST/PCF does offer a performance increase. We have no info on 3Dc increasing the performance over our DXT5 implementation.

So I guess you have no info showing it doesn't either ? Did you even look into it ? Or did nvidia come out and say add this in so we get a higher score or we will publicly cheat on your benchmark again ?

 

[Reverend]

Curse who out?

FM, specifically Worm and Pat.

I don't curse friends.

Really? Why not? :|

Well, I did not say this thread is about FM (you guys did) but since you guys brought this up, any disagreement I may have with FM (and its personnel) is strictly professional and should/will remain that way. FM decided on something that I don't agree with, nor know about as a BDP member until after gold, and that's it. In fact, just yesterday, I reported what appears to be a 3DMark05 bug to FM and Patric acknowledged my email and thanked me. I'd like to think the FM guys still appreciate the work I put into helping to develop 3DMark05 even though I've made my displeasure public. It's just work.

 

[pcchen]

Pcchen, you forget the DX9 basis in your equation

Well, I don't think that has any thing to do with DX9.
All game tests in 3DMark05 uses pixel shader 2.0 or more, because several current DX9 games, and many future DX9 games, use pixel shader at least in some forms, so it's logical.

Now, almost all games uses depth corrected maps support DST (I don't know any such game don't support DST). Why is it not logical to use DST by default?

 

[Reverend]

Now, almost all games uses depth corrected maps support DST (I don't know any such game don't support DST). Why is it not logical to use DST by default?

Are we going to go over this all over again??

 

[pcchen]

Are we going to go over this all over again??

Sorry, I thought it's ok for everyone to talk about 3Dc and DST in 3DMark05.
Anyway, I find it's funny because it's more and more like a political debate rather than a technological one.

 

[Reverend]

Are we going to go over this all over again??

Sorry, I thought it's ok for everyone to talk about 3Dc and DST in 3DMark05.
Anyway, I find it's funny because it's more and more like a political debate rather than a technological one.

It was never a technological debate. We're looking at an angle that is perhaps more important than a purely technological one, given how popular 3DMarkXX is.