Luminescent
Veteran
What about aquanox, doesn't aquanox utilize a robust directx 8 engine with pixel and vertex shader support, along with an advanced lighting model?
Ultra High Mode in UT 2003
- Thread starter up
- Start date
The question is if there is no difference between High->UltraHigh due to lack of vmem requirements, or if it's simply being ignored in software until the next patch.
I'd try the Ultra High terrain detail at like 800x600, no AF and no AA to free up as much vmem as possible and see if this might be enough to see some difference. I do know the 9700 Pro takes a SS footprint as far as vmem usage as verified by ATI on the Rage3D forums (i.e. 1600x1200 with AA takes a ~110MB vmem footprint with no textures!).
So, in theory, if there are better still textures past "High" on the texture slider, they could either be ignored for whatever reason, or simply failing gracefully due to memory requirements and falling back.
I'd try the Ultra High terrain detail at like 800x600, no AF and no AA to free up as much vmem as possible and see if this might be enough to see some difference. I do know the 9700 Pro takes a SS footprint as far as vmem usage as verified by ATI on the Rage3D forums (i.e. 1600x1200 with AA takes a ~110MB vmem footprint with no textures!).
So, in theory, if there are better still textures past "High" on the texture slider, they could either be ignored for whatever reason, or simply failing gracefully due to memory requirements and falling back.
And, generally speaking, Comanche does pretty much exactly the same type of thing (and it was released quite some time ago now).
Doomtrooper
Veteran
rhink said:
Actually it was as usual done by a outside party, Loki AFIK was the 1st to release a Opengl Renderer to allow all cards to use the second Cd...just like most of the online games sadly the most improvement comes from the internet..including maps.
There is also the other side of that, already binds and aimbots are being used in Ut2003, and we have to rely on some other coder out there to make another CHSP or bot detection/Pure Server mod. Epic didn't think it was important I guess.
Carmack has stated about the speed gains by executing everything in a single pass, as much as 30%:
Not sure why UT 2003 would not benefit the same
There is nothing wrong with IHV's paying for special features,versions, or patches for their cards. It was quite common in the past for IHV's to pay for 3D ports (from software rasterized games) which were included in a games bundle. Giants is another example of a game that had a special "NVidia" version.
If ATI had paid Epic to include a special TruForm mode (which only, to this day, really works well on ATI hardware), I doubt Doomtrooper and others would be complaining.
If ATI had paid Epic to include a special TruForm mode (which only, to this day, really works well on ATI hardware), I doubt Doomtrooper and others would be complaining.
I'm still very interested in how some people like to make stark, blatantly incomparable situations and somehow equate them as "same"....
There is obviously nothing wrong with supporting a feature, technology or bonus on one chipset versus another as long as the reasoning behind such is a technological improvement over other IHVs.
When the GF3 first came out, there wouldn't be any argument for a game that uses p/v shaders. Given the GF3 was the only card that had support for this at the time, this would be perfectly acceptable.
In other words, if there are some advanced textures in UT2003 that require 256MB of vmem to support, then any videocard with 256MB should be able to use them. The complaints would start when you have competing products of equal or same capabilities and a feature has been intentionally thwarted to give an illusion of hardware superiority. (i.e. another 256MB vmem videocard but is artificially prevented from using outside the realm of driver bugs or similar).
Using Truform as equating to this is baffling to say the least. Obviously, if Truform were supported by NVIDIA, this would make an equivalent argument, but since there is no Truform support for current generation NVIDIA cards, it's a ludicrous example. If some form of "middle ground" HoS support could be added with wider market share, this would always be preferred.
So you are correct- I doubt people would be complaining when there is no reasonable or logical purpose to complain. If brand X has feature Y, and brand Z does not, then there is no valid argument why brand Z should have this feature.
umm, call me stupid, but UT2003 DOES support truform. and quite nicely, too. Pity it is visible just on player (and weapon) models. those adrenaline pills sure could use some rounding. (and remember tim's rant about how truform sucks)
also, Doomtrooper, AFAIK Loki = Vogel. Vogel, please correct me, if i'm wrong.
And if you ask me, this is just anoter example of hearsay theresay argument thread. there are still MONTHS since we'll see nv30 on the shelves and i don't care a smallest bit if there will be a nv specific feature or not. i got mine.
in the oter news: i just recieved 9700 board. woohoo!
also, Doomtrooper, AFAIK Loki = Vogel. Vogel, please correct me, if i'm wrong.
And if you ask me, this is just anoter example of hearsay theresay argument thread. there are still MONTHS since we'll see nv30 on the shelves and i don't care a smallest bit if there will be a nv specific feature or not. i got mine.
in the oter news: i just recieved 9700 board. woohoo!
Hellbinder
Banned
Thank you shark. This is exactly my concern. I know that you and I are having a little *discussion* right now at Rage3d.. but i really appriciate That you can see why this is different from just supporting a n IHV's feature.
quattro said:
Loki was a company that was involved in converting games to run on Linux. Unfortunately they folded...
Vogel worked at Loki and was responsible for the UT conversion for Linux. As Linux does not support D3D, an OpenGL compatible renderer was necessary. The original UT OpenGL basically sucked ass. Anyway, he was the one who wrote the OpenGL renderer for the Linux port, and eventually that made its way back to the Windows version. After Loki filed for Chapter 13, he was hired by Epic. At least that's what I understand, he would know better than I of course.
Well Shark, you didn't read what I said. I said any IHV should be able to pay any ISV to put in special support for features that their hardware has. The situation is exactly comparable to TruForm. I did not say "Any IHV should be able to pay any ISV to disable the game working on their card if in fact, it really could at appropriate performance levels"
You however, are operating on a false rumor that somehow UT simply says
Yes, that isn't a comparable situation, but that's not what I claimed anyway.
What really happens is something like this
For example, UT2003 could be enhanced to use NV_vertex_program2 over ARB_vertex_program if there are some shaders that require data dependent branching. Or, if UT2003 actually had some pixel shaders, it could be enhanced to use NV_fragment_program if NV30 specific pixel shader stuff was needed.
And there is nothing wrong with any IHV paying for the addition of support of their specific OGL extensions or hardware features.
The fact is, you are all too willing to latch onto any ominous rumor before it is confirmed as long as it is anti-NVidia.
You however, are operating on a false rumor that somehow UT simply says
Code:
If ULTRA_HIGH_RES == ON and CARD != NV30 then FAILWhat really happens is something like this
Code:
IF OpenGL_extension_exists(NVidia_Extension) AND can_run_extension_fast(NVidia_Extension) then Enable_Special_Feature();For example, UT2003 could be enhanced to use NV_vertex_program2 over ARB_vertex_program if there are some shaders that require data dependent branching. Or, if UT2003 actually had some pixel shaders, it could be enhanced to use NV_fragment_program if NV30 specific pixel shader stuff was needed.
And there is nothing wrong with any IHV paying for the addition of support of their specific OGL extensions or hardware features.
The fact is, you are all too willing to latch onto any ominous rumor before it is confirmed as long as it is anti-NVidia.
Actually, DemoCoder, if you actually read what I posted you would understand I haven't latched onto any rumor.
No, actually what I said is:
I don't recall saying anything about the NV30 or if CARD != NV30 then FAIL one bit. Be very interested where this came from as it surely didnt come from me.
And I disagree that IHV's should be able to finance game makers to enable abilities for themselves and/or disable abilities from other IHV's, especially in games that have benchmark features.
This serves no purpose except to taint the playing field by allowing the highest bidder to present artificial "superiority" and bring the hardware enthusiast's battle to the home gamer, rather than website forums and MadOnion where it belongs.
Your average Joe game consumer only cares if their game works, works well, and works as advertised. The moment a game comes out with "With advanced reflections! (NVidia only), Superior pixel shader effects! (ATI only) and lifelike shadows (Parhelia only)" will be the day game developers realize what this causes- forums full of complaining customers. Just go look at Bioware's forums concerning shiny-water and Neverwinter Nights. They have been on full-time thread deletion duty for months until they finally created a "sticky" thread and committed to getting pixel shader effects for everyone else with said capability.
So the fact truly is, you are willing to latch on to any pro-NVidia propaganda or methods long before any such rumors can substantiate themselves in reality... and simply discount any real discussion or interest in these matters as some sort of anti-NVidia agenda.. which is funny as I have purchased and used every NVIDIA product since the TNT2.
No, actually what I said is:
I don't recall saying anything about the NV30 or if CARD != NV30 then FAIL one bit. Be very interested where this came from as it surely didnt come from me.
And I disagree that IHV's should be able to finance game makers to enable abilities for themselves and/or disable abilities from other IHV's, especially in games that have benchmark features.
This serves no purpose except to taint the playing field by allowing the highest bidder to present artificial "superiority" and bring the hardware enthusiast's battle to the home gamer, rather than website forums and MadOnion where it belongs.
Your average Joe game consumer only cares if their game works, works well, and works as advertised. The moment a game comes out with "With advanced reflections! (NVidia only), Superior pixel shader effects! (ATI only) and lifelike shadows (Parhelia only)" will be the day game developers realize what this causes- forums full of complaining customers. Just go look at Bioware's forums concerning shiny-water and Neverwinter Nights. They have been on full-time thread deletion duty for months until they finally created a "sticky" thread and committed to getting pixel shader effects for everyone else with said capability.
So the fact truly is, you are willing to latch on to any pro-NVidia propaganda or methods long before any such rumors can substantiate themselves in reality... and simply discount any real discussion or interest in these matters as some sort of anti-NVidia agenda.. which is funny as I have purchased and used every NVIDIA product since the TNT2.
LittlePenny
Regular
As said before this, UT2003 could have different bottlenecks which limit these gains. But, I would suspect since UT and Doom seem to be using these pass systems for different reasons they will not necessarily yield the same set of results.Doomtrooper said:
If the CPU were the bottleneck, and using a single pass were saving 30% of the work off the GPU, would that mean you can turn on more vid card features for "free"?
Luminescent said:
Bah, Aquanox isn't much of a real game. It's much more of a tech demo.
And no, it's not truly DX8 unless it requires DX8 hardware to run. That is, one cannot possibly see the maximum possible out of certain PC hardware until that hardware is assumed to be the minimum spec.
Similar threads
- Locked
