Batman AA fiasco: Who's telling the truth?

[evolucion8]

I wonder how's possible to select in game Anti Aliasing on Mirror's Edge, a Unreal 3 engine based game...

I'm pretty sure that nVidia did that for performance reasons, so it can appear to be faster since they don't have the performance crown anymore and bragg about having better performance in best selling games than ATi. Only empty brained people can fall in such blatant PR marketing tricks.

 

[SirPauly]

I wonder how's possible to select in game Anti Aliasing on Mirror's Edge, a Unreal 3 engine based game...

Because, maybe, just maybe, the developers of this title invested and spent some of their own resources to make this happen. In an ideal sense, it would of been nice of the developers of Batman invested their own resources -- but they didn't -- as many other Unreal engine titles with DirectX 9 and AA did not as well.

 

[Seero]

It is easy solution - they just need to remove the vendor check and it is working. Wait they can't cause it is NVIDIA code so EIDOS doesn't allow that to be changed.

I agreed completely.

Guess they can send a similar pile of code. Wait they can't because that would be similar to the code of NVIDIA, so a blatantly COPY of NVIDIA code!

The bold is your assumption. No 2 piece of code can be exactly the same. We can argue on this comment i have made but the bottom line is ATI don't have that similar pile of code we spoke of, which is a fact. It is the reason why ATI user can't enable AA because it is missing.

If they do have, and like you said Nvidia complain about the similarity of it, Eidos can then reject Nvidia's code and use ATI's as they claimed there won't be a vendor check in it. The whole situation will be very different as both party submitted their work but ones got rejected and such.

 

[Idontcare]

I wonder if there is an equal or greater amount of passion over this subject matter within the confines of AMD or Eidos or Nvidia? A lot of energy being expended here throughout this thread, hopefully its not all the thermodynamic equivalent of a gas expanding in a vacuum.

It's a good read so far, carry-on gentlemen

 

[Pantalaimon]

If they do have, and like you said Nvidia complain about the similarity of it, Eidos can then reject Nvidia's code and use ATI's as they claimed there won't be a vendor check in it. The whole situation will be very different as both party submitted their work but ones got rejected and such

Except Eidos already got money from NVIDIA as part of the co-marketing deal. I doubt they can now reject NVIDIA's code, unless they plan to return part of that money if it's tied to their getting that marketing money.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I wonder if there is an equal or greater amount of passion over this subject matter within the confines of AMD or Eidos or Nvidia? A lot of energy being expended here throughout this thread, hopefully its not all the thermodynamic equivalent of a gas expanding in a vacuum.

It's a good read so far, carry-on gentlemen

Filling the internet with crap must be of some value

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is the reason why ATI user can't enable AA because it is missing.

Actually the ATi user can enable it.

Guess ATi is counting on that - "Well if these guys bought from us when NVIDIA is all the cool, badass, they are smart enough to circumvent the code".

 

[Seero]

I'm saying Microsoft tells every developer to make rendering decisions based on the CAPS* bits, not the vendor string. It is bad coding otherwise. It could be the most elegant code, but if it doesn't follow protocol it would be considered bad.

* CAPS capabilities of the card

and some below.

The source was never sent to ATI only builds were.

WTF? This is absurd. I never even hinted this.

Hell yeah I could fix it, comment out one line that does the vendor ID check, but this isn't the issue and I don't have and wouldn't be given access to such codes. Not without a bunch of paper, both monetary and legal.

I would add that any fix should be balanced with the appropriate checks and queries. Nothing is as trivial as it seems. It should never have gotten this far to begin with. Either you understand the controversy or not.

I don't think they show that.

This is almost offensive. Analyzing something, giving perspective on things, correcting poor assumptions, sharing my knowledge and experience is very different than looking over thousands of lines of code.

I don't think it would be fair to compare knowledge on rendering systems with you, BenSkywalker sure, but so much of what you are saying is just plain absurd and over simplified.

Did I ever offer a solution or claim to have one? You seem to really have a problem with my analysis of this issue. I hope you would review what I have said and check it against what you are asking.

As much as you seem to want to make this AMDs issue, it really falls squarely on nVidia and Eidos. The only question I have ever asked is: Why did nVidia and or Eidos make rendering decisions based on the vendor sting?

This is so reductio ad absurdum and a strawman. I neither said or inferred anything above, especially anything to do with payments. Please avoid any future generalizations based on my statements.

First of all, I am sorry if I appear to be offensive to you. It isn't my intention, but my words don't lead to the attitude in my mind.

I may have mis-understood the following code:

Whatever they paid they got bad DirectX code, as it did not do or selectively ignored the required checks to see if the hardware supported the rendering sequence.

Now who pays who to do what again? If you mean Nv paid someone to write bad code, the my reply is not absurd. Otherwise, it is.

Now MS suggested that code should NOT be done based on CAPS bits, else they won't have them removed in Dx10 and beyond. The so called CAPS bits was so confusing that no one really knows if it works or not on what card without detail datacharts, assuming that vendor's drivers are bug free. Card A and B may have the same function, yet completely different CAPS bits, let along different vendors. To utilize CAPS bits, the engine must determine what the hardware is before hand or it will lead to crashes. Dx10 normalizes functions calls behind CAPS bits and removed CAPS bits completely, so programmers don't need to worry about vendors and card versions as vendors will support Dx10 instead of the other way around, which in theory makes coding easier for programmers. All this is irrelevant to this topics.

Keep in mind that MS don't own all programmers and they really can't tell them what to do. Programmers however, do have the rights to decide how to use code in DirectX. The code must follow the standard to run, but as long as it runs, the programmer will take the responsibilities and have control over what the code does and behaves.

Yes, the exact CAPS bits required to enable AA on Dx9 is identical for both vendors but it isn't blocked. What is being blocked is the code which contains these calls which was developed by Nvidia. The solo question is, why don't ATI create a code that also consists these calls which enables AA? As of now, it is still missing from ATI.

Must we argue whether the original code was following standard given that we don't have access to it? Must we reverse engineer the entire game in this thread? You continuously challenge others how it was done and how it should be done. What do we know about the source code and what can we do about it? I would be able to answer you if I have the source code, and information on this matter from Rocksteady/Eidos, but I don't. All we know is the original code don't support AA, Nvidia's code made it happened, yet ATI did not do anything.

Once again, removing the vendor check is easy in terms of programming, but all other legal stuffs are not. Solving the AA problem may not be difficult, but it must be more difficult then just use Nvidia's. We don't need to discuss or code out what they are, as it won't fix anything.

From: Lee Singleton
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Huddy, Richard
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum
Hi Richard,
We have worked closely with our local legal team today and we have been advised that we should not reuse or change the code written by nVidia. If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.
Best,
Lee

From: Huddy, Richard
Sent: 29 September 2009 17:09
To: Lee Singleton
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum
Guys,
I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...
Richard "7 of 5" Huddy
Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division

Source
Huddy, Richard didn't say they can't do it. They said Nvidia's code may run well on their Hardwares and might as well use it, while Eidos clearly stated that they can't change or reuse Nvidia's code. Yes, the techique is the same(Similar in their terms), but not the actual coding.

Yes, it is clear that Rocksteady could have fixed it, they just need to do it at their own expense, which they haven't. But ATI also didn't spend anything on this matter. The only one will did spent resources on this matter is Nvidia.

These are dated, which is more than a month ago. No words from anywhere indicating that ATI is working on a solution. They could have given Nvidia's code and remove the vendor check and send it back to Eidos and take any legal consequences by doing so, which they didn't. They want Eidos to do it, which Eidos didn't. Rocksteady can also retrofit Nvidia's code and without the vendor check or simply recode everything without the need of Nvidia's code, which Rocksteady didn't. Nvidia can have the vendor check removed, which Nvidia didn't.

Rocksteady was willing to work with ATI, and neither Eidos or Nvidia is stopping it from happening. ATI was the one who refuse to work it out.

And your conclusion is what Nvidia did is bad?

 

[Seero]

Actually the ATi user can enable it.

Guess ATi is counting on that - "Well if these guys bought from us when NVIDIA is all the cool, badass, they are smart enough to circumvent the code".

You can do illegal things, but it does not mean that you should. Nvidia could have made the vendor check ID much more complicated then it is, but there is no need. At the end, Nvidia is okay if ATI user is willingly, shamelessly, use what is rightfully belongs to Nvidia. But attacking Nvidia for making the game better is plain bad, do it after shamelessly steal access to what belongs to Nvidia user is ... (i don't have the word for it).

ATI is also full of smart people. They know ATI user can utilize it and will not get into trouble. All they need to do is to rationalize this in the public and they won't need to spend money on fixing this. This is exactly what Nvidia wants ATI to do, but that is a completely different story for another day.

Don't get me wrong. Nvidia is no angel, else they will have ceased from the market long ago.

 

[Seero]

Except Eidos already got money from NVIDIA as part of the co-marketing deal. I doubt they can now reject NVIDIA's code, unless they plan to return part of that money if it's tied to their getting that marketing money.

If ATI submitted the code and Nvidia forces Eidos to reject it in any ways, then the complain is valid. This is not the case.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You can do illegal things, but it does not mean that you should.

Illegal?

Oh noes! I'm telling the game I've a NVIDIA CARD! SUE ME!

ATI is also full of smart people. They know ATI user can utilize it and will not get into trouble. All they need to do is to rationalize this in the public and they won't need to spend money on fixing this. This is exactly what Nvidia wants ATI to do, but that is a completely different story for another day..

Nah. NVIDIA only wants big numbers on Batman: AA benchmarks, so Joe dude see it and believe NVIDIA cards fare better than they really do.

 

[Schmide]

I'm sorry if i cut your text down a bit. Too much is irrelevant.

First of all, I am sorry if I appear to be offensive to you. It isn't my intention, but my words don't lead to the attitude in my mind.

Shenanigans. What I say is very clear, the conclusions you draw from my text are straight up unwarranted.

Now who pays who to do what again? If you mean Nv paid someone to write bad code, the my reply is not absurd. Otherwise, it is.

It is absurd. You infer payments to everyone based on my contingent statement of the value of bad code.

Now MS suggested that code should NOT be done based on CAPS bits,

You directly say the opposite of what I said without merit.

else they won't have them removed in Dx10 and beyond. The so called CAPS bits was so confusing that no one really knows if it works or not on what card without detail datacharts, assuming that vendor's drivers are bug free. Card A and B may have the same function, yet completely different CAPS bits, let along different vendors. To utilize CAPS bits, the engine must determine what the hardware is before hand or it will lead to crashes. Dx10 normalizes functions calls behind CAPS bits and removed CAPS bits completely, so programmers don't need to worry about vendors and card versions as vendors will support Dx10 instead of the other way around, which in theory makes coding easier for programmers. All this is irrelevant to this topics.

Then rant and rant as if you have experience with CAPS bits. You obviously never heard of them before I mentioned them. All of a sudden you can explain the whole industry. Again Shenanigans.

Keep in mind that MS don't own all programmers and they really can't tell them what to do. Programmers however, do have the rights to decide how to use code in DirectX. The code must follow the standard to run, but as long as it runs, the programmer will take the responsibilities and have control over what the code does and behaves.

Anyone can write bad code, but not anyone can define standards that drive the industry. Microsoft owns the definitions for how directX works. NVidia and ATI subscribe to those standards. What's the use of these standards, if all these rogue programmers go out and ignore them.

No one owns anyone.

Yes, the exact CAPS bits required to enable AA on Dx9 is identical for both vendors but it isn't blocked. What is being blocked is the code which contains these calls which was developed by Nvidia. The solo question is, why don't ATI create a code that also consists these calls which enables AA? As of now, it is still missing from ATI.

Because, if you make rendering decisions based on the CAPS bits, one piece of code should work for all hardware. You're now an expert on this you know how the whole industry perceives the CAPS bits, I can't understand how you still get this wrong?

Must we argue whether the original code was following standard given that we don't have access to it? Must we reverse engineer the entire game in this thread? You continuously challenge others how it was done and how it should be done. What do we know about the source code and what can we do about it? I would be able to answer you if I have the source code, and information on this matter from Rocksteady/Eidos, but I don't. All we know is the original code don't support AA, Nvidia's code made it happened, yet ATI did not do anything.

None of this is needed if the programmers just follow the CAPS bits. Again take a simple premise I put forth and provide a reductio ad absurdum. Shenanigans

These are dated, which is more than a month ago. No words from anywhere indicating that ATI is working on a solution.

NVidia has actually gone silent on this. Huddy, Richard posted last, even in their forums. Twice I think. Huh Shenanigans

They could have given Nvidia's code and remove the vendor check and send it back to Eidos and take any legal consequences by doing so, which they didn't. They want Eidos to do it, which Eidos didn't. Rocksteady can also retrofit Nvidia's code and without the vendor check or simply recode everything without the need of Nvidia's code, which Rocksteady didn't. Nvidia can have the vendor check removed, which Nvidia didn't.

They could of followed the CAPS bits as well. A lot simpler and way way more ethical. Which is the heart of the issue.

Rocksteady was willing to work with ATI, and neither Eidos or Nvidia is stopping it from happening. ATI was the one who refuse to work it out.

ATI was willing to take a stand that standards mean something. You can blame ATI all you want, it's up to the industry to decide who was required to do what.

And your conclusion is what Nvidia did is bad?

Yup.

 

[Seero]

Illegal?

Oh noes! I'm telling the game I've a NVIDIA CARD! SUE ME!

Please read EULA.

Many EULAs assert extensive liability limitations. Most commonly, a EULA will attempt to hold harmless the software licensor in the event that the software causes damage to the user's computer or data, but some software also proposes limitations on whether the licensor can be held liable for damage that arises through improper use of the software (for example, incorrectly using tax preparation software and incurring penalties as a result). One case upholding such limitations on consequential damages is M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., et al. Some EULAs also claim restrictions on venue and applicable law in the event that a legal dispute arises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement
Violating EULA can be sued. Yes, hacking the game for your own use isn't going to be sued giving what you do will not cause damage to others. However, teaching others to hack does cause damage to others, especially when the hack consist for function points that removes security of the product. Fooling/removing the vendor ID check does exactly that, and Nvidia can sue you.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Please read EULA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement
Violating EULA can be sued. Yes, hacking the game for your own use isn't going to be sued giving what you do will not cause damage to others. However, teaching others to hack does cause damage to others, especially when the hack consist for function points that removes security of the product. Fooling/removing the vendor ID check does exactly that, and Nvidia can sue you.

Nope.

The game doesn't have anything to do with the hardware I have installed, nor does limit it in anyway.

 

[Seero]

Then rant and rant as if you have experience with CAPS bits. You obviously never heard of them before I mentioned them. All of a sudden you can explain the whole industry. Again Shenanigans.

I never said i have never heard of them, you assumed I don't know. In fact, you called me out, remember?

I said I am not good with terms, as I really don't know which part of the code is owned by Nvidia, and thus impossible for me to use the correct term.

Anyone can write bad code, but not anyone can define standards that drive the industry. Microsoft owns the definitions for how directX works. NVidia and ATI subscribe to those standards. What's the use of these standards, if all these rogue programmers go out and ignore them.

Do you even know what you are talking about? What is the standard you spoke of? Who can and who cannot define standards on what? Isn't DirectX working the way MS coded it?

As far as I know, programs that are coded in C structure, won't run on DirectX. The term "Porting" means to convert a program written in one language to another. Please be clear in what you are trying to say, because I don't have a clue on what you are trying to say.

Because, if you make rendering decisions based on the CAPS bits, one piece of code should work for all hardware. You're now an expert on this you know how the whole industry perceives the CAPS bits, I can't understand how still get this wrong?

Directx 10 and 11 don't work on windows XP even though it would. However, MS owns them and they can do whatever to it. You have a problem with that?

None of this is needed if the programmers just follow the CAPS bits. Again take a simple premise I put forth and provide a reductio ad absurdum. Shenanigans

You are being very stubborn that the graphics were done the way you think. Don't pretend you know as you admitted that you haven't seen the source code. How do know how it is done without having access to the source code? Is everything coded badly just because it isn't the way you think it should be?

NVidia has actually gone silent on this. Huddy, Richard posted last, even in their forums. Twice I think. Huh Shenanigans

Your point is?

They could of followed the CAPS bits as well. A lot simpler and way way more ethical. Which is the heart of the issue.

Why are you keep coming that to CAPS bits? The so called CAP bits is nothing but a roadmap to functions. The actual AA was done through DirectX, meaning that it is using the correct CAPS bits. No one is stopping ATI from writing things using those CAPS bits. The fact is, the way Rocksteady did it either don't use AA, or AA actually don't enhance graphics. Rocksteady wrote the game without AA support, but do they have to? Nothing like that was printed on the box. Can't Nvidia pick up a game and enhance its quality for their own customer only? Since when giving things to people I like for free unethical? ATI can pick up a game that is written in Dx9 and port it to Dx11 and free it to all ATI user and prevents Nvidia card to benefit from it. I can program something that runs perfectly fine on all machine and put a lock in it so no one can use it without my approval, or free it to anyone I like. What is the problem?

ATI was willing to take a stand that standards mean something. You can blame ATI all you want, it's up to the industry to decide who was required to do what.

Yup.

What is the standard? I am not aware that there exist a standard that every program written by anyone with DirectX must not prevent anyone from using it as long as their hardware configuration supports it. Otherwise, all games are free.

 

[Schmide]

This is getting tiresome. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not directly trying to be obtuse.

I never said i have never heard of them, you assumed I don't know. In fact, you called me out, remember?

I called you out on a very different issue, the z-buffer misinterpretation.

With the amount of misuse of the CAPS term, it's the only conclusion that can be made. Unless you're deliberately skewing definitions.

I said I am not good with terms, as I really don't know which part of the code is owned by Nvidia, and thus impossible for me to use the correct term.

Yet you can define the use of DirectX CAPS for the industry. (not very well I may add)

Do you even know what you are talking about? What is the standard you spoke of?

Your general stance is, each graphics card company should provide code for purchase to enable all the eye candy provided by the DirectX tool set. I believe this stance is lame.

Who can and who cannot define standards on what? Isn't DirectX working the way MS coded it?

Microsoft has the final say on any DirectX standard. In this case the DirectX standards are not being followed.

As far as I know, programs that are coded in C structure, won't run on DirectX. The term "Porting" means to convert a program written in one language to another. Please be clear in what you are trying to say, because I don't have a clue on what you are trying to say.

Actually the DirectX interface works for many languages. VisualBasic, VisualJ, C Sharp, Visual C. There is nothing preventing any type of program from calling it. I hope this helps.

Directx 10 and 11 don't work on windows XP even though it would. However, MS owns them and they can do whatever to it. You have a problem with that?

I'd call it a push. Windows XP is near 10 years old, there is a point where you have to declare it legacy and move on. On the other hand, DirectX is so autonomous, it should be able to run anywhere without much effort.

You are being very stubborn that the graphics were done the way you think. Don't pretend you know as you admitted that you haven't seen the source code. How do know how it is done without having access to the source code? Is everything coded badly just because it isn't the way you think it should be?

I have not been very stubborn, everything is open to interpretation. The reason I draw this conclusion, there is only so many pathways the DirectX tool set provides for such a function. There is enough evidence, i.e. the z-value stored in alpha to infer that this is the case.

Why are you keep coming that to CAPS bits? The so called CAP bits is nothing but a roadmap to functions.

They would be a roadmap to capabilities. In previous generations of interfaces there was no such definitions or very weak definitions. If you ignore them, you regress to a time where programming for each card/vendor was unique. This is what I'm fighting against.

The actual AA was done through DirectX, meaning that it is using the correct CAPS bits.

The CAPS bits is only as subset of the DirectX system. A programmer in not prevented from making calls because of them. It just defines what calls should be made. This is not a valid conclusion.

No one is stopping ATI from writing things using those CAPS bits. The fact is, the way Rocksteady did it either don't use AA, or AA actually don't enhance graphics. Rocksteady wrote the game without AA support, but do they have to? Nothing like that was printed on the box. Can't Nvidia pick up a game and enhance its quality for their own customer only? Since when giving things to people I like for free unethical? ATI can pick up a game that is written in Dx9 and port it to Dx11 and free it to all ATI user and prevents Nvidia card to benefit from it. I can program something that runs perfectly fine on all machine and put a lock in it so no one can use it without my approval, or free it to anyone I like. What is the problem?

Same tiresome argument. If you don't understand my stance by now, you never will. I disagree with the separate code path for each vendor, I believe in the standards.

What is the standard? I am not aware that there exist a standard that every program written by anyone with DirectX must not prevent anyone from using it as long as their hardware configuration supports it. Otherwise, all games are free.

A very poor deduction here. There is nothing preventing unscrupulous people from doing unscrupulous things. You seem to confuse prevention from advice.

If you pay for a game, it should take full advantage of the capabilities of your hardware.

Final statement. Please Please don't return to these same tired arguments. We are going in circles here. If you don't understand my stance by now, you never will. If you have a direct question, from a technical standpoint, on the inner workings of a rendering system, I will be happy to answer it for you. If you want to continue the, why didn't ATI provide code to Eidos or the like?, it will be ignored. I have entertained you enough. Future questions or statements directed towards myself on the latter subject will be considered trolling!!!

 

[SolMiester]

I own ATI, nVidia, AMD, and Intel, I'm writing this on a gtx260. I'm having a go at ignoring standards. Check my history, I support nVidia on anything that isn't a dirty marketing trick. I recommend their products quite often.

So GTFO with your divisive words.

If you own an nV card then use that, and write your abusive tirade to ATi, cause we dont care....just like ATi dont care...LOL, ya pillock!

 

[Schmide]

If you own an nV card then use that, and write your abusive tirade to ATi, cause we dont care....just like ATi dont care...LOL, ya pillock!

ya pillock! ??? - I think that's a direct insult. Are you looking for a vacation?

(Brit slang a stupid or annoying person. [from Scandinavian dialect pillicock penis)

You jumped into a thread and directly concluded I was an ATI fanboi. I corrected you on this and unkindly (GTFO) asked that you keep divisive words from this thread. You are the one choosing sides.

I have mentioned ATI very little, I only deal in the subject matter.

 

[Seero]

Your general stance is, each graphics card company should provide code for purchase to enable all the eye candy provided by the DirectX tool set. I believe this stance is lame.

This is not my stance. My stance is, programmers can decide how their program should work. It is as simple as that.

Microsoft has the final say on any DirectX standard. In this case the DirectX standards are not being followed.

Standards are not created by a company, but the community. MS was trying to charge or stop people for making there programs that look like them. As a result, they got sued as those look and feel has become standards that MS are not allowed to charge or stop people from doing so.

Actually the DirectX interface works for many languages. VisualBasic, VisualJ, C Sharp, Visual C. There is nothing preventing any type of program from calling it. I hope this helps.

This does not contradict with what I said.

I'd call it a push. Windows XP is near 10 years old, there is a point where you have to declare it legacy and move on. On the other hand, DirectX is so autonomous, it should be able to run anywhere without much effort.

And DirectX 9 is brand new.

If you pay for a game, it should take full advantage of the capabilities of your hardware.

Sorry, but it doesn't work this way. DirectX 9, 10, 10.1 and 10.2 don't take full advantage of the capabilities of your hardware, namely a Multi-core CPU. DirectX 11 is made to allow games to utilize more on multi-core CPU by making DirectX code to run in multiple threads. It is an improvement, but guess what, it was also bundled with other things like tessellation that you need to buy a new video card to work with it, and all XP user will need to make a new purchase on the OS. This can be retrofitted into Directx 9 and 10, but it wasn't.

Final statement. Please Please don't return to these same tired arguments. We are going in circles here. If you don't understand my stance by now, you never will. If you have a direct question, from a technical standpoint, on the inner workings of a rendering system, I will be happy to answer it for you. If you want to continue the, why didn't ATI provide code to Eidos or the like?, it will be ignored. I have entertained you enough. Future questions or statements directed towards myself on the latter subject will be considered trolling!!!

I understand you are willing to answer technical questions from me, but so far I haven't ask you for it. In fact, I ask you to stop feeding this thread with it as this isn't the right thread for those IMO.

It is funny how you said we are going in circles, yet I am the only one with misunderstanding.

Speaking of trolling, I never intended to reply on your reply to me. You called me out, remember? You said that you were being ignored by me, so I keep you entertained. I understand that you will no longer be entertained by my post and thus i will stop replying on your replies. However, I hope you can do the same thing.

 

[Schmide]

This does not contradict with what I said.

You said.

As far as I know, programs that are coded in C structure, won't run on DirectX. The term "Porting" means to convert a program written in one language to another. Please be clear in what you are trying to say, because I don't have a clue on what you are trying to say.

Then I said

Actually the DirectX interface works for many languages. VisualBasic, VisualJ, C Sharp, Visual C. There is nothing preventing any type of program from calling it. I hope this helps.

All of the above list are of a C structure except VisualBasic, which directly contradicts what you said above. (bold) As for porting, when it's based on the original contradiction, it becomes irrelevant.

This is not my stance. My stance is, programmers can decide how their program should work. It is as simple as that.

That's fine. I agree. As long as we can give them shit when they do something uncool.

Sorry, but it doesn't work this way. DirectX 9, 10, 10.1 and 10.2 don't take full advantage of the capabilities of your hardware, namely a Multi-core CPU. DirectX 11 is made to allow games to utilize more on multi-core CPU by making DirectX code to run in multiple threads. It is an improvement, but guess what, it was also bundled with other things like tessellation that you need to buy a new video card to work with it, and all XP user will need to make a new purchase on the OS. This can be retrofitted into Directx 9 and 10, but it wasn't.

The context in which I was speaking was related to the interface and the graphics card. Sure there are improvements in later versions, but that has nothing to do with how different hardware is treated by the same versions!.

I understand you are willing to answer technical questions from me, but so far I haven't ask you for it. In fact, I ask you to stop feeding this thread with it as this isn't the right thread for those IMO.

I will be glad to stop feeding the thread. I don't think I've asked too many questions of you. It's really gone, you say something weird, I correct it.

It is funny how you said we are going in circles, yet I am the only one with misunderstanding.

Try and be more clear and do better research.

Speaking of trolling, I never intended to reply on your reply to me. You called me out, remember? You said that you were being ignored by me, so I keep you entertained. I understand that you will no longer be entertained by my post and thus i will stop replying on your replies. However, I hope you can do the same thing.

Fine it can be considered done. I still consider the conversation viable, I just wish to avoid the types of questions mentioned in the previous statement. I will not entertain them anymore.

 

[Keysplayr]

This is just getting silly guys. Take a step back and ask yourselves how important this is that I should be arguing fruitlessly about it this length of time.. You can't get these minutes back guys. Spend them wisely!

 

[Forumpanda]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

As far as I know, programs that are coded in C structure, won't run on DirectX.

And this is about where I stopped reading your posts, I think you better stop before you embarrass yourself to anyone technically savvy enough to understand the terms you are slinging around.

I am impressed with the patience shown by Schmide in this debate, however I think he might just have a nervous breakdown if it continuous.

 

[myocardia]

But if the future of PC gaming is one where I have to make purchasing decisions that will lock me out of things that I want (PhysX, AA, etc) then I might as well cave and buy an xbox.

Where you will of course be able to play all of those PS3-exclusive games, not to mention the Wii-exclusive games.

 

[Seero]

And this is about where I stopped reading your posts, I think you better stop before you embarrass yourself to anyone technically savvy enough to understand the terms you are slinging around.

I am impressed with the patience shown by Schmide in this debate, however I think he might just have a nervous breakdown if it continuous.

Yes, what I say was misleading. What I tried to say was no C code would be benefited just because of DirectX. To make use of it, the structural changes are required, via porting. There are no standards, but preferred methods on how to interface with those APIs. How to interface with those APIs appends on the people with code it, and there are really no standards on it.

Sorry for the confusion. I really don't know why we are getting so technical.

 

[Schmide]

This is just getting silly guys. Take a step back and ask yourselves how important this is that I should be arguing fruitlessly about it this length of time.. You can't get these minutes back guys. Spend them wisely!

Fruitlessly?

I'm a cantankerous old man who plans to to retire on the residuals earned in this thread.

and

It's raining so I can't rake my leaves.