How to enable Nvidia Phsyx on Ati cards in Batman:AA

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

Yes. Given Nvidia's track record (such as blocking gpu physx if an AMD card is also installed), it makes option 2 more likely IMO. Also, I'd like to think if the game studio can afford to license UE3 tech, it can probably afford to hire developers who know how to make AA work. Why is it that some dev studios like CSG Gameworld can implement a deferred renderer with DX10.1 features on most likely a fraction of the budget, but Eidos can't even get AA working on an expensive engine they licensed? Just smells fishy to me.

 

[golem]

Schmide -

1) I didn't miss what you wrote about UE 3 doing MSAA under DX9 no problem. But show me one game that actually had in game MSAA under DX9 before Arkhyam (no hacks or driver force, just in game MSAA)? Even a game published by the creators of the game engine didn't have it... so knowing that, what is someone to believe? You saying it's no problem or looking around and seeing that is it s a problem?

2) I don't really understand what DirectX Caps is, but from what you said, it's a way in which to a game engine to do something? But it's not required that you use it, is it?

3) Err... Microsoft makes next to nothing on windows games except the ones they sell. Even if they do make 95% of their money form the PC market (debatable), it's from selling MS Office and Windows OS products. So yes, I think they would much rather a customer buy Arkham on 360 (where they get a licensing fee) as opposed to the pc (where they get nothing).

That's the problem I have with your arguments, you make arguments that make sense when seem in a vaccum. "Yeah Microsoft want to kill where 95%+ of their money comes form, the PC market" But that statement doesn't really have a bearing on the subject at hand. The make their money from the PC market yes, but the PC Gaming Market? They killed off most of their pc game dev studios and wait forever to port their xbox games to the PC... and the exaggeration... AA running only on Nvidia and not ATI will kill the PC market? COME ON!!! This won't kill the PC market, it won't kill the PC Gaming Market, it probably won't even affect the market for this game!

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Schmide

I respect your opinion, I was just pointing out some issues you may wish to consider when formulating it.

I want you to consider something before you formulate your opinion too then.

I think it's very likely that if Nvidia didn't step in, Rocksteady would have just ported Arkham w/o in game AA or physx.

At least with Nvidia stepping in, they helped their own customers with a little extra effects and eye candy. ATI users are not better or worse off than if Nvidia didn't step in.

In fact, ATI users are BENEFITED by Nvidia actions since they can hack in in-game AA AND rudimentary physx if they have i7/i5 processor.

So the ends justify the means?

Should we put eye candy up for sale on all games and have an all out capabilities war?

What you think is just an excuse for bad behavior.

Again the exaggeration...

1) Ends justifying the means is usually used when you do something morally, ethically, legally wrong to achieve a desired goal...

You may not like what Nvidia did, but is it illegal or even unethical (from a business perspective)? It actually benefited their customers and in a round about way their competitors customers too.

2) Yes, if the other option is to not have the eye candy at all. Everyone having the eye candy is the best option, but some people having it is better than none. And in this situation, no one was going to pay for everyone having the eye candy.

3) So bad behavior is Nvidia paying for an enhancement and reserving it for their customers, I would consider that normal, logical behavior. Remember ATI customer are no worse than if Nvidia didn't do this. They are actually better off since they have extra effects with a few hacks also.

 

[Schmide]

I'm going to have to multi-quote you especially since we have two tangents lol.

Originally posted by: golem
Schmide -

1) I didn't miss what you wrote about UE 3 doing MSAA under DX9 no problem. But show me one game that actually had in game MSAA under DX9 before Arkhyam (no hacks or driver force, just in game MSAA)? Even a game published by the creators of the game engine didn't have it... so knowing that, what is someone to believe? You saying it's no problem or looking around and seeing that is it s a problem?

HL2 and all source engine games support HDR and MSAA. I'm sure there are others.

Originally posted by: golem

2) I don't really understand what DirectX Caps is, but from what you said, it's a way in which to a game engine to do something? But it's not required that you use it, is it?

Yes. When you query directx you ask for the D3DCAPS structure. It basically tells you what the card is capable of.

Microsoft, nVidia, ATI and every vendor out there has invested a ton of money to produce these standards. Not only to prevent run time problems but also provide an even level of compatibility. It gives all the players, even the lesser ones like S3, an even playing field. Violate that convent and you might as well not subscribe to the standard.

Originally posted by: golem
3) Err... Microsoft makes next to nothing on windows games except the ones they sell. Even if they do make 95% of their money form the PC market (debatable), it's from selling MS Office and Windows OS products. So yes, I think they would much rather a customer buy Arkham on 360 (where they get a licensing fee) as opposed to the pc (where they get nothing).

That's the problem I have with your arguments, you make arguments that make sense when seem in a vaccum. "Yeah Microsoft want to kill where 95%+ of their money comes form, the PC market" But that statement doesn't really have a bearing on the subject at hand. The make their money from the PC market yes, but the PC Gaming Market? They killed off most of their pc game dev studios and wait forever to port their xbox games to the PC... and the exaggeration... AA running only on Nvidia and not ATI will kill the PC market? COME ON!!! This won't kill the PC market, it won't kill the PC Gaming Market, it probably won't even affect the market for this game!

3) I think you're right about how Microsoft covets exclusive xbox360 titles. I also believe they know games play a major role in driving the PC market. If a game runs on DirectX you can expect Microsoft wants it to run and look its best.

When enough of this bad press gets around, you bet some people will be apologizing and groveling to their Microsoft DirectX reps.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: akugami
As a consumer, I might be (and am) PO'ed with what nVidia and the developer has pulled here, it isn't in any way illegal. As a consumer, I'm not buying this game because it sets a bad precedence of locking out features on purpose. I don't care if it's locking out ATI or nVidia. If it was a different game and someone was digging through the code and found that certain features available to both cards but were locked out on purpose when it recognizes an nVidia card, I wouldn't buy that game either.

:thumbsup:

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: golem
Again the exaggeration...

1) Ends justifying the means is usually used when you do something morally, ethically, legally wrong to achieve a desired goal...

You may not like what Nvidia did, but is it illegal or even unethical (from a business perspective)? It actually benefited their customers and in a round about way their competitors customers too.

It is morally and ethically wrong. It stinks of anti-competitive coercion, but certainly not enough to merit action.

Ehh considering when they subscribed and helped create the the DX standards, it was a 2 way street. They agree to produce a product that lives up to the standards, as they should expect all producers to live up to those standards.

[/quote]

Originally posted by: golem
2) Yes, if the other option is to not have the eye candy at all. Everyone having the eye candy is the best option, but some people having it is better than none. And in this situation, no one was going to pay for everyone having the eye candy.

No it isn't. You pay for a standard. If the only thing that defines a standard is a vendor name, what kind of standard is that? A useless one. If I buy a card that can do 8x msaa on a RGBE surface and directX tells the game my card can do that, it better do it and not because some marketing fuck says it should or shouldn't.

Originally posted by: golem
3) So bad behavior is Nvidia paying for an enhancement and reserving it for their customers, I would consider that normal, logical behavior. Remember ATI customer are no worse than if Nvidia didn't do this. They are actually better off since they have extra effects with a few hacks also.

See everything above. NVidia is paying to exclude/include directX functionality based on a vendor string. No one is better off when anti-competitive practices are used. (Quid Pro Quo) Even Soviet Russia is laughing.

 

[Red Irish]

Now we can add another "reason for non-purchase" to the seemingly ever lengthening list - they deliberately handicapped the game to prevent features from running on my hardware. I understand their motives, but I don't think that this is the direction we want pc gaming to take, but then again, consumers' opinions seem to count for very little in this day and age.

Bad move Nvidia, very bad move.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: golem
Think about what you are saying. TSMC "licensed" tech from AMD. Doesn't licensed mean TSMC has to pay AMD some sort of fee? This fee becomes part of TSMC cost structure which is then passed on to it's customers. So in no way is Nvidia freeloading on AMD's investment, they are paying for it in increased fees to TSMC due to the cost of licensed tech.

AMD gained from thier helping of TSMC in actually getting a product made and licensing fees. So why are you arguing that Nvidia shouldn't gain something by their helping out the developer implement ingame AA.

My point is that TSMC (in terms of this thread: The Developer) asked AMD for help. It wasn't AMD coughing up cash to TSMC in order to get them to use their process technology, as what nVidia did with Eidos.

The onus of this argument is that Eidos simply could have (and should have) asked AMD for assistance if they couldn't figure it out themselves. Instead, they took monies from nVidia for what amounted to an exclusive contractual lockout toward AMD.

I agree, this is a somewhat gray argument. But I was responding to keys' lack of understanding the similarity of position. It's blatantly obvious what happened. The developer needs to be held accountable here on two counts, negligence (failure to contact AMD) and greed (for allowing a TWIMTBP contract to restrict their title). nVidia can only be held in contempt for pursuing their actions the way they do, but only to the same degree that AMD does with their program.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: golem

But show me one game that actually had in game MSAA under DX9 before Arkhyam (no hacks or driver force, just in game MSAA)?

Is this a trick question or something? Almost every single DX9 title I?ve ever played has in-game AA.

That and MSAA+FP HDR has been supported since the X1xx/8xxx.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
No, it either means 1) the devs are incompetent and can't get AA working without help from NV, or more likely 2) the devs got paid off to enable a AA only for NV

What makes option 2 "more likely"?

Mostly because I can't remember any other game which required a HW vendor to help the developers implement AA in a modern game engine. So, to me, that leaves option 2 more likely.

Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

So given the choice, and you did select those two options as the choices, you are arguing that malice is the more likely explanation here versus stupidity?

Yes. Given Nvidia's track record (such as blocking gpu physx if an AMD card is also installed), it makes option 2 more likely IMO. Also, I'd like to think if the game studio can afford to license UE3 tech, it can probably afford to hire developers who know how to make AA work. Why is it that some dev studios like CSG Gameworld can implement a deferred renderer with DX10.1 features on most likely a fraction of the budget, but Eidos can't even get AA working on an expensive engine they licensed? Just smells fishy to me.

Thanks for answering my question, I agree with you.

I don't really think anything here can be ascribed as being the result of stupidity...but is it malice against ATI or is it just business as usual to boost profits?

I think Benskywalker's post contains real kernels of truth. Businesses generally employ decision makers that hold themselves to making decisions based on their company's bottom line, not about undermining the competition's bottom line as the primary motivation for making a decision...but there are exceptions of course as not every decision maker is above human traits of spite and ego 100% all the time, humanity creeps in there on occasion and stupid things happen that don't necessarily benefit the shareholder or the business. (I'm looking at you Intel)

That said, when you've got a founder and ceo who goes on and on making emotionally charged statements involving opening cans and whooping ass I think they bring it on themselves when people question whether their judgement and decision making is being clouded by their passion and competitiveness. (ego? no place for ego at a corporate decision making level...but would anyone really be so bold as to defend Jensen as not being a smidgen egotistical in some of his speeches? being the founder and all...)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
My point is that TSMC (in terms of this thread: The Developer) asked AMD for help.

I think I missed something here...when did TSMC ask AMD for process technology assistance?

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: golem

But show me one game that actually had in game MSAA under DX9 before Arkhyam (no hacks or driver force, just in game MSAA)?

Is this a trick question or something? Almost every single DX9 title I?ve ever played has in-game AA.

That and MSAA+FP HDR has been supported since the X1xx/8xxx.

Sorry it should be, "one UE3 game that actually had in game MSAA under DX9...". I've asked this question multiple times. But it SEEMS that the only UE3 engine game that had in game MSAA at all is Gears of War and that was only under DX10. No one seems to be able to name any UE3 games before Arkham that had ingame MSAA in DX9.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: munky
Yes. Given Nvidia's track record (such as blocking gpu physx if an AMD card is also installed), it makes option 2 more likely IMO. Also, I'd like to think if the game studio can afford to license UE3 tech, it can probably afford to hire developers who know how to make AA work. Why is it that some dev studios like CSG Gameworld can implement a deferred renderer with DX10.1 features on most likely a fraction of the budget, but Eidos can't even get AA working on an expensive engine they licensed? Just smells fishy to me.

Thanks for answering my question, I agree with you.

I don't really think anything here can be ascribed as being the result of stupidity...but is it malice against ATI or is it just business as usual to boost profits?

I think Benskywalker's post contains real kernels of truth. Businesses generally employ decision makers that hold themselves to making decisions based on their company's bottom line, not about undermining the competition's bottom line as the primary motivation for making a decision...but there are exceptions of course as not every decision maker is above human traits of spite and ego 100% all the time, humanity creeps in there on occasion and stupid things happen that don't necessarily benefit the shareholder or the business. (I'm looking at you Intel)

That said, when you've got a founder and ceo who goes on and on making emotionally charged statements involving opening cans and whooping ass I think they bring it on themselves when people question whether their judgement and decision making is being clouded by their passion and competitiveness. (ego? no place for ego at a corporate decision making level...but would anyone really be so bold as to defend Jensen as not being a smidgen egotistical in some of his speeches? being the founder and all...)

When you take a business class, it is pretty much taught that the purpose of an organization (business) is to make a profit. There are special cases such as the Red Cross but pretty much any business is started to make a profit. It is also what keeps a business going. Businesses that continually bleed money will go out of business.

If nVidia (or ATI) was not doing everything, within the bounds of the law, to try to make a profit then they are failing their shareholders. I bolded the sentence you wrote because it contains a lot of business truth. The decision makers in a businesses should make decisions that are aimed at boosting their bottom line.

That is not always the case because sometimes you have to make decisions that may not directly profit you but it puts a major hurting on your competitors. If you weaken them enough you can take advantage of their turmoil to jump a step or two ahead. It is also true that the decision makers are human and prone to human error and some decisions are made from spite.

If you look at every business's decision as a decision that they believe will give them a leg up on the competition and yield them a profit then you'd be on the right track. Sometimes in hindsight they may be stupid decisions but the goal of any business is ultimately to turn a profit.

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
This is clearly the developer at fault then because we know the game?s AA works fine on ATi cards when it?s tricked through the device ID.

Exactly. For once Nvidia's in the clear on this issue - its the developer. AMD card owners need to pressure both AMD and Eidos to patch it.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: Leyawiin

Originally posted by: BFG10K
This is clearly the developer at fault then because we know the game?s AA works fine on ATi cards when it?s tricked through the device ID.

Exactly. For once Nvidia's in the clear on this issue - its the developer. AMD card owners need to pressure both AMD and Eidos to patch it.

How is Nvidia in the clear? Maybe I missed it, but if Nvidia didn't have a hand in this then what motivation would the developer have for deliberately removing AA as an option for ATi owners through device ID's? Are developers normally in the habit of purposely making their games look worse on one particular brand of video card for no reason?

 

[Wreckage]

Clearly AMD has done a disservice to their customers by not working with Eidos. This is just one of the reasons I refuse to buy anymore of their cards.

 

[lopri]

@IDC: I personally think that magazine example is so far removed from the context, but as a principle I can accept that such exclusives do occur in the market. Helps understanding what BenSkywalker was trying to say.

On this specific issue of AA in Batman, I think the discussion has been running mostly parallel, on different assumptions.

Originally posted by: Fattysharp
There is too much speculation about what actually happened here. ATI is saying one thing, Nvidia another, and the game dev has no comment yet. We have too many "what ifs" but it certainly makes all the fanatic's come out of the wood work.

IF nvidia told the game dev's they could only use AA with their cards to get funding for the game, then that is a valid choice and decision the Game Devs made. Is it really a good choice to limit the experience of your audience based on brand ? Probably not. These sorts of fiasco's have a way of following the companies involved on to future titles.

If the Dev'sare unwilling to work with ati for whatever reason, be it nvidia's involvement or not, that is also the dev's choice. Again, probably not a very good choice.

the unreal engine does not natively support AA, and there are other games that AA does not work wih ati cards without tricks. The first one I can think of is Fall Out 3. ATI cards can not force AA in this title, and will not use AA from the game menu with out renaming the exe.

We do have good reasons to suspect Nvidia was holding back dx10 and dx10.1 titles (assassin's creed anyone?), so it is reasonable to suspect they are involved in limiting AA here as well. However it is not fact yet, so argue away !

I agree with Fattysharp for the most part. Without knowing the details of contract between NV and Eidos, we will probably never know the truth.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

I guess if some people are that gung ho to have the advanced features that is one option.

Here is reality- Batman works on ATi hardware, quite well actually. It does everything the game would have done if nV hadn't paid the developer a dime. For nVidia users it has some more advanced features. If ATi were to take exactly that same approach it wouldn't hurt anyone outside of some rabid drooling fanboys. They would be offering their customers a bonus and cost users of other hardware nothing. That is somehow a bad thing? My apologies for not having the mentality of a spolied three year old, I really don't hate something just because I don't have it.

Actually it works so well that if you tell the game it is an nVidia card instead on an ATI card it does everything.

Basically the nVidia card advantage is the name.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Clearly AMD has done a disservice to their customers by not working with Eidos. This is just one of the reasons I refuse to buy anymore of their cards.

First: EDIT THE POST BACK ON PAGE 11, I'm serious!!! Misrepresenting my quote is not cool!!!

Then read this.

ATI's ninja programmer, 'Chuck', speaks about Oblivion driver

This is wrong: Oh guess what. When ATI helps out, everybody benefits.

The true irony was ATI's 1000+ series cards supported it in hardware, nVidia's 7 series did not. Either way it was not and continues to not be allowed by directx9 calls without this trick.

Bolded above: I'm wrong. This hack only worked for the ati 1000 series so not everybody benefited. I guess I was looking for fairness where there was none. I will note that this was a driver hack not a program hack.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Fantastic for the game devs, not so good for the consumers that will have to have 2 pieces of hardware to run the games they want - oh well might as well jump on consoles.

I guess if some people are that gung ho to have the advanced features that is one option.

Here is reality- Batman works on ATi hardware, quite well actually. It does everything the game would have done if nV hadn't paid the developer a dime. For nVidia users it has some more advanced features. If ATi were to take exactly that same approach it wouldn't hurt anyone outside of some rabid drooling fanboys. They would be offering their customers a bonus and cost users of other hardware nothing. That is somehow a bad thing? My apologies for not having the mentality of a spolied three year old, I really don't hate something just because I don't have it.

Right, but do you really want video card companies to have to pay developers to finish a game? I mean AA as well as some of the PhysX effects not done with GPU acceleration would have been normal additions to any other game. I just see that as a path this already slipping market does not want to go down.

Originally posted by: GaiaHunterActually it works so well that if you tell the game it is an nVidia card instead on an ATI card it does everything.

Basically the nVidia card advantage is the name.

That's what I see as the main point. I'm surprised there hasn't been a blog post or something at Anandtech, considering the implications.

 

[error8]

I don't understand what is all this hype about. I'm forcing through the CCC panel 4X AA and I have AA with my Ati card in Batman, arhaic or not, it looks rather nice. It's not the only game I had to force AA from the CCC to work, so I don't have an issue with that.
Physx it's a Nvidia only feature, so it looks normal that Nvidia keeps it only for their cards, even if it would be possible to run it on Ati hardware. After all It's their patent bought from Ageia. You can't spend millions of $ for something and then just put it out free for everyone.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: error8
I don't understand what is all this hype about. I'm forcing through the CCC panel 4X AA and I have AA with my Ati card in Batman, arhaic or not, it looks rather nice. It's not the only game I had to force AA from the CCC to work, so I don't have an issue with that.
Physx it's a Nvidia only feature, so it looks normal that Nvidia keeps it only for their cards, even if it would be possible to run it on Ati hardware. After all It's their patent bought from Ageia. You can't spend millions of $ for something and then just put it out free for everyone.

Keep your fancy logic out of this thread.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: error8
I don't understand what is all this hype about. I'm forcing through the CCC panel 4X AA and I have AA with my Ati card in Batman, arhaic or not, it looks rather nice. It's not the only game I had to force AA from the CCC to work, so I don't have an issue with that.
Physx it's a Nvidia only feature, so it looks normal that Nvidia keeps it only for their cards, even if it would be possible to run it on Ati hardware. After all It's their patent bought from Ageia. You can't spend millions of $ for something and then just put it out free for everyone.

Keep your fancy logic out of this thread.

I don't understand where does all this hostility comes from, for my idea.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: error8
I don't understand what is all this hype about. I'm forcing through the CCC panel 4X AA and I have AA with my Ati card in Batman, arhaic or not, it looks rather nice. It's not the only game I had to force AA from the CCC to work, so I don't have an issue with that.
Physx it's a Nvidia only feature, so it looks normal that Nvidia keeps it only for their cards, even if it would be possible to run it on Ati hardware. After all It's their patent bought from Ageia. You can't spend millions of $ for something and then just put it out free for everyone.

Keep your fancy logic out of this thread.

I don't understand where does all this hostility comes from, for my idea.

First OCGuy is agreeing with you.

Second AA is different from physX.

Third, some (most) games that say that use physX just disable features when physX is off that any game without physX would run just as fine.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter
AA is different from physX.

Third, some (most) games that say that use physX just disable features when physX is off that any game without physX would run just as fine.

But what is all the hype for? AA works in Batman, you just have to force it from CCC. I don't see any problem with this. I tried both in 4X and 8X and it's working fine. I'm getting terrible slowdowns at 8X so I know AA is there. And I see nothing wrong with it, it takes away all the stair step effect so it's working normally. About PhysX, I consider it useless anyway, so even if it's disabled automatically when a non Nvidia card is detected, it's not going to take away my gaming experience. Foul play or not, PhysX it's Nvidia's and they can do whatever they want with it, even if it's just a software feature.