If you have an ATI and you really want the PhysX just pop in a cheap 8 or 9 series card and you can have it running as long as you keep old drivers for the nV card (which is fine because PhysX can be updated without the driver)...it's pretty easy to do actually.
Not really, they disabled that in the last driver. At the moment you could use the older one, but sooner or later you will have to upgrade.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=235601
Apparently this engine does not natively support AA, and nV worked with the developer for it to work on nV cards.
Nothing was "removed" on ATi cards.
Chalk one up for people jumping to conclusions.
Apparently this engine does not natively support AA, and nV worked with the developer for it to work on nV cards.
Nothing was "removed" on ATi cards.
Chalk one up for people jumping to conclusions.
except every special effect bundled into "physx" is only accessed through cuda, when it's entirely possible to render on ati 5870 + core i7 (as evidenced in the video in the OP).
AND that when you changed device id's on an ati card to bypass the vendor check, the Optimized NV MSAA option magically appears in the settings menu.
nV put up the costs and the developer tested the AA on nV's hardware. I would be upset wtih ATi for not putting up $$$ to make games run with AA.
Nothing nV did here was shady. They invested money, and they have every right to try and profit from it.
There would be no AA option in game at all if nV didnt work with the developer.
But if the game didn't originally include the ability to do MSAA, and Nvidia made the effort to enable MSAA and physx in the game, why are they wrong to try and limit it to their customers only?
IF (assuming the xtremesystems thread is correct) the game originally wouldn't have shipped with MSAA/Physx and Nvidia paid to add these, they aren't ripping off ATI card owners, they're giving a bonus to Nvidia card owners. Whether you can run the enhancements off core i7 or with bypassing vendor check doesn't matter, the code is there in the first place because of Nvidia efforts and they should be able to limit it.
The fog cloth etc was already there. Ati can run MSAA on UT3 no problem. You could even change the name of the batman game to UT3.exe or bioshok.exe and get MSAA on ati cards. There is a thin veil here. I don't agree with what nvidia is doing, others may. If they keep adding little shit like this, and blocking ati users from the content, then they don't have to increase the power of their gpus because everyone will be just fine running batman with AA & phsyx on their 8800 GTS 640's.... Where does the competition go from there?
Either Nvidia needs to stop the crap, or Ati needs to start doing the same crap.
Either Nvidia needs to stop the crap, or Ati needs to start doing the same crap.
Still don't buy it.
"Hello Mr. Nvidia, we are developing an A-list game title for the leading consoles and PC. The engine we chose doesn't do this newfangled AA on the PC, except on your very awesome exclusive featured cards for which you're paying us advertising dollars to include a TWIMTBP logo in the intro. May we please work with you to make sure many of our games features are locked out on ATI hardware unless people change the hardware ID?"
The likely case is the developer would have been just as happy not to release a PC port at all. The only reason they did it is NV paid for it. I would have been fine with that if the boxes had a big fat "nvidia only" warning.
"Hello Mr. Nvidia, we are developing an A-list game title for the leading consoles and PC. The engine we chose doesn't do this newfangled AA on the PC, except on your very awesome exclusive featured cards for which you're paying us advertising dollars to include a TWIMTBP logo in the intro. May we please work with you to make sure many of our games features are locked out on ATI hardware unless people change the hardware ID?"
The likely case is the developer would have been just as happy not to release a PC port at all. The only reason they did it is NV paid for it. I would have been fine with that if the boxes had a big fat "nvidia only" warning.
Exactly. Show me an in-game AA setting, for Nvidia or ATI, in UT3, Bioshock, Medal of Honor:Airborne or the other 20 games that use the Unreal 3 engine. I had to force it through Nhancer with all of them. It's AMD FUD and they are using the fans of their hardware. :thumbsdown:
Performance doesn't drop significantly if you force AA on in ATI drivers on every other UE3 game, only in Batman. In Batman, if you change your card's vender ID to say it's an Nvidia card, you get AA but it runs much faster than if you just enabled it through the driver. These are facts. There's no way you fanboys can twist this around. It has nothing to do with ATI "working with developers" since obviously it took two seconds of work by some guy to make everything run flawlessly.
The profile doesn't let you force AA. As BFG said, you'd have to remove the block that stops you from forcing fsaa through the nvidia control panel.
Nvidia paid them to put AA in-game where it was not available in any other UE3 game. The fact that it can be enabled by changing the vendor ID proves nothing but that people can circumvent the check and get it for free. If AMD would have paid the devs to put the AA in the game it would be there. Complain to ATI that they don't support owners of their hardware and don't tear down companies that do to make ATI look better.
I forced AA through Nhancer and I get the same framerates. 000100C5 is the AA compatibility mode.
I forced AA through Nhancer and I get the same framerates. 000100C5 is the AA compatibility mode.
Without testing in game AA vs. forced AA with Nvidia cards, there's no real way to prove or disprove what Dguy said above....
If you could test it and in game AA is faster for both Nvidia and ATI then in game AA is an enhancement and it does have something to do with "working with developers"..
If in game AA is only significantly faster for ATI, then what Dguy said could be true.
So ATI and Nvidia each now have to pay every game company money per game to get anti-aliasing to work? That's a new one.
And that's fair enough - possibly a bit short sighted by the developer but I remember the days of 3dfx & GLide, PowerVR & PowerSGL, S3 & Metal, Rendition & Redline, etc., so this doesn't surprise nor bug me that much - personally I don't really care too much about anti-aliasing when the resolution is high enough..... but what would p!ss me off something chronic is if I had say a Geforce 9800/8800 card and had say a 4870x2 to do the rendering and because of this Physx magically turned off.....
They are actually punishing part of a customer base - especially given that some of their cards and motherboards have been marketed as supporting Physx acceleration and people may have purchased them for this very reason - how does that bode for repeat custom...???
You can let certain backtracking by a vendor pass (e.g. ActiveArmour in the Nforce being broken and ultimately of no use), but this is just petty. Yes you could just not use the newer drivers, but ultimately with the advent of DX11 and no doubt bugs in the drivers / future games which will need patching, everyone will need to update them and as a future policy and an nvidia card owner (actually I have several going back to a pair of 6600's collecting dust) it's not something I like or approve of - I'm sure the engineers in the company would not approve and tried to make the hardware as good as can be, not as good as the management/marketing guys think it should be.
Ultimately I would see parity in this situation / case of the game being hacked / updated so that it will still run physx in dual vendor conditions and allow all extra rendering to do with those effects.... any other graphical chintz nvidia can keep.
Actually what annoys me is that this is just over 'physx'..... I can count all of the good games that use Physx properly and are worth having on one hand (ok, maybe 2 now)...... there are still better games using havok....
Which leads to another issue - now with DXCompute / OpenCL, we may see havok acceleration..... wouldn't it be a crying shame if nvidia was locked out from accelerating it... and I'm not talking about ATi locking them out..... after all why would they need to do that when Intel own havok and nvidia have been busy as a company running its mouth off against Intel.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Stop distorting the truth. The unreal 3 engine does not support AA. So developers have to do extra expense/work to have it working in game.
I'm sure many developers will just skip it. But NIVIDA has gone through the trouble to get it working.
Do you think ATI should be rewarded for doing nothing?
I got the same framerate forcing AA or using it in-game. AA takes a huge performance hit either way. We need to SLI/XFire the new 40nm cards to use much AA in this game.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
Seriously out of this huge list you can only count a few games?
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_all.html
I see a lot of great games.
What really surprised me was that Need for Speed Shift has PhysX. I'm not sure what it is used for though, maybe the flags. I have to see if there are any videos with it on and off.
You kidding me, at 1920*1200, the highest resolution most gamers run (few ppl have 30"-screens):
HD 5870 8xAA 56,3min / 86,7avg
HD 4890 8xAA 37,0min / 56,0avg
GTX285 8xAA 38,7min / 64,0avg
At 2560 we've still got the horsepower, but we're lacking vram.
Btw, ATI cards still kick ass... The GTX 295 scores 53,7min / 92,3avg at 1920*1200 with 8xAA. Thats fewer min fps and a few more avg. A tie with the HD 5870 if you ask me.
Meh, depends what games you like....
Gears of War (will not count 1 or 2 as seperate entities otherwise all of the Valve Source games will count for havok as seperate ones), Bionic commando (iffy), Brothers in Arms, Mirrors Edge (iffy gameplay), Nurien (not at all my kind of thing but could be huge if done well), Roboblitz (ok, could be better), UT3, some of the Tom Clancy stuff isn't too bad, and Batman of course looks great.
Granted I haven't see all of the physx games in existence but neither have I seen all of the havok ones either....... I just know I prefer a lot more havok based games than physx based, e.g. Half-life / Portal / Left4Dead, Assassins Creed, Bioshock, Company of Heroes, Dead Rising, Fear 2, Fallout 3 (gets boring), Wolfenstein, Spore (ultimately boring but cool), Super Smash Brothers Brawl, etc....
But of course, not all of the physx games listed can be accelerated/offloaded, and in the case of havok of course none of them are.
Physx's unique selling point was hardware acceleration / more complexity now available to game makers - nvidia have just started to take that away - I wonder if any developers will kick up a fuss..... it's down to them if either one (or both) becomes successful which is why Ageia has such a hard time to begin with.
EDIT: Of course, I'm not saying I'm biased against a game / physics software engine - there are a few upcoming games which look like they may be great; American Football does nothing for me but I'll be very interested to see how Madden (if it is using Physx - rumours) will be.... could be a real shot in the arm for all games like that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter