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

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Originally posted by: Tempered81

Originally posted by: CP5670
UE3 games have worked with driver-forced MSAA on both Nvidia and AMD cards for a long time now, on both DX9 and DX10. Does that not work in this game by default?

That's the catch, No NV vendor ID, no MSAA.

So does that mean no MSAA even with driver forcing? I don't care whether the game natively supports it or not, but there is no reason for it not to work if the driver forces it on. This works in all other UE3 games regardless of the DX version. In that case it's obviously an intentional lockout, and Eidos is as much at fault as Nvidia for it.

In fact, I have only ever come across 3 or 4 games (all of which are several years old now) that don't work with driver-forced AA. 99% of games work with it.

"That's right, NVIDIA (TM) MSAA requires an NVIDIA (TM) 8000+ card. And when the AA is activated via the .ini (the game being an UE3 game) the game tells you to shove it, you and your unworthy Canadian MSAA capable hardware.

All in all, I love this neverending trend where ISVs add stupid limitations into the code of their product only to insult a part of their future buyers and please one IHV over another. Good stuff!
Now, with that said... The game itself is actually pretty good."

This is from the thread I started called "how to enable nvidia physx with ati in batman" further down on the first page of this sub-forum. That quote is from a fellow at Beyond3d after trying to get AA & physx to work on ati cards in the Batman Demo.

 

[CP5670]

Yes, it works with driver forcing, just not as well.

Looks like we posted at the same time. But what does "not as well" mean?

"That's right, NVIDIA (TM) MSAA requires an NVIDIA (TM) 8000+ card. And when the AA is activated via the .ini (the game being an UE3 game) the game tells you to shove it, you and your unworthy Canadian MSAA capable hardware.

This doesn't necessarily mean it fails at the driver level though. Enabling it in the ini is the same thing as doing it natively in the game.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

So you'd be happy if ATI did exactly the same thing and half of all video games ran well on NV hardware and half ran well on ATI?

Does the game not run well on ATI? That's not the impression I got from the Anand review.

Ok, I guess it was pointless asking you a question and expecting a relevant answer. :roll:

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: munky


Moreover, the devs already get funded by the publisher to create the game, do they need NV's money so badly that they'd lock out features from non-NV cards just to get it. Either way, it's a shady practice from either NV's side or the developers'... or both.

If not for NVIDIA the feature would not even be there in the first place. So you are basically trying to reward AMD for doing nothing. It's like welfare or something.

I disagree. In-game AA is a pretty standard feature, and has been for the last 5 years or more. If it weren't for Nvidia, the game would likely have AA working on all modern video cards.

Is it a common feature on UE3 games tho?

No, the Unreal Engine 3 does not natively support anti-aliasing

 

[Fattysharp]

Originally posted by: munky

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 !

Are you kidding me? I have been playing Fallout3 with in-game 4xAA just fine on my Radeon 4890. No tricks needed whatsoever. Moreover, the devs already get funded by the publisher to create the game, do they need NV's money so badly that they'd lock out features from non-NV cards just to get it. Either way, it's a shady practice from either NV's side or the developers'... or both.

I am not kidding. My 4870 will not do any AA without renaming the FO3.exe to UT3.exe. It is a well documented issue. I am also using the latest drivers.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1370340
http://www.techsupportforum.co...t-3-aa-af-problem.html

Not trying to derail the thread, just backing up the example I gave. If there is another fix you know of, please PM me, I would love to use the official launcher.

For the record, I get whatever card I feel is the best value at the time. Last year it was a 4870, this year it is looking like a 5850, unless I find a money tree and go for a 5870.

And i agree that IF this happened, it is a shady practice. I do not agree with Nvidia's going for the "if you are not with us, you are against us" mentality. It is however their choice, and our choice not to use their products.

fake edit - I stand corrected. AA was a Hit or miss issue. A lot of people have the same problem i have, but some are working as like Munky. renaming the exe does fix the issue though.

 

[dguy6789]

Knowing that, does your opinion on delaying Dirt 2 to get Direct X 11 change?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: CP5670

Yes, it works with driver forcing, just not as well.

Looks like we posted at the same time. But what does "not as well" mean?

The ingame AA is selectively applying the AA so there is less of a performance hit than having FSAA all the time.

 

[golem]

[thilanliyan[/i]


Console version shipped first and a while back it was decided that the PC version would come after to introduce PhysX and from what we now know, the ingame AA as well.

This doesn't necessarily mean it was delayed to add PhysX or ingame AA, PC version almost always ship after console version now.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Console version shipped first and a while back it was decided that the PC version would come after to introduce PhysX and from what we now know, the ingame AA as well.

Yes if it was delayed 2 or 3 months it would bother me. How long was it delayed? I did not see. Could you also link to the article about it.

Originally posted by: golem

This doesn't necessarily mean it was delayed to add PhysX or ingame AA, PC version almost always ship after console version now.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Originally posted by: CP5670

Yes, it works with driver forcing, just not as well.

Looks like we posted at the same time. But what does "not as well" mean?

The ingame AA is selectively applying the AA so there is less of a performance hit than having FSAA all the time.

I wonder how significant that performance hit is. Most games use standard, full screen MSAA and the performance is usually not a problem. UE3 is not that demanding on hardware anyway.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Console version shipped first and a while back it was decided that the PC version would come after to introduce PhysX and from what we now know, the ingame AA as well.

Yes if it was delayed 2 or 3 months it would bother me. How long was it delayed? I did not see. Could you also link to the article about it.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175474

Comeon...now you're saying it would only bother you if it's delayed by 2-3 months? Sigh...double standard much?? :Q

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Console version shipped first and a while back it was decided that the PC version would come after to introduce PhysX and from what we now know, the ingame AA as well.

Yes if it was delayed 2 or 3 months it would bother me. How long was it delayed? I did not see. Could you also link to the article about it.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175474

Comeon...now you're saying it would only bother you if it's delayed by 2-3 months? Sigh...double standard much?? :Q

Not to mention the "It's not necessarily delayed because of PhysX" coupled with the "It's obviously delayed because of DX11"

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilanliyan

Comeon...now you're saying it would only bother you if it's delayed by 2-3 months? Sigh...double standard much?? :Q

How is that a double standard, a few weeks vs several months is a rather large gap. So yes if it was delayed several months it would bother me.

 

[imported_Shaq]

Batman was delayed 2-3 weeks as I recall. Delays are more to minimize piracy not to add features. Since rocksteady/Eidos could delay it for PC, get some money from Nvidia, and prevent piracy to a degree in the process, it was win-win for them.

UE3 doesn't support AA natively in DX9, only in DX10, and it does take a very large performance hit when it is forced in DX9. More so than any other engine I have come across except perhaps Crysis.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

If not for NVIDIA the feature would not even be there in the first place. So you are basically trying to reward AMD for doing nothing. It's like welfare or something.

I wonder how much Nvidia benefited from AMD working with TSMC to iron out the bugs on the 40nm process...

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: Shaq
Batman was delayed 2-3 weeks as I recall. Delays are more to minimize piracy not to add features. Since rocksteady/Eidos could delay it for PC, get some money from Nvidia, and prevent piracy to a degree in the process, it was win-win for them.

UE3 doesn't support AA natively in DX9, only in DX10, and it does take a very large performance hit when it is forced in DX9. More so than any other engine I have come across except perhaps Crysis.

Off-topic but, how does delaying it for the PC have anything to do with minimizing piracy? People are either going to buy it or pirate it, regardless if they want it for console or PC.

 

[Grinja]

Originally posted by: munky

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 !

Are you kidding me? I have been playing Fallout3 with in-game 4xAA just fine on my Radeon 4890. No tricks needed whatsoever. Moreover, the devs already get funded by the publisher to create the game, do they need NV's money so badly that they'd lock out features from non-NV cards just to get it. Either way, it's a shady practice from either NV's side or the developers'... or both.

Fallout 3 is not Unreal Engine 3 ...
Although if I remember correctly Mass Effect had no options for AA in game?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Off-topic but, how does delaying it for the PC have anything to do with minimizing piracy? People are either going to buy it or pirate it, regardless if they want it for console or PC.

If it isn't available to pirate, it makes people who really want to play it more likely to buy it. Pirating console games is far more of a PITA then it is on the PC, the 360 mods will get you booted from Live! for life and it isn't possible on the PS3 still. I don't think that is why Batman was delayed, but there is a valid line of reasoning as to why that would happen.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Grinja

Originally posted by: munky

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 !

Are you kidding me? I have been playing Fallout3 with in-game 4xAA just fine on my Radeon 4890. No tricks needed whatsoever. Moreover, the devs already get funded by the publisher to create the game, do they need NV's money so badly that they'd lock out features from non-NV cards just to get it. Either way, it's a shady practice from either NV's side or the developers'... or both.

Fallout 3 is not Unreal Engine 3 ...
Although if I remember correctly Mass Effect had no options for AA in game?

Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

Would it not be safe to say that Epic probably handles the UE3 engine a bit better then any of Eidos's devs?

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Grinja

Originally posted by: munky

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 !

Are you kidding me? I have been playing Fallout3 with in-game 4xAA just fine on my Radeon 4890. No tricks needed whatsoever. Moreover, the devs already get funded by the publisher to create the game, do they need NV's money so badly that they'd lock out features from non-NV cards just to get it. Either way, it's a shady practice from either NV's side or the developers'... or both.

Fallout 3 is not Unreal Engine 3 ...
Although if I remember correctly Mass Effect had no options for AA in game?

Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

That might be BS for DX10, but doesn't Arkham Asylum also support in game AA in DX9?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

Would it not be safe to say that Epic probably handles the UE3 engine a bit better then any of Eidos's devs?

Maybe, but why can't Eidos devs do in game AA if Epic can? Are you implying that UE3 is so complex to work with, that only Epic, the guys who made the engine, would know how to do AA with it?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky
Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

That might be BS for DX10, but doesn't Arkham Asylum also support in game AA in DX9?

Dunno, I'll have to DL the demo and check it out.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: Wreckage

If not for NVIDIA the feature would not even be there in the first place. So you are basically trying to reward AMD for doing nothing. It's like welfare or something.

I wonder how much Nvidia benefited from AMD working with TSMC to iron out the bugs on the 40nm process...

AFAIK, both AMD and Nvidia paid TSMC to manufacture their GPU's. Both participated, both get something in return. Product.

AFAIK, only Nvidia spent resources to get AA working on it's hardware when it wasn't even present in the engine in the first place.

Total grasp at straws there. But keep trying. Throw enough sh*t against the wall type of thing. This whole argument is beyond BS to me at this point. :thumbsup:

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: munky
Ok.. but Gears of War is a UE3 game, and has in-game AA available with DX10. So the whole "No AA without Nvidia's help" argument is BS.

That might be BS for DX10, but doesn't Arkham Asylum also support in game AA in DX9?

Dunno, I'll have to DL the demo and check it out.

Fair enough, I haven't tried myself to see if Arkham supports AA in DX9, it's just something I read somewhere.

But if Arkham does support DX9 in game AA, that does tend support the argument of no AA w/o Nvidia's help.

DX10 in game AA is a different matter.. but if no other game besides one published by the game engine maker has it, that doesn't totally support or disprove the no aa w/o Nvidia argument.