The point is that it?s an artificial block by the developer. We know there?s nothing inherently special about nVidia?s hardware to make AA work in-game because AA works when you defeat the vendor check. Since nVidia stated they weren?t responsible for the block in the other thread, that leaves the developer to blame.
If that?s the case then why bother implementing in-game AA in the first place?
According to Sweeney it does under DX10. The options might not be there to enable it to end-user, but the code certainly is there.
We?ve been over this before, yet you keep producing that disingenuous list. Most of the games on that list show no benefit from hardware acceleration, and there are console-only titles there too.
This is an artificial block. The work has already done, there?s nothing inherently special about nVidia?s hardware, and we know in-game AA works on ATi?s hardware when the vendor check is defeated.
What about DX9? What work is needed for the DX10 version? Have you written the code and can clear this up for us?
If AMD wanted in-game AA why did they not work with the company to implement it? Why do you think they should be rewarded for doing nothing? People should stop buying their cards until they start supporting games correctly.
That was a discussion (not involving you) regarding Havok vs Physx. Stop trying to bounce back and forth between CPU and GPU in order to skew a veiwpoint. If you are going to discuss Havok vs Physx then the list I used is entirely accurate. Since Havok still does not support GPU acceleration there are zero games to compare it against Physx. I would hope you know this for your "reviews" at the other hardware site you work at.
That was a discussion (not involving you) regarding Havok vs Physx. Stop trying to bounce back and forth between CPU and GPU in order to skew a veiwpoint. If you are going to discuss Havok vs Physx then the list I used is entirely accurate. Since Havok still does not support GPU acceleration there are zero games to compare it against Physx.
The AA code may not have been fully tested on AMD hardware. So it may cause problems to enable it.
By NVIDIA. AMD should work with developers more so games won't run poorly on their hardware.
They still have the fastest video card out there, that's kind of special.
We know this from an AMD marketing blog. The game developer seems to think otherwise.
How? Their hardware already supports the in-game implementation, and the work has already been done.
You might have a point if there was something inherently special about the implementation that only made in-game AA possible on nVidia?s cards. But that isn?t the case because it works unaltered on ATi cards. It also appears to be no faster than driver AA, so the argument that it?s more efficient doesn?t seem to apply either.
According to Sweeney the engine supports it under DX10.
Someone tested it in the other thread and they claimed there?s no performance difference between in-game AA and nVidia?s control panel. If true it again begs the question of what makes it so special that it expended so much effort from nVidia and the developer, and why it needed to be artificially blocked on ATi?s parts.
Why, given their GPUs already work with the implementation out of the box? The only thing stopping it is the artificial vendor check. Again, you might have a point if it required something special inherent to nVidia?s hardware, but that doesn?t seem to be the case.
If you honestly think that nVidia would allow ATi to compete with them with PhysX then your arguments are naïve. If ATi implemented PhysX and it happened to run faster on their boards, do you honestly think nVidia would sit idly by and do nothing? ATi don?t even support PhysX and we?ve already seen nVidia apply a vendor-lock to PhysX by disabling it in systems with ATi cards.
Yes it is. Any vendor is free to implement it on their hardware without restriction or royalty requirements. Furthermore Microsoft is vendor agnostic so there?s no conflict of interest, unlike someone trying to compete with nVidia and their own PhysX API.
Do you have any evidence to back the claim that enabling it causes problems?
It runs the in-game AA code just like nVidia?s hardware does.
Stop trolling and address the point.They still have the fastest video card out there, that's kind of special.
Got any evidence to back that claim? Last time I checked the developer hadn?t even commented on the issue.
Nope, because their cards run in-game AA just like nVidia?s cards do. Furthermore there is evidence to suggest this AA is nothing more than a toggle that doesn?t actually implement anything special, like I mentioned above.
Again this might be a valid point if the AA was actually doing something special, but it appears to be nothing more than regular AA. If it?s standard AA that doesn?t rely on vendor specific features then it?ll work on any such hardware with the same capabilities.
No, I haven?t worked on the code, but Sweeney has given he wrote the engine.
Why do you think nVidia should be rewarded when they ship DX10.1/DX11 hardware and benefit from games that were developed on ATi?s hardware?
Should people stop buying nVidia?s cards because they don?t support games ?correctly? by not having DX10.1/DX11?
Fair enough then. But you do know that the list of software Havok titles far outnumbers the list of PhysX titles, right? PhysX has the advantage of hardware titles of course given Havok is basically zero, but with 15-20 titles I?m not sure that constitutes as a large one.
So you took a comment from him that says DX10 AA is supported in the engine to mean. It works flawlessly without testing and without even having to write any code? I've programmed for DX in the past. It just aint that simple. Besides the fact that it still ignores DX9.
Nope. You should try reading game reviews sometimes. As games tend to constantly perform differently on different cards. Based on your understanding of video cards, they should be able to use the same drivers.
Ah the old straw man argument. DX would exist with or without AMD. AA in Batman would not exist without NVIDIA.
Considering Dirt 2 won't be here till the end of the year, sounds like NVIDIA will have their support in time. NVIDIA is at least working on DX11 support, instead of bitching about not getting it for free in a blog comment.
Your opinion is duly noted. However I was still right.
Nope, that?s a strawman on your part. But if a developer states an engine supports something, you at least assume it actually works.
We aren?t talking about performance, we?re talking about the feature being enabled or not.
Nope because drivers individually program specific hardware; Batman?s AA does not.
But DX10.1/DX11 render paths in games wouldn?t exist unless developers implement it. With current games they implemented them on ATi cards and now nVidia will be rewarded for doing nothing when they release such cards.
Exactly the same thing applies to current DX10.1/DX11 implementations and ATi.
Yeah? And whose hardware do you think Dirt 2?s DX11 path is being developed on? That and Stalker will be here in November, and DX10.1 titles have already been out for months. Again, all free rewards for nVidia when they release such hardware.
Nice attempted deflection, but it does nothing to address your woeful arguments.
Yeah? So count the Havok titles and compare them to your list, and tell me which is bigger. Hint: it?s not PhysX.
It?s ?B?, and here are some more ?B? statements:
Facebook
Twitter