The funny thing is is that I have no problem at all with my 2 Sapphire Radeon HD 3870s in XFire running old or new DirectX games: it's OpenGL that's borked!
apoppin
Lifer
are you still looking for that?
i can give it a try this weekend ... before i blow-away XP for good
i *still* don't have my Vista64 DVD yet
-it gets installed on my "old" XP partition ...
[and ... XP gets moved to my IDE drive with Win2K/Win98SE as an 'archiver' and for back-ups]
ScrewFace
Can you please let me know what old games work and or do not work on your HD3870?
The games that I'm interested are:
Aliens vs. Predator I and II.
BattleZone I and II.
Thief I, II
Drakan Order of the Flame.
Crimson Skies
X-Wing Games: X-Wing Alliance, Xwing vs. TieFigter.
Jedi Knight (all of them)
Freespace Open.
Descent DXX-Rebirth project or D2X-XL
European Air War
Elite Force I and II
I have X1950XT Catalyst 7.12 Driver in my second box and old games work fine wtih it, however they are experiencing major problems on my other system with 7800GTX and 169.XX and lower drivers. 7800GTX is old anyway and I wish to upgrade to newer Video Card, so your feedback is very important to me. Also please let me know what OpenGL games that are having issues with HD3870?
Thanks in advanced and your help is greatly appreciated.
Can you please let me know what old games work and or do not work on your HD3870?
The games that I'm interested are:
Aliens vs. Predator I and II.
BattleZone I and II.
Thief I, II
Drakan Order of the Flame.
Crimson Skies
X-Wing Games: X-Wing Alliance, Xwing vs. TieFigter.
Jedi Knight (all of them)
Freespace Open.
Descent DXX-Rebirth project or D2X-XL
European Air War
Elite Force I and II
I have X1950XT Catalyst 7.12 Driver in my second box and old games work fine wtih it, however they are experiencing major problems on my other system with 7800GTX and 169.XX and lower drivers. 7800GTX is old anyway and I wish to upgrade to newer Video Card, so your feedback is very important to me. Also please let me know what OpenGL games that are having issues with HD3870?
Thanks in advanced and your help is greatly appreciated.
RA2 and Yuri's doesn't use 3D graphics so much, it uses voxels.
In that context, it runs flawlessly for me (two computers with 8-series cards, an 8800GT and 8600M GT).
What's your issue with those games?
Member is absolutely correct.
These problems we are experiencing with older games on Nvidia cards are due solely to the poor support for older versions of Direct X provided by Nvidia's drivers. Heck, the problems with DOOM 3 show that Nvidia will disregard compatibility with games that are only a few years old just to squeeze a little more performance out of the game du jour.
For example, just because a new version of Direct X no longer requires drivers to report or request the status of a given setting, Nvidia uses that as an excuse to stop checking for that status and then deems any game still looking for the report to be 'broken'. That position, of course, is ludicrous.
Maybe the best way to rectify this lack of attention to detail on Nvidia's part would be for Microsoft to deny WHQL certification for any driver unless it is completely backward compatible with all versions of Direct X. That would probably fix the majority of the problems we encounter with older games. Afterwards, if Nvidia was really interested in providing the best possible value to us, their customers, they would then do their best to listen to what we had to say and try to correct whatever problems might remain.
I just don't see how Nvidia could lose if they were able to truthfully advertise that they not only have the best performance but also the best game compatibility in the business.
BTW, I'd like to add Interstate '76 Gold to Member's list.
These problems we are experiencing with older games on Nvidia cards are due solely to the poor support for older versions of Direct X provided by Nvidia's drivers. Heck, the problems with DOOM 3 show that Nvidia will disregard compatibility with games that are only a few years old just to squeeze a little more performance out of the game du jour.
For example, just because a new version of Direct X no longer requires drivers to report or request the status of a given setting, Nvidia uses that as an excuse to stop checking for that status and then deems any game still looking for the report to be 'broken'. That position, of course, is ludicrous.
Maybe the best way to rectify this lack of attention to detail on Nvidia's part would be for Microsoft to deny WHQL certification for any driver unless it is completely backward compatible with all versions of Direct X. That would probably fix the majority of the problems we encounter with older games. Afterwards, if Nvidia was really interested in providing the best possible value to us, their customers, they would then do their best to listen to what we had to say and try to correct whatever problems might remain.
I just don't see how Nvidia could lose if they were able to truthfully advertise that they not only have the best performance but also the best game compatibility in the business.
BTW, I'd like to add Interstate '76 Gold to Member's list.
Total BS. You seem have a very short attention span. It has been explained several times in this thread, and to you specifically, that the developers are long gone, so nobody is refusing to fix Dark Engine games, that the source has not been released, so the community cannot fix it, that these are DirectX rendering problems that do not depend on OS, and that Nvidia has clearly broken the game(s) with their lack of backward compatibility, whereas ATI has not. To be sure, Thief is my personal focus here, but many other games have been broken by Nvidia and several have been mentioned in this thread, if you would care to read it. Not too many specific problems have been mentioned about ATI.
As I have said, there is absolutely no reason why, say, 100 game developers or communities should have to independently fix Nvidia's screw-ups when Nvidia could do it in one place, if they cared (which they do not). Lack of caring is evident in that Nvidia does not listen to users in their own forums, they have no visible technical support, and they do not respond to users who get through the maze. This is contrary to all software QA principles.
Please understand one thing: I have no bias in favor of ATI. I have owned 6 Nvidia cards (TNT, 4200, 6800 GT, and two 7950 GT's) over the last eight years and only one ATI (x1650xt), which I returned. I have watched Thief rendering deteriorate on Nvidia cards over an 8 year period, while ATI rendering has not changed apart from a recent improvement in fog rendering. I know this from observing screen shots and talking to others. First the stars went, then the bad sky showed up with a few bad dark textures, and finally (with the 8000 series) all dark textures are bad. Nvidia gets no slack from me, nor from several other stalwarts in this thread, all of whom have been disputing you in no uncertain terms!
I realize it is a mistake to feed trolls. This is the last morsel you will get from me. I think you need to go start your own thread in praise of Nvidia and leave us alone.
One other thing that is worth talking about is adjustment called Alternate Pixel Center. Fortunately ATI has this powerful feature that allows older games to display text and texture properly, even when you force/enable AA in Catalyst Control Center. This important feature is missing in NVIDIA Control Panel. Because of that, some older games instantly loose accuracy and sharpness in the text and causing what is known dotted or pixelated/broken effect that makes text unreadable, especially when you enable AA in NV Control Panel. Yet another indication that ATI is willing to provide support for older games where NVIDIA does not.
Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge work fine on my friend's 3870/Vista machine.
Rather than fight Nvidia's apparent disinterest in supporting older games on my 8800GT, I did the next best thing and built a Win98 box using an X800XT PE and a S754 3200+. The system is plenty fast running any Win98 game I want, even when hacking high-res/widescreen (1920x1200).
Rather than fight Nvidia's apparent disinterest in supporting older games on my 8800GT, I did the next best thing and built a Win98 box using an X800XT PE and a S754 3200+. The system is plenty fast running any Win98 game I want, even when hacking high-res/widescreen (1920x1200).
There seems to be something about HD 2xxx and 3xxx, Geforce 8xxx, and (apparently) DX-10 video cards in general that works better with Vista. On XP, with the same cards, there are compatibility issues with some games. Anyone have any idea what that might be? I know that Vista itself uses DX-10, but what is it that makes older games render better? How does the OS get involved with that?
This is good news and bad news. Vista people should be happy if they can get around other Vista issues. XP people may be dragged into giving Microsoft more money.
EDIT: Correction. I have been informed that Nvidia cards are not better in Vista, and the results are still not in for ATI. Sorry for the misinformation.
This is good news and bad news. Vista people should be happy if they can get around other Vista issues. XP people may be dragged into giving Microsoft more money.
EDIT: Correction. I have been informed that Nvidia cards are not better in Vista, and the results are still not in for ATI. Sorry for the misinformation.
apoppin
Lifer
first of all, there is *nothing* wrong with Vista whatsoever
--XP is primitive in comparison
secondly ... secondly ...
... i forgot
anyway, i should get to XP and Thief2 this weekend - before i relegate XP to the 'Old OSes HD' along with Win2K and 98SE and set up Vista64 along with 32.
Hi Smithy
Well said that man, i bloody hate it when you get people who refuse or are incapable of reading or listening.
Thanks for spreading the word, I know that my thread on ttlg and the nvidia forum just dont seem to be getting anywhere.
Did you get a reply to your email to Anand..?
biker
nVidia said that Vista's video driver model was so different that the drivers had to be totally rewritten (millions of lines of code) specifically for Vista.
For the first few months after Vista was released, nVidia's drivers were absolutely horrid. The nVidia control panel had basically no functionality except the basic Windows stuff of changing desktop resolution. The 3D profiles were gone...SLI support was nowhere to be found...etc.
The problems all but went away by the time the 150 series drivers were released.
(ATI's early Vista drivers were a totally different story...)
So maybe the problem was fixed (or at least improved) when new code was written.
Not yet. Actually, Anand is pretty good about e-mails, if they make sense. My timing was off, sending it during the holidays. I will try again in a while.
I did read the first page or so of posts (between today and yesterday). Maybe this has been said (I know it was said to some extent in those first 2 pages).
If you want to play older games (circa '98, circa '02, circa '04) the best solution is to keep a box around w/ an OS and hardware of that era. Yes, building a box like that now actually costs a lot (comparativly) but at least you get what you want. If I want to play DOS games, i'll go out and buy a $20-$100 tower, install 98 and DOS 6.x and play away. If i was into Theif2 and whatever else your complaining about, i'd build a box w/ said software/hardware (XP, XP3200+, 9800pro?), or whatever.
Oh computers dont take up a lot of space, esp not just a mid-tower. Stack 4 in a 2x2 config and you have like 1/16 of a closet (and thats a small closet, like i have). Once you have the itch to play (insert old a_ _ yet fun game here) pull it out, plug it in, and let the game(s) begin.
If you want to play older games (circa '98, circa '02, circa '04) the best solution is to keep a box around w/ an OS and hardware of that era. Yes, building a box like that now actually costs a lot (comparativly) but at least you get what you want. If I want to play DOS games, i'll go out and buy a $20-$100 tower, install 98 and DOS 6.x and play away. If i was into Theif2 and whatever else your complaining about, i'd build a box w/ said software/hardware (XP, XP3200+, 9800pro?), or whatever.
Oh computers dont take up a lot of space, esp not just a mid-tower. Stack 4 in a 2x2 config and you have like 1/16 of a closet (and thats a small closet, like i have). Once you have the itch to play (insert old a_ _ yet fun game here) pull it out, plug it in, and let the game(s) begin.
Thanks.
That explains a lot.(1) Nvidia is capable of fixing their problems. EDIT: and then again, maybe not (see below).
(2) The problem with XP is in Nvidia's buggy drivers (as we all knew).
(3) Maybe they were too busy with Vista to focus on XP.
(4) There is hope for XP if we can convince Nvidia to port their improved code backwards.
EDIT: Correction. I have been informed that Nvidia cards are not better in Vista, and the results are still not in for ATI. Sorry for the misinformation.
This is certainly one possibility, and for some games it may be the only choice. The better solution right now for Thief 2 if you have XP is a modern box with an ATI x1950xt. That does everything. We are hoping that someone will post that the ATI HD 2xxx and 3xxx cards will work with XP, but no news on that so far. And who knows, maybe Nvidia will step up to the plate eventually.
It would certainly be better if Nvidia fixed their compatibility problems so XP and 2000 worked properly.
That said, I myself have 3-4 old boxes, and I can fall back on them any time.
It is certainly a good idea to keep them around. They may look like junk, and they take up a lot of space, but you never know when they will come in handy.I will give you a simple example why such solution may not work for everyone.
Gamer paid say $300 - $500 for a new video card only to discover that it made some of the games unplayable. So now you are tell me that he has to spend additional $200-$300 on older parts simply because that certain GPU maker can?t write a proper driver? What sense does that make? And remember: not everyone has extra cash or older spare parts. Some people can only afford one computer you know. I would have no problem agreeing with your analogy on one condition: OS compatibility, but you see... the games that we are talking about do not suffer from compatibility problems with XP and or Vista so your solution to NVIDIA driver problem is not economically logical.
Side note: As for me, I myself have older box with 9800Pro Voodoo 2 SLI and Win98SE. However: Just so you know the only reason why I have it is because some of my really old Win95 games do not play on WinXP due to OS compatibility so in this case your solution is defiantly recommended.
Writting drivers to support 'everything' old and new, while OPTIMIZING for the new is too much to ask from gfx card companies. Like i said, i didn't read this whole thread, nor will I. One thing I read was "would i want compatibility for the last 20yrs or increased frame rates for current games? I'll take more fps any day". This is true for me as well. OK, ok, so you (or those you're refering to) don't have the money to build a new pc, and not sell off their old stuff (which played the old games they like). SUCH IS LIFE. Sacrafices must be made, eggs must be broken. To advance, old things must be forsaken. So these gamers that love their old games must make a choice "do i want to play the new, or play what I know i love at way awesome frame rates?" thats a choice those gamers must make.
Oh, I never said my solution would work for everyone. I said its the best solution in my opinion. I know building an old box is expensive. I did it once for DOS games. Built it, never played em, gave the box away (sure as hell couldn't sell it).
Oh, what I thought was a bit funny at the time, and still is as an afterthought. Installed Knight of the Old Republic 1 &2 (play part 2 first, adds a twist to the game). Said my 8800GTS was a "yellow" component (not on its list of "green" Very acceptable components).
Speaking of newer technology dropped older technology... Do you think your C2D (or X2) had MMX anymore?? Bad example to this specific situation, but I'm thinking (in my drunken state) a correlation could be drawn. Old games use specific (code/etc.. ) that new games just dont need, its been superceded by something else. In 4yrs will SSE2 still be around? Probley not... just a guess, dont hold me to it.
Oh, I never said my solution would work for everyone. I said its the best solution in my opinion. I know building an old box is expensive. I did it once for DOS games. Built it, never played em, gave the box away (sure as hell couldn't sell it).
Oh, what I thought was a bit funny at the time, and still is as an afterthought. Installed Knight of the Old Republic 1 &2 (play part 2 first, adds a twist to the game). Said my 8800GTS was a "yellow" component (not on its list of "green" Very acceptable components).
Speaking of newer technology dropped older technology... Do you think your C2D (or X2) had MMX anymore?? Bad example to this specific situation, but I'm thinking (in my drunken state) a correlation could be drawn. Old games use specific (code/etc..
) that new games just dont need, its been superceded by something else. In 4yrs will SSE2 still be around? Probley not... just a guess, dont hold me to it.Originally posted by: sutahz
Writting drivers to support 'everything' old and new, while OPTIMIZING for the new is too much to ask from gfx card companies. Like i said, i didn't read this whole thread, nor will I. One thing I read was "would i want compatibility for the last 20yrs or increased frame rates for current games? I'll take more fps any day". This is true for me as well. OK, ok, so you (or those you're refering to) don't have the money to build a new pc, and not sell off their old stuff (which played the old games they like). SUCH IS LIFE. Sacrafices must be made, eggs must be broken. To advance, old things must be forsaken. So these gamers that love their old games must make a choice "do i want to play the new, or play what I know i love at way awesome frame rates?" thats a choice those gamers must make.
Oh, I never said my solution would work for everyone. I said its the best solution in my opinion. I know building an old box is expensive. I did it once for DOS games. Built it, never played em, gave the box away (sure as hell couldn't sell it).
Oh, what I thought was a bit funny at the time, and still is as an afterthought. Installed Knight of the Old Republic 1 &2 (play part 2 first, adds a twist to the game). Said my 8800GTS was a "yellow" component (not on its list of "green" Very acceptable components).
Speaking of newer technology dropped older technology... Do you think your C2D (or X2) had MMX anymore?? Bad example to this specific situation, but I'm thinking (in my drunken state) a correlation could be drawn. Old games use specific (code/etc..
That is absolute load of you know what.., you sure entitled to your opinion, but I tell you something else. Maybe you should read it, because I also have X1950XT card and games do work, no compromises or broken eggs. And because you did not read it I will post this info just for you. " Prior to DirectX 10, DirectX was considered backward compatible, which means that newer versions supported the older versions. For example, if one had DirectX 9 installed on one's system and ran a game that was written for DirectX 6, it would still work. The game used what was called the DirectX 6 "interface". It is up to the driver to provide such interface. Every version of DirectX supported every previous version of DirectX. This is a positive consequence of the COM model used for this API"
One other thing that is worth talking about is adjustment called Alternate Pixel Center. Fortunately ATI has this powerful feature that allows older games to display text and texture properly, even when you force/enable AA in Catalyst Control Center. This important feature is missing in NVIDIA Control Panel. Because of that, some older games instantly loose accuracy and sharpness in the text and causing what is known dotted or pixelated/broken effect that makes text unreadable, especially when you enable AA in NV Control Panel. Yet another indication that ATI is willing to provide support for older games where NVIDIA does not. So your theory "too much to ask" is ether ignorance or lack of understanding about proper driver support. If your think that breaking the game with driver update is somehow normal and advancing in technology, then you my friend are simply confused. I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between advancing in technology and flat out improper driver support. Perhaps some day you will understand, that is.. when NVIDIA destroys enough of your favorite games. Just for your information DOOM3 is now broken with 169.XX drivers, but I guess to you it just means means advancement in technology, just to have that +2FPS in Crysis.
I fined it amazing how fanboism clouds once thought process. You are actually truly enjoying and are really proud of NVIDIA terrible driver support. Do You know what technological superiority means to me? Fast FPS, proper image quality, robust compatibility, stability and superior technical support. Improperly written drivers and **** for customer service is a clear indication of poor technology. It means the company has to sucriface one thing to achieve the other; it is called selective engineering and not as you like to call it "advancements in technology".
We are not asking them to "support everything." We would just like them to support old Direct3D function calls that used to work in their own code. It is interesting that ATI has done this fairly well, but Nvidia has dropped the ball for operating systems through XP. Also interesting is the report by nullpointerus that Nvidia has rewritten their drivers for Vista, largely fixing these problems. So, obviously, it is possible to do it right. It is not asking too much to expect a graphics display company to do quality programming. I really can't understand why you and some others think it is OK to produce low quality software.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
We aren't asking them to support 'everything', just do a better job than what they're doing now. We know it's possible to do a better job because ATi generally does.
We aren't talking about 20 year old games; get DOSBox for those. We're asking for Win32 apps running on DirectX or OpenGL, both established standards that have been around for more than ten years.
Crysis isn't the only game around yet nVidia acts like it is.
Also your reasoning is flawed anyway given many of nVidia's higher AA modes are too slow to be used in modern games so by definition are designed for older games.
What then is the point of such AA modes if you're advocating the dumping of backwards compatibility? It seems like a giant waste of silicon to even implement said modes following your reasoning, wouldn?t you say?
What a stupid thing to do if you can use DOSBox instead and run it from your existing box at no extra charge.
Why are you so keen at throwing money at problems that can clearly be solved with software?
Probably the same reason you tolerate such sloppy backwards compatibility from nVidia ("I'll just throw more money at the problem and fix it by buying another video card!").
I have a 8800 Ultra which is not cheap. I shouldn't have to throw more money around to run old games, not when a X800 XL can do a better job at 1/10th the price.
If I buy a high-end card I expect to get the best compatibility, not the worst.
That doesn't mean MMX apps will fail to execute on said processors. Unreal supported MMX yet it runs fine on my E6850.
If that happens rest assured SSE2 apps will not fail to execute. There will be some kind of fallback because Intel unlike nVidia understand the notion of decent backwards compatibility.
I made some statements in earlier posts about Thief 2 rendering being improved in Vista. After BFG10K questioned those statements at the Nvidia forum, I went back to reexamine the evidence. I was mistaken. I had taken a few optimistic sounding statements as fact when I had no real evidence, such as screen shots. What I believe now is as follows:
According to Bikerdude, Nvidia has not improved rendering of Thief 2 in Vista. 8xxx and earlier cards have been tested and both show no change in Vista. Improvements reported in some places have been solely due to Timeslip's DDFIX patch, not improvments in Nvidia's drivers. That patch is very helpful with the 8000 cards, but it has some limitations such as no fog and some grainy textures.
I am not sure whether the ATI HD 2xxx and 3xxx cards have been improved or not with the latest drivers (7.11 or 7.12), either in XT or in Vista. Fafhrd reported good rendering at TTLG with an HD 2900 running under Vista, but he has not backed it up with screen shots. apoppin reported "perfect" rendering here, but on further discussion we are not exactly sure what that means. He is going to send me screen shots. In the meanwhile, Bikerdude is ordering an ATI HD3870XT, so within a week we should have definitive screen shots that prove it one way or the other.
For the time being, the latest card that is known to give good rendering is the ATI x1950. I will report additional results when I receive them.
I apologize for any confusion I have caused. I will go back and edit my misinformation.
According to Bikerdude, Nvidia has not improved rendering of Thief 2 in Vista. 8xxx and earlier cards have been tested and both show no change in Vista. Improvements reported in some places have been solely due to Timeslip's DDFIX patch, not improvments in Nvidia's drivers. That patch is very helpful with the 8000 cards, but it has some limitations such as no fog and some grainy textures.
I am not sure whether the ATI HD 2xxx and 3xxx cards have been improved or not with the latest drivers (7.11 or 7.12), either in XT or in Vista. Fafhrd reported good rendering at TTLG with an HD 2900 running under Vista, but he has not backed it up with screen shots. apoppin reported "perfect" rendering here, but on further discussion we are not exactly sure what that means. He is going to send me screen shots. In the meanwhile, Bikerdude is ordering an ATI HD3870XT, so within a week we should have definitive screen shots that prove it one way or the other.
For the time being, the latest card that is known to give good rendering is the ATI x1950. I will report additional results when I receive them.
I apologize for any confusion I have caused. I will go back and edit my misinformation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter