No AA in StarCraft II with ATI Cards

[SolMiester]

It was Ryan's Smith, GAIA Hunter and Wreckage who brought that back, not me, so before accusing me, read the whole thread before posting meaningless crap, it makes you look a lot less smarter than you already are Hero.!!!

You didnt read the thread, otherwise you would have noticed it was I who brought up the subject of Batman!

 

[Skurge]

You didnt read the thread, otherwise you would have noticed it was I who brought up the subject of Batman!

lol

 

[Seero]

Nope rocksteady was lazy as hell and seduced by easy cash, NVIDIA was doing their job of marketing to buy time in face of AMD hardware onslaught, AMD was sleeping, as usual, in the marketing department and the consumers were losing as Batman price was the same, regardless of your card vendors.



Blizzard can do whatever they want and they will sell millions of copies because AA in SC2 is pointless, NVIDIA was again playing the marketing card and ATI was sleeping, but will be able to make the modifications, since opposed to rocksteady, Blizzard doesn't want people meddling with their code.



Nor will you see it ever implemented because that will be a breach in the contract between rocksteady and NVIDIA, as rocksteady remarked "with the legal team not letting us".

Not that you will ever accept that.

What contract are you speaking of? You are good at conspiracy theories, but doesn't seems to read well. Richard Huddy stated that ATI is working on a solution of Batman.
Old article from bit-tech

bit-tech: Given Nvidia licensed its own MSAA technology for Unreal Engine 3, why don't you just do the same thing? Put your code in as well and when the game detects your vendor ID it uses this code instead.

Richard Huddy: We're currently working with Eidos and we want that to be in there in a future update. That's not a commitment to it, but we are working with Eidos to make it happen because I believe it's in every consumer’s interest.

Richard Huddy doesn't look like he is aware of the contract you spoke of.

AMD has announced that they will have an hotfix - if they fail to deliver it then you could bash them if you use radeon cards.

see above. Sounds good, nothing done.

Terry Makedon's twitter page

On vacation - but just got an email saying that Starcraft 2 AA is almost ready. Just getting tested now. Hotfix soon.
6:20 AM Jul 28th via UberTwitter

Official response from AMD to Hardwarecanucks.com

After evaluating our options, our engineering team opted not to provide AA support for StarCraft II within the Catalyst Control Center, even though the competition has included AA support in their driver at launch.
Posted by SKYMTL— July 26th, 2010, 8:10 PM

It really isn't about how I understood it, but you. Those are all employees above. Unless Nvidia paid them to work at ATI, conspiracy?
First employee said "Nope, we ain't gonna support it."
Second employee said "Its almost ready!" 34 hours later.

If ATI have the ability to change, decision, coordinate people, plan, and execute this within 34 hours, why haven't they get it in before launch? Or are they waiting until people starts to bitch about it badly before giving tales? Conspiracy...

I don't know - maybe it is the market share part. Apparently having hardware sooner does wonders over having physX and AA in Batman AA.

Does it change the fact that you can't use AA on SC2 or hinted that ATI is working hard on delivering it to their dear, loyal, customers? To me, they gain a lot of money with the 5xxx series. It is a fact. They have done nothing for customer with the money they have made, my PoV. Guess what, wait for "Game to evolve itself."

Who the fuck cares about eyefinity?
AMD fanboys maybe just as NVIDIA fanboys care about physX and CUDA.

It appears that you care more about this minor AA issue than eyefinity. You do know that 3D is working right?

Non-fanboys want good cards for cheap, regardless of vendor that can use the DX features - but that might be an alien concept for some.

I didn't bring this issue up, you did. SC2 is a big game. 5970 doesn't work (CF based), eyefinity doesn't work(game doesn't support that resolution). CF and STI doesn't work. 3d works. AA works on Nvidia cards. To me, those are nothing but facts. If these sounded like alien concepts to some, the only conclusion is that they are aliens.

 

[evolucion8]

But they don't have all that much of those... Last I can remember is 3Dc.

nVidia has much bigger list of extras, many of which later spun off into an industry standard and eventually ended up in ATi's hardware aswell.
There's tons of OpenGL extensions, there's Cuda, Physx, Cg, DST/PCF, to name but a few.

ATi has also lots of OpenGL extensions, and also added extras which became part of DirectX besides 3Dc+ and R2VB, Do you remember tesselation and Fetch4 now known as gather4 which is now under the DX11 umbrella?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Some stuff trying to make NVIDIA look the best possible and AMD the worst possible...

What you forget to mention is that NVIDIA didn't add any code to SC2, did they?

Nope - all the work to get AA is in the drivers.

In Batman they added the code directly to the game and added a vendor lock to prevent AMD cards of doing it.

So you think NVIDIA (or AMD) is in this business to help the developers make great software for no return?

The return for their help (cash?) was the TWIMTBP and unique features in AA and GPU physX (something NVIDIA desperately wants to be prominent).

So you want us to believe that the TWIMTBP logo, the AA support and the GPU physX all appeared by magic, and the fact that the developers are unable to remove the vendor lock due to legal implications weren't agreed and involved a contract or some other legal document that clearly stated that only NVIDIA GPUs could use that code to render AA and rocksteady cannot change it, even though it is inside their software product?

Sorry mate, you can keep posting whatever you want but no one that doesn't suffer from unconditional love and adulation for NVIDIA can see the reality behind whatever names people choose to call it.

The most curious thing is that it seems that NVIDIA and rocksteady doing that is illegal if we judge the responses in support of NVIDIA and bashing AMD - It isn't illegal, it was something that both parties agreed into.

Consumers as a third party simply have the right to not like it and prefer game studios do games and hardware companies have hardware that work.

NVIDIA adding AA to SC through their drivers is a thing I support, while I oppose the Batman AA situation, due to conflicts of interest, as a consumer.

But here we are, NVIDIA and NVIDIA fans making a big thing of having AA in SC2, showing that AMD sucks and doesn't care about their costumers, when in fact this is just the perfect opportunity for AMD throw AA support with their drivers and then claim "See, when we aren't being locked out of a feature we can add it too. Might take us a bit longer than the competition but that is because we are here all busy making new hardware while the competition has to pimp their old hardware because they take longer to bring it to their costumers".

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Terry Makedon's twitter page

On vacation - but just got an email saying that Starcraft 2 AA is almost ready. Just getting tested now. Hotfix soon.
6:20 AM Jul 28th via UberTwitter

Official response from AMD to Hardwarecanucks.com

After evaluating our options, our engineering team opted not to provide AA support for StarCraft II within the Catalyst Control Center, even though the competition has included AA support in their driver at launch.
Posted by SKYMTL— July 26th, 2010, 8:10 PM

LOL at leaving out the rest of the quote...

After evaluating our options, our engineering team opted not to provide AA support for StarCraft II within the Catalyst Control Center, even though the competition has included AA support in their driver at launch.
Posted by SKYMTL

We are committed to making AA perform at an acceptable level before we release it to our customers. We will continue to work with Blizzard on this matter and hope to offer our customers an acceptable AA solution at a later date.— July 26th, 2010, 8:10 PM

You clearly are taking things out of context to make them seem valid for your argument.