No AA in StarCraft II with ATI Cards

[Wreckage]

This is kind of my point. There are a few here who appear pretty pissed and AMD for not having some kind of patch, but where is the blame for Blizzard using an old API for a huge AAA release in mid 2010?

They started work on the game 6 years ago, should they have delayed it for DX 10 and then 10.1 and then delayed it again for DX11?

AMD has known about this limitation in DX9 a long time ago. They could have had a fix ready. They don't. That's why people are pissed at AMD. Did they ever fully fix Batman:AA?

For the record I'm not going to blame AMD, because I just don't think they have the resources. Hopefully they will release a patch soon and we can lock this thread and start a new one discussion how it works.

 

[Scali]

This is kind of my point. There are a few here who appear pretty pissed and AMD for not having some kind of patch, but where is the blame for Blizzard using an old API for a huge AAA release in mid 2010?

Exactly.
The way I see it, there are four things to be said here:

1) Blizzard is to blame for making a strange choice of rendering technique and API, ruling out AA. Had they offered DX10.1+ support or perhaps even OpenGL, everyone would have AA.

2) Microsoft has nothing to do with all this. They've updated their API years ago, adding in the required functionality, and developers still using outdated APIs is not their responsibility.

3) nVidia is to be recommended for adding AA to this game, offering gamers a choice that the original developers didn't grant them.

4) The ball is now in AMD's court.

 

[Scali]

They started work on the game 6 years ago, should they have delayed it for DX 10 and then 10.1 and then delayed it again for DX11?

You don't have to delay it.
You can just add DX10/11 lateron. A lot of DX10/11 games have been developed that way.
In fact, I doubt that they started out with deferred rendering 6 years ago either, because it wasn't a very popular approach until recently. They most probably rewrote their renderer only recently.

 

[Seero]

It's not Microsoft's fault.
It's nobody's fault. DX9 is just old, and at the time, this technology was not feasible yet. If anything, nVidia/ATi are to blame for not adding hardware support at the time of DX9, but it was not realistic to expect it at the time.

The fault here is that Blizzard STILL chooses DX9 as their API, while they go for a deferred renderer. This means AA is not an option, and apparently people expect AA these days (and so does Microsoft... since DX10.1, the hardware has to support 4xAA as a minimum).

The language C++ is very very old, but people still use it. Why? Well if it isn't broken, then why fix it?

So Blizzard choose to use Dx9 for their games. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Otherwise the game rocks and runs perfectly on my PC. Good graphics, good fps, intense story feelings, epic PvP, and crazy fun with custom games. If none of this ring your bell, don't buy it.

Yes, no AA in-game. Don't like it? don't buy it, or get a Nvidia card for it. Don't like driver level AA? Why? Are you assuming that in-game AA will preform better? What if driver lvl AA is as good as in-game AA? Don't like the confusion? Don't buy the game.

The bottom line is, no one is at fault. You decide what you buy.

 

[Scali]

The language C++ is very very old, but people still use it. Why? Well if it isn't broken, then why fix it?

C++ today is not the same as it was some 15-20 years ago.
Likewise, D3D today is not the same as it was in 2002 (D3D9).
I think the analogy here is more like: someone decides to release a textmode application.
Yes, nothing wrong with textmode, we used it all the time, in the good old days. But most people come to expect a GUI these days. So it's not a very logical choice.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Does anyone expect anything different from Blizzard? They create subpar games, but they sell extremely well because they run on GMA graphics half of the time, thus giving them a potential market for anyone that so much had a computer... Just look at Myst as an example... The game was horrid, but sold millions of copies. Does that make it a good game? No... Blizzard is successful company, but they don't make good games. They simply make games that tap into a large market.

Blizzard gets the full blame for not having AA. I am pretty sure AA was a standard option for most games even 5 years ago.

 

[golem]

C++ today is not the same as it was some 15-20 years ago.
Likewise, D3D today is not the same as it was in 2002 (D3D9).
I think the analogy here is more like: someone decides to release a textmode application.
Yes, nothing wrong with textmode, we used it all the time, in the good old days. But most people come to expect a GUI these days. So it's not a very logical choice.

But if you want your game to run on Win XP systems, don't you have to used DX9?

 

[SirPauly]

This is kind of my point. There are a few here who appear pretty pissed and AMD for not having some kind of patch, but where is the blame for Blizzard using an old API for a huge AAA release in mid 2010?

Why would they use DirectX 10 or 11? Why not target a much larger base and create an engine that offers the art and game-play that reach a very large audience without the need of a cutting edge graphics card?

Kinda like what Blizzard does.

 

[Scali]

But if you want your game to run on Win XP systems, don't you have to used DX9?

Either that or OpenGL.
These APIs are not mutually exclusive though. Plenty of games have both DX9 and DX10/11 renderers.
The Unigine Heaven benchmark even provides DX9, 10, 11 and OpenGL.

So there were various ways to get AA working out-of-the-box.

 

[smithkt]

Does anyone expect anything different from Blizzard? They create subpar games, but they sell extremely well because they run on GMA graphics half of the time, thus giving them a potential market for anyone that so much had a computer... Just look at Myst as an example... The game was horrid, but sold millions of copies. Does that make it a good game? No... Blizzard is successful company, but they don't make good games. They simply make games that tap into a large market.

Blizzard gets the full blame for not having AA. I am pretty sure AA was a standard option for most games even 5 years ago.

I disagree with your opinion on the games Blizzard makes. I've enjoyed all of them with the exception of WoW which I have never played. Not big on MMORPGs.

Myst is not a Blizzard game. Cyan Worlds/Broderbund was the developer/publisher. Then I thought you might have meant Myth, but that was Bungie.

 

[Phynaz]

They started work on the game 6 years ago, should they have delayed it for DX 10 and then 10.1 and then delayed it again for DX11?

In that case this should have been a DX 8 game.

So your argument doesn't hold.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Why would they use DirectX 10 or 11? Why not target a much larger base and create an engine that offers the art and game-play that reach a very large audience without the need of a cutting edge graphics card?

Kinda like what Blizzard does.

Why do any games come in DX10 or 11 then? DX10 hardware has been around for some years now (doesn't the GeForce 88xx launch seem like forever ago now?). The API has been available for a while. Hell, I even have a game that has both DX9 and DX10 paths. Don't tell me Blizzard wouldn't have the resources. Hell, there are DX9 games that use AA, I'm sure Blizzard has the resources to make it happen if they want.

I'm not familiar with all the technicalities of why they cannot have AA with the DX9 method they used, but obviously it's possible to still have DX9 and AA. Blizzard certainly has the resources.

 

[Seero]

C++ today is not the same as it was some 15-20 years ago.
Likewise, D3D today is not the same as it was in 2002 (D3D9).
I think the analogy here is more like: someone decides to release a textmode application.
Yes, nothing wrong with textmode, we used it all the time, in the good old days. But most people come to expect a GUI these days. So it's not a very logical choice.

The key is you choice what you want, and no one else is forcing you for it. Blizzard can go openGL if they want, which is totally up to them. You, as a customer on the other hand, can choice to buy it or not. The choice is yours.

Rather a technology will survive depends on whether people use to use it, not rather it is new. Dx9 has been around, killing any competitors at the time and still kicking around. Instead of making Dx10 backward compatible, MS decided to unify stuff their way. Again, the decision is theirs, but rather people is going to follow is another story.

I can run a piece of C code written 30 years ago with the most recent C compiler. Blizzard can run their SC/WC engine that was there and run it on Dx9. It is MS stupidity for not allowing forward/backward compatibility for cases like this. WoW's next expansion is on Dx9. Diablo 3 is on Dx9. SC2's expansion will probably in Dx9. So what? You new video card runs Dx9 without issues. Your new OS runs Dx9 without issues. What is your problem?

The game runs great, regardless of the brand of your video card. Nvidia took a step forward in fixing AA problem on Dx9 that was there many years. ATI also did that too, just not on SC2. Maybe they will do it, and I believe they will at all cost, but until then, no AA. Is that a big deal? Well unless you are using 32" display and stick your face on the display, it really isn't a big deal.

Of course you or others can make a mountain out of moles, but since Richard Huddy insisted that Nvidia played dirty and their ATI video cards can do AA just as well as Nvidia and the only reason that they can't do it in Batman was because Nvidia blocked them. Maybe they NEED to prove this on SC2 this time. Interestingly, the offical response from ATI on SC2 was not done by Richard and stated that their engineer decided NOT to implement it. I guess, in terms of forum rage wars, Nvidia fanboys score one. Nvidia video cards can do it, ATI video cards can not.

Again, practically speaking, it is just a mole. Nothing big.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I disagree with your opinion on the games Blizzard makes. I've enjoyed all of them with the exception of WoW which I have never played. Not big on MMORPGs.

Myst is not a Blizzard game. Cyan Worlds/Broderbund was the developer/publisher. Then I thought you might have meant Myth, but that was Bungie.

Although it may have appeared that I implied Myst was a 'Blizzard' game, I am fully aware that it is not. It is just a good example how the game that sold the most copies is a horrible game. But, if you ask around, statisticly it might have more positive reviews.

 

[Seero]

Does anyone expect anything different from Blizzard? They create subpar games, but they sell extremely well because they run on GMA graphics half of the time, thus giving them a potential market for anyone that so much had a computer... Just look at Myst as an example... The game was horrid, but sold millions of copies. Does that make it a good game? No... Blizzard is successful company, but they don't make good games. They simply make games that tap into a large market.

Blizzard gets the full blame for not having AA. I am pretty sure AA was a standard option for most games even 5 years ago.

What is a good game? Does a MMO game that dominated the history of best selling game qualities as one? Does a RTS game that still have traction to gamers 10 years after its release qualities as one?

Why would they use DirectX 10 or 11? Why not target a much larger base and create an engine that offers the art and game-play that reach a very large audience without the need of a cutting edge graphics card?

Kinda like what Blizzard does.

Any video card and OS can support Dx10/11 also support Dx9, not the other way around. How did you come to a conclusion that they will have a much larger base by writing the game in Dx10/11?

 

[evolucion8]

It's not Microsoft's fault.
It's nobody's fault. DX9 is just old, and at the time, this technology was not feasible yet. If anything, nVidia/ATi are to blame for not adding hardware support at the time of DX9, but it was not realistic to expect it at the time.

The fault here is that Blizzard STILL chooses DX9 as their API, while they go for a deferred renderer. This means AA is not an option, and apparently people expect AA these days (and so does Microsoft... since DX10.1, the hardware has to support 4xAA as a minimum).

AFAIK AMD and nVidia does DX9/DX10/DX11 compliant hardware, not the other way around. (IE, Microsoft DirectX 11/10/9 is AMD Radeon Xblah blah/nVidia GeForce hardware compliant.... While the API and the hardware works close by hand, then who we can blame originally for not supporting Deferred rendering with Anti Aliasing? It is a Microsoft standard, nVidia and AMD follows it.

 

[Scali]

AFAIK AMD and nVidia does DX9/DX10/DX11 compliant hardware, not the other way around.

It's not 'any way around' at all.
Microsoft is not a GPU designer, obviously. So what would they know about what an API needs?
Microsoft works closely with nVidia and AMD (and in the past with other relevant players) to determine where the future is headed, and all parties will agree on which features will be in the next iteration of the DirectX standard, and the hardware that goes with it.

So yes, DirectX 8 was pretty much "the API for the GeForce 3", DirectX 9 was pretty much "the API for the Radeon 9700", where DirectX 10 was pretty much "the API for the GeForce 8800".
It's not entirely a coincidence that often the first card on the market is also the one that is closest to the API, and performs remarkably well.

The other card is usually late because the designers had a different future in mind, and had to adjust their design to where DirectX was headed.

 

[evolucion8]

Well, I see your point.

DX8.1 belonged to the Radeon 8500
DX9.0a to the GeForce FX
DX9.0b to the Radeon X800
DX9.0c well, both

DX10.1 to the Radeon HD series

One thing I would love to see again now that Scali mentioned it. It would be great if more GPU vendors were here to incorporate more functionality to the API, I only saw a couple of things like KTX buffers, some S3 stuff, etc.

But I'm quite surprise that AMD didn't took too long to fix a issue in a brand new game, I wish I could say the same thing with BC2 and Lost Planet when it was released. BC2 worked like a champ with me though, but HD 5x00 users think otherwise.

 

[Wreckage]

In that case this should have been a DX 8 game.

So your argument doesn't hold.

DX9 was released in 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX



My argument holds strong.

 

[Scali]

It is MS stupidity for not allowing forward/backward compatibility for cases like this.

Actually, the 'disposable' API system of DirectX is a blessing in disguise.
They don't have to worry about shoehorning features in, and making standard API functions ambiguous because of extensions which may or may not be enabled.

If the design no longer fits with the underlying hardware, they just throw it out and start from scratch. This is the main reason for Direct3D's domination: it adapts and standardizes new features reasonably quickly, and always guarantees a high level of performance and a transparent API.

Anyway, my issue was never with D3D9 itself... but rather the choice of using a deferred renderer. Had they chosen to go with an immediate renderer, they could have supported DX9 AND AA.
It is rare for a game not to have AA these days. That's what's sticking out like a sore thumb here. Not DX9, because plenty of DX9 games support AA.

 

[ronnn]

That is good news. Maybe next time, AMD will be a bit more proactive in dev relations instead of a threat of mass exodus to invoke dread and a "re-action". We have yet to see if "Gaming Evolved" will end up stillborn, or if they will actually provide resources to make it happen.

Maybe they had issues with the fix and were worried they would overheat their cards.

 

[SirPauly]

Any video card and OS can support Dx10/11 also support Dx9, not the other way around. How did you come to a conclusion that they will have a much larger base by writing the game in Dx10/11?

I didn't.

 

[SirPauly]

Why do any games come in DX10 or 11 then? DX10 hardware has been around for some years now (doesn't the GeForce 88xx launch seem like forever ago now?). The API has been available for a while. Hell, I even have a game that has both DX9 and DX10 paths. Don't tell me Blizzard wouldn't have the resources. Hell, there are DX9 games that use AA, I'm sure Blizzard has the resources to make it happen if they want.

I'm not familiar with all the technicalities of why they cannot have AA with the DX9 method they used, but obviously it's possible to still have DX9 and AA. Blizzard certainly has the resources.

Maybe they will slowly improve things with future updates over time. Add in-game AA or a DirectX 10.1 or 11 path, Stereo3d. But probably tried to create a great title over-all for the many and get the product out there to sell.

Blizzard probably has a lot of logic for their planning now and for down-the-road for this franchise, one may imagine.

 

[sandorski]

Blizzard should have done what 3DRealms is doing, mke the game using the DX13 API. Want AA? No problem, 128x or 256x?

 

[Keysplayr]

Maybe they had issues with the fix and were worried they would overheat their cards.

I don't think so. I think that AMD/ATI did not expect anywhere near the outcry for AA once people say Nvidia had done it. So, what would you do if you were them? (AMD/ATI). You would pull overnighters with your driver team and get out a driver hotfix as fast as humanly possible and make it look like it was in the works all along. I'll tell you right now, it wasn't as per AMD's public statement on this matter.

ATI is a status quo company that rarely goes an extra mile, let alone a few inches. They sure can talk up a storm though. Havoc, GITG, AA for SC2. Well, I hope something changes this time around.