No AA in StarCraft II with ATI Cards

[Creig]

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.

So says the guy who gets his video cards for free from.... Nvidia. Go figure.

Really, AMD is not to blame here. There are a few people here who keep trying to lay this problem at AMD's feet and it just doesn't stick.

To their credit, Nvidia came up with their own stop-gap AA solution and they should be applauded for doing so. However, just because AMD doesn't currently have one isn't a valid reason for this attempted smear campaign by the pro-NV crowd.

The fault lies squarely with Blizzard. They wrote the game, it was their decision not to include AA at launch. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[SirPauly]

I had a little discussion with Dave Baumann at Rage about pro-active when he questioned me about saying that nVidia was a pro active company.

nVidia is really pro-active but AMD, to me is taking strides in this arena -- much more than the past. One did see Eye-Finity and a rotated and sparse grid super-sampling feature -- titles pushed by AMD for DirectX 11 -- attempts to try bring open awareness with their GPU physics and Stereo3d initiatives -- at least acknowledging that there is promise here for the future of PC gaming. I did go bonkers for Graphics Plus -- not because it was just from nVidia but because PC gaming is slowly hitting a wall and new ways of innovation are needed to improve immersion, game-play and the experience. This goes beyond the proprietary vs Open discussion to me.

I feel AMD has more work to do in the pro-active arena but simply takes time and looks like they're slowly shifting in that direction as well.

Hey, I'm just glad to see AMD is going to go the extra mile to add AA in StarCraft 2. I hear all the finger pointing, blaming, bickering, sometimes personal attacks -- but for me it is this: Don't allow idealism to be the enemy of good. It is good to see nVidia and AMD be pro-active to try to go the extra mile for their customers in an unideal situation.

 

[MrK6]

They really need to change the sub-forum title from "Video Cards and Graphics" to "Whining and Shilling (Graphics)," at least people would know what to expect when they came in.

It's AA, and hopefully Blizzard will officially incorporate it into the game soon. Until then, move on.

 

[Keysplayr]

So says the guy who gets his video cards for free from.... Nvidia. Go figure.

You can go there if you wish, but I've maintained this stance LOOOONG before I entered the group. This, you already know. Play this card if you must, but it doesn't change in any way how I feel about the current technology.

Really, AMD is not to blame here. There are a few people here who keep trying to lay this problem at AMD's feet and it just doesn't stick.

Nobody with any sense is literally "blaming" ATI for anything. All it is really, is the straw that broke the camels back and it's all coming out in a gush. It's not a blame thing, but noted absense of action or lack of initiative. It's not ATI's fault that Blizzard fell short.
But in comparison, and the public observation of Nvidia providing AA in this title, unfortunately makes the other look a bit on the lax side of things. Nothing you can do about that, it's just the way it is.

To their credit, Nvidia came up with their own stop-gap AA solution and they should be applauded for doing so. However, just because AMD doesn't currently have one isn't a valid reason for this attempted smear campaign by the pro-NV crowd.

Agreed. AMD should not be smeared for Blizzards lack of AA. But when people see that Nvidia did it, then owners of ATI cards probably get a bit frustrated. It's not ATI's fault, but the situation does make people look at things in different ways.

The fault lies squarely with Blizzard. They wrote the game, it was their decision not to include AA at launch. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Agreed. The fault lies with Blizzard. The presence of initiative on Nvidia's part however, therefore brings into focus ATI's lack of initiative and dev relations that leave a lot to be desired. Blame and fault are the wrong descriptors for this situation when it comes to AMD/ATI. It's more like, well, nothing.

To reiterate, ATI isn't to blame or find at fault for Blizzards lack of AA option. What is noticable is Nvidia's effort in comparison to ATI's lack thereof. That is all it is. But ATI said a hotfix is on the way. Which is good.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

You just said the same thing four separate times in a row in the same post - the exact same thing, with a different facade. Bravo.

 

[Keysplayr]

You just said the same thing four separate times in a row in the same post - the exact same thing, with a different facade. Bravo.

Yes, I suppose I did. But I would imagine I got my point across.
Now, what was your point? Your post seems to serve no purpose other than to declare that I tried to explain something in detail many times. I hope you didn't find an offense in that.

 

[Wreckage]

So basically what we've learned -

If it isn't vendor locked AMD can get it implemented too.

Batman was not vendor locked. AMD just did not do the work for their GPU.

When DX9 and deferred rendering are used, it's up to GPU vendor to create a solution for their customers. I agree it's a pain in the butt. However that's the reality of the situation.

Which is the case we have here.

This is nothing new. As I said, I just don't think AMD has the resources to provide enough developer relations. That's why numerous titles (mostly based on the Unreal3 engine) don't have AA on AMD cards.

Either way, the issue now is how quick AMD can get a patch out.

 

[Seero]

To reiterate, ATI isn't to blame or find at fault for Blizzards lack of AA option. What is noticable is Nvidia's effort in comparison to ATI's lack thereof. That is all it is. But ATI said a hotfix is on the way. Which is good.

I believe this is the first time we have different in opinions, but I don't think Blizzard is to be blame. There are lots of API within Dx and programmers don't need to use them all. Why are people trying to say it is a bad practice not to use all APIs?

Between Deferred Shading (which allow much better FPS) vs AA, I will choose Deferred Shading. I may say otherwise if I have multiple high-end cards as my FPS will be over the roof, but wait, missing textures on CF or STI?!? That is right, missing textures on 5970, and any CF or STI setup. This is without AA. The forum is filled with people with overheating, under-voltage and lack of memory problems. Yes there are some AA threads too if you search for it, but it really isn't anywhere near the first 5 pages.

There are also voices complaining about it not being Dx10/11, but that is Blizzard's decision. The game won't sell if they make bad/wrong decisions. As for AA, those who uses ATI will still buy the game. If AA really means a lot, they will buy a Nvidia card for it, but so far, I don't think people are throwing their hardware away due to the lack of AA, or not buying the game because it doesn't support blah blah blah.

There is nothing developers can do to the fact that Dx9 doesn't support AA on deferred shading. Blizzard must work with both vendors or possibly Intel to come up with a solution that will work for every card. If I have a saying in ATI, I will too put AA aside and fix the multi-GPU problem first. Only Intel is not affected by this problem, but it isn't like they will even deal of blizzard about this.

SC2 isn't benchmarking tool, it is a AAA RTS game which so far has been living up with its name. Yes, it doesn't support AA, tessellation, Dx10/Dx11, not even multi-core support, but it does run with any OS and most video cards as long as it isn't 10 years old. Both Nvidia and ATI are forcing engineers to stay up overnights as the game is too powerful that they may need to change the fan control when playing the game. Usually, only developers will have access to game engines like UE, but people are already publishing games through SC2's galaxy editor, and this editor kills PC if it isn't on peak conditions.

Both single and multi-player games are optimized and doesn't cause a lot problems. However, custom games are monsters as some spawn mobs until overclocked I7 gives up. Lagging is okay, frying is not, and trust me, cards are being fried as you read this. One of the quick fix is to tell user to edit its ini file and add a maxFPS parameters to prevent video card frying itself.

Seriously, this is one epic game as long as your hardware doesn't break with it. What more do you want? AA? My bet is 95% of the Nvidia user isn't turning it on as they are too busy playing the game. A big deals? To fanboys yeah. For those who is playing the game? Hell no.

If you still believe that Blizzard suck because their SC2 doesn't support AA, then don't buy it. Otherwise, I suggest you to check it out. If you have a friend who brought it, they have 2 friend passes that you can try. Seriously, regardless of ATI and Nvidia, fanboy or not, it is worth a try. Those custom games rock.

And no, I don't work for blizzard, but I do buy every single game they make.

 

[Ryan Smith]

Batman was not vendor locked. AMD just did not do the work for their GPU.

When DX9 and deferred rendering are used, it's up to GPU vendor to create a solution for their customers. I agree it's a pain in the butt. However that's the reality of the situation.

Which is the case we have here.

This is nothing new. As I said, I just don't think AMD has the resources to provide enough developer relations. That's why numerous titles (mostly based on the Unreal3 engine) don't have AA on AMD cards.

Either way, the issue now is how quick AMD can get a patch out.

I saw this and thought I'd drop by and make a quick comment on the issue. NVIDIA went over this back at CES 2010, so all of this I have heard directly from them.

In-game AA in Batman is de-facto vendor locked. The solution NVIDIA initially devised for the game works on AMD cards too, however it required support for a texture format that AMD did not support at the time the technique was developed, and the texture format was not finally added until a couple of weeks before the game went gold. That didn't leave enough time to fully qualify the solution on AMD cards, so the game went without.

The fact of the matter is that - technically speaking - it could be enabled in the game for AMD cards at any time after the game shipped. As it stands the game has SecuROM, so the only way to enable it without faking device IDs is for the developer to roll out a patch with the solution enabled for AMD cards. Your guess is as good as mine why this hasn't happened.

In any case, along with making this fix for Batman, NVIDIA also submitted back to Epic. It was integrated in to the UE3 development tree and all future games using that version (or later) of the tree will have working AA, assuming of course they aren't using a different rendering method.

 

[Wreckage]

I saw this and thought I'd drop by and make a quick comment on the issue. NVIDIA went over this back at CES 2010, so all of this I have heard directly from them.

In-game AA in Batman is de-facto vendor locked. The solution NVIDIA initially devised for the game works on AMD cards too, however it required support for a texture format that AMD did not support at the time the technique was developed, and the texture format was not finally added until a couple of weeks before the game went gold. That didn't leave enough time to fully qualify the solution on AMD cards, so the game went without.

The fact of the matter is that - technically speaking - it could be enabled in the game for AMD cards at any time after the game shipped. As it stands the game has SecuROM, so the only way to enable it without faking device IDs is for the developer to roll out a patch with the solution enabled for AMD cards. Your guess is as good as mine why this hasn't happened.

In any case, along with making this fix for Batman, NVIDIA also submitted back to Epic. It was integrated in to the UE3 development tree and all future games using that version (or later) of the tree will have working AA, assuming of course they aren't using a different rendering method.

Sorry, my bad I should have clarified that AMD could have submitted their own solution to Batman: AA. I don't think they were locked out from doing that? Were they? This all went down last year, so my memory is fuzzy. I do agree that NVIDIA's solution was locked out (for whatever reason either technical or political).

As to the last part will that new method submitted to Epic be NVIDIA only? Or does that include the texture format AMD needs?

Either way thanks for the information that's probably the most clear and concise post I've heard on the issue.

 

[SirPauly]

I saw this and thought I'd drop by and make a quick comment on the issue. NVIDIA went over this back at CES 2010, so all of this I have heard directly from them.

In-game AA in Batman is de-facto vendor locked. The solution NVIDIA initially devised for the game works on AMD cards too, however it required support for a texture format that AMD did not support at the time the technique was developed, and the texture format was not finally added until a couple of weeks before the game went gold. That didn't leave enough time to fully qualify the solution on AMD cards, so the game went without.

The fact of the matter is that - technically speaking - it could be enabled in the game for AMD cards at any time after the game shipped. As it stands the game has SecuROM, so the only way to enable it without faking device IDs is for the developer to roll out a patch with the solution enabled for AMD cards. Your guess is as good as mine why this hasn't happened.

In any case, along with making this fix for Batman, NVIDIA also submitted back to Epic. It was integrated in to the UE3 development tree and all future games using that version (or later) of the tree will have working AA, assuming of course they aren't using a different rendering method.

Thanks for this!

 

[GaiaHunter]

As to the last part will that new method submitted to Epic be NVIDIA only? Or does that include the texture format AMD needs?

AMD needs no texture format - as per Ryan post it is clear that AMD supports that texture format now and has since at least Batman AA lunched. Trying to muddle stuff already?

All this bickering only proves that AMD did indeed improve ATI devs relations and continue to do so.

Does NVIDIA have the upper hand in devs relation?
Yes.

Is AMD catching up?
Yes.

Is it absurd hardware companies have to implement features that have been standard for years in some games and that those instances leads to situations where the potential for conflict of interests arise?

Again, yes.

 

[akugami]

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.

I think the problem is nVidia's actions with the Batman AA issue could lead down the slippery path of vendor lockouts and fragmentation of game features not because a competitor couldn't do it but because there was code specifically put in to disable it on certain cards.

Now, much has been made of ATI's perceived lack of developer support but you can't tell me that them provided funds and resources to help implement DX11 and not have it locked specifically to their cards helps all gamers. That's going the extra mile to me. While nVidia only provides resources if it helps gamers on their cards and walling you out if you had the temerity to buy a competitor's card.

Sure, that's going the extra mile if you had an nVidia card but it certainly makes me think about what nVidia would do if they controlled more of the market considering their vendor detection code to lock out competitor's cards in one fashion or another.

I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you on this one. ATI has less resources to spread around but they spread it in a way that helps all gamers. Even those who use video cards from their competitors. nVidia on the other hand has more resources to spread around but does it in a fashion that makes you feel like a second class citizen unless you're using one of their products.

 

[Seero]

AMD needs no texture format - as per Ryan post it is clear that AMD supports that texture format now and has since at least Batman AA lunched. Trying to muddle stuff already?

All this bickering only proves that AMD did indeed improve ATI devs relations and continue to do so.

Does NVIDIA have the upper hand in devs relation?
Yes.

Is AMD catching up?
Yes.

Is it absurd hardware companies have to implement features that have been standard for years in some games and that those instances leads to situations where the potential for conflict of interests arise?

Again, yes.

For Batman:
a) Nvidia is bad for not allowing ATI to execute their code.

b) ATI is bad for not implementing their own methods of enabling AA.

c) Rocksteady is to be blame for not implementing AA.

For SC2:
a) Nvidia is bad for not allowing ATI to execute their code.

b) ATI is bad for not implementing their own methods of enabling AA.

c) Blizzard is to be blame for not implementing AA.

Please, keep your answer consistent. You mentioned ATI catched up, but I still don't see the AA option enabled for ATI in Batman long after Richard Huddy stated that it may be patched in some later time 6+ months ago.

Both games doesn't support AA by default. In both games, Nvidia took an extra step in delivering what you called "Standard" to its customer while ATI ...

Please explain the ATI is catching up part.

So that you know, eyefinity doesn't work on SC2.

 

[Scali]

I don't think AMD did all that much to promote DX11 really.
Those developers would have used DX11 anyway, whichever vendor was first with hardware. D3D is THE standard in gaming.
It's pretty difficult to make a DX11 game and make it NOT work on DX11 hardware.

Can't be compared to this situation where DX10.1-features are hacked into a DX9 game.

 

[waffleironhead]

Every sc2 player I've talked to thinks this is a worthless addition to the game. So to them it doesnt matter which vendor supports it, they, the owners of the game, don't.

As far as the whole AMD not having a solution at this point, yeah when a company is losing money its kinda hard to throw around cash you dont have. When times are tough you tighten the belt, and certain areas need to be cut back on. It seems they may have reduced their Dev-relations to stay afloat while focusing on hardware implementation.

 

[evolucion8]

The funny thing is that nVidia's MSAA (TM) code worked excellent with AMD hardware using the fake DeviceID change, which proved once again that the code had a vendor check lock. But hopefully, the same story will never repeat itself again...

 

[golem]

Now, much has been made of ATI's perceived lack of developer support but you can't tell me that them provided funds and resources to help implement DX11 and not have it locked specifically to their cards helps all gamers. That's going the extra mile to me. While nVidia only provides resources if it helps gamers on their cards and walling you out if you had the temerity to buy a competitor's card.

That's what I'm really curious about. They helped developers with DX11 in games when theirs was the only card that could do DX11. Are they still helping developers implement DX11 now that Nvidia has viable DX11 cards?

On the other hand, Nvidia was criticized for locking out AA for Batman, but from Ryan's post, it does look like going forward, AA will be available for all games using this engine for both AMD and Nvidia.

So when you cut right down to it. AMD helped developers initially when it would only benefit their cards, but might or might not help all gamers later on. Nvidia did the same thing. Initially AA in Batman was supposed to only benefit their cards, but might or might not help all gamers later on.

 

[Skurge]

Sorry, my bad I should have clarified that AMD could have submitted their own solution to Batman: AA. I don't think they were locked out from doing that? Were they? This all went down last year, so my memory is fuzzy. I do agree that NVIDIA's solution was locked out (for whatever reason either technical or political).

As to the last part will that new method submitted to Epic be NVIDIA only? Or does that include the texture format AMD needs?

Either way thanks for the information that's probably the most clear and concise post I've heard on the issue.

Well according to nV, even if AMD submitted their own solution it was up to rocksteady to add it in a patch. AMD couldn't add it by themselves.

 

[Scali]

The funny thing is that nVidia's MSAA (TM) code worked excellent with AMD hardware using the fake DeviceID change, which proved once again that the code had a vendor check lock. But hopefully, the same story will never repeat itself again...

If you read Ryan Smith's post above, you know why there's a device check.
It's not just to spite AMD. Yes, it's easy to think that... too easy.

 

[Munky]

Didn't read the whole troll thread, but this sounds like another Batman AA non-issue.

 

[ebolamonkey3]

Guys, I think one thing we forget is that SC2 was announced in 2007, so they've been working on it since probably 2006 or earlier. That is probably the biggest reason they used DX9 for SC2 instead of DX10/11.

But the thing I don't get is, how hard is it to implement AA in the drivers? From AMD's response, it seems like they're just not willing to spend the time/money to code their drivers to implement AA for this one game.

*Edit: development of SC2 started before 2005, just goes to prove my point, they couldn't have coded it in DX10 back then.

 

[Scali]

Guys, I think one thing we forget is that SC2 was announced in 2007, so they've been working on it since probably 2006 or earlier. That is probably the biggest reason they used DX9 for SC2 instead of DX10/11.

Crysis was announced somewhere in 2006, if not sooner.
What's your point?

*Edit: development of SC2 started before 2005, just goes to prove my point, they couldn't have coded it in DX10 back then.

No, but they could have added DX10 support, like pretty much every DX10 game released since 2007 has done.

 

[evolucion8]

If you read Ryan Smith's post above, you know why there's a device check.
It's not just to spite AMD. Yes, it's easy to think that... too easy.

Yeah, is just too easy to add a lock out vendor ID to avoid anti Aliasing support on rival's videocard because of the lack of a texture format support, yeah, it's easy to think that... too easy.

Many games comes out with errors and bugs which are fixable through patches and driver updates, why locking out a vendor just for its sake? Please, it's easy to think that... too easy.

Didn't Serious Sam 2 shipped out with a bug that caused blocky HDR effects on X1k hardware and yet, a new patch came out and fix it instead of locking the feature out of ATi hardware?? I guess is too hard for you to understand.

 

[Scali]

Yeah, is just too easy to add a lock out vendor ID to avoid anti Aliasing support on rival's videocard because of the lack of a texture format support, yeah, it's easy to think that... too easy.

If AMD had not fixed the missing texture format problem, then the game would simply have crashed on AMD hardware on release. THAT is why the vendor ID check is there. nVidia kept the game from crashing on AMD hardware when they developed it.
The check just never was removed, but that is not nVidia's responsibility... Seems to be a QA issue of the developer. Nobody seems to have bothered to look into the issue.
I think people would have complained a LOT more if the game crashed on AMD hardware. So I understand EXACTLY why nVidia locked out other vendors (not just AMD, but you don't hear S3 people complaining).
In fact, if you use older AMD drivers (where the texture format is missing), and you use the vendor ID spoof to enable AA, it probably still crashes.

Aside from that, nVidia's workaround also uses the NVAPI, because nVidia made it work on their DX10 hardware, while technically it's a DX10.1 feature. So it's not exactly standard vendor-agnostic DX code.