No AA in StarCraft II with ATI Cards

[bryanW1995]

Who cares if it is as good as blizzard? The fact is Nvidia will have it ready at launch time and AMD wont. And it isnt like this came out of nowhere for AMD. This is a AAA title. If they cant get it done for this game, they cant get it done for any game.

yes, ati's engineers are too busy building badass cards in a timely manner while nvidia's engineers have had their thumbs up their butts for the past year.

next time some somebody dubbs over that hitler video he should include a "but, but, but, we have AA in starcraft!" line.

 

[whitesammy]

i guess imma be reading for the next pages.

so i got these new ATI/NV cards and they don't work with SC2 cause of No AA what a RIP when will i actually begin to use DX11 @ ALL!

i wasn't surprised this was going to happen considering its 2d. i guess the only thing they can improve on is texture. i haven't picked up the game nor will i cause i don't have an hour to sit there create the same thing just to win a game. SORRY FOLKS but i do support blizzard. i heard the campaign is great but haven't heard about online gameplay but i'm assuming its awesome

 

[akugami]

This is also why you can't blame Blizzard. The code has to be done by the vendor. You can blame AMD for not providing the code for their customers or blame DX9 for not having it in the first place (fixed in DX10 though).

So you're saying that AMD should have programmed Starcraft for Blizzard? Blizzard chose not to include AA in the game. A boneheaded move. AMD had nothing to do with that. The only fault AMD has is they should keep feature parity with nVidia and taken the extra resources to force it in. But I don't see how one can come to the conclusion that this is somehow AMD's fault. Convoluted reasoning at its best.

After Batman: Arkham Asylum I would have thought AMD learned their lesson. Their response about performance insults everyone who reads that article. The game in not that demanding with newer cards hitting 100fps+ so there is plenty of horsepower left for AA. From the screenshots it looks like 4xAA is more than enough to make the game look good.

I read somewhere that they have been working on the game for at least 6 years. So that would probably rule out DX10. Not to mention that they also want it to run on a wider range of hardware.

The only lesson AMD can come to with the Batman fiasco is not to put in vendor lock codes or you will be blitzed by negative PR.


As I stated. As soon as I got the game in I'd investigate the RadeonPro utility. Doesn't work. However, one thing was reinforced is my belief that you won't notice it. Seriously, if you are playing Starcraft 2 and have time to zoom up really really close to see if there are any jaggies, you're playing it wrong. In a new game we all oggle the graphics. Quite a few of us are going to pause the game here and there or take a few screencaps to look at and analyze.

However, when playing the game, I didn't have time to notice any jaggies and if you're playing at 16x10 or higher resolutions, it's barely noticeable even looking at the screen. You really gotta zoom up way close in a screencap to notice it. Meaning it's there but it's not there.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

i guess imma be reading for the next pages.

so i got these new ATI/NV cards and they don't work with SC2 cause of No AA what a RIP when will i actually begin to use DX11 @ ALL!

i wasn't surprised this was going to happen considering its 2d. i guess the only thing they can improve on is texture. i haven't picked up the game nor will i cause i don't have an hour to sit there create the same thing just to win a game. SORRY FOLKS but i do support blizzard. i heard the campaign is great but haven't heard about online gameplay but i'm assuming its awesome

... Starcraft 2 is rendered in 3d; you can even pan and zoom the camera although there's no practical reason to.

 

[Leyawiin]

yes, ati's engineers are too busy building badass cards in a timely manner while nvidia's engineers have had their thumbs up their butts for the past year.

next time some somebody dubbs over that hitler video he should include a "but, but, but, we have AA in starcraft!" line.

I would wager badass cards without reliable software to back them up is a little worse situation than less-than-badass cards with better software.

 

[Scali]

So you're saying that AMD should have programmed Starcraft for Blizzard?

Well, that's competition, isn't it?
If your competitor does something, you respond.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Damn the 460 gets kicked in the balls when enabling 4xAA according to those benches. Who gives a flying fuck at the moon how the 480 performs, why does the 460 take such a massive performance drop?

Its my next card, so yes I care.

 

[Skurge]

Besides maybe Dirt2, what other DX11 game did AMD help with?

Actually, I heard they were helping with the DX11 features of Dirt2, but what did that involve?

Dirt2, BC2, Stalker, battleforge. Thats all I can think of from the top of my head.

BC2 and battleforge both run faster in DX11 than 10. So I'm inclined to believe AMD will get blizzard to add AA that doest kill performance just like they did with BC2. I'm also sure that nV cards will not be locked out either

Oh, and they did they same thing with stalker:CS, it wasn't going to have ingame AA either.

Nobody blamed nV there. Hypocrites

EDIT: I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, golem.

 

[BFG10K]

Damn the 460 gets kicked in the balls when enabling 4xAA according to those benches. Who gives a flying fuck at the moon how the 480 performs, why does the 460 take such a massive performance drop?

Working around a deferred renderer to force AA externally usually costs a lot of memory bandwidth and capacity. These are two areas where the GTX460 is far behind the GTX480.

 

[BFG10K]

Admittedly I haven't tried this out. Heading out to BB now to get Starcraft 2. The location I'm going to had a midnight launch but I was out getting wasted with some friends. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=260&threadid=136531&highlight_key=y

Found the info originally in the link above. Below is the Guru3D thread on it.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=322031

There’s nothing in those pages that confirms AA is being applied to Starcraft 2 on ATi cards. RadeonPro is just a profile management system; it can’t AA a game unless there’s already driver code to do so.

About the only chance is if you found another game that uses a similar engine to Starcraft 2, and the driver already has specific AA code for it. Then you could use that utility to trick the driver into using that code.

The problem is, historically ATi have had non-existent support for AA in deferred renderer engines outside of certain Unreal Engine 3 titles.

 

[SirPauly]

This just in:

On vacation - but just got an email saying that Starcraft 2 AA is almost ready. Just getting tested now. Hotfix soon.

http://twitter.com/CatalystMaker/statuses/19739897631

Great news for ATI owners!

 

[Keysplayr]

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.

 

[SlowSpyder]

This is also why you can't blame Blizzard. The code has to be done by the vendor. You can blame AMD for not providing the code for their customers or blame DX9 for not having it in the first place (fixed in DX10 though).


After Batman: Arkham Asylum I would have thought AMD learned their lesson. Their response about performance insults everyone who reads that article. The game in not that demanding with newer cards hitting 100fps+ so there is plenty of horsepower left for AA. From the screenshots it looks like 4xAA is more than enough to make the game look good.



I read somewhere that they have been working on the game for at least 6 years. So that would probably rule out DX10. Not to mention that they also want it to run on a wider range of hardware.

I disagree 100%. Blizzard released a game in 2010 that uses DX9 and doesn't have AA built in. Other developers can get it done. This is not AMD's fault. Blizzard appears to have built the game so it can be used on a wide range of hardware (older cards/PC's can play this... it requires a 9800Pro...) I don't believe that AMD or Nvidia should have to write code to add a feature that should be a standard option by now.

Back in 2003 when DX9 was pretty much becoming the standard, if someone released a DX7 game that lacked very common and standard features of the day, would you blame Nvidia or AMD (edit - ATI) for that game lacking those features?

And as I said originally, this is being blow way out of proportion. Look how long the original StarCraft has been played. AMD is working on a hotfix, a few weeks without AA in the grand scheme of things really isn't a big deal. People will likely play this game for years to come. This is blown way out of proportion...

 

[thebomb]

People care about AA in a strategy game? LOL.

 

[SirPauly]

Well, yes!

 

[SlowSpyder]

People care about AA in a strategy game? LOL.

Again, I think this is being blown out of proportion (I say that a lot here ). It's the principal of it for many. This is a AAA game created by a huge developer, it should be there in my opinion. I'm going to pick this game up this weekend, and I doubt it'll matter to me one way or another really. But, I mean hell, Torchlight has AA.

 

[Wreckage]

Back in 2003 when DX9 was pretty much becoming the standard, if someone released a DX7 game that lacked very common and standard features of the day, would you blame Nvidia or AMD (edit - ATI) for that game lacking those features?

If one card made that DX7 game look like DX9 and the other card did not. Yeah I would say that was a feature of the card. I would blame the other card for not having that feature.

But, I mean hell, Torchlight has AA.

That was a fun game, let's hope we don't have a thread like this for Diablo III.

 

[MJinZ]

People care about AA in a strategy game? LOL.

People care about graphics in a video game? Shocking.

 

[Qbah]

Well, I'm really happy about the AA coming to ATi People say they don't see much difference. Well, I'm on a 40", at 1920x1080. AA makes an incredible difference. It's really distracting for me when scrolling the screen for example. So a big THANK YOU ATi from me

OT: All my UE3 games on Steam get AA when forced through CCC on my HD5850 Tested Borderlands, ME and ME2. ME2 with SSAAx4 looks stunning! And I still get ~45FPS which gives me a great experience! It didn't drop below 30 even once so far So I'm disabling the FPS counter again, not to bother myself with numbers.

 

[Creig]

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.

Oh, please... "a bit more proactive"? AMD just got done saying that their Hotfix is almost ready. Do you honestly think they just whipped this up overnight? Obviously they must have been working on this for awhile now. Wasn't SCII released only yesterday? I don't think anybody is going to have to claw their eyes out due to a lack of AA while waiting for the AMD Hotfix to be released.

Besides which, I don't agree that either Nvidia nor AMD should be the ones adding AA in the first place. That's the responsibility of the game developer, in this case Blizzard. What, Blizzard couldn't afford to hire enough programmers to add AA to one of the most anticipated game sequels of all time?

I think both Nvidia and AMD should stick to writing drivers and leave the enhancements to the game developers. If the devs want assistance with technical matters such as DX11 or PhysX programming, that's one thing. But to have Nvidia/AMD adding such a basic feature as AA for them?

Ridiculous.

 

[SirPauly]

Then neither ATI or nVidia gamers would enjoy AA in StarCraft. Dictating how things "should" get done is irrelevant. Words are words -- actions speak.

 

[Creig]

Then neither ATI or nVidia gamers would enjoy AA in StarCraft. Dictating how things "should" get done is irrelevant. Words are words -- actions speak.

So you think that Nvidia/AMD should be the ones adding AA to game titles?

 

[Wreckage]

Well lets see how long until the patch actually shows up. Still waiting on them to implement Havok.

 

[Genx87]

So you think that Nvidia/AMD should be the ones adding AA to game titles?

Should they? Probably not, but when given the opportunity to pick up the slack of the devs. It is a nice value add by the vendor. In this case Nvidia added value to their product by having this ready by launch day. AMD imo should have also had a similar fix just to save face. But the higher ups at AMD again dropped the ball and let themselves be smeared across the tech boards over this. The management at AMD infuriates me. For being such a 2nd rate player they sure dont help themselves by not being more proactive than the big players in their markets(Intel and Nvidia). And this has been AMDs motto since I have followed them in 1997.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Then neither ATI or nVidia gamers would enjoy AA in StarCraft. Dictating how things "should" get done is irrelevant. Words are words -- actions speak.

So if a game lacks sound you think Soundblaster should write that code? If Blizzard writes a game in DX8, AMD or Nvidia should update it? Hell, why don't developers just become concept companies and let's let the companies that create the hardware write the code. I just don't agree with your position. It's one thing for Nvidia to help with Physx since that's a unique-to-Nvidia feature. But AA is a universal feature, it should have been there in the first place a AAA title from a developer like Blizzard in my opinion.