nVidia Quadro vs ATI Firepro

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
To me, "native" means something was designed, written, debugged, and packaged for retail sale and operates fully on the intended target operating system. Nothing has to be done to it (emulate, compile etc.) to run natively on a given OS.

Uhhh, applications ALWAYS have to be compiled (unless you use a scripting language, where you can execute the sourcecode directly).
And what about games that exist on multiple platforms, like PC, XBox and PS3? Are those somehow not 'native'? What is the difference with Mac OS?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Yes. Yes he did.

"Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?"

He did that there, I was referring to his earlier statement:
"And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac."

He didn't use the word 'native' there.
There basically is no valid reason (not that a vague term like 'native' would ever be valid in any context whatsoever) for him not to accept something like MacDX.
So basically I have shown him DirectX on linux and Mac, case closed.

And as I already said, I see no reason to NOT consider an application compiled for Mac OS, using MacDX, as a 'native' application.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
To me, "native" means something was designed, written, debugged, and packaged for retail sale and operates fully on the intended target operating system. Nothing has to be done to it (emulate, compile etc.) to run natively on a given OS.

Uhhh, applications ALWAYS have to be compiled (unless you use a scripting language, where you can execute the sourcecode directly).
And what about games that exist on multiple platforms, like PC, XBox and PS3? Are those somehow not 'native'? What is the difference with Mac OS?

Obviously, Scali. Compiled initially for an intended OS. Go out and buy an Windows app and try installing it on OSX. Go out and buy an OSX app and try running it in Windows.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Yes. Yes he did.

"Why bother when there are native Linux and OSX applications ?"

He did that there, I was referring to his earlier statement:
"And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac."

He didn't use the word 'native' there.
There basically is no valid reason (not that a vague term like 'native' would ever be valid in any context whatsoever) for him not to accept something like MacDX.
So basically I have shown him DirectX on linux and Mac, case closed.

And as I already said, I see no reason to NOT consider an application compiled for Mac OS, using MacDX, as a 'native' application.

Regardless, he used it.
And of course there is a valid reason. He has what he needs.
So you've shown him altered and recompiled apps that can "emulate" DX on Linux and Mac. So what? Case closed? There was never a "case" to begin with. You invented the case. You called out Modelworks into this thread, with a smiley no less because you couldn't get over the last argument you guys had. You baited him. You started the fire. Now put it out.

Ok, enough time invested in this. I'm bored.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Obviously, Scali. Compiled initially for an intended OS. Go out and buy an Windows app and try installing it on OSX. Go out and buy an OSX app and try running it in Windows.

If it's so obvious, why did you pick out the word 'compile'?
I really don't see your point.

You can run Windows apps on OS X by the way. Plenty of solutions, such as Parallels. Which is what I would consider 'non-native', as opposed to compiled for OS X, not requiring any external applications or libraries, hence 'native'.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
So you've shown him altered and recompiled apps that can "emulate" DX on Linux and Mac. So what? Case closed? There was never a "case" to begin with.

That's what he asked to see, and I showed him:
"And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac."
Most games on Mac are ported from the PC, and still use DirectX in the Mac-version.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

And besides, I'm pretty sure Modelwork's quote here, "And will remain so until I see directx on linux and Mac." meant that the operating systems themselves (OSX and Linux) support DirectX natively. As of now, they do not.

Modelworks, did I correctly interpret your quote? Or did I not?

You understood me correctly.
My point was simply that most of the professional applications already run with OpenGL so porting them to other OS is usually done using the API because it already exist on those OS.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You understood me correctly.
My point was simply that most of the professional applications already run with OpenGL so porting them to other OS is usually done using the API because it already exist on those OS.

Thing is however... OpenGL existed long before Direct3D did... and historically professional software was developed with OpenGL on *nix systems...
As these *nix systems became less popular, the software was ported to Windows... initially with OpenGL... So far so good...
However, there are two remarkable things going on here:
1) Some of these developers started using Direct3D on Windows, even though they already HAD an OpenGL implementation.
2) Even though with the advent of linux, *nix platforms became more popular again, not many developers made an effort to port their applications back to *nix, even though most of these professional applications do have a *nix 'bloodline', and do have an OpenGL rendering backend.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
You understood me correctly.
My point was simply that most of the professional applications already run with OpenGL so porting them to other OS is usually done using the API because it already exist on those OS.

Thing is however... OpenGL existed long before Direct3D did... and historically professional software was developed with OpenGL on *nix systems...
As these *nix systems became less popular, the software was ported to Windows... initially with OpenGL... So far so good...
However, there are two remarkable things going on here:
1) Some of these developers started using Direct3D on Windows, even though they already HAD an OpenGL implementation.
2) Even though with the advent of linux, *nix platforms became more popular again, not many developers made an effort to port their applications back to *nix, even though most of these professional applications do have a *nix 'bloodline', and do have an OpenGL rendering backend.

Nothing remarkable about it. 3dsmax added DX because of the games market. Maya has DX support but I don't know anyone who uses that mode for work except the gaming market. Maya has issues with things like fur and DX and Autodesk doesn't seem too concerned about improving .

unix type OS has become more popular lately with the general user, but never stopped being popular in the professional market. I can't think of any studios that ran unix and switched to windows because of lack of software support. All the major graphics applications that had unix support are still supported in unix OS. It isn't hard to see why developers stay focused on solid OpenGL support. Their user base is there and it is easy to port the applications to other platforms.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
3dsmax added DX because of the games market. Maya has DX support but I don't know anyone who uses that mode for work except the gaming market. Maya has issues with things like fur and DX and Autodesk doesn't seem too concerned about improving.

Because of the games market?
Doesn't make sense to me, since there's no relation between the API used for the modeling, and the API used in the actual game.

Not even if you consider 'gaming' videocards, because all popular gaming cards support both OpenGL and Direct3D.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All the major graphics applications that had unix support are still supported in unix OS.

So you don't consider Autocad a 'major graphics application'?
...
...
...
...

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It isn't hard to see why developers stay focused on solid OpenGL support. Their user base is there and it is easy to port the applications to other platforms.

Actually it's VERY hard to see, when Autodesk actually ADDS Direct3D support to applications with existing OpenGL support, and then RECOMMENDS using D3D over OpenGL.
Being a Windows-only application for years, apparently portability is not high on the list for Autocad.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
3dsmax added DX because of the games market. Maya has DX support but I don't know anyone who uses that mode for work except the gaming market. Maya has issues with things like fur and DX and Autodesk doesn't seem too concerned about improving.

Because of the games market?
Doesn't make sense to me, since there's no relation between the API used for the modeling, and the API used in the actual game.

Not even if you consider 'gaming' videocards, because all popular gaming cards support both OpenGL and Direct3D.

One of the reasons why 3dsmax is popular with game development is its support of DX in the viewports. Developers can see what their model and textures will look like in the game without ever leaving max. They can also import DX shaders and export DX shaders ready to use in games.

So you don't consider Autocad a 'major graphics application'?

When I said graphics applications I meant applications designed for graphics work in film and animation.

Autocad in its current design was never a unix application. It started there but the code is so different from the original that the only thing they share is the name. It is like comparing 3d studio with 3d studio max. It shares the name but they are really two totally different applications.

Actually it's VERY hard to see, when Autodesk actually ADDS Direct3D support to applications with existing OpenGL support, and then RECOMMENDS using D3D over OpenGL.
Being a Windows-only application for years, apparently portability is not high on the list for Autocad.

The Autocad team is preparing for a OSX Autocad after they asked about interest in a OSX Autocad and received over 20,000 replies. It is one of the top requested ports submitted to Autodesk.

As to what they recommend, the applications saying D3D are AutoCad. The rest use either one or OpenGL exclusively. Also many other companies important to the graphics community only support OpenGL. Looking at the list I can't see how anyone can say they are all moving to DX.

From requirements.

3dsmax : Direct3D 10, Direct3D 9, or OpenGL-capable graphics card, 128 MB
Maya: Qualified hardware-accelerated OpenGL® graphics card
Mudbox: Qualified hardware-accelerated OpenGL® graphics card
Alias design: Graphics card and driver must fully support the OpenGL® 2.0 specification
Combustion: Qualified hardware-accelerated OpenGL® graphics card
Alias Surface: Graphics card and driver must fully support the OpenGL® 2.0 specification
XSI win: Support for OGL 2.0 and higher and DX 9.0c and higher

Other major applications used in graphics work:
zbrush : OpenGL capable graphics card
Silo: OpenGL capable graphics card
Lightwave: Full OpenGL (OpenGL 2.0 support)
Cinema4D: OpenGL 2.0
Rhino3d: OpenGL graphic card recommended
Vue xStream: An OpenGL accelerated video board is not required, but is a big plus.
N sided quidam: 24-bits Graphic card (or 32 bits) OpenGL compatible
Pixar renderman or renderman studio : OpenGL 2.0
Blender : Open GL Graphics Card
Modo: Graphics card with OpenGL support

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
One of the reasons why 3dsmax is popular with game development is its support of DX in the viewports. Developers can see what their model and textures will look like in the game without ever leaving max. They can also import DX shaders and export DX shaders ready to use in games.

Wow, where to begin?
1) 3dsmax didn't get popular overnight. It's been one of the main modeling packages long before Windows, OpenGL or D3D ever existed. It's not like its popularity is a result of its DX support.
2) It has been possible for years to load your graphics engine as a viewport renderer in most major modeling applications.
3) Just loading some DX shaders isn't necessarily going to give you the same results as an actual game engine
4) It's not like HLSL and GLSL are worlds apart, so who cares what formats it can import and export?
5) Importing .fx shaders yes... but exporting them? No version of 3dsmax I've ever used has supported that, and I don't see it listed here either: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...teID=123112&id=8108755

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
One of the reasons why 3dsmax is popular with game development is its support of DX in the viewports. Developers can see what their model and textures will look like in the game without ever leaving max. They can also import DX shaders and export DX shaders ready to use in games.

Wow, where to begin?
1) 3dsmax didn't get popular overnight. It's been one of the main modeling packages long before Windows, OpenGL or D3D ever existed. It's not like its popularity is a result of its DX support.

I never said it was. I said one of the reasons for its popularity with games is its ability to work with directx and shaders that are commonly used in gaming.

2) It has been possible for years to load your graphics engine as a viewport renderer in most major modeling applications.

Load the engine no. Display the textures yes. The difference is that max allows developers to see the shaders, animated textures and lighting as close to the engine result as possible without exporting. Previously they could only display the image and direct export was not possible, instead one had to export images then run another application to convert those.

3) Just loading some DX shaders isn't necessarily going to give you the same results as an actual game engine

Not 100% , but very close. From the help file:

The DirectX Shader material enables you to shade objects in viewports using DirectX (Direct3D) shaders. With DirectX shading, materials in a viewport more accurately represent how the material will appear in another application, or on other hardware such as a game engine. You can use this material only when you are using the Direct3D Display driver and DirectX 9.0 or DirectX 10.0 is chosen as the Direct3D version.

4) It's not like HLSL and GLSL are worlds apart, so who cares what formats it can import and export?

Importing and exporting is a big deal with graphics applications. Having to use a 3rd party app to convert files just adds another step that has to be performed .

5) Importing .fx shaders yes... but exporting them? No version of 3dsmax I've ever used has supported that, and I don't see it listed here either: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/s...teID=123112&id=8108755

Yes it exports them as well , has for the past 4 or 5 versions.
Material Editor, click material, then select Save as .Fx file

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I never said it was. I said one of the reasons for its popularity with games is its ability to work with directx and shaders that are commonly used in gaming.

Which I think is a gross misrepresentation.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Load the engine no.

Uhh, yes it can. You can build a viewport renderer via the plugin interface.
Unlike you, I'm not talking out of my arse, but actually talking from experience.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Importing and exporting is a big deal with graphics applications. Having to use a 3rd party app to convert files just adds another step that has to be performed .

Which isn't a big deal, as we've been building games without these features for decades.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I never said it was. I said one of the reasons for its popularity with games is its ability to work with directx and shaders that are commonly used in gaming.

Which I think is a gross misrepresentation.

That is your opinion , I disagree.

Originally posted by: Scali
Uhh, yes it can. You can build a viewport renderer via the plugin interface.
Unlike you, I'm not talking out of my arse, but actually talking from experience.

List the game engines that run inside a max viewport.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Importing and exporting is a big deal with graphics applications. Having to use a 3rd party app to convert files just adds another step that has to be performed .

Originally posted by: Scali
Which isn't a big deal, as we've been building games without these features for decades.

Just because you do something one way doesn't mean you have to keep doing it that way. Before I had to resize textures in photoshop for them to display correctly inside Max. Now max has the ability to resize textures inside the interface. I can still do it the old way, but this saves me work.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
List the game engines that run inside a max viewport.

What's with this list obsession you have? Just because you've never heard of something, or don't understand how it is possible, it can't be?
Ask any developer and they'll tell you it's possible.
I've done it, and I got the idea from another developer, so I am not the only one. But what gives you the idea that I would somehow be able to produce a list of what every other developer in the world does?

You can do V-Ray ActiveShade in a viewport aswell (if that is what it takes to convince you):
http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/rt100/render_3dsmax.htm

Bottom line: haha you lose.

 

[Kakkoii]

I just softmodded my old x1650pro into a FireGL v5200 yesterday. Scores in SPECViewperf rose around 8-10 times! Quite awesome.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
List the game engines that run inside a max viewport.

What's with this list obsession you have? Just because you've never heard of something, or don't understand how it is possible, it can't be?
Ask any developer and they'll tell you it's possible.
I've done it, and I got the idea from another developer, so I am not the only one. But what gives you the idea that I would somehow be able to produce a list of what every other developer in the world does?

The reason you cannot produce a list is because it is not done with game engines. There are many people that have tried over the years but quit. If you have done it then Autodesk would love to hear from you since as of Feb. 2009 they are informing people that it is a waste of time to attempt. Developers agree since the DX shader support inside viewports are already sufficient to get the work done.

You can do V-Ray ActiveShade in a viewport aswell (if that is what it takes to convince you):
http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/rt100/render_3dsmax.htm

Bottom line: haha you lose.

And you can display a preview in the last 6 versions of max in the viewports. But then that is not a game engine. The closest application that does what you suggest is blender which does implement a game engine in the viewports.

BTW V-Ray RT is CPU based not GPU so using it for game previews work would be pointless.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I just softmodded my old x1650pro into a FireGL v5200 yesterday. Scores in SPECViewperf rose around 8-10 times! Quite awesome.

What did you score on the Maya scenes ? That is the one that seems to take the most performance hits between the pro and game cards .

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I just softmodded my old x1650pro into a FireGL v5200 yesterday. Scores in SPECViewperf rose around 8-10 times! Quite awesome.

What did you score on the Maya scenes ? That is the one that seems to take the most performance hits between the pro and game cards .

I think I remember Duvie flashed a GeForce 5800??? to a Quadro a long while ago.

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I just softmodded my old x1650pro into a FireGL v5200 yesterday. Scores in SPECViewperf rose around 8-10 times! Quite awesome.

What did you score on the Maya scenes ? That is the one that seems to take the most performance hits between the pro and game cards .

8.03 as x1650pro
73.78 as v5200

 

[Kakkoii]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Kakkoii
I just softmodded my old x1650pro into a FireGL v5200 yesterday. Scores in SPECViewperf rose around 8-10 times! Quite awesome.

What did you score on the Maya scenes ? That is the one that seems to take the most performance hits between the pro and game cards .

I think I remember Duvie flashed a GeForce 5800??? to a Quadro a long while ago.

Yeah, the last GeForce cards you can flash into Quadro's are the G80 version 8000 series. Which are still pretty darn good.

8800 GTS to Quadro FX 4600
http://www.techarp.com/showart....aspx?artno=539&pgno=1

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The reason you cannot produce a list is because it is not done with game engines. There are many people that have tried over the years but quit. If you have done it then Autodesk would love to hear from you since as of Feb. 2009 they are informing people that it is a waste of time to attempt. Developers agree since the DX shader support inside viewports are already sufficient to get the work done.

Wow, you really don't have a clue.
Why would I have to inform Autodesk that their plugin system can do exactly what they designed it to do?
And yea, perhaps it would be a waste of time these days... But that doesn't mean it isn't possible or that it wasn't done in the past, when there was more to gain.
You have lots of trouble trying to stick to the point (only moments ago you were claiming it's not possible. Now that I have proven that it is, you change your line of argument that it is a waste of time. Who cares? That wasn't the point, completely different context). You keep sidetracking when you get caught out on yet another thing where you were talking out of your arse.
I think it's best if you just keep your big mouth shut.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
BTW V-Ray RT is CPU based not GPU so using it for game previews work would be pointless.

I knew you weren't as smart as you are pretending, but I didn't expect you to be THIS thick.
Obviously V-Ray RT illustrates the point that 3dsmax allows custom plugins to take over the viewport rendering.
Going from that to a plugin based on an actual game engine is a pretty logical step to people who have somewhat of a clue.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Scali
Bottom line: haha you lose.

Wow, you really don't have a clue.

I think it's best if you just keep your big mouth shut.

I knew you weren't as smart as you are pretending, but I didn't expect you to be THIS thick.

Do you really need to say all that to make your point? Modelworks never resorted to personal attacks. It just makes YOU look bad.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The reason you cannot produce a list is because it is not done with game engines. There are many people that have tried over the years but quit. If you have done it then Autodesk would love to hear from you since as of Feb. 2009 they are informing people that it is a waste of time to attempt. Developers agree since the DX shader support inside viewports are already sufficient to get the work done.

Wow, you really don't have a clue.
Why would I have to inform Autodesk that their plugin system can do exactly what they designed it to do?
And yea, perhaps it would be a waste of time these days... But that doesn't mean it isn't possible or that it wasn't done in the past, when there was more to gain.
You have lots of trouble trying to stick to the point (only moments ago you were claiming it's not possible. Now that I have proven that it is, you change your line of argument that it is a waste of time. Who cares? That wasn't the point, completely different context). You keep sidetracking when you get caught out on yet another thing where you were talking out of your arse.
I think it's best if you just keep your big mouth shut.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
BTW V-Ray RT is CPU based not GPU so using it for game previews work would be pointless.

I knew you weren't as smart as you are pretending, but I didn't expect you to be THIS thick.
Obviously V-Ray RT illustrates the point that 3dsmax allows custom plugins to take over the viewport rendering.
Going from that to a plugin based on an actual game engine is a pretty logical step to people who have somewhat of a clue.

Forwarded to AT Mod account.