You have a point wit but there is a slight difference that everyone using windows will benefit.
If it was Intel helping out with code then there is possibility of the same situation of hindering the performance on AMD.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
BATMANGATE - Nvidia bows to public pressure over AA
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
You have a point wit but there is a slight difference that everyone using windows will benefit.
If it was Intel helping out with code then there is possibility of the same situation of hindering the performance on AMD.
What you meant to say would be
I just read the whole thread and you gave your position away with this post.
You can't claim to be anything other then very bias with your subjective analysis of the reasoning behind the code.
I could not care one way or the other about the game, but what does strike me as odd is the fact it runs without issue on ATI, and the publisher initially never sought to involve ATI originally.
You could even imagine a scenario where the code was originally universal, but made exclusive due to some back office agreement.
If the code did originate from Nvidia as claimed, then as already mentioned it is IP and would have a license agreement.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 235
- Location
- Leeds/Northampton
Erm... AA isn't that great? Now before you accuse me of trolling. Eidos made a decision to make a game with an engine that needs work to support AA and couldn't be bothered to implement themselves. They chose that engine because it seems to do lighting really well. Lighting is more impotant than AA.
Quid Pro Quo Ergo- Eidos is to unblame for all this.
Quid Pro Quo Ergo- Eidos is to unblame for all this.
A GPU Does not have to support AA to be DX compliant.
Simple economic trade off unfortunately.
The games industry really has a set of specialist roles:
Game Engine/Tool creator - creates an engine and toolset as a COTS product.
Game design - buys in the COTS engine and implements a game based on their design.
Edios is the second and if they have an in-house engine, it's not going to have much funding as it's probably only used by their own games. So if any graphics card vendor agrees to add to that game engine it's likely that they'l jump at the chance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
Of course he is bias, he would do anything possible to defend Nvidia and put ATi down. I sometimes wonder if he is paid by NV to peddle Physics this, ATi dev is awful, NV is the best ever, you know nothing because I am a top games developer better than Cormack etc etc etc etc
Rather than pointless attacks on me how about demonstrating how anything I have said in this thead is incorrect.
The big fuss is that originally people believed incorrectly that Batman AA had a standard multisampling implementation and that the developer had been paid off to unfairly disable that when a non-nVidia card was present - everyone called foul - fair enough but then they jumped on the most popular bandwagon to bash without stopping to comprehend what the information we have really tells us... worse they then bash anyone who tries to show them.
The fact of the matter is that the game engine doesn't actually support a standard implementation and for whatever reason a generic or vendor specific implementation for GPUs other than nVidia is missing from the game... there is nothing beyond speculation, misunderstanding and conjecture as to the exact reason why.
As to the question as to why the nVidia proprietary code appears to work fine on ATI cards - some people did some digging and the information they came up with is that most of the implementation that nVidia developed is based on the "text book" method for implementing multisampling with deferred shading with only around 15% of the code containing nVidia specific tweaks and optimizations and is still close enough to the vendor agnostic version of the code that it will likely still work on other hardware - just unpredictable results - as such this part of the code is vendor locked and covered by an agreement that prevents anyone else reusing it... so infact ATI and rocksteady/eidos do have the ability to work on around 3/4 of the nVidia code - infact it is already running on ATI hardware - its just the final resolve functionality that is missing - a relatively small amount of code compared to the entire implementation.
The fact of the matter is that the game engine doesn't actually support a standard implementation and for whatever reason a generic or vendor specific implementation for GPUs other than nVidia is missing from the game... there is nothing beyond speculation, misunderstanding and conjecture as to the exact reason why.
As to the question as to why the nVidia proprietary code appears to work fine on ATI cards - some people did some digging and the information they came up with is that most of the implementation that nVidia developed is based on the "text book" method for implementing multisampling with deferred shading with only around 15% of the code containing nVidia specific tweaks and optimizations and is still close enough to the vendor agnostic version of the code that it will likely still work on other hardware - just unpredictable results - as such this part of the code is vendor locked and covered by an agreement that prevents anyone else reusing it... so infact ATI and rocksteady/eidos do have the ability to work on around 3/4 of the nVidia code - infact it is already running on ATI hardware - its just the final resolve functionality that is missing - a relatively small amount of code compared to the entire implementation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 5,622
- Location
- West London
Rroff, if you think Nvidia would not do anything to make sure they are the only ones that can run it, then I hope they pay you well to preach.
I've been quite plain many times on this and related subjects such as lucid hydra that I wouldn't put it past nVidia to do so - but that we have nothing of real substance when the data we have is examined to link them to doing so.
If anyone does - I'd be quite happy to sling mud at nVidia - I'm not sure why around these parts disliking ATI automatically equates having a hard on for nVidia - I've been clear many times that I find their morals questionable at best and their methods sometimes leave a bad taste... but at the end of the day time after time they have actually got things done - when ATI haven't.
Getting on the ball with DX11 is the first really positive move from ATI I've seen (oh that and they've completely turned around their drivers lately).
If anyone does - I'd be quite happy to sling mud at nVidia - I'm not sure why around these parts disliking ATI automatically equates having a hard on for nVidia - I've been clear many times that I find their morals questionable at best and their methods sometimes leave a bad taste... but at the end of the day time after time they have actually got things done - when ATI haven't.
Getting on the ball with DX11 is the first really positive move from ATI I've seen (oh that and they've completely turned around their drivers lately).
Despite the fact that many people around here get labelled an ATi fanboy for disliking nVidia?
You've done the same yourself to be honest.
I was talking in the context of certain peoples response to every other post I've made... I'm sure it happens the other way around too in a wider sense and I dislike it just as much.
I don't recall calling anyone a fanboy soley on the grounds of them disliking nvidia... but if you can point out where I have I'll be sure to properly chastise myself.
I don't recall calling anyone a fanboy soley on the grounds of them disliking nvidia... but if you can point out where I have I'll be sure to properly chastise myself.
Rroff, seriously, just drop it! Every thread I read seems to have you banging on about how ATI should try harder, putting some spin on nVidia's dirty tricks, then asking anybody who dares challenge your infinite wisdom to prove anything!
Ironically you yourself never prove anything, and simply speculate based on your own, obviously biased opinion, and your grand knowledge of the industry and a deep insight into the souls of the ATI guys at the top.
I'm not telling you to change what you quite clearly believe, but stop trying to force it down the throat of everyone else, when we all quite clearly believe nVidia were/are in the wrong.
Thanks
Ironically you yourself never prove anything, and simply speculate based on your own, obviously biased opinion, and your grand knowledge of the industry and a deep insight into the souls of the ATI guys at the top.
I'm not telling you to change what you quite clearly believe, but stop trying to force it down the throat of everyone else, when we all quite clearly believe nVidia were/are in the wrong.
Thanks
Either contribute to the discussion at hand or shut it.
Same goes to all of you for that matter... if you have anything to contribute to the topic that sheds some light on the matter, either correcting or backing up my opinion or facts go ahead... if you just wanna bitch at me my details are in trust.
