• 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.

Monster Hunter Online to now have TressFX in addition to Gameworks

AMD's licenses are no different of course:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/eula

3. ​RESTRICTIONS
Further restrictions regarding Your use of the Software are set forth below. You may not:
  • modify or create derivative works of the Software;
    distribute, publish, display, sublicense, assign or otherwise transfer the Software;
  • decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form (except as allowed by applicable law);
  • alter or remove any copyright, trademark or patent notice(s) in the Software; or
  • use the Software to: (i) develop inventions directly derived from confidential information to seek patent protection; (ii) assist in the analysis of Your patents and patent applications; or (iii) ​modify existing patents.​​
Click to expand...


Funny that, sounds identical to NVidia software license, almost like the same circle of lawyers used the same legal speak and added the same restrictions. Well I never.
 
D.P. said:
AMD's licenses are no different of course:
http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/eula

Funny that, sounds identical to NVidia software license, almost like the same circle of lawyers used the same legal speak and added the same restrictions. Well I never.
Click to expand...

I think that is just in reference to the catalyst suite. i think the OpenGPU and TressFX are under an open license. But that is understandable since it contains proprietary code.
 
Mauller said:
I think that is just in reference to the catalyst suite. i think the OpenGPU and TressFX are under an open license. But that is understandable since it contains proprietary code.
Click to expand...

And so does Gamesworks contain proprietary code, see how this works now?
 
D.P. said:
And so does Gamesworks contain proprietary code, see how this works now?
Click to expand...

But game-works is kind of in a grey area though. The code it is using is generic shader code written for another API. The amd drivers are specific to thier own hardwares functionality where as Gameworks is written for a generic api.
 
Mauller said:
But game-works is kind of in a grey area though. The code it is using is generic shader code written for another API. The amd drivers are specific to thier own hardwares functionality where as Gameworks is written for a generic api.
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant, the AMD driver is written against the windows API, so what. Doesn't matter what APis or other libraries you are using.
 
Without getting stuck into this debate, we all remember PCars and the lengthy debate about how Nvidia/SMS had purposefully crippled performance on AMD GPUs with PhysX being used but SMS responded and put the record straight. A few here jumped on the bandwagon and it worked out that AMD needed to optimise (which they hadn't done) but it just shows how easy it is to accuse others of this and that without knowing the facts.

I am sure someone will tell me I am wrong as well and blah blah blah but GameWorks/TressFX needs optimising at driver level and like the big argument between AMD and Nvidia, AMD don't need access to the code to optimise. Like anything that is demanding, if you can't run it, turn it down or disable it. Simples :)
 
D.P. said:
That is all completely standard and look like any software license. Ever read the license when installing software? its filled with that stuff. And it makes perfect sense, Nvidia is provided a closed source black box solution under the standard license, reverse engineering that is quite obviously against the license. Nvidia have a separate license for Gamesworks source



Which is also standard in any license, which is why you will often have to accept new license when upgrading software. If license cannot be updated then it can get very out of date.







They aren't meant to, but that has nothing to do with the discussion on this thread. The develop is knowingly using a black box solution and Nvidia have absolutely zero legal requirement to support their competitor. This is absolutely no different to any other closed source software. How am I supposed to optimize code for a Microsoft product when I don;t get to see the source code, where can I find the windows source code?


Of course, why would you expect anything else, this is all industry standard.



If the developer has licensed the source code for GW then they could optimize for AMD, it will cost them engineering time.



Which is to be expected, you act as if you are surprised. The game developer once an easy solution to reduce game develop time, Nvidia provides that. They aren't forced to use it, and are free to use other technologies like TressFX in unison.


I think you completely miss the objectives of Gamesworks, GW isn't about given developers source code, there is plenty of source code on the Nvidia website developers can download for free without any license. GW is about providing a black box solution that just works, that Nvidia has control over to continuously make improvements and additions to such as optimizations for new hardware. Since Nvidia is in control of the software then Nvidia can develop technologies that get shared with other developers, rather than developers making their own in-house solutions and keeping them private.




But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, or any of the ridiculous accusations that NVidia block AMD from adding TressFX, nothing could be further form the truth.
Click to expand...

okay fair enough, TBH i don't read every agreement when installing programs etc lol.
TBH i don't have a major issue with game works and i like the idea behind it. But as long as it's made where gamers have the option to turn on/off these settings in the game that's fine. And as long as game works doesn't start negatively affecting performance of the competitors. But as long as it can be turned off by the gamers that's fine.

I never thought nVidia blocked AMD from approaching developers and getting their tech implemented in the same games. I know it happend in GTA and that game was quite well optimised for both camps.
 
This game will be interesting since we can then finally compare TFX and Hairworks side by side. Let's see which turns out to be the better performer.
 
fs123 said:
This game will be interesting since we can then finally compare TFX and Hairworks side by side. Let's see which turns out to be the better performer.
Click to expand...

That's if it makes it to the rest of the world. Seems to be an asian thing only for now.
 
r7slayer said:
okay fair enough, TBH i don't read every agreement when installing programs etc lol.
TBH i don't have a major issue with game works and i like the idea behind it. But as long as it's made where gamers have the option to turn on/off these settings in the game that's fine. And as long as game works doesn't start negatively affecting performance of the competitors. But as long as it can be turned off by the gamers that's fine.

I never thought nVidia blocked AMD from approaching developers and getting their tech implemented in the same games. I know it happend in GTA and that game was quite well optimised for both camps.
Click to expand...

All fair enough.

It would be extremely evil of Nvidia to block developers form using AMD TressFX/etc. as well as gamesworks, it is also liely illegal or unenforceable. I would be extremely against Nvidia doing that kind of lock in, but they don't thankfully.

I don't care that gamesworks is closed source, there are pros and cons to open source. What I do like that NVidia does with GW since it is closed source is that Nvidia asks the developers what the developers want, Nvidia develops those features at Nvidia's expense, nvidia can then share those new features with any other developer. This actually happened with the Witcher 3. IN an open source environment tings aren't clear cut. A developer might download the TressFX openGPU SDK, invest a lot of time and effort making it better or adding new features and keep all of those improvements secret and in-house. Of course they could be generous and release them back to the open source community, but that would be giving their hardwork to competitors.



When people say a developer can't optimize a Gamesworks effect for AMD a hardware its very disingenuous because it misses the entire point of GW. The developer also can't optimize the effect for nvidia hardware actually, the whole point is they don;' have to spend time optimizing. Are people complaining that a developer can't optimize Gamesworks for Nvidia hardware? no, so I don't see why anyone should complain when the same applies to AMD hardware. If the developer wants to do micro-optimizations then they either have to license the source code, or go with a different solution. the developer knows that from the very start.I know if I make a windows program I can't suddenly ask Microsoft for windows source code., its just something you accept
 
Gregster said:
Without getting stuck into this debate, we all remember PCars and the lengthy debate about how Nvidia/SMS had purposefully crippled performance on AMD GPUs with PhysX being used but SMS responded and put the record straight. A few here jumped on the bandwagon and it worked out that AMD needed to optimise (which they hadn't done) but it just shows how easy it is to accuse others of this and that without knowing the facts.
Click to expand...

AMDRoy jumped the gun and shot his mouth off unsanctioned by AMD-nearly lost his job too, can remember the thread and laughed at AMD's embarrassing backtrack, needless to say AMDRoy disappeared and he got a name change.

Gregster said:
I am sure someone will tell me I am wrong as well and blah blah blah but GameWorks/TressFX needs optimising at driver level and like the big argument between AMD and Nvidia, AMD don't need access to the code to optimise. Like anything that is demanding, if you can't run it, turn it down or disable it. Simples :)
Click to expand...

Except when it gets properly optimised for all-no need to disable you can run it fine.

EQCrDgp.png


Why did Nvidia need and request a change of TFX code on TR greg?

Nvidia said don't run maximum settings until they got what they asked for(the irony), two separate versions were supplied by CD, one AMD friendly and the other was Nvidia friendly until a final vendor neutral fix for all was available.

Old ground and no one(in the switch it off they aren't doing anything wrong camp) ever, ever addresses the TR Nvidia code change request made above.
 
Last edited:
It crashed when running with TressFX, which I can attest to, hence why they needed it sorting. Good lord Tommy, you really are out to argue with all and sundry :(
 
Gregster said:
It crashed when running with TressFX, which I can attest to, hence why they needed it sorting. Good lord Tommy, you really are out to argue with all and sundry :(
Click to expand...

Why is it you can't have a discussion on here if you disagree with someone greg without throwing the bad tommy card?

If that's your tact, then why reply, is it because my post is solid?
 
tommybhoy said:
Why is it you can't have a discussion on here if you disagree with someone greg without throwing the bad tommy card?

If that's your tact, then why reply, is it because my post is solid?
Click to expand...

No, it is because you want to believe anything other than common sense man! You jump to conclusions when you should know better at your age and something my post was saying. People jump the gun without knowing what is what ALA PCars and then you try and justify it with some other form of drivel. Enough already and chill bud.
 
Did Nvidia's AB publicly state game side code change was needed to accommodate Nvidia TR-Yes or No?

The only common sense needed is digesting that Nvidia stated we need a code change, it's 100% unarguable.
 
Last edited:
tommybhoy said:
Did Nvidia's AB publicly state game side code change was needed to accommodate Nvidia TR-Yes or No?

The only common sense needed is digesting that Nvidia stated we need a code change, it's 100% unarguable.
Click to expand...

This being a case of; Not everything can be optimised in drivers.
 
Exactly

Cost of TressFX reduced
Click to expand...

We’ve been working closely with NVIDIA to address the issues experienced by some Tomb Raider players. In conjunction with this patch, NVIDIA will be releasing updated drivers that help to improve stability and performance of Tomb Raider on NVIDIA GeForce GPUs. We are continuing to work together to resolve any remaining outstanding issues. We recommend that GeForce users update to the latest GeForce 314.21 drivers (posting today) for the best experience in Tomb Raider.
Click to expand...

Fixed at the end of the day and ran good for everyone.



IiSf4k4.png

:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom