As the post above my previous one... nvidia doesn't "seem" to have a problem with the implementation from scratch of an ATI routine for custom multisampling... they do have a problem with them re-using nvidia code as a base for it... fair enough.
-
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.
AMD & nVidia at it again over Batman
- Thread starter BubbySoup
- Start date
So let me get this right......
Nvidia pay for and develop AA for BAA now ATI want them to allow their cards to run this despite not contributing anything to the development process
Do not understand ATI's stance here they must be really worried about Nvidia coming back to dominate the DX11 landscape. For years ATI have done minimal games development work despite nothing preventing them from doing as much as Nvidia to ensure PC games are optimised & look great.
Its very simple if ATI feel this strongly about it instead of trying to blag it for free via pointless email exchanges put some of their developer team onto creating a superior AA solution on ATI cards only for Unreal Engine games. Surely thats the way forward for ATI (but obviously it will cost them so as always ATI do nothing).
Nvidia pay for and develop AA for BAA now ATI want them to allow their cards to run this despite not contributing anything to the development process
Do not understand ATI's stance here they must be really worried about Nvidia coming back to dominate the DX11 landscape. For years ATI have done minimal games development work despite nothing preventing them from doing as much as Nvidia to ensure PC games are optimised & look great.
Its very simple if ATI feel this strongly about it instead of trying to blag it for free via pointless email exchanges put some of their developer team onto creating a superior AA solution on ATI cards only for Unreal Engine games. Surely thats the way forward for ATI (but obviously it will cost them so as always ATI do nothing
).
follow advice on this to allow ATI to use AA on batman.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18072720
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18072720
Sorry I had to pick up on this... "offering the world's best support for DirectX 9, 10 and 10.1 games too!" um ok then... nvidia is undisputedly the most active in supporting DX9 and 10 games... they only lack in the DX11 arena because they don't have the hardware yet... and DX11 is the first time I have ever seen any real effort from ATI to positively support developers.... long may it last even tho I'm not holding my breath.
ok just to put things in perspective here (as i understand it from that article). the game engine does not have native AA support so Nvidia wrote this for edios, ATI are complaning that they shouldnt be being stoped from using that code.
now ofcourse the legal side of things is both sides blaming the other as niether want to admit being wrong.
edit beaten to it by AWPC
now ofcourse the legal side of things is both sides blaming the other as niether want to admit being wrong.
edit beaten to it by AWPC
and how do you work that one out. Nvidia do all the work for AMD to make a phone call and say "add it for us too"
What this shows how far AMD are behind the times in development. They cant even write there own code ffs
So the IPR here is AA, it would be interesting to understand the specifics as AA has been around for donkey's years and thus prior art exists. If this is optimised AA based off game scene content pre-rendering then I think that has probably been around for some time as prior art too..
You ever think that support could mean the amount of whql driver releases that ati do compared to nvidia's "once in a blue moon can't be arsed strategy"?
Yeah because fermi is out there right now and whooping all kinds of ass....oh wait....
Even when the ludicrously named "fermi" makes its appearence its not as if ati won't have something waiting in the wings to counter it be it a price drop, driver boost or a core with higher clockspeeds. At the minute its nvidia losing the "fight" and not ati.
Dunno what your talking about... nvidia have had new drivers supporting games promptly atleast by the game release sometimes a week or so before... and up until recently they were always good stable drivers even if not always WHQL...
Shame the recent sets of drivers have been a horrendous mess
Shame the recent sets of drivers have been a horrendous mess
Thanks Gerard, re-reading it now I can see that NVIDIA must have done something, I just suppose the fact that it all works on ATi hardware with a VendorID change just grates at me...
To be honest the people I blame for this more than anyone is the game publishers who have allowed themselves to be used like this, whilst (for now) NVIDIA are generally speaking the leaders in this sector surely they knew that ATi also hold a large percentage of the mindset in the gaming community, more than enough to care about.
PhysX, that's right PisX did this to us, "Oh come on lets get some new tech into our new game" which then locked them into NVIDIA and so the whole sorry story is unfolding, proprietory tech has no place in gaming and please don't anyone tell me that ATi are free to licence it from NVIDIA, why would anyone licence anything from that corporate monster and yes I am NVIDIA bashing now...
That wasn't to you Gerard, just the first sentence, I needed to rant
J.
Of course, a lot of the DirectX 11 code going into DiRT 2 likely has been written by AMD - should that be disabled for Nvidia users for when Fermi comes out?
Of course not, and if it is, shame on AMD too. This sort of **** segregates the PC gaming market and in all, makes it less desirable for developers to target, as it divides their potential target audience by alienating consumers.
I don't think anyone would disagree that nVidia can quite rightly protect their code and/or disallow another company (in this case, their rival) from using it. We can also agree that AMD can be/have been pretty slack when it comes to stepping up and doing this themselves.
The problem comes with TWIMTBP titles - AMD are pretty much locked out from doing anything. All they seem to be able to do is submit a list of problems encountered when using their hardware - which the developers then ignore.
Now its great that a hardware vendor wants to pour cash into development - it's not so great when that cash comes with strings attached that will affect a large user base of the end product if they don't happen to be using that particular hardware.
The problem comes with TWIMTBP titles - AMD are pretty much locked out from doing anything. All they seem to be able to do is submit a list of problems encountered when using their hardware - which the developers then ignore.
Now its great that a hardware vendor wants to pour cash into development - it's not so great when that cash comes with strings attached that will affect a large user base of the end product if they don't happen to be using that particular hardware.
With NFS Shift its 6 to one and half a dozen to the other... the developer asked ATI to implement some features that would make the game run better on their hardware - and they didn't want to know... so fixing things for ATI cards was reduced as a priority... :S
Exactly. AMD leave it to MS/OpenGL whereas nVidia attempt to make their own headway.
ATI need to point this out and make it a problem in the public's mind. A sort of bringing the opposition back to a level playing field.
If Nvidia paid for the coding I find it normal practice they would do anything to stop their only rival from using it.
It's more or less the same when Microsoft or Sony gets exclusivity with a 360/PS3 game when it could very well run on the other machine.
Tiss standard business practice methinks.
It's more or less the same when Microsoft or Sony gets exclusivity with a 360/PS3 game when it could very well run on the other machine.
Tiss standard business practice methinks.