-
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.
CPR W3 on Hairworks(Nvidia Game Works)-'the code of this feature cannot be optimized for AMD'
- Thread starter tommybhoy
- Start date
I have tried my damnedest not to sound like a #### here but you keep pushing this despite my already explaining this over and over again.
I don't know what your experience is but it appears you don't understand the difference between a Physics API and Physics libraries.
The Physics API is the engine, in the case of Bullet being an API as opposed to libraries is a blank canvas, it is the tool to make whatever is in your head a reality.
Physics libraries is a basket of someone else's paintings. (Games Works)
So you may now see there is no need for me to rewrite or make my own Physics API, Bullet is what i need it to be, a tool-set to make my own stuff from scratch.
Another reason this is important to me is because i do not need to worry about what hardware the end user has in his PC, Bullet really does not care about that, it just does what its meant to do on all platforms and do it equally well.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,600
- Location
- Cornwall
Is there proof it runs equally well? (Genuine question)
Also, since you can produce something that does what GameWorks does, then presumably you've used GameWorks too?
So you know what it gives you in regards to HairWorks so that you can recreate it?
It uses open source compute instructions so the only thing it depends on is how powerful the hardware is, not what it it.
Bullet will do Hair Works / TressFX yes, because i can tell it to do that (Blank Canvas)
You may have seen Nvidia's Grass Works demo, here is my first attempt at it using Bullet, its not as pretty ecte... but thats down to my skill and the work i put into it, which wasn't a lot, the 'Physics' of it is there.
I know technically its not like Hair Works, its grass not hair, but they are actually the same thing in technical terms.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
No point adding anymore to this thread, i already mentioned something that would fit in well with the above post.
Very nice humbug, In my opinion it show that grass/hair effects can be done with non hairworks/tressFX stuff and as you say it may not be as good as their demos but you are just a hobbyist programmer and not a full time game programmer so that is to be expected.
As to the main question of why Gameworks and tressFX style libraries. Let me ask you all this. Why are we using windows and not still using dos, because it makes things easier.
and good point on your Dos thingy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,600
- Location
- Cornwall
Isn't that the case with PhysX too? Performance is based on CUDA cores? So only depends on how many CUDA cores you have?
If AMD have much stronger compute instructions then it seems like it won't run equally well?
Also, you didn't mention if you'd tried using GameWorks as a basis for comparison?
Very nice humbug, In my opinion it show that grass/hair effects can be done with non hairworks/tressFX stuff and as you say it may not be as good as their demos but you are just a hobbyist programmer and not a full time game programmer so that is to be expected.
As to the main question of why Gameworks and tressFX style libraries. Let me ask you all this. Why are we using windows and not still using dos, because it makes things easier.
I'm using it because it does what I want it to do. Also it doesn't have that pesky 640K RAM limit thing.
Which is presumably why developer use GameWorks rather than doing it themselves. I feel at some point this turned into a what Humbug wants it for rather than a what game developers want it for.
Maybe the developers don't get a choice because the decision was made much higher up that it would be used.
Otherwise we can only assume the developers as Ubisoft and CD Projekt (or anyone else that uses GameWorks) don't have Humbug's level of knowledge about these things and were unaware of blender and Maya.
Last edited:
CUDA Cores is the name NV gave their shaders, AMD call them GCN Stream Processors.
The peak compute performance of the GTX Titan is 4.449 GFlops
The peak compute performance of the R9 290X is 5.632 GFlops
As you can see the 290X is significantly more powerful.
CUDA is Nvidia's Compute engine, it will not run on AMD because Nvidia don't want it to, and thats fine as far as i'm concerned.
AMD use OpenCL instead, Nvidia will also run OpenCL.
Nvidia PhysX = CUDA engine.
AMD Physics, TressFX, Ridged Body Physics.... the later of the two is demoed as the Cylinder and Ball Physics in my Video. Also none Physics compute; 3D shadows, Global illumination....
Everything that runs on AMD, even what is AMD developed also runs on Nvidia through OpenCL.
"640K RAM" you have been reading too much Bill Gates
I'm not going to comment on why Dev's chose to use Physics Libraries like Games Works and TressFX, i think i may have already hinted as to why i think that is, in fact i did, but it is not because i know something they don't, they know!
But some of that is not really relevant to GPU's, as Bullet by default runs on the CPU, tho it can be programmed to run on the GPU.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I questioned a Lichdom developer on this very point and I found their attitude to be very strange. They said they purposely disabled TressFX on Nvidia GPUs as: "We delivered TressFX on AMD hardware as part of our partnership with AMD.".
I reminded the developer that according to AMD's own material the performance hit is the same on Nvidia and AMD GPUs and it goes against AMD's ethos to disable non-proprietary, vendor-agnostic features and fosters the impression that TressFX is a locked, closed-source entity like GPU PhysX. This couldn't be further from the truth, it would be a negative for TressFX to be in the same category as PhysX, so I think this is a developer decision. However, AMD should really be much more vigilant and make sure things like this do not happen as it hurts their brand image.
After informing the developer of this I was met with complete silence. I found that others have also brought this up only to be met with silence as well.
Here is a link to my thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/261760/discussions/2/620700960748580422/
Last edited:
I was aware of this before LoadsofMoney brought it here and im sure its because he was reading my conversation on another forum which resulted in this getting brought up, then some hours later it gets posted here, i wanted info that AMD asked him to disable it which he would not produce, i was going to then post it here to show that developers can be biased as its not something AMD would ask for when it comes to TressFX or any other of there compatible features.
If it was found out that AMD asked for such action then they would be getting a serious bashing from me because blocking things that work and not allowing others to optimized for there hardware even after release is BS.
Yes, it would be crazy for AMD to ask the developer to disable the feature on NVidia GPUs given the image they are trying to cultivate. I just don't see it being likely. They didn't ask for it to be disabled in Tomb Raider which was a much higher-profile game, so why here?
By the way, I really liked TressFX on my GTX 690 in Tomb Raider, I was hoping I'd see more of it and that it would evolve to be even better. The only mention of it has been the new Deus Ex game and I assume the new Tomb Raider; I wish AMD would get it in more games as I think it's superior to Hairworks.
Well TressFX first iteration had less of performance hit than Hairworks.
TressFX 2.0 is used in Tomb Raider Definitive Edition on PS4 which is even more optimized,
Rise of the Tomb Raider on the Xbox one will have even even more upto date TressFX implementation.
Good job bringing this up with the Dev ^^^, its a disturbing trend that does seem to be true, some Dev's taking Hardware Vendor sides, it seems AMD do have them too..
I tried to bring up a whole series of things Game Works and general fairplay on the W3 forum, like paying the same money for a product with lesser features depending on hardware.
It wasn't long before i had a Mod following me round deleting my posts as fast as i could make them, some points and questions they will let go, but if you get a little to close to something that could do them real damaged they have the forum Mods go into damage control mode.
I tried to bring up a whole series of things Game Works and general fairplay on the W3 forum, like paying the same money for a product with lesser features depending on hardware.
It wasn't long before i had a Mod following me round deleting my posts as fast as i could make them, some points and questions they will let go, but if you get a little to close to something that could do them real damaged they have the forum Mods go into damage control mode.
Last edited:
That's good to hear, here's hoping that TressFX is in many more games to counter all the Nvidia Gameworks titles because competition is always a good thing.
You can't really compare TressFX v Hairworks performance wise they work in different ways, doing different things - hairworks has a lot more low level lighting effects, etc. than first generation TressFX.
That's shocking! Although, I don't really know what the motivation of the Lichdom developers was; from some of their replies to other people they didn't seem to understand the benefits of TressFX and their whole attitude was rather odd as though they reluctantly implemented it as an inconvenient afterthought.
If I remember correctly, they also mentioned disabling it to "stop Nvidia users complaining about performance" (I'm sorry, can't find the quote to back this up"). I think if they could, they would have disabled it for AMD too since the performance hit is the same.