-
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,600
- Location
- Cornwall
But isn't that generally the point?
How many times do you hear that a game is coming out in March but it actually comes out in February?
Compare that to how many times you hear a game is coming out in March and it comes out in April, or even later?
Developers usually seem to have tight deadlines, which is probably often the reason for using an existing engine instead of writing a new one or using GameWorks rather than doing it yourself or not doing it at all. I doubt many developers think an engine is perfect or any of these 3rd party libraries are either, but given the choice of writing the perfect thing yourself and massively missing the deadline (probably not set by developers, but by the people that PAY the developers) or using something that's just about passable and releasing pretty much on time, what would most people go with?
Maybe IHV shouldn't need to be involved with all big releases (I doubt they're involved or need to be in every indie game) but it seems they are in a lot of cases to get the best out of things. AMD must see this, so why aren't they stepping up more?
Well the quote is "GameWorks source code is provided to developers that request it under license" So yes I would assume that if a developer is not a licensee they don't get access to the source code.
Well if that's the case i'd say it makes more sense for the developer licensee or not if they're using a specific gameworks effect, they should get the source code to go along with it, then they can optimise it for both vendors. At least that way the "black box dll" thing is taken out of the equation.
My personal opinion is the gpu vendors should be just that, they should be able to optomise the games for their cards etc but imo its causing far too much drama with vendors trying to push their own specific effects onto developers.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,600
- Location
- Cornwall
They can access it, they just need a license. We don't even know if that costs money or just requires them to agree to certain terms (i.e. not disclosing the code to AMD or Intel). Even if it does, Nvidia are a business and the sole point of a business is to make money. Helping people is what charities are for. (Note: As far as I'm aware AMD are not a charity either)
I can see you point and agree with it to a degree.
However, I don't recall (I may be forgetting something obvious) the last time a games company produced libraries for doing these sort of effects. They might do game engines, but not sure if they do effects libraries. Again, it probably boils down to a lack of time.
So if it weren't for Nvidia and AMD we wouldn't have Physics engines or hair 'engines' or any of the AA types they've introduced that have improved performance over the standard ones. Was it AMD that came up with HBAO?
So without AMD and Nvidia doing these sorts of things we might not have gotten them. We can't assume that without HairWorks and TressFX that Ubisoft would've decided to write these libraries and make them available to other developers.
I doubt we'll ever truly know if DX12 would've been like it is now or even existed if it wasn't for Mantle, but if Mantle has drastically shaped DX12 then without AMD and Nvidia doing these extra things DX12 might not have been that different from DX11 and who knows when it would actually be released.
Left up to developers what do we get? So far just Valve backing OpenGL.
Have AMD even got a driver out for this yet? What excuse do they have for Elite Dangerous and not even running Crossfire when it has been out for the public since December? I can understand that some of you are frustrated that it isn't running well on your cards but continuously pointing the finger at everyone bar themselves is getting tiresome. I can see why so many people are annoyed and switching to NVidia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
I think the grass needs some HairWorks on it, it looks crap. 
Not intending to be rude or start an argument but how do you explain the performance deficiencies on the older (but still very good) Kepler cards? Neither are doing right by their customers at the moment. Was browsing the GeForce forums and it seems a lot of people on there want to jump over to the red camp.
Not intending to be rude or start an argument but how do you explain the performance deficiencies on the older (but still very good) Kepler cards? Neither are doing right by their customers at the moment. Was browsing the GeForce forums and it seems a lot of people on there want to jump over to the red camp.
Last edited:
Nvidia are a business obviously but giving the code for the specific effect should be something thats done by default because the dev is using their effect in the game and most likely will be advertised as such. So its another game for nvidia to toot their horn about being gameworks enabled.
We already had physics with havok etc before gpu's started doing it. When it comes to anti aliasing methods most of them are done through the drivers and control panel and presumably don't need much in the way of game dev interaction. But things like anti aliasing are gpu centric and what gpu's have been doing since 1999\2000. Trying to throw effects like explosions, hair etc around are more in the realms of game developer territory, so why gpu manufacturers need to start churning them out i've no idea.
If anything its probably preferential that game devs do those kind of particle effects (explosions, dust etc) otherwise you'll likely get to a point where games have incredibly similar effects using the same effect from gameworks over and over, or hair from tressfx.
There is most certainly something going on with gameworks. Ive done a good deal of digging now and testing. If you remove the Apex/gamework files that are shipped with witcher so only PhysX3common_X64.dll & GFSDK_SSAO are left performance goes up. At the Well area in White Orchard with all shipped files i get 44-46 fps staring at the left house when you enter the well area..Removing said gameworks files i just wrote about leaves the fps at around 52-54. Ive rerun the test atleast 10 times now and the result are the same every single time. Using the same settings for both scenarios and making sure the game is in fullscreen before i begin.
Gameworks files intact:
Gameworks files removed:
This testing was done on the hotfix driver 353.00 for the notebooks(not that it matters) without physx, 3dvision drivers/controllers, mirage and geforce experience installed. Ofcourse trying to enable hairworks after removing said files crashes the game..runs fine though as long as hairworks is set to off. Would be nice if someone else could try this out and report back with the results.
Gameworks files intact:
Gameworks files removed:
This testing was done on the hotfix driver 353.00 for the notebooks(not that it matters) without physx, 3dvision drivers/controllers, mirage and geforce experience installed. Ofcourse trying to enable hairworks after removing said files crashes the game..runs fine though as long as hairworks is set to off. Would be nice if someone else could try this out and report back with the results.
Last edited:
PhysX was created by Ageia, there are many open physics engines because it has utility besides games, none were created by GPU makers. AA types same deal, created in academia or by independent researchers and used by NV with a logo slapped on it.
Not intending to be rude or start an argument but how do you explain the performance deficiencies on the older (but still very good) Kepler cards? Neither are doing right by their customers at the moment. Was browsing the GeForce forums and it seems a lot of people on there want to jump over to the red camp.
It's cool bud and not rude at all. NVidia have said that they have investigated and noticed some issues with Kepler cards and are working to resolve it. I am sure they will fix that soon
As for the geforce forums, I read every time that someone has had enough and going to the red camp.... I check back 6 months later and that some person is saying the same things
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,600
- Location
- Cornwall
I think the grass needs some HairWorks on it, it looks crap.
Not intending to be rude or start an argument but how do you explain the performance deficiencies on the older (but still very good) Kepler cards? Neither are doing right by their customers at the moment.
Didn't realise Elite: Dangerous was running poorly on Kepler cards too!
I own more AMD cards than I do Nvidia, but I still don't have an issue with optional effects provided by an Nvidia library not running well on AMD cards. Live with, turn the effects off or don't by the game seem to be the obvious answers.
That said, if the tessellation used is being set to 64x as suggested AND this is Nvidia's doing (i.e. not a setting set by the game developers) then it does seem like a stupid move that seems hard to justify.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
It's cool bud and not rude at all. NVidia have said that they have investigated and noticed some issues with Kepler cards and are working to resolve it. I am sure they will fix that soon
Wonder what it is that's causing it, i would like to think it is just a mistake that needs fixing. I do have doubts that it was just a mistake though.
I am sure it is just an oversight. There was a guy who used to work for nVidia driver team who made a post and someone quoted it here and when you see what the driver team have to deal with, that made me a little more sympathetic to those guys. They have to literally fix games at times... I will hunt down that post, as it was a decent read and makes you appreciate things a little more.
I as a rule dont like propriety tech ,But if it can be disabled for the competition then i dont see a issue. The effect is a feature of gameworks and part of Nvidia's overall package to me much like mantle was for the 290's etc. Keplar performance being so bad is a worry and hopefully sorted or else it too is a thing to keep in mind for the life span of nvidia card. EG not current gen poor optimisations
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
