Geforce FX does not support Displacement Mapping or N-Patching.

[Dazz]

People are now saying nVIDIA can't really say it's fully hardware DX9 compatible as M$ advising people to include it in all DX9 hardware, both the Radeon 9500+ and Parhelia support it but the Geforce 4 FX does not

Source http://www.reactorcritical.com/
We were very astonished when Nvidia decided to turn off the parametric surfaces (or RT-patches in the DirectX parlance) support in their GeForce3 drivers a year ago. When asked why, Nvidia officials told that the support of curved surfaces should be turned off because several game developers implemented ATI’s TruForm technology in their games and the software decided that the GeForce3 accelerators also supported the N-Patches, whereas the GPU just tried to emulate them through RT-patches causing the performance to drop dramatically. Since the higher order surfaces are not used widely these days, their support is not something the end-users can take any advantages of, we forgot about this fact shortly after it had been revealed.

The higher order surfaces are here to allow game-developers to create very complex 3D-models without using too many triangles. There are many approaches of creating HOS surfaces, however, there are only two of them on the consumer market: RT-Pathes and derivatives and N-Patches in different incarnations. RT-Patches require control points definition over a surface at the stage of creating a model. Another way to achieve complex models and environments is to utilise N-Patches and its derivatives that calculate the control points on-the-fly. Since the latter were introduced by ATI, Nvidia said that they were not going to implement this in their own chips.

What is even more interesting is that they decided not to support Displacement Mapping technology from DirectX 9.0 due to unknown reason, according to sources. Maybe because the approach is based on the notorious N-Pathes?

Microsoft wants IHVs to support Displacement Mapping and points it out in every document they issue in regards DirectX 9.0. Both ATI Technologies’ RADEON 9700/9500 VPUs and Matrox Graphics’ Parhelia 512 graphics processor support the Displacement Mapping.

I now wonder if Displacement Mapping is “must be” function of the DirectX 9.0. If it is, Nvidia may not be able to claim the DirectX 9.0 full hardware support for the GeForce FX VPU.


It's some what intresting as Command & Conquer Generals is said to use it to make the terrain more realistic.

[Bigus Dickus]

Well, neither the R300 or NV30 will meet all components of DX9.0 in hardware. Neither met DX8 or DX8.1 in hardware either. In fact, the GF3 was the first card to be fully DX6 compliant in all areas AFAIK.

Talk of the NV30 being "beyond DX9" is silly. It doesn't support in hardware all the capabilities in either vertex or pixel shaders. On the other hand though, to say that the NV30 isn't DX9 compliant because it lacks Displacement Mapping isn't really correct either. M$ doesn't exactly have a checklist of "must have" features... or at least if they do it is a very basic list, with other components being somewhat optional, or only "recommended."

I'll be dissapointed if it doesn't support DM though. I'll be equally dissapointed if it turns out the R300 doesn't either.

[sebazve]

and theres go full and beyond dx9 support:rolleyes:. Ok not everything can be supported but hey DM is an awesome tech and many games developers will like to use it.. oh well who cares there will be r400 and nv40 when dx9 games will appear...

Dont you love PRs and marketting.
:rolleyes:

[budd_wm]

Heh, nvnews is sure posting a lot about the GeforceFX on their front page. Wonder why they don't post this...;)

[volt]

Originally posted by budd_wm
Heh, nvnews is sure posting a lot about the GeforceFX on their front page. Wonder why they don't post this...;)

Because Hardware Rumor Mill. I don't think it's official, though I would like to see someone post a speculation that NV30 may not have DM enabled. Adds more flavor to the bowl (even if it's something that none of us want to see).

[thcdru2k]

same reason rage3d won't post it doesn't have full dx9 support :)

[sebazve]

i really trust on Reactor...Although these will not mean that GeforceFX will suck at all it just mean that Nvidia is just BSing us with full DX9+ support.

[Nv40]

before this topic keeps growing , take a look at this tread
in Beyond3d ,because seems that Nv30 and the R300
dropped support for DIsplacement mapping :)

at least one Nvidia Guy told it , while ATi keep in silence :)

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3219&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

the funny thing is that Matrox does not support ALL Direcx9 features too.. Direcx9 is not even finished

and people still ask why Nvidia like so much Cg .. :)

but dont feel bad , its just a gimie and other method(s)
can achieve the same detail .

at the end we can say neither support DIrectx 9 :D

[budd_wm]

Originally posted by Nv40
at the end we can say neither support DIrectx 9 :D

Err....they both support DX9, just not fully.

[sebazve]

Originally posted by Nv40


http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=4291

DIrectx 9 :D

the link takes me to a new thread page:p

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by sebazve
the link takes me to a new thread page:p

yeah, seriously. i wonder what exactly the message is that he is trying to convey with this :p

it's especially funny considering he said the thread was at B3D yet the link goes to nvnews.

[Nv40]

ups! fixed! :)


as some people say there , displacement mapping ,
is not really usefull today in games .
The benefits are not good enough to include displacement
maps in games at the expense of Huge performance .
to much displacement mapping can kill your performance
to new levels you thought it was not possible today .:)

i have seen in colissions animations a HUGE! drop in performance
when and simple object bounce in a floor with displacement maps , versus a floor that looks near exactly the same with bumpmaps.

its is misunderstanding of 3d graphics what keeps people
whining about features that are not so usefull today in games .
even more when you can get the same look
with traditional modeling , like more polys and shaders .
like reactor critical , saying that Nvidia doesnt like CUrves Npatches or more detail in graphics.. :rolleyes:

i think Nvidia GeforceFx demos proof they love the nice curves
specially in the dawn demo :)

Ati Truform at least doesnt takes a huge performance .
wich is a usefull feature in games .
but they same thing can be done with a bit more polys.

so as you see , people is whining because they want to eat icecream with the right hand and not with the left hand. hehe .:D

i will like much better to use that DRop in performance better in
character with more Polys ,levels with Big outdoors scenes
and High quality pixel shaders .the things that are more noticeable in a game.

more ways to add detail is better ,because its more tools for
developers to use their creativity but dont think that you will
see Games using that , for a very long time ,its is only one way
to give details to surfaces .

im sure Displacement mapping will be supported in the Future
by Nvidia probably in the QUADRO cards (if it is true that they dropped support) because the Profesional 3dgraphics market ,doesnt need fast frames per second in their scenes ..

[Dazz]

DM is not the kind of thing you will find in first person shooters but will most likly be included in RPG's, RTS & flight sims of course.
Hey the R300 doesn't support it it after all, thats ****ing gay.

[Bigus Dickus]

blah blah blah...

Brushing off things again that don't make "your team" look good? The truth is that DM does have it's uses, looks much better than bumpmapping for close up shots, isn't that difficult to work around for collision detection, etc.

The bottom line is that it advances technology, and should be included in all new DX9 era cards. If ATi and nV don't support it fully, then I'll be dissapointed, because it means it will be that much longer before we see such effects in games.

I find it humorous how some people continually downplay some things and over hype others, just because of what box the features can be found on. :)

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally posted by Nv40
its is misunderstanding of 3d graphics what keeps people
whining about features that are not so usefull today in games .
even more when you can get the same look
with traditional modeling , like more polys...

i will like much better to use that DRop in performance better in
character with more Polys ,levels with Big outdoors scenes...

Um... displacement mapping is a nice way of increasing polygon count without the full drop in performance that the polygons would normally create. I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

And, didn't you know... DM is very useful for making complex outdoor terrains? ;)

[Evildeus]

Well, from the tech papers of Nvidia, the GF FX supports:
- Vertex displacement mapping
- Geometry displacement mapping
P.7
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/lo/2416/SUPP/TB-00653-001_v01_Overview_110402.pdf

[Nv40]

Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
Um... displacement mapping is a nice way of increasing polygon count without the full drop in performance that the polygons would normally create. I have no idea what you are trying to say there.

And, didn't you know... DM is very useful for making complex outdoor terrains? ;)


DM use textures as a mold to display geometry (polys).
BM use textures as a mold to display fake shadows of geometry that not exist and Bump maps simulate DM very well , just look at Epic new engine screenshots .

DM looks better because they are the real thing .
but the diference it is noticeable when you are closer
to the surface. but DM take huge performance
specially in collisions and BM not

with traditional poly modeling you dont use textures
as a mold ,you use free hand , hand tweak . thats why
i say that you have more control with traditional modeling
in performance . with DM every single texture will have
automatic tiny polys that probably you will never see.

if Nvidia and Ati support Displacement maps FIne ,more tools
for developers to play ,but as i say it is not something we will
see for a long time in games ,no reason to panic .
everything can be done with Polys and shaders . ;)

update~

take a look at John carmack diplomacy in his
comments Displacement mapping ....
and see if you can notice his real message .

http://www.shugashack.com/finger/?fid=johnc@idsoftware.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I need to apologize to Matrox -- their implementation of hardware displacement
mapping is NOT quad based. I was thinking about a certain other companies proposed approach. Matrox's implementation actually looks quite good, so even if we don't use it because of the geometry amplification issues , I think it will serve the noble purpose of killing dead any proposal to implement a quad based solution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so as you see , the only good implementation JC see is
if the matrox one ,unless Ati and/or Nvidia support their
implementation.

my opinion is that There are many implementations (hacks)
of DM in microsoft Directx 9 ,and probably Nvidia / Ati
decided to drop Microsoft DM at the last minute ,because it
was not good enough / and if it was good , it will not be used
anyway .

its nice to see Matrox pushing the innovations in hardware graphics , but as i said ,very few Developers , if any will use
that in today games ,not because is bad , its a good feature ,
but because is not usefull today in games .

but im really sure ,that it the Long future it will be supported
when our Hardware Performance and game engines are ready
for that .

[Bigus Dickus]

Unfortunately, it looks like ATi doesn't support true adaptive tesselation displacement mapping in hardware on the R300 either. They are equal to the NV30 in this regard. This is dissapointing because Matrox's method of displacement mapping truly looks good, and offers some applications and benefits that bump mapping simply can't match.

The pre-baked displacement mapping of pre-sampled maps that ATi and nVidia support really aren't that useful. I guess we'll have to wait even longer before the industry really supports a good form of HOS.

:(

[***CENSORED***]

I heard Radeon 9700 does suport Displacment mapping:(

looks like i'll be visiting Rage3d soon.

[Uttar]

Originally posted by ***CENSORED***
I heard Radeon 9700 does suport Displacment mapping:(

looks like i'll be visiting Rage3d soon.

Read Bigus Dickus post just above yours.
The R300 only supports pre-baked Displacement Mapping, just like the NV30.

Sounds like Matrox has indeed been very innovative with their Displacement Mapping support...


Uttar

[Bigus Dickus]

Looks like there's many forms of Displacement Mapping, some can be done through DX8 level shaders, some requires dedicated hardware, and all apparently will be handled through VS/PS 3.0 eventually.

The R300 seems to support a couple of "extras" in it's DM that make it marginally more flexible than what the NV30 seems to support, but only marginally, and both are nowhere near as flexible or useful as the Parhelia's DM (depending on the developer you ask, some think all DM is useless, some think it's great).

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
Looks like there's many forms of Displacement Mapping, some can be done through DX8 level shaders, some requires dedicated hardware, and all apparently will be handled through VS/PS 3.0 eventually.

The R300 seems to support a couple of "extras" in it's DM that make it marginally more flexible than what the NV30 seems to support, but only marginally, and both are nowhere near as flexible or useful as the Parhelia's DM (depending on the developer you ask, some think all DM is useless, some think it's great).

if only Parhelia supports "useful" DM we will be able to count the number of games supporting it on one hand.

[volt]

Geforce FX does not support Displacement Mapping...

Now it does :D

GeForce FX supports several types of displacement mapping. The defining features of DX9 are vertex and pixel shader 2.0 (and beyond), GeForce FX has the most complete support for DX9 vertex and pixel shaders, and is clearly a DX9 GPU.

I'm not sure about the 'beyond' statement though.

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally posted by volt
Now it does :D

GeForce FX supports several types of displacement mapping.


Yes, and the R300 supports several types as well. Unfortunately, neither appears to support the most flexible type which allows adaptive tesselation in combination with displacement mapping, and not requiring any "pre-sampled" displacement maps. Parhelia appears to be the only VPU to fully support "true" DM, though since Matrox created it that is not much of a surprise.

The 3DLabs P10 might be capable of Matrox-style DM, since it's core is so flexible, with appropriate driver level configuration to control the general purpose logic blocks. I'm not sure about that though. And, even if it could, it would probably be pretty difficult to implement.

[gravioli]

GeForce FX has the most complete support for DX9 vertex and pixel shaders

How can the Geforce FX have the "most complete support" for DX9 shaders? He seems to be implying that none of the current Geforce FX competitors (i.e. 9700) have complete support for DX9 shaders. Both the Geforce FX and the 9700 have complete support for DX9 shaders. "Complete support" is "complete support.".......saying the "most complete support" for DX9+ shaders is another story, though. :)