View Full Version : GUNMETAL CG works on ATi 9700 :)
GUNMETAL on 9700
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33654992
:D :D :D :D :D
vampireuk
12-24-02, 07:58 AM
Good god I almost clicked that link then!!
Are you insane man, trying to send to me rage3d!:eek:
The dark side is powerful my young jedi!!:D
come with me my son, together we can rule all galaxies
No no no.. my names luke and i'd rather have my hand cut off and fall thousands of feet to my inevidable doom then lose my fanboyism to the rebels.. haha. :p
MrNasty
12-27-02, 02:44 AM
This is nvidias fault.
I can't belive spineless people will end up buying their cards... I am almost ashamed to have cranky old GF256 in my rig :(
Plz don't mistake this as an idle fanboy rant but there is some big time pushing and shoving at nvidia... LITTERLY all that was needed was a cfg edit to make it run on a radion.
This really is as low as it can get. First it was 'the way it's ment to be played' now it's 'the way we tell you to play'.
Come on this is not the console business... people have the means to run games why discriminate by blocking them out when it is SO DAMMED easy with DX8 and DX9 compliance standards to make them work.
Surely others must be concerned ?
ReDeeMeR
12-27-02, 09:24 AM
lol, well if nvidia financed it then they have full rights to do so, it could count as an interactive cg demo.
MrNasty
12-27-02, 09:29 AM
NO.
CG is a programming language for graphics cards.
NOT for exclusivly nvidia cards only.... do you realise just how many games will use CG ? Hundreds... if this demo of 'CG' is anything to go buy you can kiss using any other card goodbye...
The whole point in CG is for it to work with other cards as well as nvidia ones... yet a game coded in CG magically appears to be only playable on Nvidia cards.
They may have the 'right' but it is VERY disrespectufull to the consumer, and the customer comes first. Plz don't take the side of the companys.
heh, wow. I had such crappy performance in this game it's not even funny. Not to mention graphical errors everywhere :eek:
ASCI Blue
12-29-02, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by MrNasty
This is nvidias fault.
Plz don't mistake this as an idle fanboy rant but there is some big time pushing and shoving at nvidia... LITTERLY all that was needed was a cfg edit to make it run on a radion.
This really is as low as it can get. First it was 'the way it's ment to be played' now it's 'the way we tell you to play'.
People still use Windows and MS is doing the same thing.
Originally posted by ASCI Blue
People still use Windows and MS is doing the same thing.
But where's the competition? I don't see any.
MrNasty
12-30-02, 04:20 AM
And we all know MS and Nidia are bum chums :p
It's a shame they make really ace cards I just wish they were regulated more. Any business would probably do the same thing though but thats not to say that it is the right thing for the consumer.
All this fuss over a really poor demo, sheesh :rolleyes:
If it was for a Doom3 Demo, then I could understand.
And as for Nvidia having a monopoly, lol. :rolleyes:
MrNasty
12-30-02, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by Fusion
And as for Nvidia having a monopoly, lol. :rolleyes:
I mean't to say market share.
The Baron
12-30-02, 11:21 AM
NOT for exclusivly nvidia cards only.... do you realise just how many games will use CG ? Hundreds... if this demo of 'CG' is anything to go buy you can kiss using any other card goodbye...
The Cg compiler is open-source. No other company has gotten off its ass and written a compiler for it in an attempt to kill it by reducing its reach. So, don't get pissed at nVidia, get pissed at whatever company didn't bother to write a Cg compiler.
ASCI Blue
12-30-02, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by netape
But where's the competition? I don't see any.
Microsoft views linux as a competitor, it's the only thing that they short of legislation can't squash.
Anyone know how MS's bitchyness over nVidia not supplying them with Xbox chips turned out? Apparently nVidia doesn't want to be part of what they consider to be a total failure and get back to what they do best, supply PC GPU's.
Originally posted by ASCI Blue
Microsoft views linux as a competitor, it's the only thing that they short of legislation can't squash.
Anyone know how MS's bitchyness over nVidia not supplying them with Xbox chips turned out? Apparently nVidia doesn't want to be part of what they consider to be a total failure and get back to what they do best, supply PC GPU's.
They settled it (sort of), Nvidia is still supplying GPUs at their 'normal' prices but the case isn't over yet. And turn that bias button off will ya? Nvidia just don't want to make more loss out of their GPUs.
Originally posted by =SSC=The Baron
The Cg compiler is open-source. No other company has gotten off its ass and written a compiler for it in an attempt to kill it by reducing its reach. So, don't get pissed at nVidia, get pissed at whatever company didn't bother to write a Cg compiler.
Where did you hear that? All I've ever heard was the only part that was open source was the user interface and the compiler was closed source.
Lezmaka
12-31-02, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by ChrisW
Where did you hear that? All I've ever heard was the only part that was open source was the user interface and the compiler was closed source.
The compiler with all the nvidia specific optimizations is closed source, but there's a generic compiler thats open source and theres nothing to stop ATI or Matrox from taking that compiler and making their own optimizations
The Baron
12-31-02, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Lezmaka
The compiler with all the nvidia specific optimizations is closed source, but there's a generic compiler thats open source and theres nothing to stop ATI or Matrox from taking that compiler and making their own optimizations
Thanks.
Now to the people who are still thinking... "OH DEAR GOD NVIDIA IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!1111oneoneone", get over it. If you can't run Cg-enabled stuff, it's because other hardware manufacturers are either too dumb or too stubborn to support it.
That may be true but ATI or Matrox making a Cg compiler would be the stupidest thing they could do. There is no way they would ever make such a compiler for obvious reasons. If developers insist on using Cg, it would mean nVidia would have a great advantage across the board in benchmarks (which is what Cg was designed for). You, being an nVidia fan, may think that is a great thing but the rest of the industry would not. Lets not even mention how all games using Cg are going to be required to have a giant Cg logo and nVidia's "The way it's meant to be played" all over the box/game.
The Baron
12-31-02, 05:05 PM
Cg ain't Glide.
Glide is/was closed and remained closed through A. 3dfx not letting anyone else get near it and B. taking legal action against those who tried.
Cg is open. You can go and make your own compiler if you feel like it. And if a great game comes out with Cg support that makes it look a lot better, but you're stuck with a card that has no Cg support, you've got two options:
1. play without it (no game will be Cg or nVidia only, tech demos aside)
2. write your own damn Cg compiler
Hell, a generic Cg-to-DX9 HLSL wrapper could probably be written pretty easily with the source code that nVidia puts out there already.
The INSTANT Cg becomes Glide, I will be the first one there with pitchforks and torches, believe me, but until then... I'm not worried about it.
And don't forget my next card may very well be ATI. :p
Lets not forget nVidia reserves the right to revoke the open source status. Lets see, ATI and Matrox make their own compiler and legitimizes Cg then most developers start using it. Then nVidia revokes the open source status of Cg and removes all optomizations for other cards. NVidia makes all shader instructions default to 161 instructions forcing all other cards to make several loops to accomplish the same thing. Suddenly, benchmarks show nVidia based cards are much faster than the competition. Suddenly, nobody wants to purchase any card not made by nVidia.
The Baron
12-31-02, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by ChrisW
Lets not forget nVidia reserves the right to revoke the open source status. Lets see, ATI and Matrox make their own compiler and legitimizes Cg then most developers start using it. Then nVidia revokes the open source status of Cg and removes all optomizations for other cards. NVidia makes all shader instructions default to 161 instructions forcing all other cards to make several loops to accomplish the same thing. Suddenly, benchmarks show nVidia based cards are much faster than the competition. Suddenly, nobody wants to purchase any card not made by nVidia.
OK, I'll bite.
Developers using Cg extensively won't happen AT LEAST for 2-3 years. Why? Because look at how many DX8 games there are now. It takes forever for a vastly new technology to be adopted widely because of the presence of old technology. So, let's argue for the sake of arguing that nVidia decides to change their licensing scheme to make compilers of future Cg revisions closed source. Well.... Hello, Good Buddy Berzerk Developer Backlash!
nVidia does NOT have a market share like 3dfx did in the early days. They can't be a complete dick to their competitors and developers and get away with it just because their cards are ubiquitous. If they had a 90% market share, OK, fine, they can do what they want. But when ATI is a MAJOR competitor, no. They can't.
And it wouldn't surprise me to see Cg go fully GPL or something of the like, just in the interest of developer relations. Or, you might see FreeCg or something like it--compatible with Cg, but GPL'd and not nVidia-specific in the least...
If developers are going to backlash at nVidia then why would they use Cg when no other compiler is available in the first place? If they will use Cg now when it only optimizes for nVidia based cards (currently) then why would they reject it if it went closed source? Obviously, such a developer would not care about optimizing for other cards in the first place.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.