Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-04, 09:56 AM   #49
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SH64
Welcome to the plastic age

i agree with what Edge said : we cant take it seriously until the final game comes out & see the NV cards runs thier PS2.0 w/o tricks .

lets hope that gives some time to Nvidia to "tweak" the next Forceware for FC or "optimize" the game with thier own PS2.0 code .
& yeah i'm interested to hear what the developer have to say about the FX cards forcing PS1.1 .
Don't you think this should be done while working on the game and not at the end of the development? Demo is out, and first impressions count the most - and I wasn't impressed at all.
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-04, 10:28 AM   #50
Razor04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SH64
lets hope that gives some time to Nvidia to "tweak" the next Forceware for FC or "optimize" the game with thier own PS2.0 code .
& yeah i'm interested to hear what the developer have to say about the FX cards forcing PS1.1 .
This brings us back to the issue of whether or not NV has the right to change what the developer intended. Me personally I don't want to see any IHV alter a game from what the developer intended. Sadly NV will most surely optimize for this...
Razor04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-04, 01:13 PM   #51
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SuLinUX
So your saying PS 1.1 is being forced on FX cards because they are alot slower at PS 2.0?

No I am not saying that why they are being forced. Could be a simple bug or any number of perfectly valid reasons why. However we have an overwhelming about of data that shows us when running pure PS2.0 test the FX cards lag behind the R3xx cards. Sometimes its close, sometimes its a blow out and other times the FX drivers don't support the DX9 call. We have seen posts from both JC and Gabe saying that more or less to get any decent speeds out of the FX lines in shaders you have to either drop back to DX8 or use a custom mix of high/low quality shaders. ATI's hardware is simply more powerfull (has x2 the number of shader units that are full time dedicated to shaders were FX units are not). And have no doubt that NV's driver team will make some great (and "legal") optimizations to make FarCry run very well on NV hardware!
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-04, 01:40 AM   #52
SuLinUX
 
SuLinUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 847
Default

So it could be,

Developers not programming PS 2.0 correct.

Bugs in the PS 2.0 code

DX9 related bugs

Driver related and above.

I personally think PS 2.0 is poinless that this time, I mean FarCry is the best looking game to date yet it dont use PS 2.0, why get bogged down with PS 2.0 just for the sake of abit more shinnyness.
__________________
AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0
SuLinUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-04, 01:45 PM   #53
fallguy
 
fallguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ^ Next to her
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SuLinUX
So it could be,

Developers not programming PS 2.0 correct.

Bugs in the PS 2.0 code

DX9 related bugs

Driver related and above.

I personally think PS 2.0 is poinless that this time, I mean FarCry is the best looking game to date yet it dont use PS 2.0, why get bogged down with PS 2.0 just for the sake of abit more shinnyness.
It cant be nVidias fault, right? Lets blame everyone else.
fallguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 06:43 AM   #54
SuLinUX
 
SuLinUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 847
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fallguy
It cant be nVidias fault, right? Lets blame everyone else.
Well I'm not the one assuming it's nvidia's fault, maybe if developers concentrate on improving there poor texture quality instead of covering it up with tricks and PS effect then we can get somewhere.

I mean who can tell the different just because something is shiny or not so much.
__________________
AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0
SuLinUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 11:54 AM   #55
ewb
Registered User
 
ewb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
Default

yeah thats it. they spend who knows how much longer modelling 3d textures for bumpmapping normals just to hide their textures. get real man. the shininess i think is refered to as gloss, its a part of bumpmapping. it enhances the effect greatly. on the side of the bump where the light is coming from there is a shine, and the side away from the light there is a shadow. altho the more gloss there is the more plastic or wet it looks. but where its used in farcry is absolutely fine in my opinion. they are in damp caves! its for atmosphere. plus pipes in normal places can get wet from condensation anyways. not to mention the type of high gloss paint thats often used on them is normally highly reflective. you can play with this effect in the tenebrae engine, turning the gloss all the way off makes the bump effect almost disapear. i think crytek has done a pretty good job with the bumpmapping actually, the characters have very little gloss and dont look plastic.
ewb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 12:27 PM   #56
SuLinUX
 
SuLinUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 847
Default

High quality bump mapped textures are very easy to do and are very small file size in DXT1 format, I have produced 6 1024x1024 fully rendered textures with bumpmapping, raytraced shadows, 4 layered and they are about a 1Mb each in UnrealED 3.

If only they made use of PS 1.3 there would'nr be no need for PS 2.0, I really is not nessesary to put hardware under so much stress with PS 2.0, and if they did it proper with PS 1.3 we would see much higher FPS.
__________________
AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0
SuLinUX is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-04, 01:02 PM   #57
ewb
Registered User
 
ewb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SuLinUX
High quality bump mapped textures are very easy to do
yeah. very easy. all you gotta do is build high poly models like this. everyone can do it!

ewb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 03:01 PM   #58
ATI_Dude
Registered User
 
ATI_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SuLinUX
High quality bump mapped textures are very easy to do and are very small file size in DXT1 format, I have produced 6 1024x1024 fully rendered textures with bumpmapping, raytraced shadows, 4 layered and they are about a 1Mb each in UnrealED 3.

If only they made use of PS 1.3 there would'nr be no need for PS 2.0, I really is not nessesary to put hardware under so much stress with PS 2.0, and if they did it proper with PS 1.3 we would see much higher FPS.
Why PS 1.3? Don't you mean PS 1.1 or 1.4? PS 1.3 is basically nothing but NVIDIA's slightly enhanced version of DX8 PS 1.1 and in practice simpler and slower than PS 1.4 for effects such as per pixel lighting which is used in Doom 3 and FarCry. http://tech-report.com/etc/2003q1/3d...y/index.x?pg=4 In other words it's a question of choosing the right shader version for each effect. Clearly per pixel lighting and shadows aren't really possible at an acceptable speed and visual quality via PS1.1/1.3 due to multiple rendering passes and lower fixed point color precision while PS 1.4/2.0 is much better and faster. Therefore it make sense to use the highest possible shader version in many cases. But then again you can find other examples which justify the use of PS 1.1. Thankfully FarCry seems to be making good use of different shader versions and the demo only uses PS 2.0 for advanced effects that can't be done via PS 1.1/1.3. Don't tell me there's isn't a discernable difference between the shiny heat pipes using PS 1.1 and PS 2.0. The problem with NVIDIA cards is the incompatability between current DX9 specs which call for 24 bit FP precision while NVIDIA only supports 16 or 32 bit FP.
__________________
Regards,
ATI_Dude

Desktop: | Intel Core i7 2600K@ 3.4 GHz | Asus P8P67 Pro | 8 GB DDR3 1600 Corsair (2x4 GB) | Asus GeForce GTX 580 | Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS soundcard | Segate Momentus XT 500 GB Hyprid SATA HDD | Samsung SyncMaster T220HD 22'' LCD | 650 watt Corsair HX650 PSU |

Laptop1: | MacBook Pro Uni-body | Core2 Duo 2.53 GHz (FSB 1066 MHz) | GeForce 9400M 256 MB DDR3 | 4 GB DDR3 1066 RAM | 500 GB Hitachi 5400 RPM HDD | 13'' LED 1280x800 | Dual Boot Mac OS X Snow Leopard & Windows 7 Home x64 |

Laptop2: | Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 | Pentium M Centrino (Dothan) 2.13 GHz (FSB 533 MHz)| GeForce Go 6800 Ultra 256 MB DDR3 450@1063 MHz (12 PS, 5 VS)| 1 GB DDR2 533 RAM | 100 GB Fujitsu 5400 RPM HDD | 17'' WUXGA LCD 1920x1200 | Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS Notebook |
ATI_Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 04:57 PM   #59
SuLinUX
 
SuLinUX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 847
Default

ewb

I'm talking about mapping the levels, mapping models like that is no problem if you know 3d as developers do and thoses models are textured very nice.

ATI_Dude

Yes sorry I meant PS 1.1/1.4, farcry is really the first game i've seen to use such textures pretty well, however they are still not bumpmapped everywhere on every surface, like games before it dont as well.

TR-AOD was yet another game that use PS 2.0 and PS poorly indeed and lt managed to bumpmap few textures, alot of the game was poorly textured yet another level used bumpmapping with shaders rather well. It's this inconsistancy and lazyness which really needs to be brought to attention, and DXT full potential exposed like S3 made it to be in it's early demos.
__________________
AthlonXP 2600+ / nForce2 Asus A7N8X-X / PNY GeForce FX5900 Ultra / 1024Mb Samsung Ram /nForce Sound / Hansol 920D Plus 19" monitor / Lite-On 32x12x40 / 2x Maxtor HD 40Gb/80Gb / nVidia 7174 driver / Gnome 2.10.1 / Kernel 2.6.11.9 / Slackware 10.0
SuLinUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04, 05:26 PM   #60
ATI_Dude
Registered User
 
ATI_Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by SuLinUX
(...)

ATI_Dude

Yes sorry I meant PS 1.1/1.4, farcry is really the first game i've seen to use such textures pretty well, however they are still not bumpmapped everywhere on every surface, like games before it dont as well.

TR-AOD was yet another game that use PS 2.0 and PS poorly indeed and lt managed to bumpmap few textures, alot of the game was poorly textured yet another level used bumpmapping with shaders rather well. It's this inconsistancy and lazyness which really needs to be brought to attention, and DXT full potential exposed like S3 made it to be in it's early demos.
I agree with your TR-AoD views. The game looks like crap eventhough it uses PS 2.0 effects. The only areas that makes good use of shaders are the first level in Paris and the Museum level. I also find the PS 2.0 floating point shadows on R3xx cards good looking although the difference compared to "normal" textured shadows is hard to spot. The depth blur effect looks awful and really kills performance on all cards.
__________________
Regards,
ATI_Dude

Desktop: | Intel Core i7 2600K@ 3.4 GHz | Asus P8P67 Pro | 8 GB DDR3 1600 Corsair (2x4 GB) | Asus GeForce GTX 580 | Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS soundcard | Segate Momentus XT 500 GB Hyprid SATA HDD | Samsung SyncMaster T220HD 22'' LCD | 650 watt Corsair HX650 PSU |

Laptop1: | MacBook Pro Uni-body | Core2 Duo 2.53 GHz (FSB 1066 MHz) | GeForce 9400M 256 MB DDR3 | 4 GB DDR3 1066 RAM | 500 GB Hitachi 5400 RPM HDD | 13'' LED 1280x800 | Dual Boot Mac OS X Snow Leopard & Windows 7 Home x64 |

Laptop2: | Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 | Pentium M Centrino (Dothan) 2.13 GHz (FSB 533 MHz)| GeForce Go 6800 Ultra 256 MB DDR3 450@1063 MHz (12 PS, 5 VS)| 1 GB DDR2 533 RAM | 100 GB Fujitsu 5400 RPM HDD | 17'' WUXGA LCD 1920x1200 | Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS Notebook |
ATI_Dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BF1942 demo and Refresh Force cricket Gaming Central 2 09-04-02 10:29 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.