By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Shadow of the Tomb Raider handled by Nixxes Software, will collaborate with NVIDIA

GOWTLOZ said:

AMD techniques are open sourced so if it doesn't run well on Nvidia GPU its the developer's fault for not optimising.

Nvidia gameworks is close sourced and can't be optimised for AMD GPU's. Big difference.

It still shwos that their tech is clearly not able to run well across the board.

THe big difference here, is that the open source company, cba doing the work for everyone, just like the other company can't be either. 

 

If you're going to open source something, do it right.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Chazore said:

Their Ao techniques are also included as part of their GW side of things. GW isn't just solely related to Hairworks and water physics.

Yes, and other AMD sponsored games ended up running not so great on Nvidia hardware, like Wolfenstein 2 and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

I fail to see how we're able to excuse one GPU company from virtually all and any fault, but not the other. That's bias if anything. 

LOL, looking back on things you became a lot more sensible about this topic and that's a positive result mind you ... 

Everybody should not assume that AMD have the purest intentions to make their software run well on their competitors hardware just as people shouldn't hold double standards against Nvidia for pursuing a similar tactic ... 

As far as the comparison between Hairworks and TressFX, both are two completely different technology. The former uses geometric representation for it's hair strands and the latter has a multi-layered transparent representation of the hair strands so both have their own pluses and downsides ... 



fatslob-:O said:

LOL, looking back on things you became a lot more sensible about this topic and that's a positive result mind you ... 

Everybody should not assume that AMD have the purest intentions to make their software run well on their competitors hardware just as people shouldn't hold double standards against Nvidia for pursuing a similar tactic ... 

As far as the comparison between Hairworks and TressFX, both are two completely different technology. The former uses geometric representation for it's hair strands and the latter has a multi-layered transparent representation of the hair strands so both have their own pluses and downsides ... 

What things?.

I just look at AMD like I do any other company, that is one that exists to make money and isn't anyone's friend. Despite their "open source" attempts over the years, they still haven't managed to make it so that their "open source" tech works perfectly on all hardware, and even then they haven't really invented much in the way that would put them above Nvidia in almost every way (seriously, I haven't seen a plethora of articles stating that they've trounced NV in terms of tech and progress).

I think that Nvidia's partnership GPP program was quite trite, but outside of that I don't take issue with their tech, Their hairworks clearly needs more refinement, but their VXAO is naturally demanding for what it does, while HBAO+ and PCSS more or less work fine.

I think some people are just a bit tilted, in that they feel they shouldn't have to go out and buy NV hardware, which is pretty much what the big 3 do with their consoles. I mean, if you want access to the games and tech included in those Sony games, you're going to have to buy that system. If you want that G-sync monitor, you're going to have to buy an NV card etc. 

 

Both pieces of hair tech do have their up and downsides, which is why I think both can co-exist, rather than us just going with AMD only tech. I imagine this topic will rear itself once more, once Nvidia starts working more on their side of Ray Tracing tech. We'll no doubt get threads about how Nvidia should give up it's findings for free.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:

What things?.

I just look at AMD like I do any other company, that is one that exists to make money and isn't anyone's friend. Despite their "open source" attempts over the years, they still haven't managed to make it so that their "open source" tech works perfectly on all hardware, and even then they haven't really invented much in the way that would put them above Nvidia in almost every way (seriously, I haven't seen a plethora of articles stating that they've trounced NV in terms of tech and progress).

I think that Nvidia's partnership GPP program was quite trite, but outside of that I don't take issue with their tech, Their hairworks clearly needs more refinement, but their VXAO is naturally demanding for what it does, while HBAO+ and PCSS more or less work fine.

I think some people are just a bit tilted, in that they feel they shouldn't have to go out and buy NV hardware, which is pretty much what the big 3 do with their consoles. I mean, if you want access to the games and tech included in those Sony games, you're going to have to buy that system. If you want that G-sync monitor, you're going to have to buy an NV card etc. 

 

Both pieces of hair tech do have their up and downsides, which is why I think both can co-exist, rather than us just going with AMD only tech. I imagine this topic will rear itself once more, once Nvidia starts working more on their side of Ray Tracing tech. We'll no doubt get threads about how Nvidia should give up it's findings for free.

I'm not exactly quite sure what it was but you once viewed Nvidia conspiring with their GameWorks technology to cripple their older and their competitors hardware thinking that the performance impacts of these graphical effects were unreasonable and that they were acting anti-consumer (those effects could turned off) in those who wanted the best possible experience for a reasonable performance ... 

I have an interesting question, are you going to disapprove of them again for pushing GameWorks RTX (I think we have an absolutely quality of life improvement here) that'll probably "cripple" all of the GPUs out there to the point where they can't maintain even a stable 30FPS aside from their own top part next gen achitecture (after Volta) or will you finally give in to stop chasing the absolute "best" graphical effects ? 

I've learned that "we" which is us PC gaming "master race" if consoles were to represent the "peasants" can't have it all compared to the "gods" behind rendering farms or offline rendering but even they too have a limit ... (we have to actually denoise a ray traced output in the foreseeable future while they can use however many ray samples they'd like) 

I know we'll never be able to get close enough to movie quality rendering so I made amends to potentially deal with 30FPS if devs will include these demanding graphical options regardless of GameWorks in the future ... (I don't think I'd be willing to go any lower than 30FPS since I won't enable any better graphical effects so that's my "limit" or where I draw the line) 

PC is all about those options to customize your experience IMO so I do not believe that lower end options are something to be shunned about even though I prefer having the best graphical effects as much as possible ... 

As for their tech, I really dislike PCSS (holy, look at those disappearing shadow cascades and I have no idea why developers just keep working around the flaws either when there's a better solution known as HFTS) just as some of the PC gamers really hate motion blur but the rest of their tech is fine ... 

And yeah every businesses should judged by the same standards so exclusivity is to be expected to be used to gain a competitive advantage ... we're already vendor locked with Microsoft to Windows so i don't see a problem with another vendor lock-in) 



fatslob-:O said:

I'm not exactly quite sure what it was but you once viewed Nvidia conspiring with their GameWorks technology to cripple their older and their competitors hardware thinking that the performance impacts of these graphical effects were unreasonable and that they were acting anti-consumer (those effects could turned off) in those who wanted the best possible experience for a reasonable performance ... 

I have an interesting question, are you going to disapprove of them again for pushing GameWorks RTX (I think we have an absolutely quality of life improvement here) that'll probably "cripple" all of the GPUs out there to the point where they can't maintain even a stable 30FPS aside from their own top part next gen achitecture (after Volta) or will you finally give in to stop chasing the absolute "best" graphical effects ? 

I've learned that "we" which is us PC gaming "master race" if consoles were to represent the "peasants" can't have it all compared to the "gods" behind rendering farms or offline rendering but even they too have a limit ... (we have to actually denoise a ray traced output in the foreseeable future while they can use however many ray samples they'd like) 

I know we'll never be able to get close enough to movie quality rendering so I made amends to potentially deal with 30FPS if devs will include these demanding graphical options regardless of GameWorks in the future ... (I don't think I'd be willing to go any lower than 30FPS since I won't enable any better graphical effects so that's my "limit" or where I draw the line) 

PC is all about those options to customize your experience IMO so I do not believe that lower end options are something to be shunned about even though I prefer having the best graphical effects as much as possible ... 

As for their tech, I really dislike PCSS (holy, look at those disappearing shadow cascades and I have no idea why developers just keep working around the flaws either when there's a better solution known as HFTS) just as some of the PC gamers really hate motion blur but the rest of their tech is fine ... 

And yeah every businesses should judged by the same standards so exclusivity is to be expected to be used to gain a competitive advantage ... we're already vendor locked with Microsoft to Windows so i don't see a problem with another vendor lock-in) 

I didn't really see it as much that way back then as I do now. I thought it was bad of them at the time, to toss out tech that needed more refinement (like their hairworks). The thing that still gets me, is when they show off new tech and claim it will be supported by their latest and newest cards, but then said newest cards have issues trying to run said tech. That's when I turn around and go "it doesn't do what it says on the tin". If they are going to market tech for their new cards, one would expect the new cards to actually run the tech decently, rather than poorly and calling it "demanding". Yes there can be some demanding tech out there, but really, their aim should be to get it "working", rather than forever being used as a small feature to sell GPU's.

If they advertise RT with their upcoming cards, and those upcoming cards cannot handle said tech then yes, I'll likely stand up, because their latest and greatest should be their latest and greatest, not their second to third best. Imagine if the space race went the way Nvidia does with tech and their GPU's, we would have never managed to land on the moon for a very, very long time if we went the Nvidia route. People made progress and they made it fast.

I think that if Nvidia wants to show off their RT tech, they need to refine it and then and only then, present it fully on their latest and greatest, that can actually handle it without a colossal performance loss (because atm they need Titans to execute it in general).

 

You can make amends and go with the flow, but for me, I'm not into the whole 30fps deal on PC, so I'll very likely skip said tech, provided it has the options to disable them. I chose HBAO+ and improved shadows for Dying Light because I could afford taking on those enhancements. I turned off hairworks for Witcher 3 because it became taxing, yet I also keep it fof on XV due to the fact that they only implemented HW for the mobs in the world and not NPC's and player characters. 60fps is my lowest limit on PC, so it's either 60fps and above or bust.

Having more options to tweak with is nice, which is why I try to find a nice balance between visual quality and performance. I was doing this just last week with some mods for Skyrim SE, where I discovered that a 4k mountain LoD mod ended up becoming quite taxing, that it put me down to 40fps in areas around the map, so I removed the mod and settled for the 2k version, which keeps me at 60fps.

I guess shadow tech is taste dependent, as I like PCSS than I do for regular soft shadows. I liked it in Dying Light, but obv with GTA V it was different for me, so I chose the default shadows.

Yeah, exclusivity is what the consoles do, like they've done for decades. I don't see why one company cannot try at having and advantage over the other. Sony clearly has a huge advantage with the Japanese market and devs than MS does, yet no one here is screaming for Jap devs and Sony to give up that market for MS to claim.

Well, we're mostly locked in because Apple cba with gaming to this day and Linux is still Linux. Valve also seems to have forgotten Steam OS over time as well, so really we're out of really good options when it comes to an OS.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Chazore said:
fatslob-:O said:

I'm not exactly quite sure what it was but you once viewed Nvidia conspiring with their GameWorks technology to cripple their older and their competitors hardware thinking that the performance impacts of these graphical effects were unreasonable and that they were acting anti-consumer (those effects could turned off) in those who wanted the best possible experience for a reasonable performance ... 

I have an interesting question, are you going to disapprove of them again for pushing GameWorks RTX (I think we have an absolutely quality of life improvement here) that'll probably "cripple" all of the GPUs out there to the point where they can't maintain even a stable 30FPS aside from their own top part next gen achitecture (after Volta) or will you finally give in to stop chasing the absolute "best" graphical effects ? 

I've learned that "we" which is us PC gaming "master race" if consoles were to represent the "peasants" can't have it all compared to the "gods" behind rendering farms or offline rendering but even they too have a limit ... (we have to actually denoise a ray traced output in the foreseeable future while they can use however many ray samples they'd like) 

I know we'll never be able to get close enough to movie quality rendering so I made amends to potentially deal with 30FPS if devs will include these demanding graphical options regardless of GameWorks in the future ... (I don't think I'd be willing to go any lower than 30FPS since I won't enable any better graphical effects so that's my "limit" or where I draw the line) 

PC is all about those options to customize your experience IMO so I do not believe that lower end options are something to be shunned about even though I prefer having the best graphical effects as much as possible ... 

As for their tech, I really dislike PCSS (holy, look at those disappearing shadow cascades and I have no idea why developers just keep working around the flaws either when there's a better solution known as HFTS) just as some of the PC gamers really hate motion blur but the rest of their tech is fine ... 

And yeah every businesses should judged by the same standards so exclusivity is to be expected to be used to gain a competitive advantage ... we're already vendor locked with Microsoft to Windows so i don't see a problem with another vendor lock-in) 

I didn't really see it as much that way back then as I do now. I thought it was bad of them at the time, to toss out tech that needed more refinement (like their hairworks). The thing that still gets me, is when they show off new tech and claim it will be supported by their latest and newest cards, but then said newest cards have issues trying to run said tech. That's when I turn around and go "it doesn't do what it says on the tin". If they are going to market tech for their new cards, one would expect the new cards to actually run the tech decently, rather than poorly and calling it "demanding". Yes there can be some demanding tech out there, but really, their aim should be to get it "working", rather than forever being used as a small feature to sell GPU's.

If they advertise RT with their upcoming cards, and those upcoming cards cannot handle said tech then yes, I'll likely stand up, because their latest and greatest should be their latest and greatest, not their second to third best. Imagine if the space race went the way Nvidia does with tech and their GPU's, we would have never managed to land on the moon for a very, very long time if we went the Nvidia route. People made progress and they made it fast.

I think that if Nvidia wants to show off their RT tech, they need to refine it and then and only then, present it fully on their latest and greatest, that can actually handle it without a colossal performance loss (because atm they need Titans to execute it in general).

 

You can make amends and go with the flow, but for me, I'm not into the whole 30fps deal on PC, so I'll very likely skip said tech, provided it has the options to disable them. I chose HBAO+ and improved shadows for Dying Light because I could afford taking on those enhancements. I turned off hairworks for Witcher 3 because it became taxing, yet I also keep it fof on XV due to the fact that they only implemented HW for the mobs in the world and not NPC's and player characters. 60fps is my lowest limit on PC, so it's either 60fps and above or bust.

Having more options to tweak with is nice, which is why I try to find a nice balance between visual quality and performance. I was doing this just last week with some mods for Skyrim SE, where I discovered that a 4k mountain LoD mod ended up becoming quite taxing, that it put me down to 40fps in areas around the map, so I removed the mod and settled for the 2k version, which keeps me at 60fps.

I guess shadow tech is taste dependent, as I like PCSS than I do for regular soft shadows. I liked it in Dying Light, but obv with GTA V it was different for me, so I chose the default shadows.

Yeah, exclusivity is what the consoles do, like they've done for decades. I don't see why one company cannot try at having and advantage over the other. Sony clearly has a huge advantage with the Japanese market and devs than MS does, yet no one here is screaming for Jap devs and Sony to give up that market for MS to claim.

Well, we're mostly locked in because Apple cba with gaming to this day and Linux is still Linux. Valve also seems to have forgotten Steam OS over time as well, so really we're out of really good options when it comes to an OS.

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=RADV-OoO-Default
Valve still works on Linux.
They do a lot of work on the open source drivers.



Shadow of the Colossus
Shadow of Mordor
Shadow of War
Shadow of the Beast
Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Creativity level over 9000!



GOWTLOZ said:
Shadow of the Colossus
Shadow of Mordor
Shadow of War
Shadow of the Beast
Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Creativity level over 9000!

"God of War The Legend of Zelda"

Creativity level over 9000!



Chazore said:

I didn't really see it as much that way back then as I do now. I thought it was bad of them at the time, to toss out tech that needed more refinement (like their hairworks). The thing that still gets me, is when they show off new tech and claim it will be supported by their latest and newest cards, but then said newest cards have issues trying to run said tech. That's when I turn around and go "it doesn't do what it says on the tin". If they are going to market tech for their new cards, one would expect the new cards to actually run the tech decently, rather than poorly and calling it "demanding". Yes there can be some demanding tech out there, but really, their aim should be to get it "working", rather than forever being used as a small feature to sell GPU's.

Hmm, would you say that about the technology behind Crysis and the CryEngine during it's time of release ? 

Chazore said:

If they advertise RT with their upcoming cards, and those upcoming cards cannot handle said tech then yes, I'll likely stand up, because their latest and greatest should be their latest and greatest, not their second to third best. Imagine if the space race went the way Nvidia does with tech and their GPU's, we would have never managed to land on the moon for a very, very long time if we went the Nvidia route. People made progress and they made it fast.

I think that if Nvidia wants to show off their RT tech, they need to refine it and then and only then, present it fully on their latest and greatest, that can actually handle it without a colossal performance loss (because atm they need Titans to execute it in general).

Welp, I guess the day of you protesting against Nvidia is coming sooner than expected because most of these demos are running at 30FPS with a Titan V or using multiple GPUs but Nvidia isn't entirely at fault when Microsoft wants to push their new standardized DXR (DirectX Raytracing) API too so there's no reasons for games to not use it when it became an industry wide standard ... (ray tracing has a crazy performance impact that I'd be surprised if your framerate wasn't cut by a factor of at least 2 so most setups won't be able to run with this graphical effect at 60FPS) 

Chazore said: 

You can make amends and go with the flow, but for me, I'm not into the whole 30fps deal on PC, so I'll very likely skip said tech, provided it has the options to disable them. I chose HBAO+ and improved shadows for Dying Light because I could afford taking on those enhancements. I turned off hairworks for Witcher 3 because it became taxing, yet I also keep it fof on XV due to the fact that they only implemented HW for the mobs in the world and not NPC's and player characters. 60fps is my lowest limit on PC, so it's either 60fps and above or bust.

Having more options to tweak with is nice, which is why I try to find a nice balance between visual quality and performance. I was doing this just last week with some mods for Skyrim SE, where I discovered that a 4k mountain LoD mod ended up becoming quite taxing, that it put me down to 40fps in areas around the map, so I removed the mod and settled for the 2k version, which keeps me at 60fps.

I guess shadow tech is taste dependent, as I like PCSS than I do for regular soft shadows. I liked it in Dying Light, but obv with GTA V it was different for me, so I chose the default shadows.

Yeah, exclusivity is what the consoles do, like they've done for decades. I don't see why one company cannot try at having and advantage over the other. Sony clearly has a huge advantage with the Japanese market and devs than MS does, yet no one here is screaming for Jap devs and Sony to give up that market for MS to claim.

Well, we're mostly locked in because Apple cba with gaming to this day and Linux is still Linux. Valve also seems to have forgotten Steam OS over time as well, so really we're out of really good options when it comes to an OS.

HBAO+ is extremely meh and so is SSAO, both pretty much nearly do the same since HBAO is just a different way creating soft shadowing using screen space methods. If I have an option then VXAO would be a godsend but it sucks that nearly no games implement it and even obscurance fields like Sniper Elite 3/4 (TLoU and Uncharted 4 use pretty similar solution) would be a massive improvement over HBAO/SSAO cause screen space soft shadowing sucks some ... 

I agree that shadow tech is mostly taste dependent since their pretty much physically incorrect aside from the ray traced variety but PCSS has some pretty serious artifacting issue like light bleeding and GTA V is a only mild example of it so there's plenty of far worse cases which can be constructed and it's a PITA for developers having to workaround the issue by getting their content to play nicely with it. We really need to kill PCSS since it's a downgrade from regular shadows with HFTS and never look back on it ... 

To me I see that exclusivity can be a part of competition but it can also be abused as a monopoly so we have a dilemma but we've went so far to look away from the latter so it has become an acceptable compromise to most ... (I genuinely believe that Microsoft has better interests for it's Windows customers than most other corporations so they care enough about retaining them to fix their own mistakes) 

Apple doesn't care about PC gaming but there's just so many other issues with macOS that it's just not worth using for anything else either and Linux gfx stack is plain vile to developers ... 



Considering how bad I have been feeling with NVidia involvement on gaming directly and the preview of Shadow (after thinking although Rise was good, but even on survivor it was a very easy game) won't rush for this game and feel sorry for the AMD players.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."