QFTJbirney said:Pssstt I Think he is agreeing with you and informing to the others that a partial mode for HL2 just is not going to happen
QFT means quoted for truth...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
QFTJbirney said:Pssstt I Think he is agreeing with you and informing to the others that a partial mode for HL2 just is not going to happen
Moloch said:QFT
QFT means quoted for truth...
Scali said:Erm... You are talking about supersampling, but all modern cards use multisampling instead, which is quite different from rendering the screen at a higher resolution. And for the record... you need 4x (ordered grid) supersampling to render at twice the screen resolution (width*2 and height*2).
With modern multisampling it's often much faster to render with 4xAA than to increase the resolution by 1 or 2 notches, to get the same perceived smoothness.
Scali said:I don't think Valve meant that kind of 'customizable'.
I think they were talking about the ability of developers to customize the engine to suit their needs. You are talking about the users customizing a game to suit their needs. That is quite a different thing.
Obviously any developer can choose to add NV3x-specific paths to their Source-engine powered game, if they wish to do so.
Scali said:I just think you're making a huge deal out of nothing.
rcolbert said:Best answer is to go 1600x1200 with 4XAA on. Everyone can do that, right?
Dude something is wrong with your system!Optimus said:My bad on multisampling versus supersampling. But even with a rotated grid, there are still gaps at 4xAA that, by the most strict definition, account for at least 1/9th of the higher resolution. And, while you are correct about multisampling being more efficient and in some cases more attractive, the hardware still has to calculate the color of that virtual pixel just like any real pixel. With all of today's shader programs and the texture manipulation involved therein, the only real difference between multisampling and supersampling is that the virtual pixel information is not written to the framebuffer.
I concede that they did not mean user customizable, but that's what most hardcore gamers always liked about the Quake Series and Half-Life. It allowed one to change everything about the 3d engine and optimize it for their specific system, their own way.
Obviously we disagree hear, and admittedly, I would not be making such a big deal if I did not have a GFFX myself, but I would still be disappointed in Valve for this even if I had an ATI X800 PRO PE.
PE = (Phantom Edition)
I still can... in everything except Half-Life 2. Of course, to be really playable, I'd have to drop Doom 3 to 1024x768 and most other games (Far Cry included) to 1280x960. But in Half-Life 2, I can only run at 800x600 with all the highest settings. And I haven't even tried AA or AF for benchmarking purpose due to fear of getting single digit framerates.
trudude said:Let this thread sink to the bottom. Why do you people keep bumping this crap up.
Optimus said:My bad on multisampling versus supersampling. But even with a rotated grid, there are still gaps at 4xAA that, by the most strict definition, account for at least 1/9th of the higher resolution. And, while you are correct about multisampling being more efficient and in some cases more attractive, the hardware still has to calculate the color of that virtual pixel just like any real pixel. With all of today's shader programs and the texture manipulation involved therein, the only real difference between multisampling and supersampling is that the virtual pixel information is not written to the framebuffer.
Scali said:On the contrary. For every pixel in the poly (on screen), the shader is executed only once. Only z/stencil are done at higher resolution. Unlike with supersampling, where you would indeed have to perform shading for every subpixel. So there is a HUGE difference between the two approaches when shaders are involved.
This difference is exactly why multisampling can have aliasing in some cases (bumpmapping for example), and centroid sampling is required to avoid sampling outside the polygon edges.
Moloch said:Dude something is wrong with your system!
ZenOps said:I can add that if you are running on a 256,000 colour LCD instead of a good old fashioned CRT, you might not notice the difference in higher colour depths or precision. Nvidia would look the same as ATi in that case.
trudude said:Let this thread sink to the bottom. Why do you people keep bumping this crap up.
Optimus said:This I did not know. Yet again, I stand corrected... or sit... nevermind.
And correct me if I'm wrong:
Z/stencil is where only the depth of the "virtual" pixels is calculated in order to decide the proper blending between the two possible pixel colors?
Ya but an FX should be able to pwn an 8500, they're both running the game in DX8.1 mode, yet I'm able to play at 1024 maxed with 16AF.Optimus said:Yeah, it has an FX in it.
LyCoS said:where the hek is the "unsubscribe to this thread" button ??
Moloch said:Ya but an FX should be able to pwn an 8500, they're both running the game in DX8.1 mode, yet I'm able to play at 1024 maxed with 16AF.
Was using a stock 2500 at the time, maybe he has a slower cpu.
Valve aren't crippling nvidia cards as you say, using 3danalize to change nvidia cards to ati ones gains you like 3 fps.Optimus said:This is exactly what I mean. As you can see in my signature, my system is old but by no means is it weak. And this is proven by the fact that it performs above average in all games except HL2. There is something in HL2 that is actively crippling Nvidia FX video cards. ATI and/or Valve may or may not have intended for it to be there, but the fact remains that it is there.
I am utterly certain that Valve is going to fix this issue. I would just prefer that they do so immediately after finishing the game (Valve Anti-Cheat is not yet finished, thus HL2 is not yet finished).
Moloch said:Valve aren't crippling nvidia cards as you say, using 3danalize to change nvidia cards to ati ones gains you like 3 fps.
Moloch said:the 5200 is just a pos, it's that simple.
Isn't it a 2 pipe card?
I forgot how crappy the 5200 was
Nvidia had had plenty of time to hack the shaders up to speed them up. just nvidia isn't as strong in HL2.Optimus said:As I have said before, I don't think Valve did it on purpose. It is conceivable, though highly unlikely, that ATI "helped" them optimize their shaders "for" ATI hardware, but I find that hard to believe considering they know how it feels to be on the receiving end of that kind of activity.
Yeah, I wouldn't touch the FX 5200 with a 50 foot pole.
My 5900 is pretty good though. It's even better after a 5950 Ultra BIOS Upgrade.
Scali said:By not running the ps2.0 path, NVIDIA has no option to replace the shaders and artificially inflate performance, like they've done in Doom3, FarCry, and many other games with ps2.0 shaders.
Optimus said:I see what you mean, but it's still a little unfair to those who don't know about command line flags in HL2, don't care what brand they have in their box, and happened to end up with an FX (5800 or higher).
Whats wrong with optimizing code for hardware?Scali said:By not running the ps2.0 path, NVIDIA has no option to replace the shaders and artificially inflate performance, like they've done in Doom3, FarCry, and many other games with ps2.0 shaders.
If you have seen the FX ps2.0 shader performance in Halo then you would be praising Valve for having the fx's not default to that. Halo on the fx cards runs at half the speed it does at 1.1Scali said:Valve isn't really crippling the FX series. The FX series is crippled by design.
The main difference is that Valve didn't allow the FX series to run their ps2.0 path, while others do.
Lord of Shadows said:Whats wrong with optimizing code for hardware?
shadowbreaker513 said:If you have seen the FX ps2.0 shader performance in Halo then you would be praising Valve for having the fx's not default to that. Halo on the fx cards runs at half the speed it does at 1.1
Scali said:That is exactly the point I've been trying to make for ages now. But apparently some FX owners want the high quality graphics instead of the performance.
If they would have informed themselves properly before buying, they'd be owning Radeons now and have both... but ofcourse it's better to blame the game developers and cook up all kinds of conspiracy theories instead.
6800?lopoetve said:Or they would have bought the 6800 series. Either way, I personally think this thread has gone on long enough, but I'm not a mod
Moloch said:6800?
They bough the 5XXX series like a year ago or something.
Scali said:If people actually bought FX cards after the GF6 series was released, that'd be even more pathetic than going FX before
ludachaz said:lots of people bought the fx cause the ps1.1 performance was great. and when the card came out there were no dx9 games to say that the card sucked. so for 1 year proplr were buying cards without knowing that they suck
I haven't bashed Valve for anything more than the original point in this thread: dropping the already working mixed mode DX9 path. HL2 to this day still stands alone as the only DX9 game that the FX5900/FX5950 doesn't run acceptably.chiablo said:3: Steam has eliminated the need to re-install any of the games from their library off of CD's or DVD's.
pxc said:HL2 to this day still stands alone as the only DX9 game that the FX5900/FX5950 doesn't run acceptably.
Lord of Shadows said:We need to have someone give scali an "I <3 fx5900" title =)