NVIDIA HairWorks 1.1 Demonstration Video

Let me guess, part of game works, only works on Nvidia GPU's, despite the fact that nothing about what it does would stop it from being cross platform.

This shit is anti-conpetetive behavior and it needs to stop.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041715398 said:
Let me guess, part of game works, only works on Nvidia GPU's, despite the fact that nothing about what it does would stop it from being cross platform.

This shit is anti-conpetetive behavior and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

Hairworks is a Nvidia VisualFX SDK, the SDK is going to make API calls for Nvidia drivers. If developers did not use this SDK, they would have to implement these features on their own which would be quite difficult and time consuming.
 
PersonalJ said:
If developers did not use this SDK, they would have to implement these features on their own which would be quite difficult and time consuming.
Click to expand...

And that right there is part of the problem.

Essentially they are providing something to developers that has monetary value, and in exchange reduces the ability of their competitors products to run as well on the result of what the developers create.

You spend your hard earned cash on a GPU to play a game, only to find that you can't get the same level of visual effects based on the brand you bought, not because the GPU you bought is incapable of running it (it's all dx11 hardware after all) but because the competitor of the GPU you bought essentially bribed the developer early in the pipeline to lock you out.

It's unethical, immoral AND illegal.

It's very similar (yet also different) from how Intel used their compiler to sabotage binaries running on AMD CPU's.

AMD really ought to sue them over this, but lawsuits are expensive, and AMD is hardly in the position to spend lots of money right now.

Just like Intel, Nvidia is trying to cement their position in the PC GPU market using illicit anti-competetive practices and legal team "deepest pockets" style bullying.

The long term result will help to bring us to where we are today in the CPU market. One dominant player having destroyed its competitor using illegal and ethically questionable tactics, resulting in a stagnant market with high prices and only marginal performance improvements every generation.

I'm not some brand loyalist fanboy. Look at my sig. ALL of my hardware is Intel/Nvidia. I buy what performs the best for my money at the time I buy it. Anyone who cares about PC gaming or the GPU market in general regardless of what GPU they typically buy really ought to boycott any title that accepts Nvidias software development bribes.
 
According to the blog post they only seem to highlight that "With HairWorks version 1.1, NVIDIA has added support for authoring, rendering, and simulation of long-hair assets."

I'm a bit surprised this wasn't yet possible. Though I guess that would explain why Hairworks seemed more like Furworks up to this point.

The release notes for Hairworks 1.1 can be found here which mention a few other changes.

At this point though, I'm more interested in what AMD manages to accomplish with TressFX 2.0. Some of the custom demos I've seen people could pull off with TressFX 1.x have been pretty amazing, the problem being that 1.x essentially forced developers to write custom middleware and simulations from scratch to pull off some of the built-in functionality of Hairworks. If TressFX 2.0 becomes easier to develop for, and bakes into the SDK some higher quality simulations for various hair & fur types, I could see it really taking off in popularity.

Booyaah said:
This reminds me of the Luminous Engine built off UE4 I believe
Click to expand...
Luminous is a Square Enix in-house engine of their own making. Unfortunately aside from Final Fantasy games, it doesn't appear they have any big plans for it. Most other games they've announced recently seem to indeed be on UE4.
 
cyclone3d said:
Not to mention that if you use the crossbow you can keep a whole swarm of enemies at bay. No way to win at your level.. just pull out the crossbow and start shooting. The enemies will pretty much stay at a distance that is plenty close for you to kill them with the crossbow, but they are way too far away to attack unless they are wielding a bow.



Witcher 3 hairworks is beyond retarded. I ended turning that trash off even through it runs fine on my setup. The movement is super fake and just jumps all over the place. Then again, the foliage does that as well.
Click to expand...

Dude, you can't be serious. Witcher 3 haseasily the best hair found in any game to date. While I agree that physics isn't that realistic, the hair still looks totally awesome. IMO, it's totally worth the performance. At least there's a game that seriously stresses modern video cards.
 
Really? We need another hair rendering option? Seriously, TressFX is fine, it runs well on both AMD and Nvidia hardware why this? Here's an idea, how about they both get over themselves and work together on making TressFX the best it can be instead of wasting time trying to one up each other on HAIR rendering? Sadly I know that will never happen... Lame...
 
PersonalJ said:
Hairworks is a Nvidia VisualFX SDK, the SDK is going to make API calls for Nvidia drivers. If developers did not use this SDK, they would have to implement these features on their own which would be quite difficult and time consuming.
Click to expand...

I get that not every game developer has the kinds of time and resources to develop advanced effects from scratch, but instead of having specific gpu vendors have specific brand locked features or optimized features, why can't this work be shifted over to game engines in general?


Unity 5?
Unreal 4?
Cryengine?

I thought the entire POINT of these engines was to allow game developers focus on creating game assets and not reinvent the wheel from scratch? Do these engine makers just lack the technical expertise of the specific hardware gpu makers?

I want a physics solution WITHIN the game engine, a hair rendering solution WITHIN a game engine, same goes with lighting and other more advanced rendering techniques. Why is this not the preferred way of doing things?


frostbite 3 seems to be able to handle physics calculations just fine without relying on physx, they seemed to do it in house in their own engine. What, the F&CK are these ENGINE MAKERS doing not having similar capability not built into their own engines that is not VENDOR locked or VENDOR optimized only?


This seems absolutely absurd and backwards to me. I don't have industry contacts, someone, someone who does please ask them and find an answer. Why is my vision for how things ought to be done wrong and or inferior?
 
Other than not really caring too much about this tech, I don't see how Nvidia offering an additional, OPTIONAL, SDK to developers is anything to complain about. Who cares? The devs don't have to use it, and people don't have to buy the game if they don't like that there is an option for additional features for a card that some people have.

Look at TW3. The Hairworks stuff is just another option in the list of options. Don't want to use it? Fine! Turn it off. They didn't force it on you, and NV didn't force it on them. Also, it's not technically exclusive to NV hardware either. It may run better on NV hardware, but who care? Again, it's optional. NV created it, so I don't see why it WOULDN'T run better on their hardware. People are running it just fine on AMD hardware by tweaking a setting down a little bit. That part is up to the dev. They should just have a tessellation slider in the game menus.

Would a standard be better? Sure. How likely is that in the world we live in though?

OpenGL is a standard. Look what everyone's using? Microsoft's proprietary Direct X API. What's so different about NV offering their own set of tools. If people are using it, it means there's some interest in it.
 
tybert7 said:
I get that not every game developer has the kinds of time and resources to develop advanced effects from scratch, but instead of having specific gpu vendors have specific brand locked features or optimized features, why can't this work be shifted over to game engines in general?


Unity 5?
Unreal 4?
Cryengine?

I thought the entire POINT of these engines was to allow game developers focus on creating game assets and not reinvent the wheel from scratch? Do these engine makers just lack the technical expertise of the specific hardware gpu makers?

I want a physics solution WITHIN the game engine, a hair rendering solution WITHIN a game engine, same goes with lighting and other more advanced rendering techniques. Why is this not the preferred way of doing things?


frostbite 3 seems to be able to handle physics calculations just fine without relying on physx, they seemed to do it in house in their own engine. What, the F&CK are these ENGINE MAKERS doing not having similar capability not built into their own engines that is not VENDOR locked or VENDOR optimized only?


This seems absolutely absurd and backwards to me. I don't have industry contacts, someone, someone who does please ask them and find an answer. Why is my vision for how things ought to be done wrong and or inferior?
Click to expand...

Heh... It's business, plain and simple.

EA will do whatever they want with their Frostbite engine, it is well optimized for both nvidia and AMD. I believe Cryengine and AMD are on good terms, though that won't not stop nvidia from cohearsing or buying off developers using it. Epic with their Unreal 4 Engine on the other hand have been completely in bed with nvidia for years, is no secret. So expect the worst forms of Gameworks vendor lockin, questionable performance, and excluding of some features from that combination. EVEN if the engine has to be optimized for AMD console hardware.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041715540 said:
And that right there is part of the problem.

Essentially they are providing something to developers that has monetary value, and in exchange reduces the ability of their competitors products to run as well on the result of what the developers create.

You spend your hard earned cash on a GPU to play a game, only to find that you can't get the same level of visual effects based on the brand you bought, not because the GPU you bought is incapable of running it (it's all dx11 hardware after all) but because the competitor of the GPU you bought essentially bribed the developer early in the pipeline to lock you out.

It's unethical, immoral AND illegal.

It's very similar (yet also different) from how Intel used their compiler to sabotage binaries running on AMD CPU's.

AMD really ought to sue them over this, but lawsuits are expensive, and AMD is hardly in the position to spend lots of money right now.

Just like Intel, Nvidia is trying to cement their position in the PC GPU market using illicit anti-competetive practices and legal team "deepest pockets" style bullying.

The long term result will help to bring us to where we are today in the CPU market. One dominant player having destroyed its competitor using illegal and ethically questionable tactics, resulting in a stagnant market with high prices and only marginal performance improvements every generation.

I'm not some brand loyalist fanboy. Look at my sig. ALL of my hardware is Intel/Nvidia. I buy what performs the best for my money at the time I buy it. Anyone who cares about PC gaming or the GPU market in general regardless of what GPU they typically buy really ought to boycott any title that accepts Nvidias software development bribes.
Click to expand...

It's no more a lock in than DirectX, developers don't reinvent the wheel each and every project but instead use available libraries. A GPU is useless without software, AMD is an inferior company in terms of engineering talent both at the software and hardware level, that is why they are losing. Developers are choosing Nvidia technologies because they make their games better and it's easier for them to add advanced features.
 
Max9R said:
Really? We need another hair rendering option? Seriously, TressFX is fine, it runs well on both AMD and Nvidia hardware why this? Here's an idea, how about they both get over themselves and work together on making TressFX the best it can be instead of wasting time trying to one up each other on HAIR rendering? Sadly I know that will never happen... Lame...
Click to expand...

stop hype ventilating about an optional feature.
 
John721 said:
Good hairworks demo for sure. Very lifelike results and a step forward for realism.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? That was one of the most unrealistic things I've seen.

Honestly, don't see what the big deal is with this. While not as detailed I think even the TressFX hair in Tomb Raider behaved more realistically than this.

Meh.
 
PersonalJ said:
It's no more a lock in than DirectX, developers don't reinvent the wheel each and every project but instead use available libraries. A GPU is useless without software, AMD is an inferior company in terms of engineering talent both at the software and hardware level, that is why they are losing. Developers are choosing Nvidia technologies because they make their games better and it's easier for them to add advanced features.
Click to expand...

DirectX and HairWorks are in completely different leagues. DirectX doesn't tell you which cards to run, it works just find on both Red and Green.
 
Nytegard said:
The main issue I have is that I have yet to see good use of HairWorks. Certainly not The Witcher 3. I honestly found that too fake.
Click to expand...

When the hair styles and physics they chose for characters are obviously not based on the way real haircuts look or move, I'm not sure sure it will ever look "real." :-/ I think they are more going for anime/comic book looking hair.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041715398 said:
Let me guess, part of game works, only works on Nvidia GPU's, despite the fact that nothing about what it does would stop it from being cross platform.

This shit is anti-conpetetive behavior and it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

AMD's CEO said that they are moving away from developing for the PC. So what would be the point of them putting any effort into gameworks or any other improvement to gaming?
 
DPI said:
stop hype ventilating about an optional feature.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I don't need a paper bag...

My point is, why reinvent the wheel? Wouldn't we as gamers be better served if NV spent money on resources bringing something new to games rather than a "me too"? I love options, just not ones that are repeats... just like I have no interest in yet another Spiderman reboot movie LOL...
 
Max9R said:
Don't worry, I don't need a paper bag...

My point is, why reinvent the wheel? Wouldn't we as gamers be better served if NV spent money on resources bringing something new to games rather than a "me too"? I love options, just not ones that are repeats... just like I have no interest in yet another Spiderman reboot movie LOL...
Click to expand...

That's kind of a valid point, but I don't think Nvidia is hurting for resources to devote to anything they do, so not really an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top