John Carmack Responds to the ATI Humas tweek

Status
Not open for further replies.

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
Moofasa~ said:
Show me images where it lowers quality...
This is a known fact from people that have ATI cards and have done testing. I've seen it talked about quite a few times in forum threads.

If you dont believe me then do some testing for yourself. Take Far Cry for example and benchmark using in-game AF and then benchmark using CP AF.

R1ckCa1n said:
Do you have problems understanding what you read? If you would take your hat off and read the B3D thread, you will soon understand it comes down to the hardware. ATI's cards where not optomized for the way Doom3 renders. The NV40 was made to run best on Doom3, which it does, where ATI is made to run all games consistant. What those guys at B3D figured out is how to tweak the shader to run it with more math, ATI's strong point. It's pretty much as simple as that. Once they figure out how to make the shaders mathmatically correct, it will render just as the artist entended it too.

Please don't make this into more than it really is like some people.
I think you have problems understanding what i post. What i just said holds true for ALL games and ATI hardware. I wasn't talking about DOOM 3.

You'll get a little higher AF quality through in-game Anisotropic Filtering but the performance will be slightly lower because it has been optimized more. Optimized simply means lower IQ for higher performance. Whether you yourself notice it or not doesn't matter cause it happens.
 

BoogerBomb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
6,470
I can see his point of view but maybe since I work for a major grocery chain and it doesn't pertain to us in a similiar fashion I don't agree with it. I have been wanting to become a programmer but if any programming I do in my spare time reflects the company I work for or is construed by the entire community as the property of that company then I may have to rethink my interests.
 

^eMpTy^

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
3,233
BoogerBomb said:
I can see his point of view but maybe since I work for a major grocery chain and it doesn't pertain to us in a similiar fashion I don't agree with it. I have been wanting to become a programmer but if any programming I do in my spare time reflects the company I work for or is construed by the entire community as the property of that company then I may have to rethink my interests.
Wow...that was the most melodramatic post I've ever seen in this forum...
 

R1ckCa1n

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,355
^eMpTy^ said:
Actually I read the thread and it's not at all like you're stating it. The problem isn't ATi being "better at math"...the problem is the x800s go all silly doing this texture lookup and do a bunch of anistropic filtering they aren't supposed to.

This isn't about fixing D3 to work better on ATi, this is about hacking D3 to work around a bug in ATi cards. It seems clear this will be fixed in a new driver release...
Go back and read.... it's all about math and them not doing texture look ups like D3 is coded.

This won't be fixed in a driver release, it will have to come from an official patch from id. Given the shaders show all the different paths, as shown on B3D, it should be easy to insert.
 

Killdozer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Messages
1,570
Probably out of place, but before the updated config I got those bright white edges with my 9800Pro...but with the updated one from Carmack the white parts are gone and the image quality is identical.
 

R1ckCa1n

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,355
burningrave101 said:
I think you have problems understanding what i post.
No, it's the fact you constantly fall back on one or two things about ATI and pound it into the ground or post with 1863612 quotes, which adds to the confusion around what you actually are trying to convey.

The original intent of this thread was about how to tweak the shader code to work more efficiently on ATI's cards. Simple as that. If you don't want to bartake in the tests, leave your opinions at the door.

Let's please get this thread back on topic.
 

BoogerBomb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
6,470
Killdozer said:
Probably out of place, but before the updated config I got those bright white edges with my 9800Pro...but with the updated one from Carmack the white parts are gone and the image quality is identical.
So now we have Humus's version and Carmacks version? God damnit why cant we have just one final version?
 

R1ckCa1n

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,355
Killdozer said:
Probably out of place, but before the updated config I got those bright white edges with my 9800Pro...but with the updated one from Carmack the white parts are gone and the image quality is identical.
Which configuration did you use? The Humus one or Demirugs?
 

R1ckCa1n

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,355
BoogerBomb said:
So now we have Humus's version and Carmacks version? God damnit why cant we have just one final version?

No.. it's the Humus and Demirugs..... both seem to work fine. I am going to test both tonite when the kids are asleep! ;)
 

burningrave101

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Messages
11,825
R1ckCa1n said:
No.. it's the Humus and Demirugs..... both seem to work fine. I am going to test both tonite when the kids are asleep! ;)
I was just about to say something.

I was like, WTH did Carmack get a version lol. :cool:
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
burningrave101 said:
There is almost no performance difference between 8xAF and 16xAF on 6800's or X800's ither one.
:p yeah because both use adaptive algorithms. I happen to have a still shot of the difference between these 2 uncompressed PNGs at 16x and 8x. I used XOR to highlight the differences... subtraction shows almost nothing:

http://www.notveryserio.us/11528642xaa16xaf.png
http://www.notveryserio.us/11528642xaa16xafapp.png (ignore the filename... it really is 8xAF)

differences:
 

rancor

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
2,230
whats the little head up on the corner looks like the stay puff marshmellow man :D
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
rancor said:
whats the little head up on the corner looks like the stay puff marshmellow man :D
he's much scarier in doom 3 than in ghostbusters. :eek:
 

KSL

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
123
What does Demirugs' tweak look like? Or does someone have a link to it?
 

Killdozer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Messages
1,570
BoogerBomb said:
So now we have Humus's version and Carmacks version? God damnit why cant we have just one final version?
Whoops, sorry about that.


What I meant was: The first config from Humus gave me those white lines and stuff. When Carmack got to it and found out that "Code: MAD_SAT R1, specular, 5.0, -4.0; " gave the best image quality, the white lines and stuff went away when I used it.
 

gpitpitan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
238
god damn, took me 30 minutes to wade thru all that.

thanks for the good analogy back there kyle lol....suckitbitch toilets...classic lol.

Gonna try this tweak/hack/dancing mexican on my setup now
 

sirsnits

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
1,197
with this tweak i can now actually play the damn game, i have a 1.3 ghz and a 9700pro with 256 sd pc133 ram, and at first i couldnt even get passed the loading screen without it freezing up on me, now i can play the game on high detail and the frame rate does not drop to low, 10 fps lowest for me so far and 70 highest, this tweak does a shit load good for me, but maybe i just got lucky. :confused:
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,860
I think this is a good note to end it on. Should you wish to start a new thread and keep it on topic, that will be welcome. The ethics of it have been hased out and it is done with here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top