More ATI Missing Vertex Texture Fetch Info

Status
Not open for further replies.
PRIME1 said:
So you don't think people have been programming SM3.0 games for the last 1.5 years and you don't think that they will continue to program games using the SM3.0 spec for the next couple years?
Click to expand...

No one said anything about programming to the 3.0 spec. Chaos Theory is a 3.0 game due to its SM3.0 profile. Does it use every feature found within the model? Does it use 4096x4906 texture sizes? It doesn't? Oh, well, I guess it isn't a 3.0 game after all according to your logic.
 
John Reynolds said:
No one said anything about programming to the 3.0 spec. Chaos Theory is a 3.0 game due to its SM3.0 profile. Does it use every feature found within the model? Does it use 4096x4906 texture sizes? It doesn't? Oh, well, I guess it isn't a 3.0 game after all according to your logic.
Click to expand...
My statement was merely meant to illustrate that SM3.0 games will be around for awhile. You came to your own conclusion that I was saying they would all make use of VTF.

Perhaps none of them will, or most of them will. Nobody knows for sure.

The point still remains that VTF is in the SM3.0 spec and ATI does not support it.

Side A has no proof that this is a bad thing and Side B has no proof that this is a good thing. Yet people are still getting upset that anyone would even dare mention it.
 
just wait for the whql release of the x1k drivers.

If the drivers pass, they are fully vs3/ps3 capable according to microsoft.
 
PRIME1 said:
My statement was merely meant to illustrate that SM3.0 games will be around for awhile. You came to your own conclusion that I was saying they would all make use of VTF.
Click to expand...

No, you somehow twisted my post asking if VTF inclusion by PC developers is going to remain static or increase (which really should be the weathervane of just how much we, the end users, give a shit about this feature) into a developers coding or not coding to 3.0 spec, whatever that means.

Perhaps none of them will, or most of them will. Nobody knows for sure.
Click to expand...

Thus my earlier post. We do, for a fact, know that hardware that supports VTF has been on the market for almost 1.5 years and yet all we have to show for it is Pacific Fighters, and it dropped the frame rate like crazy on the PCIe 6800 GT I used to test it with months ago.

The point still remains that VTF is in the SM3.0 spec and ATI does not support it.
Click to expand...

And the real point remains whether or not this is significant when it's apparently not used or very useful and ATI offers what appears to be a more viable work-around to the feature. Or do you get your gollies by nit-picking at the slogans and/or claims of marketing departments, since, yes, I do agree that ATI PR/marketing should've been more forthright on this one feature, though I'm sure they're quite surprised that [H] decided to cross-pollinate their annoyance over the Crossfire missteps into the X1xxx launch in the manner in which they have.

Side A has no proof that this is a bad thing and Side B has no proof that this is a good thing. Yet people are still getting upset that anyone would even dare mention it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this being discussed, so long as it's kept within a little context. Context such as, how often will this feature be used? Is it actually very useful at all in currently available hardware? Does its lack actually impact the development of current AAA PC titles? In my eyes, certain people do indeed appear to be getting rather upset when anyone dares mention such context when discussing this "major" feature.

And, again, as I've said before I'd really like to get the reactions of Sweeney and/or Carmack on this situation.
 
John Reynolds said:
Thus my earlier post. We do, for a fact, know that hardware that supports VTF has been on the market for almost 1.5 years and yet all we have to show for it is Pacific Fighters, and it dropped the frame rate like crazy on the PCIe 6800 GT I used to test it with months ago.
Click to expand...
How many years does it take to program a game? For most I bet it takes more than 1.5 years.

John Reynolds said:
And the real point remains whether or not this is significant when it's apparently not used or very useful and ATI offers what appears to be a more viable work-around to the feature. Or do you get your gollies by nit-picking at the slogans and/or claims of marketing departments, since, yes, I do agree that ATI PR/marketing should've been more forthright on this one feature, though I'm sure they're quite surprised that [H] decided to cross-pollinate their annoyance over the Crossfire missteps into the X1xxx launch in the manner in which they have.
Click to expand...
I have seen no proof that ATI's "work around" is better. There was no mention of it in the original document I posted.

John Reynolds said:
I have no problem with this being discussed, so long as it's kept within a little context. Context such as, how often will this feature be used? Is it actually very useful at all in currently available hardware? Does its lack actually impact the development of current AAA PC titles? In my eyes, certain people do indeed appear to be getting rather upset when anyone dares mention such context when discussing this "major" feature.
Click to expand...
These are all valid questions. I have never referred to it as a "major" feature. If game developers have no comment on it, we may only find out when the games are released.

My point is and has always been.... It's in the spec and not supported by ATI. True, I find it news worthy because of ATI's PR campaign. However, it is worth noting that it's been on the front page of several news sites and is being debated in most relevant forums. So it’s not just me and I’m not on some made up witch hunt here. I know my opinion is rendered irrelevant by some because I have been branded a “f0nboy”, but that label seems very easily applied here, it’s even been applied to the site as a whole recently.
 
The saddest thing is that the launch XBOX360 titles are using more advanced shader effects than all of the last 2 years of PC games combined. Yay for open standard gaming! :/
 
I have seen no proof that ATI's "work around" is better. There was no mention of it in the original document I posted.
Click to expand...

I've already shown u twice from a good article about this that it is better. you chose not to acknowledge it? not my fault. if you're only going to look at ati's GDC pdf then why are you bothering with this topic, go read ATI PR and agree with them otherwise look at all the other sources and what they have said.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I've already shown u twice from a good article about this that it is better. you chose not to acknowledge it? not my fault. if you're only going to look at ati's GDC pdf then why are you bothering with this topic, go read ATI PR and agree with them otherwise look at all the other sources and what they have said.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the link to the game where it is proved to be better. Sure ATI says it's better, but as JR stated I would like to hear from Carmack or Sweeney. Not somones opinion that has not written it into a game. Cherry picking quotes to support your view is fine, but proof is in the game.
 
Shimmering was fixed. It was a bug. We are not discussing a bug here. If I recall there was also a shimmering issue with ATI as well
Click to expand...

1/2 true. Suposedly Shimmering is not fixed with all 7800 or 6800 but the same is very true for ATi. I was brining it up with Nvidia to give an example of a place in which you simply acted like it never happened. A problem that you never brought up. ATi has a Feature that may or may not be useful and has a workaround that may or may not be faster. Somehow you find this to be Topic Worthy but brining up a topic about how the 6x00, 7x00, and x00 series have shimmering problems isnt.
Your nit picking on something in a subject that only a few know what the result really is.
When I looked at Tranz Screen Shots of Pacific Fighters I loved the effect it gave. Of course I will be pissed if no one codes for ATi but only if they prove that ATis way of VTF is much worse, if its faster then I will be pissed at the Devs.
 
PRIME1 said:
Sorry, I missed the link to the game where it is proved to be better. Sure ATI says it's better, but as JR stated I would like to hear from Carmack or Sweeney. Not somones opinion that has not written it into a game. Cherry picking quotes to support your view is fine, but proof is in the game.
Click to expand...


i showed you info from a review on beyond3d that was pretty technical you want to call it ATI go ahead 0.0
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
i showed you info from a review on beyond3d that was pretty technical you want to call it ATI go ahead 0.0
Click to expand...
Did that review have benchmarks? Did they code both paths? Did they test both methods? Did they run a game that used both and were happy with the results. NOPE.

They based their response on what ATI told them. There was nothing that showed any proof of concept what so ever.

Have you read the pdf I posted?
 
PRIME1 said:
Did that review have benchmarks? Did they code both paths? Did they test both methods? Did they run a game that used both and were happy with the results. NOPE.

They based their response on what ATI told them. There was nothing that showed any proof of concept what so ever.

Have you read the pdf I posted?
Click to expand...

Actually it seems more along the lines or their response is based on their TECHNICAL knowledge which you seem to be not understanding, they are not reading some pdf to derive this they are talking about the actual way R2VB works, since there is no PROOF that VTF works faster either how can you be stupid enough to use that sort of logic?
 
First off, I'd like to say HOLY SHXT!

2nd, Prime1 is just trying to discuss a topic, not waste his life insulting other people online. A major point most people seem to be missing is that he's asking for some kind of whitepaper that specifies either "optional" or "required." Some people have commented on that point with some good info but no one has linked to any kind of offical source. It would seem that there is that grey area where a card can report being VTF compliant when it doesn't even have the hardware. He even links to documentation in his first post.
 
evenglow said:
First off, I'd like to say HOLY SHXT!

2nd, Prime1 is just trying to discuss a topic, not waste his life insulting other people online. A major point most people seem to be missing is that he's asking for some kind of whitepaper that specifies either "optional" or "required." Some people have commented on that point with some good info but no one has linked to any kind of offical source. It would seem that there is that grey area where a card can report being VTF compliant when it doesn't even have the hardware. He even links to documentation in his first post.
Click to expand...

hes not discussing it, hes trying to "ati bash" or promote nVidia, if he was discussing it he would have bothered to read the facts presented to him .

and yes even though he ADMITS its a grey area for the actual requirments that are being discussed, he then shouts, SHOW ME VTF SUPPORT ON X1800 :/
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
hes not discussing it, hes trying to "ati bash" or promote nVidia, if he was discussing it he would have bothered to read the facts presented to him .
Click to expand...
And with that I have added a third person in 24 hours to my ignore list. Thanks for playing. bye bye.

You could not defend your position sufficiently so you resorted to insults. My posting this topic is no more "ATI bashing" than you defending them is "NVIDIA bashing".

It's great that you can believe that ATI's way is better without actual proof, that shows blind devotion. The point STILL remains, VTF is in the spec.

I'm amazed that anyone would get so upset about this. The main topic of this article was a pdf from ATI regarding vertex textures. No reason to flame, yet several did. :rolleyes:

That's OK. I don't take it personally. I look forward to the coming wave of SM3.0 games and the features for which they contain. :cool:
 
PRIME1 said:
And with that I have added a third person in 24 hours to my ignore list. Thanks for playing. bye bye.

You could not defend your position sufficiently so you resorted to insults. My posting this topic is no more "ATI bashing" than you defending them is "NVIDIA bashing".

It's great that you can believe that ATI's way is better without actual proof, that shows blind devotion. The point STILL remains, VTF is in the spec.

I'm amazed that anyone would get so upset about this. The main topic of this article was a pdf from ATI regarding vertex textures. No reason to flame, yet several did. :rolleyes:

That's OK. I don't take it personally. I look forward to the coming wave of SM3.0 games and the features for which they contain. :cool:
Click to expand...

wow you have to be the most ignorant person I have EVER had the misfortune of wasting time thinking ur post might actually have some value to it

What more proof do you want other then someone with an actual base of knowledge in the field writing a fairly technical article, you say show you proof that ATIS work around is faster
fine
SHOW ME PROOF THAT VTF is faster? this is your retarded logic, you have no proof either way yet you call on others for not having proof, yea i dont have in game benches, but i do have a fairly decent piece of info to rely on, where you are simply reading PR PDFs, please to add me to your ignore list as my world will end once that happens
:rolleyes:
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
wow you have to be the most ignorant person I have EVER had the misfortune of wasting time thinking ur post might actually have some value to it

What more proof do you want other then someone with an actual base of knowledge in the field writing a fairly technical article, you say show you proof that ATIS work around is faster
fine
SHOW ME PROOF THAT VTF is faster? this is your retarded logic, you have no proof either way yet you call on others for not having proof, yea i dont have in game benches, but i do have a fairly decent piece of info to rely on, where you are simply reading PR PDFs, please to add me to your ignore list as my world will end once that happens
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why?! Why can I only have 10 lines in my sig?! Noooo! I want this in there too...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
0.o im still confused =p does prime1 have a history for being an nVidiot?
Click to expand...
Haha...I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but if you are...you just gave me the perfect finish to my day. Thank you.
If not...please re-read entire thread ;) :D
 
banGerprawN said:
Haha...I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but if you are...you just gave me the perfect finish to my day. Thank you.
If not...please re-read entire thread ;) :D
Click to expand...


I asked if he had ahistory >< not if he has been doing it now,, its fairly obvious in THIS thread,
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I asked if he had ahistory >< not if he has been doing it now,, its fairly obvious in THIS thread,
Click to expand...
Oh. Sorry. Sometimes I just sorta take for granted that people know each other's allegiances on here.. :p .
And yes. PRIME1 is an "avid" "supporter" of nVidia. (understatement of the year).
 
banGerprawN said:
Oh. Sorry. Sometimes I just sorta take for granted that people know each other's allegiances on here.. :p .
And yes. PRIME1 is an "avid" "supporter" of nVidia. (understatement of the year).
Click to expand...

well then ATI PWONWZSRZ YOU !!!111OMGBBQ
 
banGerprawN said:
Oh. Sorry. Sometimes I just sorta take for granted that people know each other's allegiances on here.. :p .
And yes. PRIME1 is an "avid" "supporter" of nVidia. (understatement of the year).
Click to expand...
And you brought what to this thread? Nothing. Ignore number 4. I am really surprised how much trolling this thread has brought out. The concept is simple. The pdf I posted is easy to read. Yet, it seems to cause a lot of personal issues. As it's been taken so far off the path, I'm sure it will get locked. That's OK, though I'm sure soon more info will surface and that will make for a new thread to discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top