PDA

View Full Version : PF & ATI X800 series: best water gfx not available. Is this true?



metagroboliser1
10-16-2004, 03:18 PM
I'm confused about the final status on this issue. I've heard/read that only the Nvidia 6800 series will render the highest quality, displacement mapped water and that the corresponding ATI PS2.0b path is not coded in PF.

Please say it isn't so ... !!!

LuckyBoy1
10-16-2004, 03:41 PM
It's mostly marketing hype. yes, Oleg is working with nVidia to do this 3.0 thingy. And like on previous stuff like this it is a matter of drivers, not hardware and ATI will come in, finger it out and probably do it better in the end.

TPN_Cephas
10-16-2004, 05:32 PM
Does anyone have a picture showing the Nvidia enabled water?

lbhskier37
10-16-2004, 06:19 PM
no, its not a driver issue. There is nothing ATI can do to enable PS3.0 on the X800. It would be the same as Nvidia trying to enable DX9.0 on a Geforce4, the circuitry is just not there to do it. But, that doesn't mean ATIs card wont be able to use the super water. PS2.0 can do any effect that PS3.0 can, it is just much less efficient at it. So technically the X800, and actually the 9800 should be able to run the super water, it just will most likely be slower than the 6800 stuff at it.

JG27_Arklight
10-16-2004, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
It's mostly marketing hype. yes, Oleg is working with nVidia to do this 3.0 thingy. And like on previous stuff like this it is a matter of drivers, not hardware and ATI will come in, finger it out and probably do it better in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Wrong.

:/

JG27_Arklight
10-16-2004, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
no, its not a driver issue. There is nothing ATI can do to enable PS3.0 on the X800. It would be the same as Nvidia trying to enable DX9.0 on a Geforce4, the circuitry is just not there to do it. But, that doesn't mean ATIs card wont be able to use the super water. PS2.0 can do any effect that PS3.0 can, it is just much less efficient at it. So technically the X800, and actually the 9800 should be able to run the super water, it just will most likely be slower than the 6800 stuff at it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Correct.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
10-16-2004, 09:16 PM
Maybe they will add something like that for PS2.0 cards later (nVidia and ATI).

I also look forward to the overcast clouds that are supposed to be released later.

fordfan25
10-16-2004, 09:28 PM
im looking forward to blasting zeros out of those overcast clouds lol

metagroboliser1
10-16-2004, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
no, its not a driver issue. There is nothing ATI can do to enable PS3.0 on the X800. ... But, that doesn't mean ATIs card wont be able to use the super water. PS2.0 can do any effect that PS3.0 can, ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. PF's perfect water ostensibly uses displacement mapping which requires a texture lookup by the vertex shader ... something available in PS 3.0 and absent from PS 2.0b circuitry. However, the material question is whether displacement mapping can be achieved through alternate means without a direct texture lookup by the vertex unit. I suspect the answer is yes (though I'd like to invite comment from someone better informed and who can also provide a reference to the technique) ... and if the answer is indeed yes, I cannot see why such a path cannot be implemented.

The answer might, of course, be as simple as 1C not having had the time yet, which implies there might be hope for ATI owners in an upcoming patch ... fingers crossed!

TPN_Cephas
10-16-2004, 10:05 PM
I still want to see a picture of this enhanced water.....

Cannon68
10-16-2004, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TPN_Cephas:
I still want to see a picture of this enhanced water..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all I could find right now,Its not much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/using_vertex_textures.html

Cannon68
10-16-2004, 10:35 PM
More info on Shader 2.0 & 3.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/partners/shadermodel30_NVIDIA.mspx


http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_6800_ultra/page_3.shtml

Charlie901
10-17-2004, 02:00 AM
If I'm not mistaken somewhere on the official Nvidia site are two pics of PF water; one shot w/o PS3.0 and one screenshot w/ PS3.0 enabled. The difference was amazing as the PS3.0 water looked incredibly detailed with even better sea surface ripple and sharper, higher waves. Also PS3.0 is rendered more efficietly than using PS2.0, hence the fps boost.

Here is example: http://developer.nvidia.com/object/using_vertex_textures.html


IIRC the current x800 series are based on the old 9800 board which does not have the circutry installed to enable PS3.0. So no patch will enable PS3.0 on any of the x800 cards at this point.

If you want PS3.0, than Nvidia is the only choice at this point.

Since PF is being developed and shown with a Nvidia 6800 and takes advantage of PS3.0 I decided on my current BFG o/c'ed 6800GT and love it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RocketDog
10-17-2004, 03:10 AM
It will be interesting to see if perfect is any easier to run in PF than AEP. In fact, I'm still a bit skeptical about the whole perfect mode thing. I have a reasonably good games PC (3.0GHz 800FSB P4, 1GB DDR400, X800Pro, 3Dmark 03 ~ 10,300), but I think perfect makes too big a hit on the FPS to be worth it. I can get very fluid frame rates in AEP in 1600 x 1200 in excellent, but perfect is only marginally playable even at lower resolutions.

I've also used a 6800GT, and actually swappped it for the 800Pro because I didn't like the artefacts it produced in Lock On and AEP (shimmering towns and shimmering forest edges, respectively). Neither card produced what I regard as an acceptable FPS/resolution compromise in perfect.

With both cards, AEP perfect looks nice - but if it's a choice between 20-30 FPS at 1024 x 768 in perfect or 60+ FPS in 1600 x 1200 in excellent, my personal choice is for the better FPS. It was certainly possible to get some beautiful screenshots, but as a playble option? Not for me. I just hope the vision distance has been increased in excellent.

Regards,

RocketDog.

TooCool_12f
10-17-2004, 03:58 AM
if you have only 20-30 fpr in perfect at 1024 resolution, something isn't right in your setup. I fly with over 30fps and have a 9600Pro only


you should check your setup for stuff that can be optimised (drivers, among other things)

RocketDog
10-17-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TooCool_12f:
if you have only 20-30 fpr in perfect at 1024 resolution, something isn't right in your setup. I fly with over 30fps and have a 9600Pro only

you should check your setup for stuff that can be optimised (drivers, among other things) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing to do with drivers etc, but probably more to do with what you are prepared to regard as acceptable image quality and FPS.

The PC is actually set up quite well for IL-2 AEP and Lock On. Running IL-2's Black Death track in perfect at 1024 x 768 with 4 x FSAA and 4 x AF (quality settings) produces figures of:

Mean FPS: 36
Max FPS: 75
Min FPS: 12

Running with application preference and speed settings gives:

Mean FPS: 45
Max FPS: 100
Min FPS: 13

From what I have seen here, these figures are not far from typical for a PC of this spec. The problem is that even with a fair amount of FSAA/AF, 1024 x 768 just doesn't look good on a large CRT ( I use a 22" Iiyama) and the sort of image quality I was prepared to accept a year ago now leaves me cold. I don't want jaggies and I want to be able to read the instruments.

My normal configuration for AEP is 1600 x 1200 with 2 x FSAA and 2 x AF and all at high quality settings in excellent mode. At this resolution the game looks good, plays very smoothly and still gives acceptable frame rates. For comparison, it gives frame rates of Mean: 34, Max: 85, Min: 15 on the Black Death track - about the same as 1024 x 768 in perfect, but it feels considerably smoother and so probably isn't suffering the short fluctuations to very low FPS that sometimes seem to occur in perfect mode.

It would be interesting to see what your PC produces under similar settings.

Regards,

RocketDog.