Nvidia’s GameWorks: A double-edged sword for Witcher 3

[Scheuk]

To be honest this quote sounds very non-CDPR. Developer that is talking a lot about treating all gamers right etc. saying they are not sure if their partner will order them to block some features from their competition or not. It's kinda sad actually.

A bit worrying, yea. There was also this update on the same article:

Nvidia contacted us about this article. It appears the hair and fur effects are not handled by PhysX. They are handled by DX11 via DirectCompute.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-developer-its-up-to-nvidia-to-let-amd-users-enjoy-physx-hair-and-fur-effects/

 

[sidspyker]

Oh yes, DirectCompute, I mistakenly said OpenCL sorry, it was DirectCompute

 

[Scheuk]

And found some more info, a bit wonky because of Google Translate:


PCGH: Some games with GPU PhysX support also support the rendering of effects on the CPU, at least in the representation of clothing or in the destruction physics. During the course cost performance, it works on powerful processors, at least in medium detail level quite well. Will it also be possible in The Witcher 3, represent the PhysX effects on the CPU?

Balázs Török: Yes. The default behavior of PhysX simulations such as APEX Destruction Cloth or even to render the effects on the CPU. So this will also work in The Witcher 3 without PhysX GPU. Indeed, it is for the developer even more work if he wants to calculate the effects of the GPU. GPU PhysX allows, in principle, simply increasing the level of detail. It can thus be shown, for example, more particles. But as standard uses PhysX as I said the CPU.

PCGH: So unlike, for example, the smoke in Assassins Creed 4, which can be activated only on Nvidia cards and even then requires a lot of power?

Balázs Török: The problem with the smoke presentation by APEX Turbulence is that the effect can be solely represented by the GPU. Turbulence is one of the modules, which can only be calculated on the GPU and it works - at least at this moment - only with Nvidia graphics cards. We are thinking about to implement it. But this decision is, to be honest, less on the programmer's side, but is more of a bussiness thing. And it is not an effect that necessarily results in an advantage for the feel or the immersion of the player.

 

[Aver]

We are thinking about to implement it. But this decision is, to be honest, less on the programmer's side, but is more of a bussiness thing. And it is not an effect that necessarily results in an advantage for the feel or the immersion of the player.

Gameworks in a nutshell.

 

[sidspyker]

Nothing really wonky about it, it's as described on PhysXInfo as well and I believe I said the exact same in a PhysX thread once before.

APEX Turbulence is the one effect that is GPU accelerated, I think pretty much all the rest of the APEX modules work on CPU and GPU.

 

[CostinRaz]

I don't understand people.

The whining here really boils down to this: I don't have the hardware to run the game with these effects so they shouldn't be there at all ( and no there is no open source alternative for TXAA, Hair Tech, Fur Tech, HBAO+ etc. ).

Perhaps you would like CDPR to not implement AA like MSAA because consoles won't run it, and surely that's unfair to console users, perhaps the resolution shouldn't even be 1080 or the game should be locked at 30 FPS because consoles won't do it.

Perhaps CDPR should not make it a 64 bit, DX11 only game. What logic.

CDPR is not obliged to give a damn about your hardware, instead they should focus on making the best looking game possible with the resources and tools they have. If you prefer a weaker game just to satisfy your demands then go ahead keep whining of how Nvidia is evil and CDPR shouldn't work with them.

Gameworks in a nutshell.

Of course it's a business decision whether or not to implement the tech.

 

[Scheuk]

Moderator: Personal insults are not allowed.

EdIt: Apologies to @Costin, just got a bit annoyed at another person equating raising concerns to whining over nothing. But, yea, my bad.

 

[archaven]

The interview clearly state "this is an Nvidia-powered ittle" and would not use Mantle. This is disappointing. Honestly.

 

[sidspyker]

Mantle isn't a 'plug and play' style API or something, it takes a lot of time and resources to implement a different rendering API to a game, it would be one of the biggest changes to a game's code. Different methods, different syntax, different method of draw calls.

 

[Scheuk]

Mantle isn't a 'plug and play' style API or something, it takes a lot of time and resources to implement a different rendering API to a game, it would be one of the biggest changes to a game's code. Different methods, different syntax, different method of draw calls.

Yea, even as an AMD user, I know it's hardly feasible to support both Mantle and Gameworks by having two separate pieces of scripts. All I want is for the game to run smoothly on all hardware irrespective of which manufacturer it belongs to.

 

[archaven]

Whatever it is proprietary features are really bad for gamers. Not because i can't have that features i'm whining. For all i care, i can even afford both Nvidia and AMD cards. It be REALLY interesting and i hope someone would do a comparison after Witcher 3 is released. Comparison on Gameworks feature vs. Vanilla AMD card.

If there's a BIG difference in visuals, i'd be the first and go get myself an Nvidia card simply because i don't want to miss out any fine details. See? Is Nvidia Gameworks partnering effective?

 

[Aver]

I don't understand people.

The whining here really boils down to this: I don't have the hardware to run the game with these effects so they shouldn't be there at all ( and no there is no open source alternative for TXAA, Hair Tech, Fur Tech, HBAO+ etc. ).

It's not a problem with exclusive features. Actually only feature from this list that doesn't work on AMD card is TXAA and as lead engine developer said - right now they don't have plans to implement TXAA. Hair and Fur tech work on all GPUs and for cloth TW3 will be using only CPU.

So it's not a problem with exclusivity - I just doubt if game will be well optimized, because most of GameWorks games were terrible in that matter. Maybe sometimes I'm a little bit skeptical, but it's Nvidia is to blame that focus mostly on devs that don't care about PC gamers like Ubisoft or Activison - or maybe it's not that good tech.

I hope CDPR will prove me wrong.

 

[GuyNwah]

Let's be honest: Gamesworks is 90% about nvidia-only proprietary libraries. The only thing not limited to nvidia GPUs are CPU Physx effects but they usually don't work very well. Optimized HBAO+, TXAA, optimized tesselation and the good Physx stuff only run on nvidia GPUs.

You can say whatever you want: choosing Gameworks for development is favoring nvidia above AMD.

That is true. It is favoring nVidia over AMD. Those who think it is unjustified, though, do not understand the graphics business. The graphics business is not about building the faster GPU or the faster drivers or the faster API. It is not about treating all competitors equally. It is about providing complete solutions to development requirements that customers can use right now. It's all about the application-level software, all about engineering support, all about establishing and maintaining relationships that get your customers' work done faster and better.

If I'm the engineer choosing tools for a project, I'm damn well going to favor the vendor that offers me the better tools and the better support and the one that's worked well with my team before. nVidia is offering solutions to problems CDPR has to solve today with resources they have already, not spend man-years working out solutions that don't offend AMD or the open-source community.

AMD has some catching up to do; if they want to demand a level playing field, they have to put a competitive team on it.

 

[CostinRaz]

Or maybe just maybe AMD is terrible when it comes to game drivers in comparison to Nvidia.

 

[Aver]

If I'm the engineer choosing tools for a project, I'm damn well going to favor the vendor that offers me the better tools and the better support.

After I saw this: https://twitter.com/thinkinggamer/status/452737821946970112

I question "better support". Also there are some doubts about "awesomeness" of nvidia driver technicians in there.

 

[GuyNwah]

After I saw this: https://twitter.com/thinkinggamer/status/452737821946970112

I question "better support". Also there are some doubts about "awesomeness" of nvidia driver technicians in there.

That's the difference between being an amateur third party, which those tweeters are, and a professional customer. You want good support from a vendor, you get it by being a good customer.

AMD's published APIs do not get the job done. They can be as open as they want with them, and it won't make a difference. If they don't deliver anything as complete as GameWorks, they don't get the business of companies that know not to remake what they can already buy.

Or maybe just maybe AMD is terrible when it comes to game drivers in comparison to Nvidia.

It's not the drivers. AMD drivers aren't in any way consistently worse than nVidia's. It's the whole package. Either you have a ready-to-integrate game physics package, or you don't. Either you have engineers working with your customer to make your package do what they need to do, or you don't.

I am not a party to anything that went down between CDPR and AMD. But it sure looks to me like nVidia offered them something they could use now and knock man-years off their workload, and AMD didn't.

 

[Aver]

That's the difference between being an amateur third party, which those tweeters are, and a professional customer. You want good support from a vendor, you get it by being a good customer.

Did you check who they are? Two of them are engineers in Ubisoft Montreal - not so amateur company, one of them was lead graphics programmer behind Assassin's Creed: Black Flag and he was also working on The Witcher 2. They are working for the biggest Nvidia partner. Sorry, but I trust their words more then I trust yours when it comes to making games.

 

[CostinRaz]

Considering how every Ubisoft game runs on PC that doesn't say much.

But do read exactly what he said.

 

[GuyNwah]

Nah, they may have done development, but they write like amateurs. They claim to be frustrated by the lack of current information on nVidia products, but not being nVidia customers, they have neither current information nor support to get that information. You want to use their products, you need to act like a professional. Professionals establish a working relationship with the vendor and get their information through that relationship.

 

[Scheuk]

@Guy N'wah Well, all I know is that it would mighty unprofessional to have the game be unoptimized for 40% of your playerbase on PC.