Ubisoft has released a new trailer for Tom Clancy’s The Division, in which Anders Holmquist, Technical Directior on The Division, describes the NVIDIA technology integrated into the PC version of the game. From the looks of it, Tom Clancy’s The Division will only support HBAO+ and PCSS shadows. Enjoy the trailer after the jump!
![Tom Clancy’s The Division Trailer - NVIDIA GameWorks | Ubisoft [NA]](https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-youtube-lyte/lyteCache.php?origThumbUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F6NDAEapSGes%2F0.jpg)
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
NVIDIA GAMENOTWORKS Technology.
AMD TearWorks Technology.
Blame developers for making sh*tty PC ports. The simple minded gamer blames Gameworks.
lol
Fermi will not receive Vulcan API support 😉
The beginning of the end.
Can you tell us how HBAO+ and PCSS is the beginning of end? And please real arguments, not propaganda. 🙂
I can hear the cries of AMD fanboys, lol.
AMD cards support HBAO+ and PCSS shadows.
Both features tend to run off the CPU now due to AMD complainers.
Maybe so (I forgot, AMD supports HDAO, not HBAO). I mean you can enable this feature in the AC Unity and Syndicate, for example, fps drops, but not critically.
When the The Witcher 3 first came out, I used a GTX 770 as a secondary PhysX card with my Titan X as the primary. There was up to ~12% usage on the GTX 770 due to HBAO+ since HairWorks runs on the CPU via DirectCompute. After the 1.03/1.04 patch, there was zero percent usage.
AC Unity was an unoptimized mess that should be forgotten.
Hairworks only runs on the CPU with AMD GPUs.
Nothing new…these features were all in the Beta, the game still ran fine.
Is it me or the video slightly stutters every 1 second?
Its you or your PC, here is fine.
No it’s the actual representation of the game with GameWorks ON.
Suck a donkey nvidia and your f’ing low fps causing gameworks closed source framework. It works bad on anything including their own cards
What low fps? Maybe your system is just too crap!
Don’t like it turn it off, problem solved.
WATCH_DOGS
How the fk do they even hire these guys? English is a must, jesus christ.
It’s narrated by the developers, who are Swedish. I’m pretty sure they purposefully choose staff with thick accents to make it seem more exotic.
haha nice one!
Another features taht people will not use lol to get extra fps
Why use nvidia gayworks if it brakes the game lol
Surprise! …b/c it doesn’t.
lower fps
Thats PC gaming 101: prettier graphics = lower framerates.
So many console drones trying to be PC gamers…it would explain all of the whining.
Mental age of 8 I think, I mean using gay in a word to imply something is bad, certainly implies you’re homophobic.
Oh these comments, they will never cease to amuse me.
And make me depressed. And misanthropic.
Waoooo now i can say this game is not downgraded anymore . KEK!
Judging by Farcry Primal from Total Biscuit’s WTF is, The Division runs vastly better.
just watched 1920 x 1080 (28104 bitrate)
FPS: 60 fps
Size: 510.59 MB video file not youtube and its amazing need good story only
Nvidia Defense Force has launched an attack!
More like a preemptive strike.
Yes because people like you and their conspiracies. How about I start one, AMD biased optimisation is coming to PC ports and it’s showing, 390 is over 20FPS faster in Hitman beta than the GTX 970, if that was the other way around people would be crying and blaming NVIDIA. AMD performs well in The Division, so much for that bullsh*t Gameworks is gimping AMD performance.
AMD don’t need driver updates now for beta games for them to perform better it seems, AoS driver optimisations since alpha. What a turn around, AMD finally go their sh*t together and providing some real competition.
And what good came out of it? Obviously there is more harm than good from Gameworks.
Gameworks never broken no games, those games were sh*tty optimised. I give you Hitman beta and Farcry Primal as examples and both of these games seem to run better on AMD. PC version doesn’t seem to have HRAA either, console exclusives AA method.
Broke or not, what is it for? TXAA is the worst possible AA method I’ve ever seen, PCSS is some kind of sheet that makes shadows more blurry, HBAO+ (what a stupid title) doesn’t differs much from HBAO. Hairworks may be good, but then again, if not for TressFX, Nvidia would have never implemented anything like it, because the only reason why this thing exists is to put their greedy hands on games codes, make some deals to gimp performance, etc. It was never about making your experience better.
What exactly false about Project Cars? Car physics in this game was built around Physx, never intended to even work on AMD cards. It’s only natural that AMD users got sheetty performance.
So much wrong there I don’t even want to begin putting you right. I think you’re drunk.
The quality of TXAA depends on the implementation approach of the game developer, there’s good and bad examples.
>Hairworks may be good, but then again, if not for TressFX, Nvidia would have never implemented anything like it
Absolutely false and ignorant statement.
Nvidia has been researching real time hair simulation for a very, very long time, they’ve had tech demos of it way before AMD even showed any interest in such thing, Hairworks is simply an evolution of this tech and the first time it’s become usable in games with reasonable performance.
>the only reason why this thing exists is to put their greedy hands on games codes, make some deals to gimp performance, etc
Extraordinary claims and a whole load of conjecture.
The existence of Gameworks is explained incredibly easily: the vast majority of developers do not have the budget or resources to develop in-house solutions of equivalent vfx, even less developers would be willing to create such technology to be used exclusively on PC.
Nvidia licenses this technology to interested developers in return of integrated Nvidia branding and marketing into their product.
It’s a pretty good deal.
AMD could get full access to Gameworks source code if they were willing to license it like everybody else, Nvidia has made them such offers and they refused.
>The quality of TXAA
Akin FXAA, an unnecessary AA algorithm that will hopefully die soon. Will never beat SMAA, no matter who will implement it.
>Nvidia has been researching
You just said it yourself: Nvidia has been researching it for years, and AMD managed to implement it faster while they weren’t even interested in this. What does that mean? It means exactly what I said: Nvidia wasn’t going to push the technology into masses. Demos are all they had.
>It’s a pretty good deal.
But of course it is! It’s a good deal for Nvidia, and sometimes for a developer, but almost never for a consumer.
“Car physics in this game was built around Physx, never intended to even work on AMD cards”
This is completely false. According to developers, they used Physx only in 10% of overall physics solution in the game. The most part of physics used in Project Cars is their own solution (or build around PhysX). What you are saying is just conspiracy theory. Nothing more.
Ian Bell is a troll. I don’t believe a single word he says.
So instead of that you believe other trolls who know nothing about PhysX implementation in Project Cars. Tell why he would lie about it? BTW this game doesn’t use GPu PhysX and it uses last PhysX SDK which has effective CPU PhysX solution. This really can’t be a problem. But I really would like to know from where do you have information, that physics in Project Cars is implemented around PhysX SDK? There is know single proof about it.
We’ve already discussed this. GCN is the superior architecture. It has only gotten faster over time and will continue to do so with Vulcan and DX12. No conspiracy here.
You just keep on believing that buddy, that’s why it’s lost out in DX11 for years and AMD made Mantle because DirectX 11 wasn’t going their way, and wasn’t designed for their Asynchronous hardware, Mantle, DX12 is..
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that AMD has been keeping up, but has had several late launches with Nvidia being months ahead in some cases. AMD has had a long time issue with CPU overhead on DX11, but now that is starting to be irrelevant anyways due to the maturity of their drivers and the creation of RTG. I like both brands honestly but I’ve bought AMD recently due to their game bundles. Back to the point I hope to see AMD gain a large part of the market share back with the launch of Pascal, which they should because they will be launching first.
Brace yourselves, the hate is coming.
Yes, let’s let idiots blame Gameworks every time, even when it’s actually false like with Project cars.
LOL conspiracy, right.
Closed libraries are not bad idea, they usurp right to optimize the code from developers who actually make they game to 3rd party company that only goal is to sell most of their new HW. That is why kepler’s performance is where it is and that is why it is actually great idea, unfortunately not for customers.
This has to AMD’s year to shine again, I just have a feeling in my bones.
This is one of the 1st Titles from Ubisoft that uses Gameworks right next to Siege. Shows how much Ubisoft is improving for their PC ports for Performance / Optimization. Heck even the newst ACS 1.4 Patch is a major improvement with the Gameworks options in performance.
People complaining over optional stuff that most people on Nvidia cards do not even run….
I HATE soft shadows and AMD’s are just as bad and so is every games implementation. I am never intentionally blurring anything.
HBAO+? Optional, hits all hardware hard so who cares? No one is forcing you to run this @$%#. The entire industry is moving to FREE Ambient Occlusion with Async anyways. Console ROTR did it. Gears Ultimate said they would do it per Eurogamer. Sony games are doing it. HBAO+ will be a dinosaur anyways. Think of it as a stupidly expensive costing effect, that we have currently on DX 11 that looks a little better than console AA. Whoop de do.
I could see AMD card owners complaining about Phsyx on GPU or something. Optional soft shadows, HBAO+? Who gives a @#%$. One makes the game look worse and the other people will not touch outside a 980Ti so they can get more FPS in a shooter lol.
Do you not understand that PCSS doesn’t just randomly blur shadows? It’s calculating the softening based on light intensity and casting distance from the object.
Have you never gone outside to see how long shadows look like?
HBAO+ has never been an expensive effect, I don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
Yeah I understand and I also understand it looks bad. Guess what? Depth of field looked bad in Witcher 3 to. If I am focusing on Geralt or someone in a conversation my eyes already apply depth of field to everything I am not focusing on. Depth of field just means I cannot switch to looking at something else on the screen, like I could if I wanted to in real life. The only thing depth of field is good for is screenshots.
A game is not a movie. The more they try to make games look like one? The worse they look. Chromatic Aberration is the worst thing I have ever seen.
Also HBAO+ IS an expensive effect. It is stupidly expensive if you compare it to what consoles are doing now with Async and getting for free. A 750ti in ROTR cannot even match HALF of Xbone’s performance at lower settings all because it does not get it’s AO/lighting for free from Async. That is with just regular AO, not HBAO+ which is even more demanding due to higher samples. Like I said HBAO + is a dinosaur. It looks SLIGHTLY better than what the consoles get for free, is stupidly more demanding and the only time you can even notice the difference is still shots. That is why they show the difference in this video in a still shot. All that overhead could be better used on things that matter a lot more.
HBAO + is the only thing in Gameworks worth a darn and it is still silly. Hairworks could be useful on animals/monsters at lower tessellation.
If you think this is just bashing Nvidia? Tress FX was just as bad as hairworks on overhead before Square optimized it. It used way too much compute and was just as useless because of that. You could run 1440p over 1080p turning it off, which made it POINTLESS. Why would you make one small part of the game look better when you can make the entire game look better. Now that is is way lighter? It can be worth it.
>I also understand it looks bad
Your opinion is irrelevant, the aim of PCSS is to further approximate shadow maps in games to real life behaviour.
The discussion concerned soft shadows and you switched it to depth of field and CA, that’s what we call a red herring.
>HBAO + is the only thing in Gameworks worth a darn and it is still silly.
Thanks for sharing your incredibly interesting opinion, filled with so much substance.
TressFX in the new TR has the same performance impact on my system as Hairworks in Witcher 3, and it’s rendering considerably less hair strands and is only used on Lara Croft.
>You could run 1440p over 1080p turning it off
Funny that never happened with Hairworks for me.
“TressFX in the new TR has the same performance impact on my system as Hairworks in Witcher 3”
Bull@$%#. I have a 980Ti and I still didn’t run hairworks on Geralt on my last playthrough. I ran 1440p. I WAS able to fit in HBAO+ and still keep above 60 turning some silly settings down 1 (vegetation distance).
You are so full of @$%# I do not even know where to begin. Hairworks might be the most purposely unoptimized effect ever made as it was originally implemented in the game.
1) it ran at at LEAST 4 times the tessellation needed for the effect (and Nvidia did this because their GPU’s were stronger at tessellation, just like AMD stressed compute on Tress FX 1.0).
2) It had 8xMSAA on by default in the ini, which is f’ing crazy.
HBAO + is the only good thing in gameworks and you still cannot fit it in a budget on anything but their highest tier card if you set the things that matter more on their highest setting like 1440p native or DSR.
Want to know why Nvidia made Game Works? To sell you more expensive cards than you need with PURPOSELY unoptimized effects.
If you run hairworks over 1440p? You are an imbecile. If you run HBAO + over it, you are an even bigger imbecile. I wouldn’t even run HBAO+ over injected SMAA with SweetFX if one of the effects would keep me from a locked 60 fps. Why? Cus SMAA matters way more. 1440p and GOOD SMAA looks like friggin 4k.
>1440p and GOOD SMAA looks like friggin 4k.
You’re senile.
Was never going to buy it anyway due to Uplay and it being Ubisoft but it is sad to see Gameworks being slapped onto another game and this is coming from an Nvidia user.
>and this is coming from an Nvidia user
Love when people say this at the end of their statements as if it gives them more credence or weight.
You’re complaining about the existence of two optional vfx?
I love how me using a product let alone buying one gives me less credit and having less of an opinion.
You’re complaining about my opinion from an Nvidia user because it doesn’t fit with your view?, are you new to the net or something?.
Did you actually read my comment?
You added in “this is coming from an Nvidia user” at the end to reinforce your statement and imply that it has validity due to it.
Why would anyone read any of your comments. You are either mark3ting or a shareholder and no one just says @#%$ like “conspiracy theory” or “entitled” in random conversations when someone is criticizing something except mark3ting. The only people who sink to such depths is astroturfers and they have that exact strategy laid out in internal documents in things like the Comes VS Microsoft case.
You are also posting 100 percent inaccurate, DECEPTIVE, information. Example.
“Hairworks only runs on the CPU with AMD GPUs.”
That is 100 percent a lie.
You are either an astroturfer or the dumbest person to ever post on this forum.
Funny that the word “entitled” is nowhere in my comments.
I also love how you brand anybody who doesn’t fall behind your line of thought as covert Nvidia marketing employees or shareholders lmao.
Buddy, no one just randomly calls facts theories and repeats that BS many times. You also posted a 100 percent lie or are so IGNorant you do not know the difference between Physx and Hairworks and that argument would still be wrong in darn near all recent games because it is SUPER rare that a game will use physx from the GPU these days. They run it from the CPU on both vendors cards.
Claims that are formed out of conjecture are not facts. That was the whole point I was making. Calling it fact doesn’t turn it into one no matter how much you repeat it.
“Tae-Yong Kim: The solver can simulate any line/curve geometry such as fur, hair, grass, etc. However, most emphasis so far has been put on fur, and we are still expanding its capability for other types of objects. Currently, it has some simple collision support, but we plan to add more robust collision handling against deformable character mesh in the future.
It also supports wind and various grooming functions such as stiffness, waviness, clumping, length variation etc. through various texture map supports. Combining all these parameters, users are able to simulate wet fur, dry fur, and even transitioning between those.
It is currently implemented as GPU only feature.”
Hairworks is run from the GPU you idiot. It is tessellation based. I had a R9 290 when I originally played Witcher 3 and if I set tessellation to 16x (64 was the default) in Catalyst it LOOKED EXACTLY THE SAME, and was FASTER than my 970 with the setting on.
8x looked worse. 4x looked bad. Hairworks performance will look like a tessellation benchmark. It has nothing to do with CPU. Zero. Notta.
I was conflating it with something else, Hairworks is DirectCompute based so it’s capable of running on the GPU on both vendors. My mistake.
No…Hairworks is not just Directcompute. TressFX 1.0 was which is why it ran like garbage on many Nvidia cards with weak compute. Maxwell has much better compute than Kepler did.
Please just stop. You are too stupid to have this conversation and I am sick of having it.
Hairworks and Tress FX 1.0 were both SABOTAGED by their own GPU makers to cripple the other companies cards and to sell higher tier cards from THEM, with something they excelled at. Get it now? It is stupid marketing and it was not until Tress FX became opensource and a third party like Square was able to OPTIMIZE it (also why they could rename it purehair), that the effect ran great for everyone, and was worth a darn.
Hairworks could be optimized just as well. 16x Tessellation and it would be FANTASTIC to use on monsters and animals. Tress FX just looks better on people. They both have strengths.
Until Hairworks goes open source? It is useless. Why? Cus AMD owners can set tess to 16x in catalyst and get better performance and laugh at Nvidia, and Nvidia wants to use it to sell higher tier cards and F over their own owners.
Also game makers want nothing to do with it at 64x tess. I feel sorry for the brilliant guys at Nvidia who made it, because it COULD be used in lots of games and look awesome.
I guess I’m the moron.
“Tae-Yong Kim: One of the goals of NVIDIA GameWorks is to solve hard visual computing problems in a way that balances implementation efficiency and time-to-market, runtime performance, and ease of integration. This requires choosing the right technologies, and sometimes that will lead to CUDA solutions, other times to DirectCompute, and other times to solutions using completely different approaches.
With NVIDIA HairWorks, the balance landed in favor of DirectCompute, partly because the simulation portion of the algorithm is a small part of overall runtime cost, which is dominated by rendering.”
How’s that curb stomping?
Except it is valid that I a user of an Nvidia GPU have a dislike for NV gameworks, I’m not the only one either. Why can that not have any weight?.
Are you some sort of mental invalid?
I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion, but you purposefully added the “coming from an Nvidia user” because you think this gives it more weight or validity.
Or are you trying to call me a liar?.
Fallout 4, lol.
Fortunately not all of us believe in conspiracy theories propagated by random people on the internet and derived from conjecture.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a simple marketing strategy to sell more high-end GPUs. You don’t need anything from “random people on the internet”, gimped Kepler cards alone are enough to understand.
What you’re describing is a conspiracy theory, the claims you make are all conjecture. Research what that word means.
And I recommend you to read a few books about marketing.
You should read a few books about technologies you are talking about. That would be better idea.
What so fun in that??