Bethesda has released a new beta update for Fallout 4. According to its changelog, this beta patch adds weapon debris effects for NVIDIA’s GPUs, as well as support for HBAO+. In addition, the update improves performance when looking through a scope, and comes with general memory and stability improvements. This patch will be auto-downloaded and you can read its complete changelog below.
Fallout 4 – Beta Update 1.3 Changelog:
New Features:
- New ambient occlusion setting, HBAO+
- New weapon debris effects (NVIDIA cards only)
- Added status menu for settlers in your settlements
- Added ability to rotate an object you are holding with left/right triggers and pressing down on left thumbstick lets you switch the rotating axis
- Improved “ESDF” keys remapping support while in Workshop mode
Gameplay Fixes:
- General memory and stability improvements
- Improved performance when looking through a scope
- Fixed issue where player could warp to a different location when aiming
- Companions can no longer get stuck with radiation poisoning
- Fixed an issue where Vault 81 residents would not dismember correctly
- Big Leagues perk now displays calculated damage correctly
- Fixed issue with third person camera not displaying properly after exiting certain crafting stations
- Fixed an issue where subtitles would occasionally not update properly
- Effects will properly be removed on companions when items are unequipped
- MacReady’s Killshot perk now calculates headshot percentages properly
- Fixed an issue with NPCs getting stuck in Power Armor
- Fixed a rare issue with companions getting stuck in down state
- Second rank of Aquaboy now calculates properly
- Fixed an issue with resistance not always lowering the damage correctly when added by mods
- Enabled number of characters available when renaming an item (XB1)
- Fixed issue with player becoming dismembered while still alive
- Robotics expert is now usable in combat
- Stimpaks can now be used on Curie after the transformation
- Playing a holotape found in wilderness while switching point of view no longer causes the screen to blur or controls to be locked
Quest Fixes:
- Fixed an issue with “Taking Independence” where the minutemen remaining from the battle against the Mirelurk Queen would not gather in the Castle
- Fixed an issue where invulnerable characters would get stuck in combat
- Fixed an issue where Preston would send player to a settlement instead of a dungeon as part of a Minutemen quest
- Fixed an issue where Synths could attack the Castle while the player was friends with the Institute
- Fixed an issue where killing a caravan would leave a quest open
- Fixed an issue where Dogmeat would stay at Fort Hagen after “Reunions” was completed
- Fixed an issue where the player couldn’t talk to Desdemona to complete “Underground Undercover”
- Fixed an issue where the player could get stuck exiting the cryopod
- Fixed an issue where the player could no longer get Preston as a companion
- In “The End of the Line,” fixed an issue that would prevent the player from killing the leaders of the Railroad
- Fixed an issue with Minutemen quests repeating improperly
- Fixed an issue where the player couldn’t get back into the Railroad headquarters after being kicked out of the Brotherhood of Steel
- After finishing “The Big Dig,” fixed an issue where Hancock would no longer offer to be a companion or help with the “Silver Shroud” quest
- Fixed an issue with obtaining the Dampening Coils from Saugus Ironworks before going to Yangtze
- During “Unlikely Valentine,” fixed an issue where the player could be blocked from entering Vault 114
- In “Confidence Man,” Bull and Gouger can now be killed
- During “Taking Independence,” fixed an issue that would prevent the radio transmitter from powering up
- In “Human Error,” fixed an issue where killing Dan would cause the quest to not complete properly
- Fixed an issue with “Tactical Thinking” where leaving dialogue early with Captain Kells to reprogram P.A.M. could cause quest to not completely properly
Workshop Fixes:
- Fixed a bug that would cause settler counts to appear incorrectly
- Fixed an issue that could prevent the player from setting up a supply line in settlements with a high population
- Improvements to snapping pieces together while in Workshop mode
- Fixed an issue that caused powered items to stop functioning permanently if its power source was ever removed
- Player can now build workbenches in their Diamond City house
- Building wires no longer uses up copper
- Fixed issue with certain settlement attacks not generating properly
- Fixed an issue with settlement happiness calculations
- Settlers assigned to weapons stand will now stand next to it
- Diamond City house now shows provided power
- Repairing items will now correctly consume resources
- Fixed an issue where companion would ignore commands at workshop locations
- Fixed an issue with crops appearing destroyed after saving and reloading
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
exclusive features on graphics cards only turns PC gaming into console gaming
same as supporting company that does that^^
it’s only going to get worse
whiners whiners everywhere …. ^^
As an NVIDIA user you should be glad. I don’t see you whine about graphics features for PC only.
I would rather see Nvidia do what AMD is doing and open up it’s SDK to make gaming better for all PC gamer’s. But that’s not gonna happen since Nvidia has so much market share as well as money.
But it kinda makes me wonder just how open AMD would be if they had Nvidia’s money and market share… I mean I remember when I had my ATI Rage 128 Pro card and ATI was all about prop tech and competition. Kinda makes me wish AMD never purchased ATI.
But at the same time….Don’t you think companies should let the hardware do the talking and not software to make the competitions hardware look weak?
Honestly I just don’t see your point, you buy a product based on what it can give you or offer better over the other, it’s simply not all about hardware, it’s the whole package including software and features.
Yeah well back in 1998 it was not about software crippling hardware.. It was You got ATI, 3DFx, or Nvidia based on what got the best performance…
You don’t see my point because you got fanboy logic. I am loyal to no company. I go with who I feel has the best tech for the time I have money for it.
If Nvidia would man up they would make their SDK open like AMD has it. Let’s the hardware do the talking again. Not gimping the competition with software. XD
Don’t call me a fanboy just to shut the conversation down because you don’t like my point of view, it makes you look really dumb. Nothing wrong with being loyal to a company that you’ve been happy with, I bet you’re an NVIDIA user so you’ve got no reason to complain. If you like AMD so much go buy their GPUs.
If you feel so strongly, buy AMD but I guess you’re a hypocrite that you have an NVIDIA GPU and trying to make out AMD to be the victim .AMD doesn’t need people like you fighting for them.
You’re getting annoying, the AMD SDK hasn’t been released, demonstrated nor used in any game.
Ultimately it will be abandoned like most of their open source projects.
They do not want to invest money and fully develop it themselves, they are hoping for the public to do it for free.
It will not be able to compete with Gameworks which has cost Nvidia several millions of dollars over many years.
Comparing a VFX SDK to console exclusivity for games is a false, dishonest comparison. Are you that fücking stupid man? Or are you consciously lying because it fits your narrative?
It always makes me laugh how he can make assumptions about AMD’s SDK, he doesn’t even know if it’s going to be any good, easy to use or cost effective to developers or even if the uptake will be any good. Basically, all he has to say is it’s open, other than that there seems to be nothing else going for it
“If Nvidia would man up they would make their SDK open like AMD has it.”
He’s talking about “manliness”…He is calling Nvidia pussïes because they don’t give away tens of millions of dollars worth of technology which they’ve been developing and investing in for the last 5 years or more.
“Yeah well back in 1998 it was not about software crippling hardware..”
Now he is simply spreading misinformation. The claims about Nvidia attempting to sabotage or cripple AMD have been debunked long ago.
AMD is allowed to optimize Gameworks for their GPUs, but they cannot access its source code because it’s fücking property of another company.
Nvidia has offered them to license Gameworks, they have refused it because they either don’t want to spend the cash (meaning they aren’t all that concerned about Gameworks running worse on their GPUs) or because they cannot afford it.
Yep, clueless people saying AMD can’t optimise ,they optimise their drivers throught binary all the time. funny how AMD’s Omega driver increased performance by a large amount in AC Unity, I mean that was magic right? :p
Gameworks has never affected my purchasing decisions when it comes to GPUs. The only reasons I buy Nvidia is because the GPUs have better efficiency, so thermals, acoustics and power consumption is lower, driver support is far better, multi GPU support is far better and now G-SYNC also contributes to it, it’s fantastic technology and I could never imagine getting a monitor without it in the future, it’s also been empirically demonstrated to be superior to “free-sync” (free my äss),
Yeah no wonder AMD are have having financial issues offering free tech to consumers, right….. :p
Nothing to stop AMD developing and adding it’s own features, and AMD are actually developing their own open source toolset gpuopen, but as usual, it’s a work in progress project, that will probably be abandoned, because they’re not prepared to invest the necessary money in the software and rely on others to do the work for them. That’s why they pushed mantle, that’s why they’re pushing gpuopen , as they want to push everything onto developers, so they don’t have to invest as much into drivers and developing software.
It’s the same reason their dx11 drivers aren’t as good, it’s the reason it’s taken forever for AMD to release decent software in form of crimson, and ultimately is reason Nvidia lead the market so much. One makes good, solid , cheaper GPU, the other makes a package, which it supports heavily in all regards, making it a better product all round.
Nvidia invest fortune to ensure their product is very attractive to developers and customers alike. AMD makes good GPU, but their support outside of it is minimal, as they can’t afford investment, not because they are some idealistic, altruistic entity acting in best interests of gamers.
Is it a general rule now about GPU vendors having to invest into template-ish 3d effects and offer them to developers? I don’t remember this being a thing before TWIMTBP. Do all other hardware vendors like CPU vendors and soundcard vendors have to do this to stay in business? I mean, when some developer create a game (read: code software and create content), how is it acceptable that they need help from hardware vendors?
And if this is perfectly fine, why some developers are allowed to get this help from vendors and others don’t even have a chance? Where is that line between “your game is simple/indie enough for you to handle it yourself” and “your engine is rather complex, you should definitely consult our engineers to get some help”? Wouldn’t it really be a line between “you don’t have enough userbase for us to care” and “your brand seems popular enough, we want to be in your party too”?
If GameWorks features are that great, why game forums are filled with suggestions on why and how to disable them?
Where did anyone say it’s compulsory? The reason Nvidia do so, is it makes developer’s lives easier to implement certain effects, in same way developer’s use third party software tools to implement other features such as speedtree for adding vegetation etc etc. If developers sign up for gameworks, then Nvidia provide their tool library to work with , meaning developers potentially dont have to spend hundreds, maybe thousands of man hours doing various custom solutions, which they don’t have budget or time for. Nvidia provides the tools and support in testing it’s integration on their hardware.
Any game potentially could be a gameworks game. they just need to wish to use those features. Obviously Nvidia wants to integrate certain features in high profile games, as a selling point, what’s issue with that? It’s a bonus option for their customers, who have GPU power spare to use them, and a unique selling point outside raw power when selling a GPU.
And why are game forums filled with people wanting to disable gameworks? Because theyre self entitled tools mainly, and want to be able to max out every setting, whilst not having a GPU capable enough to do so. I cant run all gameworks features on my 980ti at 4k, sometimes UI cant even run all normall settings maxed, I dont cry about it. If I want, I can turn it off, as can they. What’s the issue?
These are great features that add extra touches visually, but are right now, computationally expensive, as is MSAA x4 , as is more tessellation, as is volumetric lighting etc etcf, so because not everyone can run them, should developers stop using them? Should they just port straight console versions of games, because majority of PC owners dont have sufficient GPU power to 60fps with better settings?
No, of course not. If you cant run these features turn them off, and there you go, you’ve lost nothing.
So, developers can save money and man hours by turning to Nvidia tools to implement certain effects, because otherwise they would need more time to release a game. That should mean those effects were originally scheduled to be implemented in the engine, right? But then you say those are all optional and nobody lose anything by disabling them. That wouldn’t happen if they wouldn’t use Nvidia’s help in the first place. You don’t see the issue here?
There are already enough games where you can clearly see with some effects being implemented purely through Nvidia tools, the scenes actually missing proper alternative implementation when you decide to disable Nvidia options. Those were actually important enough effects that a lot of peple would simply miss out because they did not choose to buy Nvidia’s recent high-end GPU. Remember Mirror’s Edge. Remember Batman. At certain places they simply look like a product in development if you disable PhysX. You can blame developers for their choices all you want, but this is where Nvidia’s policies lead, and this does not look like proper graphics evolution. If game developers are lazy enough to turn to 3rd party solutions, it doesn’t mean they are lazy enough to not implement most of the same stuff themselves, properly and effectively. If everyone decide to turn to GameWorks, we might stop seeing variety in implementations for basic physics and graphics effects.
The comparison with third party software tools for vegetation is very bad. Third party software developers earn money by selling their work. Or they are themselves artists and game developers who want to share their work with other artists and developers. Nvidia does not develop games. They might not sell their tools for money, but they are trying hard to license all they can and affect new game titles. Their licensing also makes it very difficult or impossible to optimize the code, so their influence to how game performs on all machines is only increasing. While not helping developers become more resistant to laziness. And we can clearly see this in recent game releases.
Frankly , you seen to have no idea of how the business works.
There’s no guarantees that they would implemented certain effects, like hbao+ or its customary built equivalent, as they have zero incentive to do so. Time=money, so why waste so much creating custom solutions, when you don’t have to. However, if a ready made solution there and you don’t need to incur costs using it, it works out well for Nvidia and them, as customers get something they wouldn’t ordinarily get, and Nvidia gets to have publicity of their product and their customers remain loyal if they happy with features. That’s whole point of gameworks. It’s a ready made solution to general issues in game development, that either don’t get addressed, require a custom solution or a third party solution.
Point is, developers want to use these features as it benefits them and Nvidia, and Nvidias customers.
All your ranting don’t mean anything. Reality is, developers want to do minimal work they can, because of costs. Gameworks helps them offer better product for no extra cost effectively. Without that support, chances are, they would just not bother. That’s why sometimes you get bare bones ports
First you said that it helps them to save time and money, then you say it doesn’t add really much, just makes the final product more appealing. Where would they spend their time if all Nvidia proposed are just optional features then? I conclude that either they weren’t planning on adding extra features (therefore there would be no time to save), or they were planning on adding their own implementations of certain things (in which case the end product could become even more appealing). Look at GTA5, there are 3 options for shadows, including ones proposed by both Nvidia and AMD, but in the end most people seem to prefer Rockstar’s own implementation for shadows, which also happen to have the smallest impact on performance. What does it show if not the fact that game developers can implement what they want better than any hardware vendor? Remember all PhysX and GameWorks titles you played. Did you never find vendor-specific effects look weird, like they were just inserted there for the hell of it, and seemingly not even by the same people who made the rest of gfx effects in the game?
So if all developers want is no do less, what a perfect development process would look like? Crumple together several 3rd party engines and middlewares, insert few random texture packs, maybe record sound and voices, write scenario and that’s it? That’s what sounds fine to you?
John Carmack:
“Nvidia does have a stronger dev-relations team. I can always drop an email for an obscure question. So its more of a socio-cultural decision there rather than a raw “Which hardware is better.” Although that does feed back into it, when you’ve got the dev-relation team that is deeply intertwined with the development studio. That tends to make your hardware, in some cases, come out better than what it truly is, because it’s got more of the software side behind it.
Nvidia invests a third of their revenue into R&D. I cannot say the same about AMD.
Exact figures, please.
“These days, Nvidia outspends AMD on R&D by margins similar to AMD’s lead during 2011: $348 million per quarter for Nvidia, as opposed to $238 million for AMD. Nvidia spends a greater percentage of its revenue on R&D, too: 31%, as opposed to AMD’s 20%, according to EXPreview”
You mean like Microsoft, Windows and DirectX which is an actual monopoly and has been for 20 years.
Sorry dude, it’s business ,adds value to NVIDIA cards for their customers.
Yeah, nvidia are greedy bastrds!
Always love more settings 🙂
Except when they’re Nvidia-only.
nvidia only or not. Choice is the power of the pc player.
weapon debris is now an exclusive effect, nice.
The particle effects are an exclusive feature.
Cool cool.. is it gonna be like in Borderlands 2? I liked those effects quite a bit!
the effects are cool and all but i’m still waiting for sli/crossfire support.
and maybe bethesda could make it so i get more than 20fps in downtown areas with a lot of shadows
HBAO+ was really needed in this game, really happy to see it because it adds depth to the game that looks flat and dated. Can’t complain about the style of the game, PBR, I use Luma sharpen with TAA, looks so much better than the default blurry mess.
boring game!
It’s called adding value, why should I buy AMD when NVIDIA can offer unique features? It doesn’t happen with any other product, PC hardware offers software features and tech only available to them.
Finally! Everyone likes new features. But maybe, just maybe, fix the performance issues first?
The problem is, that these people believe, that Gameworks influence game performance even when its effects are turned off. These people mostly know nothing about game or SW development and the only thing they have is their believe. Nobody have chance to argue with their imagination.
Find another comparison sets, ask more people for their opinions. If that’s the kind of shadows you want to be applied to every single game because of how perfect they are, “you’re more deluded than I ever thought”.
This is exactly what you are failing to understand. Some developers already went as far as only including the effect in vendor-exclusive form, without providing any proper replacement. Many objects in Mirror’s Edge, for example, are completely absent if you disable PhysX. That’s not how vanilla version was supposed to look. The more features Nvidia pushes into their tools, the more features will be left like that, in exclusive form. Not only that, but they can also be implemented the same sloppy weird-looking way, and requiring irrational amounts of GPU power. That’s what you support when you think everything is fine here.
Do you mean ask AMD fans or NVIDIA haters? 🙂 I know people like you. If it would from AMD with label OPEN, it would be the best tech for you. If you have problems with PCSS, what other soft shadow method are you recommended? Can you give us example of better method which is more effective and accurate? And which does the same?
“Many objects in Mirror’s Edge, for example, are completely absent if you disable PhysX. That’s not how vanilla version was supposed to look.”
Do you know how is physics implemented in games? And how do you know what would vanilla version looks like without PhysX? Of course there where inserted special objects with given properties with which PhysX can work. It’s up to developers which objects works with PhysX and which not. And there is of course possibility, that there are special objects added to game just to show PhysX in scene. That’s all.
I mean google for opinions and comparisons. People report blocky gradients between different levels of details and weird behavior for building shadows, at least in GTA5. Several articles suggested that Softest option is preferable.
I recommend letting developers implement their own solutions and not letting hardware vendor insert their single solution into all software games asap. Again, shadows don’t have to be realistic or accurate, just like anything else in games. They should be efficient and look fine enough.
I think developers could do better than that if not for PhysX. But kiran kara seems to know better, it was his suggestion that PhysX only added extra effects to the game. If that’s the case, I wonder who saved anyone’s time and money by adding PhysX.
So what that means is you’re limiting choice to the user. NVIDIA Gameworks effects add choice, they don’t take them away, devs still have to make “their own solutions” ,I mean this is the typical not doing research and just making stuff up.
1. You don’t have to use Gameworks effects.
2. You can disable Gameworks effects.
3. Gameworks are an extra set of graphical effects.
4. These extra effects have no effect when disabled.
5. You can turn PhysX off or on in game or via the NCP.
6. AMD users have a choice to use certain Gameworks effects.
7. The standard effects in game are selectable whether Gameworks is there or not.
I think that conflicts with assumption about how GameWorks should save time and money of game developers.
You can’t disable god rays and tessellation-based dismemberment in Fallout 4 by default.
Which provides developers with copy-paste solutions, and sometimes they choose to not implement any alternative for the same gfx effect.
As long as they can be disabled. And as long as developers did not choose to ignore alternatives in development process.
Why even bring these facts up?
“I think that conflicts with assumption about how GameWorks should save time and money of game developers.”
It’s up to developers. Many games used only TXAA and HBAO+ from Gameworks. And in the most of them, you have other options which can be used instead of them. For example I don’t like TXAA because it blurs rendered image, so I use MSAA when it’s implemented.
“You can’t disable god rays and tessellation-based dismemberment in Fallout 4 by default.”
What do you mean that you can’t disable Godrays? What happened when you set this option to off?
“Which provides developers with copy-paste solutions, and sometimes they choose to not implement any alternative for the same gfx effect.”
It’s not copy paste solution. But it took less time and reasources to implement such effect to the game. Learn something how are these effects implemented. In Amazon, there are really good book which explain how this work.
“And as long as developers did not choose to ignore alternatives in development process”
If developers choose to ignore alternatives, it’s up to them. In that case, these alternatives wouldn’t be here even if they wouldn’t use Gameworks.
PhysX is one of the best middlaware for game physics implementation. The most part of PhysX runs via CPU and is for everybody. I don’t see problem in letting some advanced effects as proprietary for their GPUs (especially if these effects can’t run on CPU).
And there is another thing. PhysX is part of Unreal Engine 4 or Unity 5. Why should developers used their own solutions which is long way run which cost lot of money and resources? Why they shouldn’t use built in physics solution in engine they are using? Or solution which was developed for many years and start something own which is already behind? PhysX works and run good.
And as kiran kara wrote, without NVIDIA or AMD there will be not advanced effects in many games. In these games without for example Gameworks, there will be not something which would replace them. We would have in the most cases only PC ports from console version. It’s all business.
“Again, shadows don’t have to be realistic or accurate, just like anything else in games. They should be efficient and look fine enough.”
So you prefer worse solution because it wouldn’t cost more performance. That’s opinion which I respect, but not share. Computer graphics is my hobby and I like progress in any direction which leads to photorealistic graphics. That will be great for VR in the future.
Only basic effects can realistically run on CPU. Unlike with Havok or custom solutions. Compare Red Faction with Mirror’s Edge. 8 years after gfx evolution, your CPU is a bottleneck for glass destruction that does not even look realistic enough. It has been proven that all those effects can run well on CPU. You don’t code exact newton mechanics into the physics engine and call it a realistic game. You optimize it to be reliable and fine-looking, because it’s a game and not a science project.
Only PhysX v3 branch, which is heavily CPU-optimized. Neither UE4 or Unity 5 are used in absolute majority of GPU-PhysX games. However I wasn’t talking about engines with built-in physics middlewares.
Your assumption is not more realistic than mine here. We won’t know for sure if any replacements would be done, but personally, I trust game developers to be perfectly capable for that. It seems like whenever something shiny made by Nvidia slips into newly released games, many people seem to take it as given that those are super-complex stuff that is better than any other similar thing and that is perfectly worth wasting GPU power on. In reality, most people just disable them because either they are not realistic or they are too power-hungry.
It seems your logic is: anything Nvidia does can not be worse than anything game developers do. And I believe fluidish smoke, fireworkish sparks and moonish gravity can’t bring photorealism or VR faster.
1) Red Faction has really basic precomputed “physics”. It was based on scripts. Not real time computations.
2) “Your assumption is not more realistic than mine here”
I agree. It’s really only assumption.
3) “I trust game developers to be perfectly capable for that”
Yes. Of course they are capable to implement it. But why they don’t do that and why they use in most parts custom third party solutions like ones from NVIDIA?
4) “It seems your logic is: anything Nvidia does can not be worse than anything game developers do”
This is not my logic. People working in game developers studios are smart enough to implement anything what NVIDIA do. But as I see, they are spending time mainly on “basic” game which is given by console version and PC version is only port. And if we get on PC something more, it came after NVIDIA or AMD cooperation. That’s how it works today. Yes we have few exceptions, but only few.
5) “And I believe fluidish smoke, fireworkish sparks and moonish gravity can’t bring photorealism or VR faster”
This is development. PhysX brings GPU computed physics and I take it as next step forward. And I wasn’t talking only about PhysX. I was talking about Gameworks too. Better shadows and lighting techniques is what I want. And what GW do. I don’t care if it’s free or not. It’s a progress. I’m not saying that is for sure good direction, future show us if it’s not. It can be replaced in the future with something else. I hope with something better, but for now, Gameworks provide most advanced graphics techniques which is good. According to my opinion of course. And important think is, that these features are optional. So if you are not satisfied, you can turn them off. I really don’t understand why are people complaining on optional graphical effects. Nobody force them to use it. Take it or leave it. That’s all. There are games which use only GW effects as advantage of PC version, but there are also games which offering another solutions or techniques too. It’s your decision what you use. Really I can’t see anything to complain for.
Probably enough people feel like if there would be no features like PhysX and GameWorks in the game, it would have some other options that wouldn’t look strange, that would work faster and especially wouldn’t require you to have a hardware of specific vendor. For example, I still feel bad about games like Mirror’s Edge being forever locked with PhysX – you won’t be able to play this game on max settings even in 10 years without Nvidia GPU.
It also bugs me how Nvidia has to send its people to every single studio to help with PhysX and GameWorks integration. It’s enough to look at several games to understand how they not only help with the code, but also with content and assets. I care about game immersion more than I care about graphics technology, and instead of being additional eye-candy, many of proposed effects look more like tech demos that were included in the game for marketing purposes, where if it’s not breaking your immersion it at least makes you wonder why it looks like that. I refuse to agree that GPU vendors can help game developers to create a better game. Not through proprietary middlewares, at the very least. Perhaps GPUOpen would lead us to some better way, but it’s too early now to judge.
With all the license stuff Nvidia riddles their tools with, with all the stuff we hear (or not) from the developers, we might never know what really happens behind the closed doors between devs and Nvidia. But it’s obvious that Nvidia is spending too much attention to GameWorks (it’s even included on GPU boxes). To Nvidia, these techs certainly mean much more than many people here make it sound.
It also strikes me how many of those recent titles with catastrophic issues on launch day happen to also come with GameWorks. They remembered to include additional features on launch but failed to make the game work properly for most people.
Don’t anyone find strange the very fact of how Nvidia’s technologies happen to score biggest presence in controversial articles and discussions, while realistically only a minority of people should feel offended? Perhaps it’s fine for you to think that industry won something with this little gfx evolution, but do you not think about how much it potentially lost due to the same thing, or do you just prefer to not think about it? I would like to stay optimistic too, but unfortunately I don’t see that average graphics quality in games was increased recently. If anything, it’s now few steps closer to technological mess.
So you don’t want NVIDIA tech in the games but AMD tech (GPUOpen) is good. It’s only about your feelings that if somebody mark some tech as open, it’s better for usage.
“Probably enough people feel like if there would be no features like PhysX and GameWorks in the game, it would have some other options that wouldn’t look strange, that would work faster”
Replace PhysX and Gameworks with GPUOpen or Havok or anything else and it’s the same.
“and especially wouldn’t require you to have a hardware of specific vendor”
The most features of Gameworks and PhysX doesn’t require hardware of specific vendor too. Yes, there are some exceptions but that’s business and this is nothing wrong.
“where if it’s not breaking your immersion it at least makes you wonder why it looks like that”
What features of PhysX or Gameworks break your immersion? That’s only subjective because you have aversion against this tech. That’s all. And does it break immersion for you even if you turn them off?
“They remembered to include additional features on launch but failed to make the game work properly for most people”
Can you give us a specific proof that Gameworks is responsible for game problems? Because if there are problems which appear even if these features are turned off, then these problems are connected with something else. Everything else is not the fact but only your imagination. Of course sometimes there are some problems. But that’s like with everything else. And it’s up to developers to make game works properly for most people. Not up to NVIDIA or AMD. They are just enhancing games to look better in PC because they want from us to buy their HW.
“It’s enough to look at several games to understand how they not only help with the code, but also with content and assets.”
Imagine for example how much easier is to use special tools as APEX to model assets with special properties from artist point of view. Instead of configuration in various input or configuration files. And you can see the result during modeling to achieve what you want. That’s progress. And you criticize it only because you have personal aversion against NVIDIA tech.
Never said so. Read my comment again. I think developers need knowledge bases with real source code examples, not pre-compiled middleware with 3rd party guy curating the integration. But we don’t even know what GPUOpen will realistically offer at this point, and I’m not going to hold my breath.
Havok is not being implemented by Havok representatives into the games, afaik. They provide the tools with documentation, that’s all. In some cases you can complete the game and don’t even know it’s powered by Havok until the Credits screen, happened several times with me.
I already described some of them. In-your-face amounts of sparks/particles/debris in Dark Void and Borlderlands 2, tons of smoke from guns in AC:BF, etc. When you play the game you can immediately tell when PhysX effects are used. There are few games where PhysX effects look really good though, e.g. Batman Arkham Asylum or Alice.
If you compare what some developers could do with Havok and what you see in GPU-PhysX games, PhysX-off scenes really look lacking polish, while PhysX-on looks nice but cluttered. It’s also a case with some GameWorks titles. If we could disable Havok, games would likely look worse too (or even stop being fun in certain cases), but there is no such a need.
My point is not that GameWorks is responsible for anything, but that GameWorks is a sign of a lazy developer in most cases. Instead of using GameWorks to improve already finished game, many seem to start relying on Nvidia too much, like it would solve all the problems with their game.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I mean that people from Nvidia can also be responsible for assets. Like they proposed ready-for-use assets with the effects and developers did not care to change them to their liking. Or like they were taken from template archives. Years ago I read about this process but lost the source.
It stays at “low”. It can only be fully disabled through editing the config file. Maybe they are going to fix this in some update, but it was like this on release.
Assumption again. With PhysX off or GameWorks off, some games would look like early access titles. Which leads me to think that without them it would be somehow fixed before the product release, even if it takes more time. Again, this is exactly where people’s arguments start conflicting – do they save time for implementing certain vital gfx effects, or are they just a free bonus for any polished game? If your answer to this is indifferent, why use both of these as argument and excuse for Nvidia and developers?
HBAO+ & weapon debris effects are a welcome addition.
I’ve missed the part which explains why complete solutions are needed. Engines are good, but it doesn’t mean developers are not welcome to build their own things from scratch. And there is also no explanation why exactly Nvidia needs to send someone physically to the dev studio.
And I don’t have problems with CPU-only PhysX where the developers do all the job themselves without people from Nvidia. Most of such games are not “AAA”, yet their own implementations look fine enough.
Again a link to Nvidia website… If you haven’t tried the game yourself, take your time to look for reports from real users about how they can’t disable this setting in the game and how this can be fixed with manual editing. Also, it’s ridiculous how you still try to address issue with God Rays but miss out on dismemberment feature which sucks just enough (if not more) fps and creating lags, according to user reports.
I can see some may like those, but it would be foolish to call them realistic. So we may agree at least on the fact that PhysX and GameWorks are not meant to provide realism at all. Then, again, I must note how hard those middlewares try to provide complex computations on paper, while only showing off some nice but overly dense and “cinematic” effects in real games.
That does not add anything to the discussion.