Nvidia Hairworks – New Video Shows Off Fur & Hair, Includes Animals From The Witcher 3

[worldwin]

The first mentioning of a GameWorks feature being worked on to support "next-gen consoles" was in their demo of WaveWorks (a part of GameWorks): 

 

 

This doesn't imply Nvidia is working with AMD, simply that Nvidia is putting effort towards supporting hardware running AMD hardware. However, ever since march 2014, developers are free to share the GameWorks libraries with their partners in order to better optimize games—This in turn means that AMD will be able to work directly towards optimizing for the GameWorks library if they actually want to through developers of games they are working together with.

 

Cheers

You said "That means that Nvidia themselves will be optimizing and working together with AMD to make things work over time." Then you say "This doesn't imply Nvidia is working with AMD, simply that Nvidia is putting effort towards supporting hardware running AMD hardware."

Contradicting statements.

Also you brought up another source:http://techreport.com/news/26521/nvidia-responds-to-amd-gameworks-allegations

In this article it says

"By builds, Cebenoyan meant pre-release game builds, which developers normally share with GPU manufacturers prior to launch. Nothing in the GameWorks licensing terms precludes that type of collaboration, Cebenoyan said. The terms do, however, forbid developers from sharing Nvidia's GameWorks middleware code—which, when that code is integrated into a game engine, may mean AMD doesn't get access to that portion of a game's source code."

Now I am not a developer. But, wouldn't it be easier to optimize code if you had access to the source.

[Sammael]

GUYS GUYZ, listen up!

 

I have discovered a way to determine how the posters will feel about the gameworks issue.

 

If their last 3 cards they used in their personal rig was nvidia, there is a 90% chance they won't be so bothered by the whole thing.  If not, then they will be irritated.  

[linusforsell]

You said "That means that Nvidia themselves will be optimizing and working together with AMD to make things work over time." Then you say "This doesn't imply Nvidia is working with AMD, simply that Nvidia is putting effort towards supporting hardware running AMD hardware."

Contradicting statements.

Fair enough, that seems a bit contradicting if pitted against my previous statement, but I was in fact referring to the video on this instance. Oh well.

 

What people need to understand is that everything isn't black and white—While Nvidia and AMD are fierce competitors, their goal of furthering graphics is still the same. That means they occasionally share knowledge and "work together" to solve issues—Maybe not through direct teaching of their secret mojo, but in research and generic furthering of graphical technologies. They are competitors, sure, but they do communicate. 

 

 

Also you brought up another source:http://techreport.com/news/26521/nvidia-responds-to-amd-gameworks-allegations

In this article it says

"By builds, Cebenoyan meant pre-release game builds, which developers normally share with GPU manufacturers prior to launch. Nothing in the GameWorks licensing terms precludes that type of collaboration, Cebenoyan said. The terms do, however, forbid developers from sharing Nvidia's GameWorks middleware code—which, when that code is integrated into a game engine, may mean AMD doesn't get access to that portion of a game's source code."

Now I am not a developer. But, wouldn't it be easier to optimize code if you had access to the source.

 

In which the Nvidia rep. also says (and I know, this might just as well be them trying to cover their asses. But the same goes for the AMD rep. trying to rip GameWorks a new one at every chance he get; he works for AMD, what else is he supposed to say? That he loves GameWorks? No... just the same Nvidia won't be running around telling people they love Mantle): 

 

"Historically, in all the games we've worked with, we don't typically need the source code to a game to optimize for it," he told me. "We don't typically have the source code to most games. Our driver engineers typically—actually almost never have looked game source code. So that's not really the operating model."

 

At this point its just like a fanboy war; there's no point in arguing any further. People will simply try to defend whatever team they think they belong to.

 

I stand on the side of the people developing awesome tools for us developers.

[worldwin]

Fair enough, that seems a bit contradicting if pitted against my previous statement, but I was in fact referring to the video on this instance. Oh well.

 

What people need to understand is that everything isn't black and white—While Nvidia and AMD are fierce competitors, their goal of furthering graphics is still the same. That means they occasionally share knowledge and "work together" to solve issues—Maybe not through direct teaching of their secret mojo, but in research and generic furthering of graphical technologies. They are competitors, sure, but they do communicate. 

 

 

 

In which the Nvidia rep. also says (and I know, this might just as well be them trying to cover their asses. But the same goes for the AMD rep. trying to rip GameWorks a new one at every chance he get; he works for AMD, what else is he supposed to say? That he loves GameWorks? No... just the same Nvidia won't be running around telling people they love Mantle): 

 

 

 

 

At this point its just like a fanboy war; there's no point in arguing any further. People will simply try to defend whatever team they think they belong to.

 

I stand on the side of the people developing awesome tools for us developers.

I thought we were having a critical discussion

Honestly though, if Physx wasn't proprietary there would be more adoption. I also bet that we would have an AMAZING game that uses Physx as a main gameplay mechanic.

[pixeldensity]

i'm going to assume the witcher 3 is mod-able. So would that mean that a modder could replace the assets that are used by gamesworks with other assets that can produce the same effect w/o gamesworks. Could that be a possibility or is that impossible b/c all the things that are using gameworks is hair fur and grass, right.

 

 

I don't think it's crazy for amd users to be worried about gameworks b/c gameworks does have a potential to be harmful to amd if NV goes full out evil and starts to sabotage amd cards, amd users will be the ones most affected. 

 

Also I think the best source for clarification for if gameworks is toxic or not is to ask devs b/c most likely they will be the least bias group.

 

Finally I don't think mantle is comparable to gameworks b/c remember mantle has a on/off switch while gameworks assets don't at least to my knowledge and NV can still work on the DX api that still exist in mantle powered games while there is no alt asset to gameworks assets.

[Notional]

What people need to understand is that everything isn't black and white—While Nvidia and AMD are fierce competitors, their goal of furthering graphics is still the same. That means they occasionally share knowledge and "work together" to solve issues—Maybe not through direct teaching of their secret mojo, but in research and generic furthering of graphical technologies. They are competitors, sure, but they do communicate. 

 

 

 

In which the Nvidia rep. also says (and I know, this might just as well be them trying to cover their asses. But the same goes for the AMD rep. trying to rip GameWorks a new one at every chance he get; he works for AMD, what else is he supposed to say? That he loves GameWorks? No... just the same Nvidia won't be running around telling people they love Mantle): 

 

But we are not seing NVIDIA share anything. Most of the tech that AMD has made (tressfx, freesync, to some extent, mantle), has been made free and open to the industry, whereas almost everything from NVIDIA has been proprietary and closed source, to the point of black boxed dll's. Not a whole lot of working together for the greater good of gaming from NVIDIAs side here., let's be honest.

 

Only difference is that third party backs up the statements of the AMD rep:

 

Like the two tesselation examples of Crysis 2 and Batman :

http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/2

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd/2

I don't have an article about COD though.

 

And the devs statement about gameworks:

 

From this thread:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/137965-developers-criticze-nvidias-gameworks-program-on-twitter-for-its-blackbox-nature/?hl=black+box

 

Now of course this is a battle of words, but like I've argued in other posts in this thread; NVIDIAs history is not doing them any favours; but AMD seems to have nothing to worry about in that regard. They simply come of as more trustworthy, not just in their argumentation, but also the third party support of their claims. The same cannot be said of NVIDIAs claims, on the contrary.

[linusforsell]

I thought we were having a critical discussion

Honestly though, if Physx wasn't proprietary there would be more adoption. I also bet that we would have an AMAZING game that uses Physx as a main gameplay mechanic.

 

Oh, I wasn't targeting our little discussion in particular, but rather this entire thread reeking of ignorance from two clashing camps. 

 

It's just so simple to see things rationally, but in their blatant lack of... well.. rationality, people see one thing, and one thing only: Their opinion.

 

In reality, it's much simpler:

 

Is GameWorks cool? Yes—But it favors Nvidia cards somewhat.

Should GameWorks be made open source? Yes—That'd be awesome, everyone would benefit more.

Will GameWorks be made open source? No—That's not how Nvidia rolls, sadly.

Has AMD purposely blown the disadvantages of GameWorks on AMD hardware out of proportions? Without a doubt—They found a way to look like the goods guys, so they took advantage of the situation.

Does that mean both camps actually did good and bad? Yes—That's always the case (unless you are Tesla and or Elon Musk). None plays by the rules if they can find a way to cheat and get away with it.

Should people rage endlessly about it anyway? No—They are often just misinformed, and/or lack understanding of the situation.

 

And with that, I bid you all a good night! 

 

(please don't kill each other over software)

[nick99n]

it seems really nice but what will be the performance impact? 
will a normal amd gpu be able to run it? 

how much random-works we will see? 
why this is not a part of game-works they need more names for the same category so they seem like they are doing more?(im not saying they did nothing) 

[carolkarine]

But we are not seing NVIDIA share anything. Most of the tech that AMD has made (tressfx, freesync, to some extent, mantle), has been made free and open to the industry, whereas almost everything from NVIDIA has been proprietary and closed source, to the point of black boxed dll's. Not a whole lot of working together for the greater good of gaming from NVIDIAs side here., let's be honest.

Only difference is that third party backs up the statements of the AMD rep:

Like the two tesselation examples of Crysis 2 and Batman :

http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/2

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd/2

I don't have an article about COD though.

And the devs statement about gameworks:

From this thread:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/137965-developers-criticze-nvidias-gameworks-program-on-twitter-for-its-blackbox-nature/?hl=black+box

Now of course this is a battle of words, but like I've argued in other posts in this thread; NVIDIAs history is not doing them any favours; but AMD seems to have nothing to worry about in that regard. They simply come of as more trustworthy, not just in their argumentation, but also the third party support of their claims. The same cannot be said of NVIDIAs claims, on the contrary.

Did not know Johann andersson said that. I'll be saving that image to reference later...

[snes]

Wasn't this exact same video posted a few months ago? I'm having a serious déjà-vu moment, here.

 

Anyways... looks expensive.

[RexinOridle]

Nvidia and their fetish LOL

[Bagmup]

Here's hoping Witcher 3 isn't a game works disaster like watchdogs.

[ACatWithThumbs]

You really don't understand what GameWorks is or how it works do you?  If carolkarine statement is correct, with the 1 vs 5ms lag, then Hairworks is not faster in any ways. 

 

Gameworks effects are NOT nvidia exclusive. They are effects in black boxed dll's, that devs call as a function, when adding an effect, like a fireball. Look at Watch Dogs; all the gameworks effects (sans nvidias proprietary AA), works on AMD and is to some extent mandatory. You have misunderstood what gameworks are. So yes ALL gameworks affects ALL AMD users.

I don't know if The Witcher 3 does not use it for the core game (whatever that means), but you seem to have misunderstood something here.

You're completely missing the point.

Hairworks is part of PhysX which is Nvidia exclusive and won't even be a setting for AMD users.

The core game won't use it it will be just an effect to turn on for Nvidia users in the settings off the game.(Just like all PhysX effects)

If you have an AMD card the game will just use normal static hair instead of hairworks so no it's not harming any AMD users experience.

This is completely different from non Nvidia exclusive gamework effects like Waveworks,GI works, or Flameworks.

And Watchdogs doesn't use any Nvidia effects besides HBAO+ and TXAA/FXAA which also doesn't effect AMD users in anyway.

 

[carolkarine]

You're completely missing the point.

Hairworks is part of PhysX which is Nvidia exclusive and won't even be a setting for AMD users.

The core game won't use it it will be just an effect to turn on for Nvidia users in the settings off the game.(Just like all PhysX effects)

If you have an AMD card the game will just use normal static hair instead of hairworks so no it's not harming any AMD users experience.

This is completely different from non Nvidia exclusive gamework effects like Waveworks,GI works, or Flameworks.

And Watchdogs doesn't use any Nvidia effects besides HBAO+ and TXAA/FXAA which also doesn't effect AMD users in anyway.

Wrong. Hairworks is part of gameworks. Gameworks is running on AMD hardware regardless. (Call of duty ghosts and batman arkham asylum)

Physx is different entirely.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Wrong. Hairworks is part of gameworks. Gameworks is running on AMD hardware regardless. (Call of duty ghosts and batman arkham asylum)

Physx is different entirely.

It's still based on PhysX/APEX!!!

Call of Duty Ghosts uses Hairworks on the dog and it's Nvidia only.

 

[LtRoyalShrimp]

Will this hair physics apply to ALL Areas of the game, including any nude scenes? Dat hair physics...lol.

[Rassilon]

Next we will see Nvidia "Boob works"

Ok on a serious note, I don't like this. It again shows a split between AMD and Nvidia. This means that this game will look and play the nicest on Nvidia cards, due to this sort of stuff. Im someone who wants to enjoy the game with all flair and graphical effects, no matter what vendor i'm using.

This makes me sad.

AMD needs to step up then. Make their own thing and actually get devs to use it.

[Notional]

You're completely missing the point.

Hairworks is part of PhysX which is Nvidia exclusive and won't even be a setting for AMD users.

The core game won't use it it will be just an effect to turn on for Nvidia users in the settings off the game.(Just like all PhysX effects)

If you have an AMD card the game will just use normal static hair instead of hairworks so no it's not harming any AMD users experience.

This is completely different from non Nvidia exclusive gamework effects like Waveworks,GI works, or Flameworks.

And Watchdogs doesn't use any Nvidia effects besides HBAO+ and TXAA/FXAA which also doesn't effect AMD users in anyway.

 

 

Like I suspected, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Hairworks is part of Gameworks, which are effects utilized in games, as standard effects, meaning they are rendered on both AMD and NVIDIA machines. Hairworks is a tessellation tech processed on the CUDA cores and has nothing to do with PhysX. Sure PhysX might be able to manipulate the fur through wind or similar, but is not rendered using PhysX. If you believe otherwise, feel free to educate NVIDIA about their own tech:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/dx11/technology

 

If you had seen the vids with Richard Huddy, you would have noticed, that the Hairworks implemented on COD, was one of the black boxed tech, running poorly on AMD (but running none the less), because they could not optimize. Yet they are standard and WILL be processed through tessellation on AMD; it is NOT something you can disable, as it is a core feature/effect in the game.

 

HBAO+ works just fine on AMD in watch dogs, as does bokeh dof and other effects. The only gameworks techs that AMD cannot do, is advanced PhysX (simple physX goes to the cpu instead) and Proprietary AA (like TXAA). Everything else will be rendered and compatibale with AMD hardware; though not properly optimized due to the black boxed nature of gameworks.

 

The gameworks effects in DX11 of Crysis 2 and Batman Origin is not unselectable if you run DX11 afaik.

 

It's still based on PhysX/APEX!!!

Call of Duty Ghosts uses Hairworks on the dog and it's Nvidia only. 

 

Still wrong (see link above). Furthermore, heres a vid of COD dog with hairworks running on AMD 290 (not mine)

[Misanthrope]

AMD needs to step up then. Make their own thing and actually get devs to use it.

They sorta did with Mantle. A bit different since it's an entirely new API but it is AMD only atm.

[Nineshadow]

Please argue your points, and disprove others points instead of being a troll. You come off as a fanboy yourself doing so, and bring nothing constructive to the discussion. 

It's not even worth it.

[BobbyG2]

GUYS GUYZ, listen up!

 

I have discovered a way to determine how the posters will feel about the gameworks issue.

 

If their last 3 cards they used in their personal rig was nvidia, there is a 90% chance they won't be so bothered by the whole thing.  If not, then they will be irritated.  

 

My graphics card history: nVidia 7600GT, nVidia 9800GTX+, nVidia GTX 260, AMD HD 7970

 

I believe it is in the best interest of everyone (nVidia, Game Devs, AMD, and gamers) for nVidia to allow Devs to see the source code.

 

I don't think this is the end of the world, but it could be if it builds into another PhysX type of thing, where nVidia is basically the only option to utilize it.

[topsu]

"The simulation/rendering currently requires a DX11 capable GPU"
Could be avaible on amd cards too, if it was nvidia exclusive they probably would be saying something like "requires kepler/maxwell".

 

It is very possible for this being avaible for amd too, but knowing nvidia I doubt that.

[Guest]

Sounds like a copy of AMD's TRESFX thing they did on the new Tomb Raider game. looks good though

HairWorks was first demoed in 2008, as it says in the video. Not sure how old TressFX is...

[papeles]

 

 

Still wrong (see link above). Furthermore, heres a vid of COD dog with hairworks running on AMD 290 (not mine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7hZce-elx8

but man, it can't be. Nvidia stuff is runs malicious on amd cards

[TwistedDictator]

Yes, this has been confirmed prior.

 

 

Are you insane? Do you know how little code 6000 lines of code is? That's a day or two worth of work to go through.

 

And no, GameWorks does not "run malicious code on AMD machines", that would be both illegal and benefit none.

 

TressFX is not even the same thing as GameWorks, and it's playing in an entirely different league.

 

Also, for the record, Nvidia is working on bringing GameWorks features to consoles; Do you know what GPUs are inside those...? That's right, those are made my AMD! That means that Nvidia themselves will be optimizing and working together with AMD to make things work over time.

 

Certainly, GameWorks performs better on Nvidia now, and probably always will because of hardware optimizations, but that doesn't mean that AMD can't optimize for it.

 

 

I dont normally comment on stupid things as I usually tend to ignore them but this is so stupid, I had to.

 

AMD and NV working together? You must be trolling. TressFX and gamerworks are totally different thing? There are some functions that game works has such as hairworks which is similar the tressFX. "Nvidia is working on bringing GameWorks features to consoles" - I dont know even I should carry this on... Gameworks is not a API like Mantel, do some research. Gameworks can work with any card, it depends on the optimization on the competitors, and if they allow it (allowing the devs to optimize the game, e.g. they didnt with Watch_Dog). I dont want to carry this on, I just dont like non-sense at times, or maybe I'm not in a happy mood today.

 

AMD is bringing Openworks

 

EDIT : I just seen your second post, it seems you do know a tiny bit. You bring that link up but how much of is it true? How well did watch dog perform? How has watch dog ended? What NV really did was try to blame the devs saying that it was poorly optimized because its up to the dev that are ment to do it, but in reality NV didnt let them (really really short summary). It super obvious they are going to pay devs to use gameworks, it be stupid if they removed it for the consoles(a lot of stuff some into play such as time and money, cant be arsed to explain).