So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?

So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?

I do hope so 🙂 The definite editions were using the tressfx 2.0 afaik look here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-next-gen-face-off Also there were a couple of other different additions for tomb raider definitive edition compared to the pc version.

Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.

Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.

The bias is strong in this one. AFAIK TressFX2.0 was in TR: DE.

Another example of AMD being open and Nvidia being closed. The business practices at Nvidia make me never want to buy one of their products.

And at the same time bashing nvidia's tech. Don't get me wrong, I dislike the fact that nvidia keeps much of their similar tech proprietary, but by this

In contrast, NVIDIA’s Hairworks technology is seven times slower on AMD hardware with no obvious route to achieve cross-vendor optimizations as enabled by open access to TressFX source. As the code for Hairworks cannot be downloaded, analyzed or modified, developers and enthusiasts alike must suffer through unacceptably poor performance on a significant chunk of the industry’s graphics hardware. With TressFX Hair, the value of openly-shared game code is clear.

paragraph alone, I'm beginning to change my opinion on amd.

So can this be patched back into Tomb Raider on PC? Also, I thought the Definitive Editions of Tomb Raider on PS4 and Xbox One where using TressFX 2.0?

I'd assume they would be too busy making the next tomb raider to bother going back and adding features.

i'll have to check out a game with tressFX 2.0 then, since in 1.0 amd's beautifull charts were reversed... especially the right one. remember having 50fps+ in tomb raider (granted on a dated GTX 470) turning on tress FX and getting slapped down to .5fps

The bias is strong in this one.

TressFX Hair vs Hairworks FreeSync vs Gsync OpenCL vs CUDA Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?

TressFX Hair vs Hairworks FreeSync vs Gsync OpenCL vs CUDA Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?

They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.

TressFX Hair vs Hairworks FreeSync vs Gsync OpenCL vs CUDA Physx is also a good example of Nvidia being stingy with code, even though AMD has nothing to counter it. AMD's strategy is to get in on the ground floor of open technologies to push wide adoption and make sure their hardware works great with it from the start. Nvidia buys companies and makes the software work only for for their hardware. Which business plan would you rather support?

Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech? Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.

Cool. I though the boob motion on tomb raider was spot on. wink

Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech? Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.

Because Physx today, to my knowledge, isn't just an API. It requires specific architectural changes too. That's how nvidia does everything - their designs are specific to their hardware and are their property. Nvidia is not under any obligation to give away these designs, but because of this, the software that goes with them has to be closed-source too or else too much info is revealed on how they get things done and their research doesn't turn a profit. Nvidia makes their own products like hairworks, physx, cuda, and gsync because they can heavily optimize it. Each of those products are probably more efficient than their competitors, but each of the competitors isn't restricted to one platform. Nvidia has always taken their own path and every time they did they've been able to prove their worth. However, they alienate developers and customers. Sometimes it isn't always about being right, but being part of the community. Nvidia has a hard time understanding that. I like AMD and nvidia equally (for different reasons) but AMD is slowly growing on me as a better company. Nvidia wants the best experience, but AMD wants everyone to have access to the latest technologies, even if that means sacrificing performance or efficiency.

They are doing this because they are behind if AMD were out front they would be doing the same thing. And don't for a second think they wouldn't. BTW I could care less about PhysX, and currently FreeSync is vaporware.

You may be right, but we will never really know. FreeSync hasn't been around long enough to be considered "vaporware". Lots of support from scailer manufactures was announced.

Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech? Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.

You are mistaken on both of these. Nvidia offered AMD compatibility for having an Nvidia card run the Physics and an AMD card do graphics as a supported config. Not have an AMD card run the Physics. You could do some hacks on older drivers to get it working, but now it no longer works. The SDK for CUDA is for software developers (hence it being call a Software Development Kit). It has nothing to do with allowing other hardware to do the computation.

But physx has connection with TressFX or NV Hairworks, dunno why always this same old bs going on.. :P Eidos should import TressFX2.0 to original TombRaider but they're too greedy to do that now, they rather make it console exclusive and call it a day. :infinity:

People complaining about Nvidia being closed do not understand the whole issue. AMD refused Nvidia's help with their drivers to support Physx. So that is that. They did that yeaaaarrrs ago.

Nvidia offered Physx to AMD and they declined to support it. Why would they support a competitor's tech? Also the CUDA sdk is available to all, AMD needs to write drivers for it which they will never do.

Nvidia offered to make the driver for them, meaning with out the option to optimize on per-game basis, and with out knowing whether the performance is anywhere near where it should be. So AMD wisely told them where to shove it.

AMD refused Nvidia's help with their drivers to support Physx. So that is that. They did that yeaaaarrrs ago.

Not really like that and I know that too, but still every time there is something DirectCompute from AMD or nvidia there is always this physx crap comparison going on, while there is no connection with it. :P

Little bit Gpu based "Level" on only hair could be enough and better than shadow's high cost. http://s27.postimg.org/zdtdm2a5v/hair.jpg :argue:

@KotS: well there's a visual difference on static image, but i think self shadowing is more needed when the hairs are animated and characters in movement.