Splinter Cell: Conviction ... TripleHead ?

[Tamlin]

I imagine they will spin some line ... the only way ATi can redeem themselves is to get this changed ASAP ... not in a few weeks but NOW.
If they can't or won't then I feel the WSGF should no longer support them.
Not because of this one game but because of how bad this is for the future of ALL TripleHead gaming.

If there is a "Eyefinity only solution", which only can be enabled on ATI setups, its basically a vendor lock. This is something that I cannot support either. I have been vocal about vendor locks as in Batman AA in other forums and I don't see anything different with this, if the "eyefinity modes" are locked to ATI only and cannot be used in TH or Nvidia surround.

Since games worked before Eyefinity without requiring a special support for hardware, I can't see that there is a technical reason why one should be implemented as opposed to previous methods.

Kyle Bennet at [H]ardforum has been very vocal of making a torch mob against Nvidia if they were to pull such crap when they introduce Nvidia surround and I have no doubt that he will do the same towards ATI. I'll join his mob if Nvidia does it and I'll join his mob if ATI does it. We don't need vendor spesific features where there is no reason hardware wise to do that. Its consumer hostile and makes PC gaming more into console gaming, since it will only run on certain hardware instead of a common standard.

[Paddy the Wak]

I'm curious, why start with us and why not start with asking Matrox?

Please show me one example of where Matrox got a developer to do a fix that was to the exclusions of any other GPU's ... (and rather than fix this ... you deflect the issue away from yourself.)

You have as much as admitted it ...

Guys, we are not adovating in any way that there should be exclusions for other hardware support. What we do is adovcate (very hard) support for Eyefinity and we provide lots of hardware supporting it and the software know-how in order to get developers/publishers to include it in their titles. ...

Whilst you don't actually say ... don't fix it for anyone else ... what you do say is ... here is how we want it fixed ... just so happens that it is very conveniently tailored to ATi.

Like I say ... if you are genuine about not making it exclusive then prove it with action not this spin.

[thales100]

Kyle Bennet at [H]ardforum has been very vocal of making a torch mob against Nvidia if they were to pull such crap when they introduce Nvidia surround and I have no doubt that he will do the same towards ATI. I'll join his mob if Nvidia does it and I'll join his mob if ATI does it.

Yep, i read it last week, its intersting to note that the crap seems to have begun earlier than he could imagine.

[Tamlin]

[quote]Kyle Bennet at [H]ardforum has been very vocal of making a torch mob against Nvidia if they were to pull such crap when they introduce Nvidia surround and I have no doubt that he will do the same towards ATI. I'll join his mob if Nvidia does it and I'll join his mob if ATI does it.

Yep, i read it last week, its intersting to note that the crap seems to have begun earlier than he could imagine.

Its disappointing. Nvidia has been pulling such crap for years with their TWIMTBP program and people have supported this saying "ATI should involve themselves more with developers and do this as well". I thought that ATI was above this (considering that they said in the Batman AA case that they would not do that crap with Dirt 2 and such). Now they are doing the same, making ATI only enhancements. Soon we need to switch GFX cards according to what game we play.

Bad move ATI. You could have set presidence when it comes to multi-mon gaming, showing that you actually want to push common standards instead of vendor spesific ones.

[Paddy the Wak]

Dave can fix this right now if he really wanted to ... now all he has to say to us is that he is on the case and will do his best to get it sorted with his contacts at UBI ... then keep us up informed of course.
But no ... he spins us some rubbish.

Tamlin ... please can you point out these shenanigans to Kyle Bennet ... perhaps he and his mob can get on the situation along with us here at the WSGF.
Also ... do you have a link ... I wouldn't mind taking a look.

Thanks bud.

[Tamlin]

Tamlin ... please can you point out these shenanigans to Kyle Bennet ... perhaps he and his mob can get on the situation along with us here at the WSGF.
Also ... do you have a link ... I wouldn't mind taking a look.

Thanks bud.

I fired off a PM to Kyle and got a fast response! :cheers

He's really backing up gamers with this. I am impressed!

I have already got all the top brass on Eyefinity and the PR team pulled in. Waiting for a response. But trust me, I have let them know where I stand on this, same as with NVIDIA.

AMD is getting answers right now on what exactly is going on. It seems that AMD had little to do with EF implementation so AMD has no idea why TH2Go does not work at the moment.

Hi!
I wondered if you could take a look at this:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=19228

Seems that ATI is starting to go down the same path as Nvidia with vendor-spesific enhancements in games. I wondered if you could pull some weight here and try to stop the problem from the beginning?

With regards,
Tamlin

[Paddy the Wak]

Yeah ... impressive ... thanks bud ... :onethumb
Lets hope someone starts listening !

[Tamlin]

Yeah ... impressive ... thanks bud ... :onethumb
Lets hope someone starts listening !

They should. Kyle Bennet has taken some firm stands against vendors and developers screwing with multi-mon in games. He initiated a boycott against Global Agenda for the same reason:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/02/11/dont_buy_global_agenda_editorial

[skipclarke]

I'm curious, why start with us and why not start with asking Matrox?

We actually Started with Ubisoft. I have revised my initial post on the home page as I did take too harsh of a tone in general. I was rushed this morning and was trying to get a post before I had to run out the door. I should have taken some time to collect my thoughts and then post. For that, I apologize.

However, there is really nothing for Matrox to do. If a game supports the resolution (i.e., 3840x1024 and 5040x1050), then the TH2Go will work. I do think the issue lies with Ubisoft. It is evident they are putting in a specific check to only enable on Eyefinity, rather than any multi-monitor environment.

I have been in touch with my contacts at ATI throughout the day. Ubisoft implemented this code on their own, and has just submitted it for validation with ATI. Once they get a look at the code, they will tie back out with us. I have also talked with Kyle from HardOCP as well, and I know he is working with his contacts.

So, let's all (myself included) take a breather. I could have handled this better, and those missteps reflect less than favorably on the WSGF and me. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until we see what is in the code.

[Delphium]

So I was just thinking, I seem to recall that ATI where developing an Eyefinty API for games to better detect multiscreen (or rather eyefinity).
I dont know much about this API, but is it an open API?

I understand this might be hard to tell now as Nvidia's own solution is not out yet, but saying that there is of cause matrox, mview, softth.

Is this API ready from ATI, is it possible that it is being utilized?
As such of cause not providing the optimal support for all other types of triple head?
This being something that UBI could rectify (as proven with AC2) to provide support for other triple head technologies, while still being able to use an implemented Eyefinity API which could pass extra info such as bezel or whatever.

If this is the case, then it would essentialy be UBI in the spotlight.

[Paddy the Wak]

Ibrin ... I don't think you should be apologizing for anything ...
As I said earlier ...
Removing black bars would never be about what GPU you happen to have and so this stinks of ATi telling them "how to" do it in such a way that it conveniently excludes other GPU's ... especially as the config now has a line "EyefinityMode=2"

The point is if AMD/ATi really wanted to fix this they could ... they obviously have close contacts with UBI ... so get it sorted and prove that they have "no design to force "Eyefinity only" designs or lock out other solutions."

No spin ... no blame passing ... fix it ... simple.

[skipclarke]

So I was just thinking, I seem to recall that ATI where developing an Eyefinty API for games to better detect multiscreen (or rather eyefinity).
I dont know much about this API, but is it an open API?

They do have the SDK. Here is a link to the site. The site provides some overall info, and a link to the SDK download. It is completely open. You don't have to register, pay or be a "member" of any development group. It's all there for anyone to review.

[skipclarke]

In this instance, I should have reached out to my contacts first before posting the news article. I should have at least gotten more of the story.

What I know now is that ATI didn't assist them with the implementation. ATI didn't see the code before it was deployed. They only received the patch at the time of public release for the "Eyefinity Ready" certification.

How it was implemented was all Ubisoft. We'll know more soon. ATI is wanting to fix the problem. I don't know what else to tell you...

Ibrin ... I don't think you should be apologizing for anything ...
As I said earlier ...
Removing black bars would never be about what GPU you happen to have and so this stinks of ATi telling them "how to" do it in such a way that it conveniently excludes other GPU's ... especially as the config now has a line "EyefinityMode=2"

The point is if AMD/ATi really wanted to fix this they could ... they obviously have close contacts with UBI ... so get it sorted and prove that they have "no design to force "Eyefinity only" designs or lock out other solutions."

No spin ... no blame passing ... fix it ... simple.

[thales100]

We'll know more soon. ATI is wanting to fix the problem. I don't know what else to tell you...

Nice, thanks for the update. :)

[Paddy the Wak]

What I know now is that ATI didn't assist them with the implementation. ATI didn't see the code before it was deployed. They only received the patch at the time of public release for the "Eyefinity Ready" certification.

How it was implemented was all Ubisoft. We'll know more soon. ATI is wanting to fix the problem. I don't know what else to tell you...

I hope your right Ibrin and that we do know more soon.
I trust and believe you so if you say your contacts are telling you the truth I am happy to go with that ... 8)

[Tamlin]

[quote]So I was just thinking, I seem to recall that ATI where developing an Eyefinty API for games to better detect multiscreen (or rather eyefinity).
I dont know much about this API, but is it an open API?

They do have the SDK. Here is a link to the site. The site provides some overall info, and a link to the SDK download. It is completely open. You don't have to register, pay or be a "member" of any development group. It's all there for anyone to review.

I must say, reading on this page, that if this SDK would do the same for all setups, it would be godsend for multi-mon support. On the other hand, if using this SDK makes developers lazy, so they won't implement support in other ways for multi-mon users (TH2G, Nvidia surround), it works like a vendor block even if not intentionally.

[GeneralAdmission]

I must say, reading on this page, that if this SDK would do the same for all setups, it would be godsend for multi-mon support. On the other hand, if using this SDK makes developers lazy, so they won't implement support in other ways for multi-mon users (TH2G, Nvidia surround), it works like a vendor block even if not intentionally.

Your post got me curious, Tamlin, so I went on an information hunt regarding the SDK.

Compatibility information is plentiful:
http://sites.amd.com/us/underground/products/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-sdk.aspx


http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ADLSDK/Pages/default.aspx


From the SDK documentation:


Regarding Eyefinity, the SDK documentation has detailed information about how the ADL works:


Here is a snippet of the code itself, showing how the system is queried for an EF display configuration. Take note of the next-to-last line containing the "Eyefinity configuration query failed" message:


And the result of running the sample binary from the SDK on my system (NVIDIA+TH):


This should not really be surprising, but when it comes to multi-mon support ATI's purpose (as openly stated) is to make it as easy as possible for developers to support Eyefinity on Radeon 5xxx GPUs. Their tech won't naturally integrate with competing products and it would be silly to think they would go out of their way to help NVIDIA or Matrox. Such is the nature of business.

As is seen by the recent discovery regarding Splinter Cell: Conviction, developer support for Eyefinity may mean nothing for Tripleheaders. If Ubisoft enabled EF by utilizing ATI's SDK, then they will have to implement a different solution to get Triplehead to work (and yet another for NVIDIA Surround). If this becomes the standard practice by developers going forward, then what we have is an industry cluttered with vendor specific/exclusive multi-monitor solutions. Such a fragmented market doesn't bode well for us gamers. :(

PS-I fully expect Ubisoft to take the lazy road, whatever that may be.

[skipclarke]

The unintended consequences is that it could become a double-edged sword. This type of support makes it easy to implement Eyefinity (a good thing), and ensuring proper handling of different SLS types like 5x1-P (also a good thing), and ensure HUD elements don't fall behind bezels (an even better thing), then all users could potentially benefit (at least the dev is thinking properly about multi-monitor).

However, the implementation of Ubisoft seems to be a binary all or nothing - either specific Eyefinity support or only utilize "normal" resolutions. There seems to be no middle ground to simply use all available Windows resolutions. I don't think this would be that hard. It would seem they could code to say that if Eyefinity is detected, then you do these extra things with bezels and HUD, etc. But if you don't then simply use the resolutions and aspect ratios available. This would be kind like PhysX. If you detect a PhysX card, then use it. If not, then use software physics support.

I think we can only commend ATI for working with developers to get better support. But there is no way ATI can attempt to provide these types of hooks into the future NVIDIA 3D Surround framework (and vice-versa). And outside of simple resolution detection, I'm not sure what other hooks Matrox ever built in. I'm not sure a game could even detect bezel management.

[SunSp*t]

Heh - Mr. Bennett fired off an inquiry to us as soon as y'all brought the issue to his attention.

Rather than duplicate everything in two places, we will work to give Kyle an answer/explanation/whatever and trust that he will (as usual) be a sharp but fair judge for what we are doing. Otherwise he might use that Barrett on us like he did on those 18 hard drives http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/03/21/50_bmg_api_vs_18_hard_drives.

We aren't about closed, unlike some other company whose name I won't mention. They are up to evilness even as we speak (no I am not kidding). That being said, I would point out that AMD doesn't develop drivers for those guys so it isn't as if we will go out of our way to make things work on their stuff. I'm pretty sure all of our stuff is documented and open such that someone else, may the Deity curse them to eternal darkness, could do the same thing for those guys.

I do wish there was a bit of moderate behavior from the moderators here. I don't think we deserve the rough treatment and the precipitate rush to judgment that we have been nefarious or evil, just because those other guys do it all the time. Ask questions and demand answers, but let's assume innocence as the starting position, OK?

:)

[Tamlin]

Thank you Sunspot for chiming in. :)

My apologies for jumping to the gun. I have a short fuse if a vendor screws with a game, making things work only on their hardware when its viable solutions that can make it work on all hardware (like Nvidia and Batmans AA). It seemed like this had happened here. AMD has a good track record so far with Eyefinity, so you do deserve benefit of doubt.

I look forward reading on [H] what really happened here. I know that Kyle doesn't take kindly to behavior that are anti-consumer, so he'll probably bring out the big guns if he's not happy with the answer. :P

PS. GeneralAdmission tested the SDK and it shows that the Eyefinity support does nothing for TH users. Does the SDK interfere with the surround support which normally would work on both TH and Eyefinity?