Splinter Cell: Conviction ... TripleHead ?

[SunSp*t]

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?

I'll inquire. Unless there was some technical reason that required it, any interference would be unintentional.

[Underx01]

Greetings everyone,

I have been following this forum for quite a while now and I just joined this forum just to say what is on my mind on this matter.
(Thanks to Paddy the Wak for bringing the subject to everyone's attention.)

I am a proud owner of an ATI HD4870 card. I have been following Eyefinity and Triplehead 2 Go for information, because I have been think of upgrading to 3 screens.
I am not so proud of my ATI after reading this thread.
I am not happy that ATI’s SDK does not help The Multimonitor Gaming Industry. But instead is divides it. From what I have gathered, Matrox have never done this.
And I don’t understand why ATI is avoiding giving answers.

Also Mr. SunSp*t shouldn’t bash the moderators. They did not bash ATI. They just need answers for the good of all.
Mr. SunSp*t also bashed another company. This is not very professional. He is the "Community Rep" of ATI.
I don’t understand why this forum allows this. Is this because that ATI sponsors this forum?

Thanks for this great forum. It has helped me with widescreen solutions in the past :twothumb

[skipclarke]

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?

I'll inquire. Unless there was some technical reason that required it, any interference would be unintentional.

The problem appears to be in how Ubisoft coded the game, and how they are implementing the SDK. They hard-coded the game to fit a 16:9 aspect ratio. You play in 4:3 or 16:10, and you get black bars at the top and bottom. You play in multi-monitor, you get huge black "columns" on the sides (e.g., the whole left and right screens). At the WSGF, we call this behavior Anamorphic. This used to be very rare, but it becoming more of an issue for games created as cross-platform titles between the PC, Xbox360 and PS3. With the Xbox360 and PS3 being hard coded for 16:9 aspect and an HDTV, we see more developers sticking to 16:9 across all platforms.

You can see some examples here:
The original Assassin's Creed, and then the Racer_S Fix.
Mirror's Edge, with Racer_S Fix in that post.
F.E.A.R. 2 was originally like this, until Monolith came in with an update.

The problem with Ubisoft and Splinter Cell: Conviction is that their baseline coding is for Anamorphic, rather than Hor+. They are only implementing Hor+ support if they can identify an Eyefinity group. They should have made the game Hor+ as a baseline, then used the Eyefinity SDK to add the bells and whistles such as bezel detection and improved HUD item placement for Eyefinity users.

This type of implementation would have ensured that all multi-monitor users were able to enjoy the game properly, and Eyefinity users would have been able to enjoy the added benefits of the hard work ATI put into the SDK. Who knows, maybe Ubisoft could have taken the learnings from using the SDK and then set proper placement of HUD items and such for all multi-monitor users. The dev team behind Assassin's Creed II got it perfect after a horrible Anamorphic implementation on the original title.

These links put a lot of this information in one place and could provide useful to folks within ATI and with developers - WSGF FAQ & WSGF Certification Requirements.

[Dave Baumann]

And I don’t understand why ATI is avoiding giving answers.

We aren't, we've commented a lot in this thread and elsewhere, as far as we can.

Remember this i not our application - how this is enabled and why it is enabled this way has to be discussed with the developer and then we have to talk to the publisher to see if they want to comment. Thats not necessarily a quick process.

[Paddy the Wak]

I know I started this thread about this particular game but this issue is much more than this one game.

It seems (as shown by GeneralAdmission) that if you enable Eyefinity by utilizing ATI's SDK then you will have to also implement other different solutions to get other forms of TripleHead to work.
(and this is not necessarily down to whether a game has anamorphic behavior or not)

Games have been fixed by developers for multi-monitors many many times in the past and it was never gpu specific until ATI's SDK got involved.

If developers have to implement different solutions for different types of multi-monitor situations gamers are going to get screwed.
ATI are not obliged to do anything about this but it is not a good precedence to set.

@ Underx01 ... Thanks for sticking up for fairness ... and all multi-monitor gamers.

[noquarter]

The problem with Ubisoft and Splinter Cell: Conviction is that their baseline coding is for Anamorphic, rather than Hor+. They are only implementing Hor+ support if they can identify an Eyefinity group. They should have made the game Hor+ as a baseline, then used the Eyefinity SDK to add the bells and whistles such as bezel detection and improved HUD item placement for Eyefinity users.

I just wanted to quote this because even though it's in red I still think everyone needs to read it because it's a very good assessment.

The Eyefinity SDK doesn't vendor lock TH, it just provides information to the game about your monitor layout. TH itself is rather simple, you just render out the full resolution reported by the 'monitor' instead of arbitrarily stopping at 16:9 (1080p). The Eyefinity SDK is only useful for GUI enhancement by dodging bezels during GUI placement.

The problem is entirely because Ubisoft did a feature check instead of a capability/resolution check to determine if it should render out Hor+, a check it still has to do once it's determined if you have Eyefinity or not they just did it in the wrong order.

[Underx01]

[quote]And I don’t understand why ATI is avoiding giving answers.

We aren't, we've commented a lot in this thread and elsewhere, as far as we can.
I don't think you commented very much on the subject. Passing the blame and skirting the issue by bashing others isn't really commenting on the subject and its not really a sign of innocence. More common sense and straight forward talking has come from everyone BUT you ATI guys.

I am beginning to think of you (using a SunSp*t inspired phrase) as the EVIL red company and I don't want to think of ATI that way. :(

Back to real topic.
Ibrin, Paddy the Wak and noquarter ... thanks for the clear explanations, I understand what you all are saying and I understand that ATI does not have obligation.
Maybe this game will be fixed for all multimonitor users. But future games will have similar problems and that raises the question: what can be done about it?

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, I've been at the brunt of most of the bashing here - despite the fact that not all of the facts our at everyones disposal, especially not ours. Again, how can we comment when the application is not ours and the fact that it exhibits this behaviour is as much a surpise to us as it is to you?

[Tamlin]

Actually, I've been at the brunt of most of the bashing here - despite the fact that not all of the facts our at everyone's disposal, especially not ours. Again, how can we comment when the application is not ours and the fact that it exhibits this behavior is as much a surprise to us as it is to you?

Its the first time the SDK have been implemented in a game, so it can be expected that there is some initial problems. The important thing, is that the problem got detected and if I interpret you correctly, its not a wanted behavior that ATI supports. This means we have a chance to avoid this in the future. :)

I'm sure you can relate to people reacting, when its advertised Eyefinity support and this doesn't mean there is general multi-mon support. Normally, when a game has support for multi-mon, it works for all hardware that supports multi-mon.

If a game supports Eyefinity with SDK, it means that the developer is willing to implement support for multi-mon. However, if it turns out that it only supports Eyefinity and not multi-mon, people will react, since its vendor support and not general support. The SDK will then work against general multi-mon support in a sense and thats not a good solution towards consumers.

As ibrin wrote:

The problem with Ubisoft and Splinter Cell: Conviction is that their baseline coding is for Anamorphic, rather than Hor+. They are only implementing Hor+ support if they can identify an Eyefinity group. They should have made the game Hor+ as a baseline, then used the Eyefinity SDK to add the bells and whistles such as bezel detection and improved HUD item placement for Eyefinity users.

Perhaps if this can solve the issues (provided that it turns out that this caused the issue), that ATI could use hor+ as a baseline in their recommendation with the usage of your SDK?

[noquarter]

I also want to point out that what those of us with no actual responsibility or involvement have been posting is just conjecture whereas the ATI reps here are much more limited in having to use facts so.. don't be so quick to lay blame and give people time to ask questions.

[Tamlin]

All in all, its good that Paddy pointed this out! Otherwise, chances are that it would have been much harder to find these issues and get a solution for them. Now we have a discussion going and can look for what went wrong. :)

[skipclarke]

I don’t understand why this forum allows this. Is this because that ATI sponsors this forum?

We allow everyone to make their own bed (say what they want), and then lie in it (take any heat needed for their statements). The WSGF is not into censorship.

You will see that Dave has almost 250 posts on the forum, and SunSp*t has almost 50. Out of all their posts, SunSp*t has made one post (probably out of a great deal of frustration) that is "out of character" when compared to all their other posts on the forum (which have been helpful and engaging). I would ask you to take that one post in light of all their contributions.

The same goes for the other members and moderators that posted. People were pissed, tempers were flared, and I'm hoping everyone can look back and at least see that some things didn't need to be said, or at least didn't need to be said in a particular way or tone. Out of the hundreds (if not thousands) of posts for each of those people, these posts were out of character as well.

You on the other hand registered solely to jump into the firefight, and as a part of that questioned my integrity on the WSGF by allowing the posts because of a perceived sponsorship. In this instance, people will pass their own judgement as well.

Now, back on topic...

We all know the issue. We all know what everyone's point of view is. We all know the optimal solution. Let's let the issue simmer until we get more information. Please ensure any further posts are constructive and have a civil tone. I'm already tired of this issue (it consumed too much of my weekend), and I don't want to wade back in to moderate.

[GeneralAdmission]

Regarding Splinter Cell, that ball is certainly in Ubisoft's court. Their game=their responsibility. As much as the issues brought up here are frustrating, it is nice to see ATI get involved on behalf of users' concerns. ATI could have said "Hey, it supports Eyefinity and that's all we care about, so too bad," but they didn't. For that I'll say thanks.

For me the kicker is that the multi-monitor landscape has changed, I daresay permanently. Tamlin summed it up:

when its advertised Eyefinity support and this doesn't mean there is general multi-mon support. Normally, when a game has support for multi-mon, it works for all hardware that supports multi-mon.

Even if Splinter Cell gets fixed for Triplehead and NVIDIA Surround, from here on out no Tripleheader can look at an EF Validation stamp and assume the game will work for his rig. Same goes for games that end up carrying an NVIDIA stamp--EF and TH gamers will have to do some detective work prior to purchasing the games they want or just make a blind purchase and hope for the best. For multi-mon gamers this is a HUGE deal. I frequently pull the trigger or holster my wallet based exclusively on whether or not a game will run correctly on my TH setup. I can't speak for anyone else, but I almost never make a blind purchase.

Going forward, my frustration is that the issue of correct multi-monitor support has now become more complicated for dev/pubs. Even today it is still difficult to get proper support implemented in new games. Some devs make the effort, some don't, and I'm sure some publishers "make or break" the issue with timeline/funding decisions. Heck, some places even vocally refuse to support multi-monitor gaming as an "anti-cheat" measure. In my experience fixing games to work better in widescreen or multi-monitor, I've run across more than one case where modifying the game to work well with these setups would have required a bare minimum of additional effort by the developer. For whatever reason, that effort didn't happen. If studios and publishers now have to contend with hardware/feature separation in multiple directions--even if implementing one platform might make it much easier to support the others--I fear multi-monitor support might actually get less attention than before or perhaps just enough effort to earn a sticker on a retail box.

[tricky]

Assassin's Creed II added triple wide support the correct way, EF, TH2Go and SoftTH all are working. To add only one of the three is simply being a punk, and alienates 2/3 of the users.

[Tamlin]

Assassin's Creed II added triple wide support the correct way, EF, TH2Go and SoftTH all are working. To add only one of the three is simply being a punk, and alienates 2/3 of the users.

And this is what we want, not vendor specific solutions :)

But, ATI says that this is not a behavior expected by their SDK and they don't know what happened. They are investigating this and will get back to us. Sunspot is checking if the SDK could have influenced/interfered with the support for other surround users. Problem might be at Ubisoft and how they chose to implement this.

The ball has been set in motion and as Ibrin said, we should let the issue simmer until we get more information. :)

[SunSp*t]

Sunspot is checking if the SDK could have influenced/interfered with the support for other surround users.

I have been told by the EF Feature Manager (no, I don't manage EF anymore) and the ISV Engineer who worked with Ubisoft that the SDK does not interfere with support for other surround users. Without examining the code base personally I have no further recourse.

And to be fair, my days of reading and comprehending code are in the past.

[SunSp*t]

For me the kicker is that the multi-monitor landscape has changed, I daresay permanently.

If studios and publishers now have to contend with hardware/feature separation in multiple directions--even if implementing one platform might make it much easier to support the others--I fear multi-monitor support might actually get less attention than before or perhaps just enough effort to earn a sticker on a retail box.

Well I hope not. The EF SDK offers capabilities that are not available otherwise, things that make adding widescreen capability easier. Isn't lowering the barrier desirable? Everything is published so that anyone can duplicate everything that was done - there are no secrets. If coding for more than standard resolutions and aspect ratios is easier, who is to say that more games won't acquire this capability?

Other than that, it is a fact that broad compatibility has not yet been reached. It is too early in the game for that expectation. AMD will encourage developers to support extended resolutions and aspect ratios (not just wide-screen) generically, but in the end they will make their own decisions.

One other observation - it is my personal opinion that the members of WSGF should welcome every game that has extended resolution and aspect ratio capability even if it doesn't initially do everything you'd like, because that will increase the critical mass of gamers demanding this capability. Critical mass is important. Along the way there should be positive *cough* *cough* encouragement for developers to improve or add support.

[Tamlin]

Sunspot is checking if the SDK could have influenced/interfered with the support for other surround users.

I have been told by the EF Feature Manager (no, I don't manage EF anymore) and the ISV Engineer who worked with Ubisoft that the SDK does not interfere with support for other surround users. Without examining the code base personally I have no further recourse.

And to be fair, my days of reading and comprehending code are in the past.

Thanks. :) At least we know that the SDK is not the cause of surround issues on the game or can cause issues in future games with the SDK.

One other observation - it is my personal opinion that the members of WSGF should welcome every game that has extended resolution and aspect ratio capability even if it doesn't initially do everything you'd like, because that will increase the critical mass of gamers demanding this capability. Critical mass is important. Along the way there should be positive *cough* *cough* encouragement for developers to improve or add support.

We might sound ungrateful with this thread, but we are really not. It seems that when ATI launched Eyefinity, people have really gotten their eyes up for surround gaming and ATI have gone to developers asking for support for this as well. For this, I think we all are grateful.

But, as ATI's primary concern are their users, our users have a big mix of hardware and so we need to keep focus on whats best for all users. I would hate to see that games gets a need for vendor specific solutions (as oposted to increased vendor support for their solution). It would be much appreciated if ATI could recommend in their SDK documentation that a hor+ baseline is preferred for maximum compatibility. :)

We are not interested in "getting" any vendor, but to have support for all our members. Getting our games working is all that matters and if ATI's SDK could contribute to do this with recommending solutions that benefits surround gamers as a whole (as shown above), you'll receive much more kudos for this!

[SunSp*t]

Thanks. :) At least we know that the SDK is not the cause of surround issues on the game or can cause issues in future games with the SDK.

That being said, I'm still not happy that there was an unexpected result. We need to figure out how to minimize these things. Not easy when we don't control the entire ecosystem.

Getting our games working is all that matters and if ATI's SDK could contribute to do this with recommending solutions that benefits surround gamers as a whole (as shown above), you'll receive much more kudos for this!

Yeah we grok that part. We need to look at how to do that. It isn't as easy as putting a few sentences in our materials somewhere, and there are other things we have to take into consideration. Not business things, but "vision" things (as in where and how do we want to influence the future of visual immersion). I have something in mind for Christmas 2015, and I need to figure out how to get an entire industry there. The future is bigger than you think.

[thales100]

Any news about this ? :)