Vertex Shader 2.0 on Parhelia

[Indiana]

Since the other thread was closed, I'll put my answer to joonies rant here:

Originally posted by joonie

Some USERS of the other graphics card companies like ATI or nV don't even have to ask for a feature written on a back cover of the card. While they are sitting on their ass, good quality driver is made.

Why the hell can't they support everything they promised us?

Hmmm, you're not too familiar with the gfx-card business, I guess.

As a matter of fact those advertised, but never really supported features can be found with EVERY manufacturer.

Take nVidias "anisotropic filtering" of the original RivaTNT or the "16x" multisampling FSAA (which is not only a mere 12x AA, no this is done with the worst possible grid, so the quality is still not better than the R300s 6x RG FSAA but at an insane speed penalty). What about the FSAA "for free" claim?

Or ATI: What about Fullstream? What about supersampling or even mixed multi-/supersampling support on the Radeon9700Pro (which is still listed in the ATI whitepaper)?
What about 16bit FSAA on the R300? O.K. this issue is resolved now and they never specifically claimed that the R300 would support 16Bit FSAA but of course all buyer took that as given. Still it took major ranting and begging in the Rage3D fori to get this implemented.

Or look at the "hardware T&L" of S3s Savage which was simply broken.


Now, don't get me wrong: this is definitely not correct and the buyers have all right to feel cheated on - but since EVERY company does it, you have to be realistic about that.
So you just have to look at the actual capabilities of the card you want to buy at the moment - and take every statement of things "not supported yet", but "promised for future drivers" with a MAJOR grain of salt.

[Damien Green]

A vertex shader 2.0, probably isn't very important anyway, since as Kruzin says it's not even being used by games yet. Even when we do reach a stage when the shader is used, it's more than likely that the Parhelia won't have the raw power to run the game in question.

Get real guys, it's really not all that important. Look at the other aspects of the card, highly stable, much more so than eith Nvidia or Ati offerings (I know I've owned both in the past!), great image quality - looks great on my Sony 21" Monitor.

The Parhelia is not the fastest card in the world, but does it not play all the currently avaliable games???? I believe that it dows - Unreal II, NOLF 2, Unreal Tournament 2003 (in fact this game isn't half bad on a G400Max!).

When Doom III comes out it is more than likely that it won't be playable on the Parhelia, but that's life, and you can always buy a Nvidia or Ati card. By the time Doom III reaches us, the current generation will probably have moved into the budget price arena.

The Parhelia is primarily a business card, it will play games and that is a bonus, but it is still geared at bussiness applications, we all know this since it has been Matrox's strategy for a number of years now.

If you want speed, go with ATI or Nvidia, if you want quality, stick with Matrox.

Phew - Rant over

[[GDI]Raptor]

The worst tihing here is that Matrox haven't said that there not going to develop a driver with suport for VS 2.0. They have only said that they are going to wait untill games and applications start taking use off it and se if it is a demand then.

I hope Matrox will continue to improve the Parhelia in new drivers!

[joonie]

I am so Freaking Mad right now

Some USERS of the other graphics card companies like ATI or nV don't even have to ask for a feature written on a back cover of the card. While they are sitting on their ass, good quality driver is made.

Why the hell can't they support everything they promised us?
Matrox should've told us we are supposed to choose only some of them!
OH, I GET IT. If they told us before Parhelia was released, they would have went bankrupt, 'cause no body would buy them.

ONLY some features are available? Uh? Then I'll have pepperoni and extra cheese with Italian sausage. Oh, didn't I pay for the price of a super supreme? What? topping can't go all in there? THEN WHY DOES IT SAY ALL THE GOOD TOPPINGS ON THE AD? FINE. I'll have deep dish pizza with everything on it or you will have to REFUND MY MONEY.

I remember some user saying...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally think it's a strange thing that you have to ask for certain features being enabled through drivers if they normally should and must be enabled because of the card being able to and because they were promised when the card came out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know what? I'm going to do whatever I can to do something to my card. Some people say they want to proceed it by law, and I, living in Canada, and Matrox, Canadian Company, will do SOMETHING.

[XHotKolaX]

Do you even read what others say or do you just disillusion yourself just for the pure sake of trolling?

One would think that after your previous thread with the same post was closed that would mean something.

Ee mahl roh kkeut ne. Mal hal kkeh up seu myun, geunynag jo yong hee an juh suh mal ha ji ma.

[leech]

Well as far as the Vertex Shaders 2.0 goes.... indeed, there isn't really much out there that'll use 'em. 3dmark03 will, but who really gives a crap about that? I just want 3d in linux. Honestly, would Parhelia owners benefit all that much from being able to run 3dmark03 faster?

Granted, that's not really the point. The point is that it was advertised to do certain things and certain things aren't working as advertised. Just like when the G200 came out and it said on the box Full OpenGL supported. But it didn't come for a long time after the fact. And that was FAR worse than some DX9 feature that isn't used at all yet. There were many many OpenGL apps out then that could have been used by the G200 owners, but they all had to wait.

I feel just as I did back in the G200 days, waiting on OpenGL drivers for linux. More specifically HARDWARE ACCELERATED OpenGL. I could use it in software mode, but it's EXTREMELY slow. So now what do we do? Well we can either wait with our thumbs up our arses, or we can email sales and tell them that there is a need/want for the features that Parhelia owners have been expecting from the beginning and have been shorted on. Guaranteed if we could find some OEM companies that would be interested in Parhelias if only certain features (like linux drivers or DX9 compatibility) were available to them, then we could get Matrox to actually DO what is advertised from the beginning.

Leech

[joonie]

Originally posted by XHotKolaX
Do you even read what others say or do you just disillusion yourself just for the pure sake of trolling?

One would think that after your previous thread with the same post was closed that would mean something.

Ee mahl roh kkeut ne. Mal hal kkeh up seu myun, geunynag jo yong hee an juh suh mal ha ji ma.

I disillusion myself for some reason. And there is nothing you can do about it.

[Kuriton]

Hey!

I sent an e-mail about VS2.0 to Matrox, and I received an answer.

Hello,

Thank you for your email.

At the present time we have not included the 2.0 Vertex Shader in our
drivers, the reason for this is very simple. V.S. 2.0 is in it's very early
stages, we feel that there would be no real benefit to the user due to the
lack of applications taking advantage of this feature. Traditionally in the
past Matrox has responded very quickly to technology updates and/or
improvements, I would suggest that you check back with us periodically for
any possible announcements concerning Vertex Shader 2.0. In the mean time I
will forward your email to the drivers development team in hopes that they
will consider your request.

Best regards,

Well, I'll wait for a new driver supporting VS2.0 until it would be invented.

What do you think about this message?

[Kruzin]

I think it's the same reply they sent to gpremec that he posted 28 posts ago

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?postid=383211#post383211

[FormerEx-SalesSoup]

Originally posted by Damien Green
A vertex shader 2.0, probably isn't very important anyway, since as Kruzin says it's not even being used by games yet. Even when we do reach a stage when the shader is used, it's more than likely that the Parhelia won't have the raw power to run the game in question.

Get real guys, it's really not all that important. Look at the other aspects of the card, highly stable, much more so than eith Nvidia or Ati offerings (I know I've owned both in the past!), great image quality - looks great on my Sony 21" Monitor.

The Parhelia is not the fastest card in the world, but does it not play all the currently avaliable games???? I believe that it dows - Unreal II, NOLF 2, Unreal Tournament 2003 (in fact this game isn't half bad on a G400Max!).

When Doom III comes out it is more than likely that it won't be playable on the Parhelia, but that's life, and you can always buy a Nvidia or Ati card. By the time Doom III reaches us, the current generation will probably have moved into the budget price arena.

The Parhelia is primarily a business card, it will play games and that is a bonus, but it is still geared at bussiness applications, we all know this since it has been Matrox's strategy for a number of years now.

If you want speed, go with ATI or Nvidia, if you want quality, stick with Matrox.

Phew - Rant over

[leech]

From an interview with Egosoft (makers of the upcoming X2: The Threat)

"Vertex shaders are a different story altogether. They have shown to be a great tool to allow effects which were not possible at all before, or which were terribly slow when implemented with the fixed pipeline.

Up to now we only use vertex shaders of version 1.0 and are currently looking at 2.0 DX9 shaders for new improvements. But again the same rule applies, if we can manage to get the effect by a combination of version 1.0 shaders and other "tricks", then we would prefer to not use the 2.0 features. Especially when they are not considerably faster."

Leech

[Indiana]

Originally posted by joonie
I disillusion myself for some reason. And there is nothing you can do about it.

No, you just want to troll - just keep posting the same bull over and over and don't even bother to read the responses.

Again, your statement

Some USERS of the other graphics card companies like ATI or nV don't even have to ask for a feature written on a back cover of the card.

Is just plain false, repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
See here for the more detailed explanation what's wrong with that statement.

Oh, I forgot, you won't even be reading this.

[joonie]

Originally posted by Indiana
No, you just want to troll - just keep posting the same bull over and over and don't even bother to read the responses.

Again, your statement


Is just plain false, repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
See here for the more detailed explanation what's wrong with that statement.

Oh, I forgot, you won't even be reading this.

Why don't you stop trolling Indiana.
I don't read responses of your bull shit but I read others.
If you want to troll and badmouth others, go home and take care of your mama.

[TdB]

HEY! lets keep the flames away from this thread!

the topic in itself is interresting enough without the flames.

the way I see it: if they wait for the dx9 games to appear before they add VS 2.0, we can get more bugfixes and possible other features instead, and more focus on stability. on the other hand, gamedeveloperss won´t develop dx9 games with this card in mind, because it will still only be dx8(when they start development), which could hurt future game compatibility in the long run.

no matter what, there will be pros and cons.

The reason why i bought this card, was because i want my computer to be as stable as possible. Besides I trust the driverdevs can add VS 2.0 later and still make it work with the games that will be out at that time. that is, unless the VS 2.0 is "weird" enough to require the gamedevelopers attention, in which case they should make it work ASAP.

in short: if the VS 2.0 hardware is "well-behaved" then driver-support can wait(IMO).

[Mikko]

I think Matrox should enable this feature immediately when there has been even a very little change towards games that require/support V.S 2.0. By doing this we can be sure that game developers can test their games properly with Parhelia and with Surround Gaming resolutions.

Games with V.S. 2.0 requirement may be slow on current Parhelia card, but I'm sure the next generation Parhelia will run them much faster and I would like to play Surround Gaming combatible games also in the future!