Widescreen Gaming Forum

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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)

[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.

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.

_________________
VirtualDub Game Recording Guide | BFME2 & RotWK Widescreen/Triplehead Mods

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.

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?

:)

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?