>muh nvidia are closed sauce
THANK YOU BASED NVIDIA
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gameworks-hairworks-github-release/
So does this mean AMD can optimise their drivers for this now? Will there no longer be a penalty to AMD in GoyWorks titles?
WHY IS THIS NOT GETTING MORE ATTENTION
>>53652668
Because this is /g/ and nvidia are evil even if they get every single anon laid.
Ontopic, neat. Thats actualy pretty decent of them.
>>53651992
>nvidia realized that GPUOpen is a threat and have decided to pretend to be open source to compete
sounds about right
>>53654012
This is literally the only reason they did this. My guess is they caught some internal info regarding AMD's upcoming GPUs and have decided they are going to have to start actually competing from now on.
Fuck Nvidia.
>>53651992
So when will the drivers be open source? If never, why should I care?
>The source code for the following GameWorks libraries is currently accessible from GitHub. Do note that you won’t be able to access the source code unless you are part of the GameWorks Access Team on GitHub.
So not really open source. Shared source and probably with restrictions like the other stuff they released recently
>>53655533
this is why rms warns people not to say "open source" when they're referring to free software, there's a big difference
Where are those repos?
Goyworks before:
"Hurray nVidia! AMD BTFO!"
Goyworks after released source:
"Hurray nVidia! AMD BTFO!"
>want to support open source
>release code on a closed source website
Even with the free software discrepancy this still applies
>>53651992
>tfw you release your volumetric lightning
>>53655533
Can't someone on the access team just freely leak the code? Who is even on the Access team?
>>53656254
>Who is even on the Access team?
Probably just game engine developers for AAA studios.
>>53652131
AMD's architecture still might be able to run it. They're going to have to spend weeks of R&D to make a wrapper to make use of all of this.
>>53656313
might not*
So does this mean AMD can optimize for Gimpworks games now?
Still proprietary, this doesn't change anything for that matter.
>>53656254
you wanna get sued?
>>53652131
>>53656327
unless nvidia lets AMD into their github, otherwise no
>>53652131
>>53656327
amd has always been able to optimize goyworks effects, they're (mostly) just fancy shaders.
>>53651992
About god damn time. Maybe we'll finally see support for these things on AMD cards. Now if they'd just release the source for PhysX.
What is the license?
Is any code publicly available at all?
>>53656611
>The source code for the following GameWorks libraries is currently accessible from GitHub
>PhysX
>PhysX Clothing
>PhysX Destruction
>Volumetric lighting
>FaceWorks demo
>HairWorks
>>53656611
physx source was released to the public years ago bruh
>>53656613
You can see the source code but can't modify it or use it without letting Nvidia know first.
Basically what game developers could already do, this is just so the general public can see it, just to please all those people who cry about open sores.
>>53656641
Except it's not open source or free software. Maybe you should read the open source definition by Bruce perens or learn what free software is.
This is still closed source, and no AMD can't use this.
Like sure, they could sign up for the program all sneaky like, but if they actually produced code that used knowledge gained from seeing nvidia's code, they'd be in a world of legal trouble.
I'm an nvidiot shill, but this is just PR bullshit.
>>53655533
So it's not open source at all?
>>53656769
Did I ever claimed it was open source in my post?
>>53656848
>just to please all those people who cry about open sores.
Yes
>>53656872
>just to please all those people who cry about open sores.
>Yes
Which is you, the article nor Nvidia ever mentioned it was "Open Source"
Thanks for proving my point.
>>53656891
Both you and the OP mentioned it.
>>53656933
Where exactly does it says "Open Source"?
>>53656933
"released source code" doesn't mean "open source"
>>53656963
>muh nvidia are closed sauce
There, I already quoted you.
>>53656991
Read and educate yourself, funny how the people who cry about open sores are the most ignorant.
>>53656982
>>53656933
it's also not mentioned once on the linked page
>>53651992
>>53656933
>>53656991
op suggested it, but was that the point?
nvidia isn't saying it's open source, op was wrong
>>53651992
what license?
>>53651992
>Source Code: Developer shall have the right to modify and create derivative works with the Source Code. Developer shall own any derivative works ("Derivatives") it creates to the Source Code, provided that Developer uses the Materials in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer may distribute the Derivatives, provided that all NVIDIA copyright notices and trademarks are used properly and the Derivatives include the following statement: "This software contains source code provided by NVIDIA Corporation."
It's open source, I guess, but definitely not free software.
>>53655953
github/NVIDIAGameWorks/FaceWorks
>>53657081
How is this different from MIT license? It looks like a free software license.
>>53657081
It's not even open in any way. It's just close source code hosted on github that you can view if nvidia approves you.
>>53657092
There's a lot more to the license file than just that part, you know.
>>53657081
Pretty fair considering some if not most of the visual effects from GameWorks are one of the best in the industry that can work in real time.
>>53657110
Oh, okay then.
>>53651992
>nVidia does what ATi/AMD did it's whole life
>Thanks nVidia for being fucking slow
>>53657124
>>53657124
Nvidia doesn't open source projects just to abandon them later though.
>Not actually open source
>Only a fraction of GameWorks code
2/10 fanboys will actually believe this isn't just an empty gestures
>>53657180
literally claiming stuff none but OP vaguely suggested.
>>53657180
People are never happy...
>>53655533
probably with NDA attached
but really, you think huge corporations like intel(they sort of need that to, in much much lesser demand but still) and amd have no access to such things?
>>53656064
except it is not actually volumetric lighting, check fo4 - it is terrible
>>53657403
Do you have an example of better lighting done in real time?
>>53657403
>it is terrible
Really now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQIZzKBydk4
>>53657180
Hope they'll release HBAO+ soon though
I have access to nvidia's github with those things for a long time already... Is this something new?
>>53657672
They already have a newer AO method that they don't intend to make open.
They pretend to be nice by making obsolete stuff open source, but real performance killers will remain closed source.
>>53657145
Yeah, it just doesn't open source them at all.
>>53656304
Can they prove it was you?
>>53661514
Meant for
>>53656590
>>53651992
>>53652131
>>53652668
>>53653329
>>53656619
>>53657382
It's not even benefiting ANYONE, nVidia literally dumping useless shit now that AMD perfected it already anyway. Just another PR stunt
