Standarization - Forcing settings from Graphics Drivers Panel

[Suicide machine 53]

Since, I just got "corrected", I think it'd be a nice time to bring another matter - forcing settings from a level of graphics drivers. At the moment, if there is a case, where some setting can be forced from the level of graphical drivers (namely Vsync, Anisotropic Filtering or Anti-aliasing), most of pages tend to mark it as hackable. There are however also pages, that mark it as false - which, is actually what I personally prefer. However, as much as I like marking them as false (yup!), I feel like this is something we need to standardize. I'm not sure, if this is something that requires a poll - depends.

 

So, if a setting can be forced from the graphics drivers panel, should it be hackable or false? Why?

 

Whatever the result is - this leads me to a second problem. We should have a page with screenshots of Graphical Drivers Panels (Intel, AMD and nVidia) - unless we have something like this, already - in which case, I can't find it. Anyway, knowing how much less reliable forcing settings Catalyst Panel is, comparing to Nvidia's Control Panel - we should have informations about alternatives like RadeonPro in that page. Then we could (and should) make links from every note that states it can be forced from graphical drivers panel to such page.

 

Answering my questions and why I'd prefer false? Mainly because nearly every game can have these settings forced - which gives us a lot of hackable (not a very good reason, I know). And if a setting can be forced from a level of graphics drivers - one may ask, then what's the point in writing about how to edit config files of a game or enable a console and type something in it, etc. if most often than not - these solutions are more complicated than simply forcing one setting. Yes, I've seen multiple times on a forum of Thief, System Shock 2 and Dark Souls - how forced settings cause problems, but that won't stop anyone from trying them anyway. So my thought about it, would be to mark them as false and state in notes they can be forced from a level of graphics drivers. If not - hackable and same note will do.

[AussieGav 0]

I suggest:

 

Possible = can be enabled in menus or config files.

Hackable = works with external program including CCC.

Impossible = can cause problems even if it might be hackable.

[Nicereddy 109]

I think hackable is proper because the graphics driver panel is still technically a hack, false generally implies it's impossible/incredibly glitchy even with a hack. I do agree that a page on the Graphics Driver panels would be a really nice addition. Should we make separate pages for each company or have a single page with multiple sections?

[Mirh 103]

I think hackable is proper because the graphics driver panel is still technically a hack, false generally implies it's impossible/incredibly glitchy even with a hack. I do agree that a page on the Graphics Driver panels would be a really nice addition. Should we make separate pages for each company or have a single page with multiple sections?

i think that the each company solution is the best

because there you could also talk about tools like radeonpro, ati tray tools, alternative drivers (this would be awesome for sound cards too).. and so on

 

btw editing .ini files shouldn't be hackable?

[Suicide machine 53]

i think that the each company solution is the best

because there you could also talk about tools like radeonpro, ati tray tools, alternative drivers (this would be awesome for sound cards too).. and so on

Actually, to be honest, we have:

• http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/AMD_VISION_Engine_Control_Center
• http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Graphics_Filtering#Forcing_Anisotropic_Filtering_via_AMD_Catalyst

All of this pages could use plenty of work, especially the ons from AMD.

 

btw editing .ini files shouldn't be hackable?

For me? It definitely should stay hackable, as it is.

[Nicereddy 109]

 

btw editing .ini files shouldn't be hackable?

This should definitely stay as hackable, since it's not a toggle in-game/in-launcher and therefore not officially supported.

 

 

Actually, to be honest, we have:

• http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/AMD_VISION_Engine_Control_Center
• http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Graphics_Filtering#Forcing_Anisotropic_Filtering_via_AMD_Catalyst

I think we may want to think about creating a "Graphics Driver" section, e.g. Graphics Driver:AMD, Graphics Driver:NVIDIA, etc. However, there may be better solutions to this problem.

 

Creating a project page which lists all the pages we have/need-to-create that are relevant to Graphics Cards, etc. might be a good idea. We could do the same with Controllers and Emulation, since there's really not much organization for those either.

[Sagacity 1]

I think the best solution would be to add to each graphics setting a field to state whether or not it can be overridden with AMD/NVidia control panels.

[Garrett 214]

Most games can have AA/AF/Vsync forced successfully, so it is more useful to note the cases where this capability does not work as expected. Last month I updated Template:Video settings to show default notes when AA/AF/Vsync is set to false without a note specified, so cases where support has been set to false without further explanation suggest a likely solution.

 

Working methods specific to a game (INI edit, mod, Nvidia flag, etc.) should be set to hackable as always.

[Antrad 37]

Most games can have AA/AF/Vsync forced successfully, so it is more useful to note the cases where this capability does not work as expected. Last month I updated Template:Video settings to show default notes when AA/AF/Vsync is set to false without a note specified, so cases where support has been set to false without further explanation suggest a likely solution.

 

Working methods specific to a game (INI edit, mod, Nvidia flag, etc.) should be set to hackable as always.

 

I don't understand what this means ?

 

I've seen Garrbot changing all my edits where I set "hackable - Can be forced in the GPU control panel" to "false - see the glossary for a possible solution". And worst thing is the glossary is just a large wall of text, and only at the very end there is a table which you need to expand to see all the possible ways to force AA, and the cherry on top is there you have AMD control panel called "Catalyst" which is not used for two years I think.

 

I think if a user has confirmed forcing AA works through the control panel, there is no need to set it to false and point a random wanderer to that confusing glossary to search for a "possible solution".

It should be left as hackable and instead point directly to the instructions how to use the GPU control panel.

[Postwar 3]

The way I see it, forcing anything through GPU control panel is technically a hack, so the value should be set to "hackable", not "false". "False" is for cases where it's impossible or glitchy to apply a hack.