Your choice of topic titles has much to be desired. Its nothing but flaimbait. Specific code paths for different cards was something that Carmack has said he wanted to avoid. Optimizations of this nature can probably be done for ATI and Nvidia, but then you'll end up with different code paths doubling QA and support. Seems like a mess best avoided, as the common gains seem to be around 5-15% for users, which could be gained just as easily by lowering resolution/quality settings. It also breaks internet play with pure servers.
I understand the alure for increasing framerates, but to question JC's integrity seems out of line.
Quote by Childs[/quote]
I agree that my choice of topics has much to be desired.
Setting optimizations and controlling benchmarks to make one piece of hardware or another look better is what I found irritating.
The ATI HL2 benchmark ordeal is the same.
As far as doubling QA and support, that is as hard to believe as my choice of topic titles.
New York Times, August 5, 2004
New York Times,
New York Times CNET
"Carmack said the original "Doom" game took five to six people less than a year to design and cost less than $1 million. In contrast, "Doom 3" took 25 people four years to make and cost as much as $14 million."
"Carmack conceded that he had farmed out some of the game's programming tasks to other engineers in the company. "I wasn't actually cramming so much as I had been in previous ones," he said. "I had my code working solidly quite some time ago. It was a different process."
I don't think there is one specific person responsible but the industry as a whole needs an integrity check.