I don't see a huge difference. DX11 is the same marketing scam as DX10 and I'm sad that it took me $600 to find that out.
Imagine Black and White 3 using this
Set it on fire and show it agen... want to see some effects
Reminds me of dalaran, anyone?.
[QUOTE=thisispain;18038504]The tessellation is kind of bullshit. It's easily done with a written program on itself, but instead they want to be lazy and have the DirectX API do it for them.[/QUOTE]
A written program requires hundreds of lines of code to be run and many extra instruction sets sent to the GPU each frame. In fact, I would bet it would have actually been less efficient to do it at a software level than to not do it at all.
Yes, they've been doing this for years in things like 3D rendering programs and other various AutoCAD tasks. It just doesn't work when GPUs were optimized and coded to do it another way. We've had parallax mapping since the early 2000s, and this is the first thing to come along that works better.
Looks good , but i wasn't totally impressed.
Also the focus blur is really annoying.
[QUOTE=thisispain;18038504]The tessellation is kind of bullshit. It's easily done with a written program on itself, but instead they want to be lazy and have the DirectX API do it for them.[/QUOTE]
I thought you were supposed to be smart. :colbert:
[img]http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7924/41565278.png[/img]
[editline]06:34PM[/editline]
Just putting this up here...
Textures still look like balls.
Is it just me or does DX10 look better than DX11 there?
They look almost the same but it does no justice for either.
[QUOTE=Adamhully;18050990]Is it just me or does DX10 look better than DX11 there?[/QUOTE]
u mad?
The people bashing this have got to be crazy. Yes, they over-used depth-of-field, they were just showing it off, this is not a game. Yes, this -could- be achieved with older hardware, but that's like saying we could have done this with individual pixel manipulation. It's technically true, but to an extent, it would become nearly impossible, and this is what advancements do: they make a feature more accessible, easier to use, more efficient on supported hardware, etc. As for the person who said the cryengine is better: no it's not. The cry engine runs on direct x, it's not a rendering device. The cryengine would use direct x, it isn't better than direct x. You can't compare them, it's an engine not a 3D graphics SDK.
[QUOTE=AesoSpadez;18044012]A written program requires hundreds of lines of code to be run and many extra instruction sets sent to the GPU each frame. In fact, I would bet it would have actually been less efficient to do it at a software level than to not do it at all.
Yes, they've been doing this for years in things like 3D rendering programs and other various AutoCAD tasks. It just doesn't work when GPUs were optimized and coded to do it another way. We've had parallax mapping since the early 2000s, and this is the first thing to come along that works better.[/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is, there's not really any significant reason for Tessellation to be a DirectX11 feature.
I'm quite aware of the incredible benefits that tessellation offers but it's already being used in other ways.
[editline]06:45PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;18044911]I thought you were supposed to be smart. :colbert:[/QUOTE]
Thank you for making no effort to understand or comprehend what I said.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.