• DX11 it will blow your mind!
    213 replies, posted
he didn't show the framerate, did the DX11 have the same exact framerate as DX10? Because that is what would be cool, having the higher poly counts, but if it takes the same amount of toll why bother.
Yeah Alex, but the point is, now you DON'T have to individually model each part of the wall/shingles.
I can see some Youtube Poops coming out of this. I like his enthusiasm.
If it works how I *HOPE*, which is by turning normal maps into geometry, then hoo boy. I want to apply this to all games.
I would not want to walk on that path in DX11 mode.
Directx is a bunch of api's, he's acting like it's magic fairy dust sprinkled over the map.
DX10 has low-poly models, DX11 has high-poly models. Besides, I've never seen an app switch between two rendering APIs as quick as that.
This is almost exactly like POM, which is possible to do in DX9: [img]http://www.abload.de/img/1n93h.jpg[/img] This guy's rediculous, he's the kind of guy who has no idea what he's talking about an just goes "OMG WOOOW MORE PIXLEZ!!" Also if this guy's any example, the new "realism" cool thing is going to be retarded spikes/overexadurated bumps on things. Atleast we're moving away from bloom/brown.
Having used DirectX 10, I can state with certainty the whole tesselation thing (the first thing he goes on about) could be done on DX10 just as well as in DX11. Maybe it was optimized internally, maybe made simpler, but nothing impossible. Honestly, nVidia and ATI need to stop using DirectX versions as performance features, advertising new stuff as DX(X++) when a driver update could probably bring an old GT7200 into DX11 compatibility (albeit at extremely slow speeds compared to new cards). Microsoft also needs to only update the API when it actually needs to be, instead of whenever they want to sound cutting-edge.
[quote]The tesselation technology that Microsoft is heavily promoting for DirectX 11 has been an OpenGL extension for three years. It has even been possible for years before that, using fast instancing and vertex-texture-fetch. I don't know what new technologies will be exposed in the next couple years, I know they will be available first in OpenGL.[/quote] [url=http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX]Why you should use OpenGL and not DirectX[/url]
[QUOTE=KorJax;20095732]This is almost exactly like POM, which is possible to do in DX9: This guy's rediculous, he's the kind of guy who has no idea what he's talking about an just goes "OMG WOOOW MORE PIXLEZ!!" Also if this guy's any example, the new "realism" cool thing is going to be retarded spikes/overexadurated bumps on things. Atleast we're moving away from bloom/brown.[/QUOTE] Yes this is what I thought, it seems like old technology in the video.
[QUOTE=NeoDement;20095520]If it works how I *HOPE*, which is by turning normal maps into geometry, then hoo boy. I want to apply this to all games.[/QUOTE] AFAIK, that is, effectively, how it's done. Technically, that could be done all the way back in DX5, with some clever CPU code, but it wasn't until DX10 (or in OpenGL about three years earlier) that it could be done well, at significant speed, on the GPU. As for actually using it, it's done in Crysis, at least, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in, say, Episode 3.
[QUOTE=Vexxus;20094731]Can someone explain to me how the heck it's creating 3D Geometry on textures? Is this some sort of crazy feature on DX11? Is it utilizing normal maps or what?[/QUOTE] I do believe it's called Displacement Mapping. It's an extra texture layer, that, using tessellation, can increase the complexity of geometry, without the need for extra power to render it. Most of the work is done mathematically by the GPU, like most aspects of tessellation.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;20095407]Who gives a damn if he isn't the most knowledgeable on terms? [b]Did you see that DX11[/b]?[/QUOTE] No we all watched the video with our eyes closed.
efaco5 is weird
Did... did that guy call the polygons TRIANGLES?!
The heaven demo is incredibly unoptmized when it comes to tesselation. Also, it's Tesselation + Displacement Mapping, not only tesselation. Clear Sky proves that Parallax can look incredibly good, without killing your computer.
I still don't get how it can make models out of textures :confused: But I have no clue on that subject anyways
This guy's a moron. Upgrading to DX11 won't magically make games look better, it requires better models and textures in the first place.
[QUOTE=KorJax;20095732]This is almost exactly like POM, which is possible to do in DX9[/QUOTE] No it isn't (i mean the exactly like part). :siren:WARNING: i am not a graphics programmer so the information and pictures below may not be entirely correct, if any information is incorrect please point it out and explain why.:siren: Let me first shortly explain what parallax mapping actually is. Basically, it uses a heightmap to displace the pixels inside of a polygon based on the position of the polygon and the point of view. It is purely pixel shader based and doesn't create extra geometry, but it still manages to make parts of textures "pop out" and react realistically when you view them from different angles. It does have some serious drawbacks compared to actual geometry though. Here's an example of a flat polygon and what it would look like if the displacements were made out of actual geometry: [img]http://www.shrani.si/f/3W/3j/MQuCAo5/scene.png[/img] First, let's take a look at standard parallax mapping: [img]http://www.shrani.si/f/1G/F0/t4gaNtp/parallax-mapping.png[/img] The problem with standard parallax mapping is that it just distorts the image, but it can't make certain parts of the texture occlude other parts. That's why in some games that use it, you can clearly see that the distortions look completely wrong in some cases, especially when the displacements are big. Parralax occlusion mapping (aka POM) fixes that problem: [img]http://www.shrani.si/f/Y/QO/3vjZmfp8/pom.png[/img] But it still isn't perfect, the displacements still can't go past the edge of polygon: [img]http://www.shrani.si/f/1u/Sw/2I9TqcqI/edge1.png[/img] However, this issue can be resolved by putting all the displacements below the polygon (this is the way Crysis does it): [img]http://www.shrani.si/f/Q/Wi/3LLAQoI5/edge2.png[/img] This introduces another problem: objects placed on top of that polygon will look like they're floating above it (this is why i kept the pom in Crysis off, i just couldn't stand the floating objects) [b]Other disadvantages of pom vs. tesselation: -parallax mapped displacements can't cast accurate shadows -no antialiasing on the displacements (take a look at displacements that actually occlude other parts of the texture, for example the little rocks in crysis; the edges will be aliased, unless you use supersampling which costs way too much performance) [/b] CONCLUSION: Tesselation creates actual geometry for the displacements, and these newly created polygons act just like any other polygons, therefore it has none of the problems described above. Sure people today might say it's unnecessary and that it doesn't really make much of a difference, but i see it as a natural progression of all the previous techniques that make surfaces look 3d (normal mapping, parallax mapping, pom). It will definitely get used a lot more in the future when enough people have capable graphics cards.
I think Microsoft is speeding things up a bit too much, I mean... They haven't even utilized Direct X 10 to it's full potential yet. Direct X 11 seems wasteful.
[QUOTE=mrbloog;20095134]Just enough time until someone mentions OpenGL is better.[/QUOTE] That is because... oh my god. [B]It is[/B]. It's had the features of DX11 for at least two or three years now. And it is proven it is the better at processing that DirectX. Plus most of nvidias benchmark programs use/are done in, [B]OpenGL[/B]. The only reason why DirectX is used so much is due to the monopoly of what Microsoft has created. Which is one of the few reasons why Microsoft needs to stop being the monopoly master and for once, let the other people have a say.
[QUOTE=EDDY TT;20100167]It's had the features of DX11 for at least two or three years now.[/QUOTE] The difference is, DirectX does it right of the bat while OpenGL requires 3rd party add-ons to achieve the effects.
Why bother with this if you could just model it? Of course, i can see that it could be used for LODs when you're far away, but it doesn't really make much sense. The whole benchmarking tool is just dumb as well. Of course the difference is going to be amazing when you compare low-poly models to high-poly ones. Unless this is less resource-hungry than high-poly models, it's pointless.
DX9 Crysis with custom Parallax [URL=http://www.zshare.net/image/702418002087ac0b/][IMG]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/231/00027l.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://www.zshare.net/image/70241919375a64e8/][IMG]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5466/00028j.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://www.zshare.net/download/702419985194830f/][IMG]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8325/00029s.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Hoyl fukc, I actually thought you tried to be funny by taking pictures of a brick wall. Then I realized that was in-game.
Damn.. i'm stuck on DX9... how much is a normal card that can run X10/11 Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT :bang:
[QUOTE=darth-veger;20100740]Damn.. i'm stuck on DX9... how much is a normal card that can run X10/11 Nvidia GeForce 8500 GT :bang:[/QUOTE] Take a look at the images BloodYScar posted, they are rendered using DirectX 9. Besides, I thought the Nvidia 8*00 series cards all supported DirectX 10 ?
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;20100103]I think Microsoft is speeding things up a bit too much, I mean... They haven't even utilized Direct X 10 to it's full potential yet. Direct X 11 seems wasteful.[/QUOTE] You mean DEVELOPERS haven't utilized dx10 enough yet. Microsoft only releases and updates the directx software platform and specifications which hardware manufacturers need to follow if they want their hardware to be compatible with DX. It's up to developers to create stuff with it, Microsoft only provides the tools. And to all people that think we don't need DX11 yet (and to people who think the same about SATA3, pcie 3,etc. ): FUCK YOU ALL, if everybody was thinking that way, we'd still be in stone age. Why do i need a calculator if i can calculate with my brain? Why use a shovel when i could dig with my bare hands? Why do you go to school and work for money when we could all live primitively in an anarchy where everyone takes whatever they can and give nothing to others? Do we need all those things? Absolutely not. But why not have them if you can?
[QUOTE=Drag0nSnak3;20100260] Unless this is less resource-hungry than high-poly models, it's pointless.[/QUOTE] That's kind of the point. Because it's taking a lower poly model and using a map to do the little details (in full polys, mind you), it's easier on the RAM, takes less time to load off of the HDD than a high-poly model, and is easily scaled for distance, the same way LOD / mipmapping handles it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.