• DX11 it will blow your mind!
    213 replies, posted
Well if that's the case, then i hope they fix the texture stretch from the tessellation or at least find a way around it.
Well this software would have been made by Microsoft, so it would be a bit glorified wouldn't it? Like the stairs, I dont think any game would make them like those slopes as shown in the benchmarking software.
[QUOTE=PaperStrike;20096436]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] This is right. A displacement map is a greyscale image used a texture that when rendered adds geometry (polygons) so you don't have to model it yourself. An exampel of this is Height Maps; a program generates a greyscale image that becomes landscape when you render it. But it most certainly inceases the rendering time, mind you.
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;20100315]DX9 Crysis with custom Parallax *pics* [/QUOTE] I found a video of this thing: [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcAsJdo7dME[/hd] I wonder how he manages to do this so you can actually see the background through the gaps between the bricks when you look at it from the side.
[QUOTE=pebkac;20099252]No it isn't (i mean the exactly like part). *pictures*[/QUOTE] Yes it is actually. It's easily possible in Dx9, and I run Crysis with POM enabled. But you are right, it does have drawbacks in that POM/displacement mapping works completely on optical illusion. The illusion is easy to break if the POM effect is on any non-smooth surface (smooth surface would be flat/simple walls, terrain, etc). If there's too much complexity in the geometry's shape the POM's illusion is broken. It is these cases that most games will just use normal mapping, to create flat 2D shadows on the texture depending on the lighting. This works great but up close it's somewhat noticable that the texture is flat. Tesselation is the same exact thing as POM, but it apparently simulates actual geometry instead of having it only be able occlude/light it's own texture. It's a very subtle difference though. This guy in the video was talking as if bumpy rocks have never been in a game before to date. The only real advantage over POM that tesselation has would be that you can use the effect on a much larger variety of objects/geometry compared to what you can do to POM and have that look good. The tech demo is also way biased. The "DX10" mode doesn't show any POM being used at all (just standard normal maps), while in DX11 all of a sudden they use the displacement. If the DX10 demo had actually used POM/displacement, the differences between the two versions would be subtle at best.
[QUOTE=KorJax;20101815]Yes it is actually. It's easily possible in Dx9, and I run Crysis with POM enabled. But you are right, it does have drawbacks in that POM/displacement mapping works completely on optical illusion. The illusion is easy to break if the POM effect is on any non-smooth surface (smooth surface would be flat/simple walls, terrain, etc). If there's too much complexity in the geometry's shape the POM's illusion is broken. It is these cases that most games will just use normal mapping, to create flat 2D shadows on the texture depending on the lighting. This works great but up close it's somewhat noticable that the texture is flat. Tesselation is the same exact thing as POM, but it apparently simulates actual geometry instead of having it only be able occlude/light it's own texture. It's a very subtle difference though. This guy in the video was talking as if bumpy rocks have never been in a game before to date. The only real advantage over POM that tesselation has would be that you can use the effect on a much larger variety of objects/geometry compared to what you can do to POM and have that look good. The tech demo is also way biased. The "DX10" mode doesn't show any POM being used at all (just standard normal maps), while in DX11 all of a sudden they use the displacement. If the DX10 demo had actually used POM/displacement, the differences between the two versions would be subtle at best.[/QUOTE] Ok, it is the same in the sense that they both displace stuff, just that one displaces pixels and the other displaces vertices. But tesselation is more than just displacements, it's a way of managing LODs efficiently. Instead of needing multiple models for different LODs, you only need a single model and a displacement map. The model then gets dynamically tesselated to create more polygons, which are then displaced according to displacement map. This way, you can generate only as much detail as is needed. If you're viewing an object from far away, it won't need to be tesselated at all, but as you come closer, more and more detail is needed. And i agree that the unigine heaven demo was exaggerating the capabilities of dx11 a lot - they tried to use the least geometric detail possible in dx9 and 10 modes. Stairs were a single flat surface but it was still made out of multiple polygons just so it can tesselate nicely - what the fuck were they thinking? Even parallax mapping couldn't save those stairs; it can't make things stick out of the polygon, as i mentioned earlier. Like i said, tesselation is nothing revolutionary, it's more of a logical step in evolution of computer graphics.
[QUOTE=BAZ;20100245]The difference is, DirectX does it right of the bat while OpenGL requires 3rd party add-ons to achieve the effects.[/QUOTE] That may be so, but personally I'd rather have maximum compatibility rather than being stuck to JUST Windows Vista/7.
[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] My shitty 8400m G supports DX10 I don't see why yours shouldn't
I'll have to upgrade to a direct 11 card, which means whole new computer I'm not complaining, I gots the monayyy
Too bad that OpenGL had tesselation years ago, but everybody was busy sucking on Microsoft's dick, using DirectX. [editline]09:38PM[/editline] Oops I am late.
[QUOTE=KorJax;20095732]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.[/QUOTE] What level is this and where is it, or what custom map is this?
[QUOTE=BAZ;20100245]The difference is, DirectX does it right of the bat while OpenGL requires 3rd party add-ons to achieve the effects.[/QUOTE] I don't know if I got you right, but even if it does, it works better than DickerX, so why it shouldn't? [editline]09:43PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;20097513]Did... did that guy call the polygons TRIANGLES?![/QUOTE] Because it's something totally different. The real work done by the renderer depends on the triangles. The one polygon can be made of variable amount of triangles.
This made me want to download the unique heaven benchmark.
I think we are over-looking some other aspects of DX11 that are, in my opinion, more important. First of all, lets talk shadows. [img]http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/ati/5970/Shadows.jpg[/img] And then HDAO, which is a sharper version of AO. [img]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/12/AmbientOcclusion-DX9.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/12/AmbientOcclusion-DX11.jpg[/img] Take a look at this: [url]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699998/Dirt-2-DirectX-9-vs-DirectX-11-graphics-compared-Top-article-of-December-2009/Practice/[/url] At the bottom you will notice the part where it compares 2 screenshots. Look at how much sharper one is than the other. But all of this is still not as good as my favorite thing... DX11 can do anti-aliasing with differed rendered games... and so could DX10, BUT, 4xAA is mandatory in DX10.1 and onward, which I think is great for DX11 since it will be more accepted than DX10.1.
I can wait patiently with my 8800GTS until I see something impressive emerge from nVidia. (Second-gen Fermi?)
[QUOTE=luishi5000;20105798]I think we are over-looking some other aspects of DX11 that are, in my opinion, more important. First of all, lets talk shadows. [img]http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/ati/5970/Shadows.jpg[/img] And then HDAO, which is a sharper version of AO. [img]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/12/AmbientOcclusion-DX9.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/12/AmbientOcclusion-DX11.jpg[/img] Take a look at this: [url]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,699998/Dirt-2-DirectX-9-vs-DirectX-11-graphics-compared-Top-article-of-December-2009/Practice/[/url] At the bottom you will notice the part where it compares 2 screenshots. Look at how much sharper one is than the other. But all of this is still not as good as my favorite thing... DX11 can do anti-aliasing with differed rendered games... and so could DX10, BUT, 4xAA is mandatory in DX10.1 and onward, which I think is great for DX11 since it will be more accepted than DX10.1.[/QUOTE] DX10 looks better with shadows? [editline]05:07PM[/editline] The AO looks great though, but why doesn't DX9 have a form of AO shown? It supports it.
Goddamn this guy is rich, he has two 5970s in his computer and he has 2 corvettes, a hummer, and a jeep
i dont think he compared them enough
[QUOTE=Odellus;20106309]DX10 looks better with shadows?[/QUOTE] What? No, real shadows are sharper when the object is closer to the shadow, and blurrier the further away it gets.
Shame there's hardly any games with DX11 support ...
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;20097513]Did... did that guy call the polygons TRIANGLES?![/QUOTE] Triangle has 3 edges, quad has four edges, polygon can have unlimited amount of edges. Every game engine uses triangles as far as I know.
Elder scrolls V please
To be honest, DX11 looks pretty ridiculous
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;20106698]Shame there's hardly any games with DX11 support ...[/QUOTE] It was just released a few months ago...
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;20106698]Shame there's hardly any games with DX11 support ...[/QUOTE] Yeah.. Dirt 2 with DX11 looks quite nice though on my rig and I'm looking forward to see more games with DX11
Alien vs Predator will have DX 11. :D
Lol. Prodominant is not a word silly! Direct x 9 can look this good too. Don't shit bricks over it....
Oh great, DirectX 11. Despite the fact that DirectX 10 hasn't even been out that long, I will soon have to buy ANOTHER new graphics card to use it. I'm tired of this "Graphics > Gameplay" formula that has torn through the gaming industry over the past few years.
[QUOTE=Doug52392;20108626]Oh great, DirectX 11. Despite the fact that DirectX 10 hasn't even been out that long, I will soon have to buy ANOTHER new graphics card to use it. I'm tired of this "Graphics > Gameplay" formula that has torn through the gaming industry over the past few years.[/QUOTE] Yeah it sucks that technology is progressing. All our worlds programmers should just take a 5 year hiatus after every breakthrough so we can relax. [/sarcasm] With that attitude we would still be using Commodore 64. I don't know about you but I want to live long enough to see full body awareness virtual reality or have my brain implanted into a computer. The more we progress, the better things become and the cheaper older things get. You don't have to buy another graphics card, just lower your settings.
This seems a little overrated but it looks innovative as hell nevertheless
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.