• DX11 it will blow your mind!
    213 replies, posted
I Love DX11. What I don't get is why couldn't they just add it to DX10
Dirt 2 uses Tessellation I think. On "Very high" settings (the one below ultra) I get a good 50-60 FPS when outside if the trailer at the menu. When on Ultra, the game gets a huge particle effect boost and I get thrown down into the 20-40's. But racing is nice and smooth. Either way, I do enjoy some DX11. It is an actual difference from DX10 instead of the change from DX9 to DX10 being more bloom and shadows.
I hope to god VALVe cuts DX 8.x support, because I'm tired of them holding back their games from their true potential. It's not like we still run 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 machines with 512MB of RAM and a 64MB Radeon 7000.
I have that card but my processor is 2.4Ghz and 2GB of RAM. Not shitting you.
Do want. Fuck I just got a notebook with a 4 series. :(
I'm on an e6600, 4GB memory, GTX260. A DX11 upgrade isn't worth it for me until I build an entirely new rig.
[QUOTE=SomeGuest;20109086]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.[/QUOTE] The problem is that they are doing this on purpose. They could have done the equivalent of the DX11 years before (OpenGL is a proof), and the hardware side too. They are on purpose progressing one little thing at time, and make you buy one card/OS after another. They have one big cake, and instead of selling it as whole, they throw a little slice at you every year, and make you pay for it.
A game with this engine would be fantastic.
[QUOTE=mrbloog;20095134]Just enough time until someone mentions OpenGL is better.[/QUOTE] Opengl RAWKS!
I just tested this in the benchmark, the stairs that he shows are infact different models. When using anything other than DX11 the stairs become a ramp and aren't even stairs at all, this is just pointless DirectX cock sucking.
[QUOTE=catch33;20116196]A game with this engine would be fantastic.[/QUOTE] Maybe. But it needs shitloads of optimisation.
This is stupid, it's not like they CAN'T DO a damn staircase without DX11, "Without DX11 you won't be able to have stairs and rocks!". It's all bullshit. They always simplifie the graphics of the "older" DX. DX11 is just as useless as DX10.
Maybe it's to get people to not use OpenGL, I mean it's done before.
[QUOTE=Tinter;20121657]Maybe it's to get people to not use OpenGL, I mean it's done before.[/QUOTE] Well surprise, that's the whole point of DX. Yet another one of Microsoft's scams against the computer. Just read this article and you'll understand: [url]http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX[/url] Now I'm not saying that OpenGL is the best thing ever, DX is alright but I still don't like the way that they are attacking everything else that isn't DX and are advertising it like it's the best thing ever.
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;20121703]Well surprise, that's the whole point of DX. Yet another one of Microsoft's scams against the computer. Just read this article and you'll understand: [url]http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-and-not-DirectX[/url] Now I'm not saying that OpenGL is the best thing ever, DX is alright but I still don't like the way that they are attacking everything else that isn't DX and are advertising it like it's the best thing ever.[/QUOTE] I already read that article, I really meant more like, this was made to advertise DirectX 11 like a thing that's really needed, showing what is already in many games (stairs), but in reality it's very big and noticeable things, keep in mind I'm not saying that DX 11 doesn't add anything, I just means that this overemphasize it.
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;20121703]Well surprise, that's the whole point of DX. Yet another one of Microsoft's scams against the computer.[/QUOTE] I love how because that article everyone starts thinking DX is some evil code which takes over peoples computers.
[QUOTE=BAZ;20122203]I love how because that article everyone starts thinking DX is some evil code which takes over peoples computers.[/QUOTE] I've never liked Microsoft, but it's the only choice I've got for playing good games on a computer. And isn't it obvious? I don't use a Mac or anything but seriously, if you look at them, why do all of the stationary mac's have a slick design and need no extra big box next to them? Everything is stored in the monitor. If microsoft would let the PC to develop, that could be the same for Windows pc's, but no. They won't, they are ruining the computer. Same thing here, OpenGL does the very same, if not better. Yet Microsoft is preventing it from developing aswell. Meh, who cares. Talking about it on facepunch won't help.
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;20122542] If microsoft would let the PC to develop, that could be the same for Windows pc's, but no. They won't, they are ruining the computer. [/QUOTE] MS does not hold PC from "developing" at all. It's hardware manufacturers that don't feel the need to stich all the shit in a monitor. And stiching it in monitor is a dumb idea. What if your monitor or display breaks? You will have to throw out entire computer. Macs are closed systems, they can afford that, but pcs have millions of combination, that's why you really can't and shouldn't do that. [editline]08:31PM[/editline] [QUOTE=PelPix123;20122641]DX11 isn't worthless. Just because the benchmark is biased doesn't mean the effect isn't real. The amazing part is that this is real-time subdivision and displacement of polygons with a depth map done in-gpu with a dedicated processor. Before tessellation, this took SEVERAL SECONDS on a triangle by triangle basis for a simple object. It doesn't matter what it's used for or how it's used. From a technological standpoint, it's amazing. Regardless of the implementation, the point is that, in the future, we can store higher levels of detail in models by using tessellation as a way to process geometry, allowing [I]billions[/I] of true polygons on screen at once. This demo just isn't that well made.[/QUOTE] Then why not use models with billions of polygons instead? If we can afford such high polygons, then why not just model a high poly mesh and put it ingame? Sure it's useful for some stuff, but it's a gimmick in all other aspects.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20122817]Because we [I]can't[/I] afford billions of polygons on screen at once without a hardware geometry processor like tessellation. CPU and central GPU processors don't have the power. They [I]need[/I] a separate processor to handle the geometry. What you're saying is like asking a pentium 3 to do soft body physics with 4000 complex meshes.[/QUOTE] Uhh no I'm not asking that. Let's see, when you tessalate a flat surface with displacement map, you get real triangles. So why can't you just import a mesh with real triangles in game and not use tessalation? If it can handle tessalated triangles, why can't it handle imported ones?
[QUOTE=Muscar;20106651]What? No, real shadows are sharper when the object is closer to the shadow, and blurrier the further away it gets.[/QUOTE] that's something possible under dx9 though [editline]01:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kidd;20110923]I Love DX11. What I don't get is why couldn't they just add it to DX10[/QUOTE] because the performance required for DX11 is more than the performance required for DX10, as was DX10 to DX9. if they added dx11 features to dx10 in an update, people with 8xxx cards or 3xxx cards would just bitch about not being able to pull off this or that feature.
PelPix123, you seem to think that the point of tesselation is in reducing the memory usage. It's true to a certain extent but most of the memory gets used up by textures and screen buffers anyway. In most current games there's usually less than a million polygons on screen, and if you take into account that a lot of them come from multiple instances of the same model, i doubt it would take more than a few megabytes to store all the model data. And beside that, you need an additional displacement map (it isn't necessary but you won't get any extra detail without it), which takes up some memory. If i remember correctly, all vertices need to be processed by the cpu first before it sends them over to the gpu, and tesselation greatly reduces the number of vertices that need to be stored in a model. That way a lot of work is offloaded from the cpu as most of the polygons are generated on the gpu. Like i already mentioned it's also about efficient LOD management. The more detail you need, the more subdivisions are applied. The amount of geometric detail can be easily finetuned, so there's never too little or too much (for performance reasons, of course) detail on screen.
The main problem with the way he is analyzing these details, and the ways that many people here are also analyzing them is that you hate to stand still and take the time to notice these differences. I'm sorry, but most of the subtle changes will be very hard to notice in active fluid game play. It isn't pointless or a waste of time, but it certainly feels that way when we just got dx10.
The rocks and stuff looked amazing but I'm a bit disappointed with the grass and tree, etc. [QUOTE=P3N15M4N;20094701][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR40GwRtFyw[/media] The guy who does the video is a freak but holy fuck look at this shit.[/QUOTE] Also why the fuck do you have Black-ice's avatar?
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;20113440]I hope to god VALVe cuts DX 8.x support, because I'm tired of them holding back their games from their true potential. It's not like we still run 1.6 GHz Pentium 4 machines with 512MB of RAM and a 64MB Radeon 7000.[/QUOTE] You nearly describe my PC...
Its simply amazing but thats a lot of wires and I really want to know how this would be with all the destruction engines and such.
dx10 to dx 11 looks alot like crysis dx 9 to dx 10. They just make the previous dx look like shit compared to the newer one. I'm pretty sure dx 10 can do just as much.
DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 10, DirectX 11. SHUT UP!!! It's very nice and all be he is annoying as fuck.
I really wish someone who actually knew the technology was narrating. DirectX has nothing to do with how many polgyons you can push onto the screen. I'm not saying that the benchmark is cheating by just switching between high and low poly models, but it's definitely not automatically generating the new polygons from the texture. It must be some new way of rendering minute details (because parallax mapping doesn't alter the wireframe like that) that DX10 doesn't support. That makes this video much less interesting because it's not like DX10 can't render details like that, it's just that it can't render them using the new method. [b]Edit:[/b] Oh, ok. It's tessellation. That doesn't make the video any less retarded. Switching between the two doesn't demonstrate any of the advantages of tessellation over previous methods. The guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Mind=Blown
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/437944396_b2f73a2996.jpg[/IMG] thread
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.