Which DirectX Version is used for that game?

snooops

Hi,
i read this thread <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=109160" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=109160</a> and i realised that the game is using DirectX 9 is that true? I mean, we are at 11 now ...
Ok maybe not everything of 10 or 11 is usefull for NS2 but i think some stuff would be nice. Highe Res Textures, more shading power ...

What do you guys think?

Draco_2k

DX10-11 are exclusive to Vista/7 and do ###### all the moment.

So no, bad idea.

Crispix

You pretty much answered your own question of the thread title.

ASnogarD

A well optimised and structured Dx 9 engine is capable of presenting a high quality FPS, and for much lower requirements... and I rekon supporting multiple DX modes would be expensive timewise and maintenance wise for a small studio like UWE.

In short more gamers have Dx 9 capable machines than Dx 11 , or even Dx 10.

BJHBnade_spammer

9.0c anything lower and you cant play ns2 end of discussion

Karba

<!--quoteo(post=1768303:date=Apr 22 2010, 06:00 PM:name=ASnogarD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASnogarD @ Apr 22 2010, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A well optimised and structured Dx 9 engine is capable of presenting a high quality FPS, and for much lower requirements... and I rekon supporting multiple DX modes would be expensive timewise and maintenance wise for a small studio like UWE.

In short more gamers have Dx 9 capable machines than Dx 11 , or even Dx 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

At this moment, it uses DX9 SM 2.0, not even 3.0 :( , and still the system requeriments are too high if we look at the engine test recently released.

Slycaster

<!--quoteo(post=1768316:date=Apr 22 2010, 02:12 PM:name=Karba)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Karba @ Apr 22 2010, 02:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768316"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At this moment, it uses DX9 SM 2.0, not even 3.0 :( , and still the system requeriments are too high if we look at the engine test recently released.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

We're not, it's been stated many many times already that the engine is still going through optimization.

Hashashin

<a href="http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/690645-metro-2033-dx9-vs-dx11-without.html" target="_blank">http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/690645-m...11-without.html</a>
Dx9 looks almost the same as 11 anyway, tesselation is a barely noticeable gimmick.
Same thing with the new avp, I don't see any higher res textures going from 9 to 11.

Differences that you can't see without a magnifying glass and patience aren't worth a massive performance hit.

taleden

<!--quoteo(post=1768327:date=Apr 22 2010, 04:28 PM:name=Hashashin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hashashin @ Apr 22 2010, 04:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dx9 looks almost the same as 11 anyway, tesselation is a barely noticeable gimmick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

My understanding was that tesselation *could* look amazing, if the engine/modeler/developer/somebody bothered to add enough supporting data to make it work. See for example the Unigine Heaven benchmark (screenshots halfway through this article at HardOCP: <a href="http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/06/unigine_heaven_benchmark_dx11_tessellation)" target="_blank">http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/06/...1_tessellation)</a>.

The problem seems to be that DX11 still isn't very widespread, so developers can't be bothered to do all that extra work for a visual effect that only a tiny portion of their audience will see. But since developers don't bother making use of tesselation, gamers don't bother buying cards that will support it, and the cycle continues.

Ordinarily DX11 would spread faster as people just bought new cards for speed's sake, except the first generation of DX11 cards is barely any faster than last gen's DX10 cards, so gamers aren't motivated there either. So I wouldn't expect to see much tesselation til the next round of DX11 cards can offer a significant speed upgrade that gets gamers to buy them; once gamers buy them, developers will spend time implementing the tesselation, making more gamers want to buy the cards, and it'll take off. It's just going to take awhile.

spellman23

<!--quoteo(post=1768330:date=Apr 22 2010, 04:27 PM:name=taleden)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (taleden @ Apr 22 2010, 04:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My understanding was that tesselation *could* look amazing, if the engine/modeler/developer/somebody bothered to add enough supporting data to make it work. See for example the Unigine Heaven benchmark (screenshots halfway through this article at HardOCP: <a href="http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/06/unigine_heaven_benchmark_dx11_tessellation)" target="_blank">http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/06/...1_tessellation)</a>.

The problem seems to be that DX11 still isn't very widespread, so developers can't be bothered to do all that extra work for a visual effect that only a tiny portion of their audience will see. But since developers don't bother making use of tesselation, gamers don't bother buying cards that will support it, and the cycle continues.

Ordinarily DX11 would spread faster as people just bought new cards for speed's sake, except the first generation of DX11 cards is barely any faster than last gen's DX10 cards, so gamers aren't motivated there either. So I wouldn't expect to see much tesselation til the next round of DX11 cards can offer a significant speed upgrade that gets gamers to buy them; once gamers buy them, developers will spend time implementing the tesselation, making more gamers want to buy the cards, and it'll take off. It's just going to take awhile.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

1) Tesselation requires huge GPU power, and thus isn't here yet (drop from 60 to 30 fps on my $500 card? no thank you!)
2) Not enough games use tesselation yet anyways

So.... yeah. No need for NS2.

Basically, everything beyond DX9.0c have been adding very GPU intensive gimmicks that don't always provide extra flavor. More shaders? Parallax? Meh. And since not everyone have made the jump to higher GPU cards nor beyond WindowsXP, you're cutting off your market by jumping to the higher DirectX.

And since NS2 doesn't seem to require any of these gimmicks (and is primarily a multi-player game, not an eye candy game), no need.

Lemming Jesus

<!--quoteo(post=1768297:date=Apr 22 2010, 09:03 AM:name=snooops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooops @ Apr 22 2010, 09:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mean, we are at 11 now ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No, SOME of us are at 11. I recently upgraded to 11, but I don't expect everyone else to. There's nothing wrong with 9 and no reason to leave people out in the rain for minorities like us.

<!--quoteo(post=1768327:date=Apr 22 2010, 03:28 PM:name=Hashashin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hashashin @ Apr 22 2010, 03:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768327"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Dx9 looks almost the same as 11 anyway, tesselation is a barely noticeable gimmick.
Same thing with the new avp, I don't see any higher res textures going from 9 to 11.

Differences that you can't see without a magnifying glass and patience aren't worth a massive performance hit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's true and also totally false. You're right about those games. I believe AVP only uses tessellation on the alien model. Look up the Heaven benchmark tool. That really shows off tessellation and it is <i>very</i> cool. There's no games that are currently using it as well as they could which is too bad.

Hashashin

<!--quoteo(post=1768344:date=Apr 23 2010, 12:44 AM:name=Lemming Jesus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lemming Jesus @ Apr 23 2010, 12:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768344"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, SOME of us are at 11. I recently upgraded to 11, but I don't expect everyone else to. There's nothing wrong with 9 and no reason to leave people out in the rain for minorities like us.



That's true and also totally false. You're right about those games. I believe AVP only uses tessellation on the alien model. Look up the Heaven benchmark tool. That really shows off tessellation and it is <i>very</i> cool. There's no games that are currently using it as well as they could which is too bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Actually, there are real points in adding dx11 to NS2.
"Multi-Threading – The ability to scale across multi-core CPUs will enable developers to take greater advantage of the power within multi-core CPUs. This results in faster framerates for games, while still supporting the increased visual detailing.

DirectCompute – Developers can utilize the power of discrete graphics cards to accelerate both gaming and non-gaming applications. This improves graphics, while also enabling players to accelerate everyday tasks, like video editing, on their Windows 7 PC." -from the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/aboutGFW/pages/directx.aspx" target="_blank">microsoft page</a>

AvP runs noticeably better at times on dx11, with the same settings as it does on dx9, on my computer (I don't have tesselation).
So, although we may not all have cards that are dx11 ready, we can get something out of it.

Might be worth it considering a lot of us have dx10 ready cards.

Draco_2k

That's why you don't trust Microsoft.

Multi-core support and GPU computing are not, and never were, DX10/11-exclusive features. As was said a hundred times before, there is no notable improvement in translating the game to DX10/11 right now, and all but huge losses.

It might be a possibility in the future though.

spellman23

<!--quoteo(post=1768415:date=Apr 23 2010, 10:05 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Apr 23 2010, 10:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768415"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Multi-core support and GPU computing are not, and never were, DX10/11-exclusive features. As was said a hundred times before, there is no notable improvement in translating the game to DX10/11 right now, and all but huge losses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wait, you mean CUDA doesn't exist and doesn't require DX10/11????? I never knew that!!!!

Also, DX is a graphic driver. It has zero bearing on how many CPU's you get to use.

Draco's right, read up on your facts. Take a real programming/graphic architecture class.

analogy

What I wonder is how tessellation compares to parallax mapping and/or a more standard LOD approach. Parallax mapping doesn't give you the silhouette, but it performs massively better. I can see it using less memory/bandwidth than an LOD approach.

spellman23

<!--quoteo(post=1768445:date=Apr 23 2010, 02:03 PM:name=analogy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (analogy @ Apr 23 2010, 02:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I wonder is how tessellation compares to parallax mapping. Parallax mapping doesn't give you the silhouette, but it performs massively better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The difference is tessellation constructs actual geometry based on what is already there, adding geometric (think wiremesh) complexity. It gives more load to the geometry engine and the texture engine (and consequently the entire graphic pipeline).

Parallax is something added to the texture. It basically alters how the texture looks depending on your viewing angle, which gives the illusion of depth on the surface. It gives more load to the texture engine, and typically only the texture engine.

Tessellation, since it adds more geometry and thus also maps more textures to cover that geometry, will put a greater load on your graphics card.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1768445:date=Apr 23 2010, 11:03 PM:name=analogy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (analogy @ Apr 23 2010, 11:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I wonder is how tessellation compares to parallax mapping and/or a more standard LOD approach.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both tessellation and parallax mapping create actual geometry, the same triangles the models are made out of. Tessellation is much faster, efficient, and more versatile, whereas parallax mapping is generally... Crap. In fact it can't be used as a method of geometry compression for most surfaces - like normal mapping or tessellation are - at all.

The way either of those are preferable to plain geometry is memory requirement (much lower), and performance hit associated with rapidly accessing it.

Snoopie

DirectX 10 doesn't really do anything in most games. Slight texture upgrade but nothing DirectX9 can do better.
DirectX 11 does nothing lol. Oh great the shadows are just slightly smoother :( not much of a difference..

spellman23

<!--quoteo(post=1768453:date=Apr 23 2010, 02:59 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Apr 23 2010, 02:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768453"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Both tessellation and parallax mapping create actual geometry, the same triangles the models are made out of.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

????

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_mapping" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_mapping</a>

Pretty sure Parallax is purely texture work, i.e. "virtual" displacements.

ASnogarD

Thought it was simply taking a screenhot of a high poly model with the texture on it, exposing it to the various light sources you expect the surface to encounter and taking screenshots... which you convert to a texture and slap that on a low poly model, the trick is that the textures swap out depending on where the camera was looking at and / or the origin of the light source.

rebirth

<!--quoteo(post=1768303:date=Apr 22 2010, 05:00 PM:name=ASnogarD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASnogarD @ Apr 22 2010, 05:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768303"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A well optimised and structured Dx 9 engine is capable of presenting a high quality FPS, and for much lower requirements... and I rekon supporting multiple DX modes would be expensive timewise and maintenance wise for a small studio like UWE.

In short more gamers have Dx 9 capable machines than Dx 11 , or even Dx 10.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Actually... at least on steam, there are more DX10 capable machines than DX9 only ones:

<a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/" target="_blank">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/</a>

Suprised me too, but Win7 really helped to push DX10. Before that everybody had DX10 hardware but only DX9 OS because nobody liked Vista. Win 7 helped with that...

So computers able to run DX10 are not that rare anymore..

Hashashin

<!--quoteo(post=1768430:date=Apr 23 2010, 07:28 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Apr 23 2010, 07:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wait, you mean CUDA doesn't exist and doesn't require DX10/11????? I never knew that!!!!

Also, DX is a graphic driver. It has zero bearing on how many CPU's you get to use.

Draco's right, read up on your facts. Take a real programming/graphic architecture class.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Good idea, I'll go take a class in a field I'm not remotely interested in. Never said anything about cpus, maybe they mean gpu cores. I just know dx11 runs a lot better in avp then dx9 does. I'd check the difference in metro2033 too, but honestly I don't care enough and getting into an argument with a fanboy is always a bad idea.

Draco_2k

I believe what was actually said is, don't quote marketing execs as authority in the field you don't understand. Or, more generally, don't talk about things you don't know. Bad idea.

qwiggalo

Should be making it with OpenGL IMO.

I foresee a huge spike in Mac gaming forthcoming.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1768700:date=Apr 26 2010, 12:36 AM:name=qwiggalo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (qwiggalo @ Apr 26 2010, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Should be making it with OpenGL IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It'll be ported to OGL eventually, as part of Mac/Linus support, post-release. Otherwise, DirectX is the de-facto graphical platform to use.

<!--quoteo(post=1768700:date=Apr 26 2010, 12:36 AM:name=qwiggalo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (qwiggalo @ Apr 26 2010, 12:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768700"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I foresee a huge spike in Mac gaming forthcoming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lulz.

SN.Wolf

As an avid player of racing games i thought this might be a good example of the difference between dx10 and dx11 for those that have no idea what it looks like in poly.

Dirt 2 uses dx11 but not for everything(vista and 7 as stated above with compliant card), mostly for cloth (like flags and banners) and asthetics(crowds,trees,backdrops). I see no difference between the two when drifting through the water at 60MPH as a splash is a splash when your Sphincter is so tight you couldn't pull a pin out of it with a tractor because that wall is comming fast and you are only holding 1st by .001 seconds.

Anyways--- <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDFszGI3FwQ" target="_blank">watch DX11 Tesselation and crowd tesselated video</a>

ssjyoda

I wonder if all these people saying that dx9 can do all that dx10/11 can do have actually played a game that uses dx10/11... I'll agree that from screens they look almost identical, but in game... while everything is moving, differences are there.. simple example is crysis... actually play it, dont look at screens or videos.

Draco_2k

<!--quoteo(post=1768789:date=Apr 27 2010, 01:14 AM:name=ssjyoda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssjyoda @ Apr 27 2010, 01:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->simple example is crysis...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And also a very ironic one. No single feature in Crysis is exclusive to DX10, and all locked ones can be enabled under WinXP with a simple config edit.

It's not that DX10/11 aren't better or don't offer more stuff to play with, it's just that it isn't used right now, it's simply not worth it to either developers or consumers: cutting support to least generously 60% user-base and investing a ton of work in either of them bears zero benefit and huge losses.

More to the point, NS2 has few uses for any such things.

<!--quoteo(post=1768789:date=Apr 27 2010, 01:14 AM:name=ssjyoda)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ssjyoda @ Apr 27 2010, 01:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768789"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...crysis... actually play it, dont look at screens or videos.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, lol.

nNyxx

<!--quoteo(post=1768430:date=Apr 23 2010, 02:28 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Apr 23 2010, 02:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wait, you mean CUDA doesn't exist and doesn't require DX10/11????? I never knew that!!!!

Also, DX is a graphic driver. It has zero bearing on how many CPU's you get to use.

Draco's right, read up on your facts. Take a real programming/graphic architecture class.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

ACTUALLY, DirectX is not exactly a graphic driver, it's everything. Direct3D is the graphic driver of DirectX. DirectX actually does go into CPU calculations, as well as keyboard and mouse, hard drive, network, printers and more.

Draco_2k

It's a collection of drivers is the easy way to think about it.

A collection of drivers presented by a corporate entity which can withhold technological advancements in order to sell more units of product and has no obligation to improve the overall system due to lack of competition.

Good god we're stupid.

SN.Wolf

<!--quoteo(post=1768793:date=Apr 26 2010, 03:59 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Apr 26 2010, 03:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768793"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good god we're stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I conqure. LoL....the ability to express arguments over techno sofware extacy just because my number is bigger than yours, hmmmm, sounds like a drunkin' argument at a uranal.

Just remember the good 'ol days when frogger was just a pixilated "X" after being run over by a truck, or am i that old that no one has heard of frogger?