Why not DX11

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:01

X Rebirth will run on DX9 API as long as all the features that we need from the API are possible with it. That does not mean we may not at some point also support DX11, but for now we do not see a need.

What about tesselation? That can be applyed for asteroids and characters.
Next - destructions. Would be great if you use hundreds physics enabled fragments when ship explodes. Also about explosions, with DX11 you can implement 3d explosions - looks much better then 2d textures.
TXAA instead of MSAA.
and so on.

I can't understand why you created brand new engine from scratch based on outdated technology..

I really enjoy to pay again for DX11 version

johncage · Post by **johncage** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:04

probably because the engine was made many years ago. witcher 2 had a similar situation because its development time was very long.

smithy87 · Post by **smithy87** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:08

Just beat me to it! Although DX10 came out around the same time development started, I guess there wasn't enough difference between 9 and 10 to swap. 11 came out half way through the development cycle, i don't know how much of a pain it would be to modify the engine at that stage, but I guess ES had their reasons!

Cheers,

Smithy

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:08

Dx10 available since 2007 year...

but I guess ES had their reasons

Would be great to hear these reasons

DaMuncha · Post by **DaMuncha** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:14

DX9 can still do parallax occlusion which does allmost the same thing as Tesselation but I seriously doubt Ego would have done that.

smithy87 · Post by **smithy87** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:18

SolidSnakeRUS wrote:Dx10 available since 2007 year...

but I guess ES had their reasons
Would be great to hear these reasons

I'm no programmer, but I'm guessing that while its nice to have all the extra bells and whistles, they just weren't required for this game

Cheers,

Smithy

Sam L.R. Griffiths · Post by **Sam L.R. Griffiths** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:21

I believe it has been mentioned previously that the selection of DX9 was something to do with maintaining compatibility with XP.

If I were to hazard a guess, there were probably other more technical reasons for it as well.

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:25

DaMuncha wrote:DX9 can still do parallax occlusion which does allmost the same thing as Tesselation but I seriously doubt Ego would have done that.

Not same

Parallax applies in textures to bring 3d effect.
It cannot be applied for faces.
Tessellation makes low detailed 3d objects more complex.

I believe it has been mentioned previously that the selection of DX9 was something to do with maintaining compatibility with XP.

They could make 2 exe files, one with disabled dx11.
This approach used by many games.

I really enjoy to pay again for DX11 version

Night Nord · Post by **Night Nord** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:31

Because it will be ported to Mac OS X and Linux, so why spend time porting engine to the DX11 if it would be ported to the OpenGL anyway and OpenGL allows using any technique in any pipeline unlike DX.

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:I believe it has been mentioned previously that the selection of DX9 was something to do with maintaining compatibility with XP.

It was told that they are quite happy with current result and porting to DX11 now doesn't seem to be so much beneficiary. But they may change their mind some time in future. But again - Bernd also told once that they may abandon DX at all in favor of more cross-platform OpenGL.

helios · Post by **helios** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:37

I think Bernd mentioned in one Video, that they achieved their 'visual goals' with DX9 and saw no reason to raise the version number just for the sake of being able to ... well .. write a higher version number into the requirements.

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:44

Because it will be ported to Mac OS X and Linux, so why spend time porting engine to the DX11 if it would be ported to the OpenGL

I think that was the reason.

helios wrote:I think Bernd mentioned in one Video, that they achieved their 'visual goals' with DX9 and saw no reason to raise the version number just for the sake of being able to ... well .. write a higher version number into the requirements.

Look videos from first post - that should be goals.
Of course if you have minor visual goals, you can use dx9.

Valadis · Post by **Valadis** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:49

Bernd has explained they were able to do everything they wanted in DX9 and that it made no sense to them to spend time and money to bring it to DX11 just for the number. They are considering to update it at some point, though.
The game is looking outstandingly good as it is.

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 09:57

Valadis wrote:Bernd has explained they were able to do everything they wanted in DX9

Not everything that's obviously must be in the modern game.

The game is looking outstandingly good as it is.

Please, do not exaggerate

Looks fine, but not outstandingly.
I can show you really outstandingly graphics (still in development, but rendered in real time)

that it made no sense to them to spend time and money to bring it to DX11 just for the number.

Now, when game is almost ready and they will make some money which is good, i expect to see many improvements in any next releases (addon or next game).

Teleth · Post by **Teleth** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:11

SolidSnakeRUS wrote:
Valadis wrote:Bernd has explained they were able to do everything they wanted in DX9
Not everything that's obviously must be in the modern game.

The game is looking outstandingly good as it is.
Please, do not exaggerate
Looks fine, but not outstandingly.
I can show you really outstandingly graphics (still in development, but rendered in real time)

that it made no sense to them to spend time and money to bring it to DX11 just for the number.
Now, when game is almost ready and they will make some money which is good, i expect to see many improvements in any next releases (addon or next game).

DX11 would not change this scene in any meaningful way. It simply features low resolution texturing and isn't bombarded with fullscreen shader effects like most modern games.

DX10 was worthless.
DX11 brings few benefits, with the bonus of performing worse than DX9.

http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max- ... page6.html

As others have said, the engine is 'new' but was built quite a long time ago. Overhauling it now would take more than just a bit of effort.

A5PECT · Post by **A5PECT** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:13

Here's a question: if Egosoft had revealed the game with the same visuals that we're seeing now, but had told you it was created using DX11, would you have been able to tell they were lying?

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:19

A5PECT wrote:Here's a question: if Egosoft had revealed the game with the same visuals that we're seeing now, but had told you it was created using DX11, would you have been able to tell they were lying?

No, because they can use DX11 without any dx11 effects.

Halconnen · Post by **Halconnen** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:20

That screenshot people keep reposting because it looks terrible does not even have -shadows- in it yet. It's obviously not recent, and more recent looks at similar scenes look -drastically- different.

Also nothing that looks garbage about that screenshot would in any way be meaningfully improved by sticking DX11 on it and doing nothing else about it.

Except force some small(?) fraction of the playerbase to move away from XP(?). Honestly, this reason people give doesn't make sense to me either, though. The RAM requirements pretty much enforce a 64-Bit OS anyway. And 64-Bit XP was terrible.

SolidSnakeRUS · Post by **SolidSnakeRUS** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:22

DX11 brings few benefits, with the bonus of performing worse than DX9.
http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max- ... page6.html

It only means that max payne 3 game engine not perfect.

Teleth · Post by **Teleth** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 10:54

SolidSnakeRUS wrote:
DX11 brings few benefits, with the bonus of performing worse than DX9.
http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max- ... page6.html
It only means that max payne 3 game engine not perfect.

Apparently it is not the only engine either:
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/959814/is_ ... rison.html

Just look for the evidence yourself, or read the features of DX11. They're not worth re-tooling an entire engine for.

Deleted User · Post by **Deleted User** » Sun, 10. Nov 13, 11:43

quite simply: because they did not need it.
thank god.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Why not DX11

Why not DX11