Why not DX11
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
Nick 031287
- Posts: 1175
- Joined: Wed, 26. Jan 05, 21:30
I don't think going DX11 would make an enormous difference in how much you enjoy the game. Future expansions will probably use it though.
As far as technical aspects of the engine, I'm more concerned about how well they've implemented multi-threading. That will have a much bigger impact on playability than DX9 vs 11.
As far as technical aspects of the engine, I'm more concerned about how well they've implemented multi-threading. That will have a much bigger impact on playability than DX9 vs 11.
Have you watched the pathing video on youtube? It contains a lot of info about Rebirth and multithreading.leecarter wrote:I don't think going DX11 would make an enormous difference in how much you enjoy the game. Future expansions will probably use it though.
As far as technical aspects of the engine, I'm more concerned about how well they've implemented multi-threading. That will have a much bigger impact on playability than DX9 vs 11.
If they want a compatibility with XP, why make the game 64 bit only? Does not make sense. Not many people ever used 64bit XP...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.
If I were to hazard a guess, there were probably other more technical reasons for it as well.
Intel Core i5 4590, 2 x 8GB DDR3 1600, MSI GTX 1060 Armor, Asus H97 Pro, Asus Xonar DG, Crucial MX100 128GB SSD + 1TB WD Caviar Blue, Seasonic S12G 550W, Corsair 550D, 22'' LG
Since they said that everything they need can be done in Dx9, there's totally no point in using the much slower Dx11. As result the system requirements would raise significiantly.
Dunno why people ask for "higher numbers must be better" if all that'll possibly do is to remove the ability to play XR for half the players due to having an older PC.
So, instead of asking "why not ?" I would rather return the questions as "why ?" - 'cause there's been no single proper reason named yet. Not that it could anyways, since nobody (who's not under NDA) saw the actual game.
Dunno why people ask for "higher numbers must be better" if all that'll possibly do is to remove the ability to play XR for half the players due to having an older PC.
So, instead of asking "why not ?" I would rather return the questions as "why ?" - 'cause there's been no single proper reason named yet. Not that it could anyways, since nobody (who's not under NDA) saw the actual game.
Yeah, they did say that, and Tbh? I am happier for it.
I would rather them get what they need done and maximize the potential of DX9, than use DX11 just "Because" and throw in a bunch of FPS reducing useless things...
People need to get out of the mindset that DX11 is "Just better" just because it has a higher number.. Yes DX11 is far more advanced, and has quite a few new features added to it compared to DX9, but really? If the devs had a vision, and that vision was 100% obtainable with Dx9? All the more power to them!
plus...cmon, the game looks absolutely gorgeous! and i wouldnt trust the 2-3 screenshots that look semi-low quality too much.
I would rather them get what they need done and maximize the potential of DX9, than use DX11 just "Because" and throw in a bunch of FPS reducing useless things...
People need to get out of the mindset that DX11 is "Just better" just because it has a higher number.. Yes DX11 is far more advanced, and has quite a few new features added to it compared to DX9, but really? If the devs had a vision, and that vision was 100% obtainable with Dx9? All the more power to them!
plus...cmon, the game looks absolutely gorgeous! and i wouldnt trust the 2-3 screenshots that look semi-low quality too much.
most likely at the time they were decided on the API, they didn't know they were going to use 64bit, that requirement most likely came much laterplynak wrote:If they want a compatibility with XP, why make the game 64 bit only? Does not make sense. Not many people ever used 64bit XP...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.
If I were to hazard a guess, there were probably other more technical reasons for it as well.
-
SolidSnakeRUS
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon, 2. Aug 04, 13:59
Why not DX11 - name of this thread.
But look at first post.
I wrote a few visual improvements that can be introduced in future.
If it can be implemented with dx9 - ok. Let's rename thread to "Egosoft, would you like to implement some of this features in future games?".
Or to "top 10 visual features for future X games".
But look at first post.
I wrote a few visual improvements that can be introduced in future.
If it can be implemented with dx9 - ok. Let's rename thread to "Egosoft, would you like to implement some of this features in future games?".
Or to "top 10 visual features for future X games".
Last edited by SolidSnakeRUS on Fri, 15. Nov 13, 11:56, edited 1 time in total.
-
Hippotastic
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Tue, 10. Feb 09, 22:17
I would think this is the answer. DX9 to openGL is going to be much better, and if we are to see a successful Linux and eventually steambox version, DX will be abandoned all together. Is is after all a Microsoft technology for Windows, the rest of the platforms will be openGL. Why not make the engine openGl native and fully cross compliant?Night Nord wrote: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.
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.