why this is a bad move I think and I think many other people will agree why cant you guys do directx 10 at least
dx9 for the launch... to my knowledge nothing else has been confirmed. RF2 is a long term projet and I'm sure ISI will (have to) use other dx version in the future.
Because at this stage there is no reason to start with newer DX versions. Personally I don't believe we will see new DX intil a few years. It requires reprogramming of core of gfx engine. So my bet is rF3 or so but still see no reason to do that since amazing results may be achieved even with dx9.
They have ported a pre-beta code to DX10 but the result was a huge performance lost (lower frame rates). Visual improvements in DX10 is no significant to become a standart at this time. So meanwhile ppl still could use old boxes to play.
the main thing i was meaning was for directx 11 because of tessellation visually would make this game what the visual needs
This is a bad sign for the future of rF2. Graphics innovation has already passed this title by even though it's not even out yet. DX10/11 games look better than rF2. Period. There's so much that they are passing by not moving ahead to the current (not future) generation of graphics. Assetto Corsa is going to eat ISI's lunch.
I think the strategy of sticking to Directx 9 is valid, as software engineer i know that is not easy to get a fine balance between quality and physics. The ATI / Nvidia market has some differences in its features and it is up to developers to implement a platform that generates the least amount of contingencies, always considering to end users (those affected). For those that prefer "state of the art" graphics, there are always alternatives in the market and the amount of existing products today opens the range of possibilities for everyone to be comfortable with a simulator based on your preferences. I sill choose to play a "tetris like simulator" with the best adchiveable physhics as posibble. To better analyze the whole think, we must also need to evaluate the economical / financial state of every company and their goals (objectives). More resources also mean a bigger and dedicated working team.
DX11 games look better because people who made them are now more experienced than when they wrote DX9 games And because nowadays graphics cards are far more powerful and can push more polygons and higher texture detail. There are many other factors, that influence quality of graphics nowadays like better tools, libraries and more online resources. DirectX is just an interface between game engine and graphics card. It will not determine how game looks. You can update to DirectX50 if you want, but you will still be using the same 3D models, the same textures and.... the same graphics card Game's visual quality is in the artwork and lighting algorithms. Of course DX11 is better than DX9, but you shouldn't think of it as some kind of "magical remedy" that will boost game's visuals. If ISI would rewrite their code to DX11, you would see literally identical game.
Joe, Microsoft does a pretty good job in making people believe that DirectX version is one of the most important factors in game quality, so I wouldn't blame ordinary people for falling for it Another thing that gamers commonly believe is that DirectX is better for games, while OpenGL is more suitable for CAD applications. This myth certainly suits Microsoft I'm gonna play a little mythbuster now and show you guys an interesting blog entry from Valve Software: LINK Windows 7 64-bit, DirectX - 270 FPS Windows 7 64-bit, OpenGL - 303 FPS Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit, OpenGL - 315 FPS Beware of myths It's better to leave decisions about DirectX version to developers.
With all due respect, rFactor2 already looks outdated. It drives great, feels great and has awesome FFB. It looks like it stepped out of 2008. Yes, the many features that DX 10 & 11 implement mean something. And yes, if AC manages to drive as well as rF2, rF2 will be still born.
here a comparison between dx9 e dx11 in metro game do you note incredible differences? No! because as said K Szczech :
Gran Tourismo 5 runs on DirectX 9 class hardware. This is ingame: This is photo mode: As you can see - lighting, shadows and general look is pretty much the same. Photo mode just adds some frame effects like depth of field and of course higher quality car models. Keep in mind that PS3 only had 256MB of system memory, 256MB of graphics memory and a graphics processor that was comparable to GeForce 7900 GTX. So you couldn't just load all these quality car models and textures into memory and drive them. That's why you could only get such image quality in photo mode, where models could be loaded from disk while rendering. But it doesn't change the fact, that this kind of rendering realism was implemented on pre-DX10 hardware. It was just the memory and processing power limits that kept game from looking like this while driving Nowadays we have gigabytes of system memory and usually from 1GB up on our graphics cards. Not to mention increase in processing power. This photo mode from Gran Tourismo 5 could run in realtime now. This should give you an idea of how good a DirectX 9 engine can look nowadays. It's not DX11 that make modern games look better - it's the fact that these games are... modern In other words - it's the general progress altogether. DX11 is just one of many factors and while it plays it's part in final result, it's not the most important one.
It actually does have SOME bearing on how a game looks, but more importantly, it has a massive effect on how your hardware is utilised. DX11 is miles more efficient than DX9, especially on decent gfx cards and multi-cored cpu machines. DX11 also has far more efficient ways of coding lighting algorithms. The most important thing for me though, is the day that all software is minimum 64-bit. We are nearly into 2013, I have been using 64-bit chips for 8 years, and still we have to put up with 32-bit executables, and 32-bit mod tools. I appreciate that software developers have to cater to the widest audience, but if you are in any shape or form serious about simming or gaming in general, then please buy a 64 bit operating system and catch up with the rest of us. I will throw a party for everyone when the last 32 bit executable gets programmed.
This. If the team is already up to the buggy hubs with work getting the current version out, discussing DX9 vs DX whatever is an academic exercise. We have what we have. The best of rFactor is the amazing multiplayer racing. If they're spending time working on weather, time compression, a dynamic track surface among other physics, and we get rF2 tracks that look like Virtua_LMs, why worry? The racing sims that should be concerned aren't the ones with those features, but he ones that have those features missing. It is still amazing some of the heralded titles don't have day-night-day time transition and their track feel is like ice racing with little tactile feedback. Everyone is anxious to see Kunos work as well as GTR3, and pCars. Is there any racer who isn't planning to purchase them all?
I guess not all understood KSzczech words. I'll try to translate using some more clear (but brutal) words: - if programmers are not able to develop engine being able to reproduce some light effects in correct way, for examble reflections, HDR, bloom, they don't know how bright is sun comparing to rest of the scene or how correctly reproduce dawn/dusk and time near those day times - if gfx artists are no skilled enough to force programmers to implement basic light phenomena and are ok with just diffuse shaders ... then it doesn't really matter what DX version is utilized. DX9 or DX11 or even DX50 will look the same. Switching into DX11 will not turn rf2 visuals to GT5/AC/pCARS quality. Tessellation (referred in earlier posts) will not appear just because engine is rewritten to DX11. To get this feature into work, it must be designed into gfx engine. The same with the rest image quality/real-look. It must be programmed in way to give realistic result. If programmers and artists (but in case of rF2 - programmers) are not able to provide such effects with using of DX9, switching into DX11 will change nothing. AC will eat rF2 not because it is running in newer DX. It is because programmers did the homework. AC would look the same even in DX9.
Or even simplier: Tesselation, instancing, compute shaders, conditional rendering, geometry shaders, multithreading - neither one of these will change the way car looks What is needed to make a proper look of the car is allready there in DX9. Switching to DX11 will be a decision dictated by performance requirements. Eventually, ISI will have to do this but don't think that the way rF2 looks will change with it. For now, ISI has some other issues to deal with, like getting correct reflections. At the moment, what is reflected in car doesn't properly match it's surroundings which pretty much stops us from seeing good reflections on cars. And rF2 doesn't do justice to sky and sun brightness which additionally decreases the impressions we get from reflections, lighting and HDR. The technology is allready implemented in rF2, but we still don't see it's potential. Partially because we don't get updated content with every build (that would be too much do download every time), but mostly due to the fact that some things have been left for later.
I agree with you to a degree K Szczech, It may not vastly change how the car looks, but it would be vastly more efficient for the majority of the users on these boards with the newer hardware i expect that the majority of us own. Sometimes Rfactor2 genuinely looks pretty, yet other times it doesn't look too far away from a PS2 game. " For now, ISI has some other issues to deal with, like getting correct reflections. At the moment, what is reflected in car doesn't properly match it's surroundings which pretty much stops us from seeing good reflections on cars. And rF2 doesn't do justice to sky and sun brightness which additionally decreases the impressions we get from reflections, lighting and HDR. The technology is allready implemented in rF2, but we still don't see it's potential. Partially because we don't get updated content with every build (that would be too much do download every time), but mostly due to the fact that some things have been left for later. " Call me a pessimist, but if all the features you talk about will make Rfactor2 into a looker, i'm afraid i can't see it myself. All the builds i have tried so far, just seem to be trial and error on the gfx front. Fix one thing, break another. There doesn't seem to be any consistency. I appreciate that it's a beta, but a lot of these things should have been nailed down by now. The more i play it, the more it just seems like the rfactor1 engine with realroad chucked on, and some stab at adding gfx effects to an engine that was never designed for it. This is obviously just my opinion.
