Directx

Discussion in 'Technical Archives' started by Josh Pedersen, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Don't worry. I think the same since the first screenshots has been shown. But most of people don't see a problem.

    BTW: I'm curious when ISI and modders will figure out, that materials like tarmac, concrete or paper still reflect something (for example sky) even when not directly lit by a sun (for example under shadow).
     
  2. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    Well, some of things that appear broken to us come from the fact that we get new build but we're running content that was released with previous builds. So, they're only broken on our end, while not requiring any work from ISI staff, except for releasing updated content one day.

    At the same time I see a lot of things that clearily indicate that ISI guys are still learning. They do some things in one way and differently in next build, so yes - kinda "trial and error".

    But that's graphics programming - any programmer can learn to use DirectX to put some polygons and textures on screen. The key to success is in the way you think and thinking doesn't just change from day to day - it evolves slowly as you bocome aware of new things.
    I've implemented my first HDR in 2006 and my understanding of this technology has gone a long way since then. If you consider that a year ago ISI wasn't even sure if they will implement HDR or not, then you can't expect them to get all lighting correctly so soon. It will take some time before they figure it all out. Some of the things they do still bear a mark of pre-HDR thinking.

    That's why switching to DX11 won't change a thing in the way rF2 looks. And we can't just tell ISI to make better graphics. You really can't expect a company that doesn't release games at regular basis to just step up to world's top standards in that domain. They're doing their best, but they're still learning.


    What we're getting is a simulation and that's the goal. It would of course be fantastic to get it with realistic graphics that would add to overall immersion and let us enjoy it even more, but if we can't get it then this is just a fact we have to accept. ISI will deliver what they can deliver.
    Perhaps increasing competition will force ISI to keep working on (and learning :) ) graphics, perhaps not, but I think this constant talk about graphics here and there will encourage ISI to put more emphasis on the subject.
    In the end, anything important enough to customer, is an area that you compete in with other companies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2012
  3. Mitt Wilson

    Mitt Wilson Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have to say I now put Joe On the platform callled kickAss Dude lol Let them know Joe let them know lool
     
  4. martymoose

    martymoose Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    13
    DX is just great marketing I'm sorry to say, it does have some good new tools that can be used but not many games would look or perform much different. Maybe games should not be in direct x at all and be programed in open gl which can do all direct x does without all the marketing spin and BS associated with it. Thanks to Microsoft and GFX card manufacturers who are only in the business of making money and have no interest in improving products or software much beyond what they need to comfortably to make the most profit possible. Along the way if they dont bring enough new to the table and want to push a few more sales they will bring out a new dx version shipped with the shiniest new software to push through some more sales.

    Open gl is a true cross platform option unlike directx that is purely a windows based system from microsoft, talking up new versions of direct x sells lots of hardware and software. This is shown quite easily by Microsoft forcing users to upgrade to a new OS because they wont allow new versions of dx in older OS software. Games are then made with new versions of dx which if you want to run the card you bought 6 months before wont run unless you go and buy a new one. Sure the newer card will run things better but there should be no reason why the games cant be programed with features not available on older hardware being unavailable yet it can run on ant hardware.

    You know all those extremely cool car renders and movies with CGI scenes in them, they are all made within open gl programs and none of these use dx.

    It wouldn't be a bad thing for 3d software if dx died like glide I think it was called by 3DFX which was killed off by Nvidia and Microsoft with the new dx implementation. A true open standard like Open GL would be better for all and there is no reason why the same results using current hardware cant be achieved using Open GL instead of a closed proprietary setup like dx used for no reason other then forcing faster hardware and software updates on people then they would most likely do otherwise.

    I do like the latest hardware and use pretty current high end hardware but if were weren't stuck with dx pushed down our throats by a money hungry corporation trying to milk us from as much money as possible, software could be coded in Open GL giving a better end result for all in the long run for purposes of actual advancement in software and not just to make a few people rich.
     
  5. Deci=EWE=

    Deci=EWE= Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its quite simple.. you cant polish a turd without getting very messy.

    its just a beefed up old version of rfactor and no matter how much they say otherwise, its visual performance and quality is lacking when compared to most other more modern game engines. I have worked with a few engines now, and I must say that this one is lagging behind.

    Take a look at what the unreal engine is able to do with even dx9 and it makes other look like they are being rendered on a commodore 64. The ego engine from codies can and does produce awesome visuals even in dx9, turn on dx11 and its very pretty and it performs.

    I fully understand that this title has not gone gold yet, but so far it is just a polished turd
     
  6. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29

    IMO those are completely wrong assumptions.
    OGL for long years has been stuck. Slow development comparing to hardware and new features made the current situation. It's understandable that at some point companies started to ignore OGL as serious API because DX gave them more powerful and complete solution.

    BTW I'm working with a lot of open software and all those stuff basically sucks at some stage. I really don't want to have DX unstable, unfinished, incomplete as other open source, community driven projects. Of course I don't want to ssay that commercial soft is always 100% perfect. But mostly is better and gives certainty it will not be dropped half-a-way.

    Yes, DX is slower a bit than OGL. But it works on all gfx cards as expected. I believe that DX is still most comprehensive solution for windows based machines. It is not Microsoft fault ;)



    BTW: you don't like DX but on other hand you are glad it has killed glide. Enemy of my enemy if my friend? ;)
     
  7. Abriel Nei

    Abriel Nei Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    37
    How many racing simulations use unreal engine? Taking a wild guess I would say close to (if not exactly) zero. On the other hand gMotor is used by quite a few so I guess they did something right.

    Also why don't you play something with ego engine? It has dx11!

    Its quite simple...
     
  8. dandar

    dandar Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    15
    Lol ! some are asking for DirectX 15 support ... and the game is not yet working on DirectX 9 :rolleyes:

    Just kidding ! Don't shoot at me :D
     
  9. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Yep. It was right 10 years ago.
    That's why companies developing sims based on ISI platform, improved gfx engine on their own.
     
  10. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    I cannot agree with that. NVIDIA's support of OpenGL is always on par with DirectX. They do a pretty good job in keeping OpenGL on top of it's game.
    ATI was falling behind at some point but they stepped up aswell (it was still ATI then :) ).

    No disrespect meant, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you compare OpenGL with open source software :)

    First of all, OpenGL is implemented within graphics drivers by hardware vendors and no one else. So why would it have more errors or compatibility issues than DirectX?

    Another thing you seem not to be aware of is that with DirectX, a set of features is defined in API and then supported by hardware. With OpenGL, a set of features is provided by hardware and exposed in API by hardware vendor himself.

    I can even access geometry shaders from OpenGL 1.5, which was released over 3 years before GeForce 8 and almost 4 years before Windows Vista.

    Yeah, Vista - the reason why I was only using DirectX 9 on my DirectX 10 compatible graphics card :) I waited until Windows 7 showed up before I switched straight to DirectX 11, but in the meantime I could play with geometry shaders using OpenGL on my good old Windows XP.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2012
  11. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Call it metaphor or so.
    I didn't say that OGL contains bugs. I said that community driven open source products (or standards in case of OGL) are in most cases worse (bugs are a part of examples I worked with). Some years ago OGL development has been stuck, that's why companies like ATI or nV stopped to seriously support it for a while. Don't know if you remember but there was a timespan years ago with very weak OGL support for those gfx cards (at least for some).

    This is why DX has been developed. To provide complete, documented and closed set of methods valid for all HW.
    Which may be considered as powerful feature comparing to OGL.

    Point is, that it is not Microsoft which made OGL not popular. If DX was bad API, and OGL was great, hardware manufacturers as well as programmers would chose second one.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2012
  12. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    First of all OpenGL is not community driven, it's industry driven.
    That's why it's called industry standard. I know it's often referred to as "open standard", but don't let it mislead you.

    Actually community was let down twice by the way OpenGL was developed, because industry decided otherwise.

    No, it doesn't really work this way.

    Take Radeon X vs GeForce 6 - they were direct competitors on the market, yet one supported Shader Model 2.0 and the other 3.0.
    To take advantage of SM3.0 features you needed to compile your application against DirectX 9.0c which defined a set of features not supported by Radeon X.

    So that "closed set of methods valid for all HW" you talk of is nothing but a fairy tale. How do you think it's possible that Half Life 2 can have HDR and still run on GeForce 4?
    It will be still using DirectX 9.0c when launched on DirectX 8 hardware and programmer will have to check for himself what given hardware can do and what it cannot.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2012
  13. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    But he must not dig in low-level methods.
    You wrote example that using OGL you were able to use geometry shaders without dx support. I believe this way you can access gfx card without using any API, just access hardware directly. But "high-level" api is designed just to simplify tasks and provide compatibility.

    In other words, it is not a case something is doable. It does matter how easy it can be achieved.
    So coming back to the subject: there must been a reason that OGL left behind DX.
     
  14. Deci=EWE=

    Deci=EWE= Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do I have a tri screen setup, I run dx 11

    and like most people you more than likely did not even read what I typed...

    i will make it more simple for you.

    The base graphics engine ( NOT THE PHYSICS )on which the current so called "Rfactor 2" is a badly upgraded version of the old one... and they cant deny it...

    its old, outdated and has been left behind when compared to all the other graphic rendering engines.

    Like I have aid before, yes I know its not out of beta, but i am so glad I did not waste my $$ on the lifetime sub, becuase I will not be renewing it.
     
  15. MarcG

    MarcG Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    6,854
    Likes Received:
    2,234
    ...and as has been said a thousand times ISI simply dont have the staff numbers to make high quality graphics, instead they have a small team working on all areas so you cant expect everything to be amazing off the bat.

    Also comparing Epic MegaGames Unreal Engine to ISI's is just plain pointless, they had more staff working on Unreal 1 than ISI have now.....and thats a fact as I knew them (Epic) very well indeed in the early days! Fact is RF2 is an ongoing project beyond when it goes Gold so chances are we may get a nice fancy Graphics update further down the line, for now live with it or dont, the choice is yours.
     
  16. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    A lot depends on how content is prepared.

    Proper modding tools should take care of all optimizations. Unfortunately, in rF2 we have simple tools that make more less direct export from 3D Studio. It means content must be optimized manually by modder.

    This needs to change in the first place before we even start to think about DX11.
     
  17. Adrianstealth

    Adrianstealth Registered

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,578
    Likes Received:
    1,071
    My choice of racing sim will be solely based on the best physics with the best ffb,

    Graphics are secondary (to me), of course if the sim has the best physics ffb & graphics then that a bonus

    If a sim came out with totally perfect photo real graphics but bad physics/FFB then I really wouldn't be interested at all

    I will not compromise on physics/FFB for graphics
     
  18. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    Even with average graphics you still need good performance.

    And you can have all - realistic physics, realistic graphics and good performance. Technically it's quite doable, but requires certain "know how" in each domain. Some companies dwell in physics while others are more focused on graphics - I cannot name even one company on the planet that has mastered both.
     
  19. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    I cannot name even one company on the planet that has mastered single one ;)
     
  20. the_last_name_left

    the_last_name_left Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    FWIW

     

Share This Page