ISI Planning to convert RF2 from DX9 to DX10 or DX11 like iRacing did?

Not to mention Linux dedicated servers

 

The comparison video does not show much visual difference, I agree. The interesting thing is however the FPS > DX11 stays most of times @60fps (v-sync ON, I believe). The DX9 frames are much lower. Should be reason enough, especially if you consider the actual performance level in rF2. The move to DX11 will give better performance and might be easier to achieve than to optimize the DX9 version...it's future proof as well... and the end, the time invest might be justified at a certain point of dvp.

 

Honestly, arguing in favor of not moving to DirectX 11 is backwards logic. The performance gain should be rather noticeable and address one of the many issues that a lot of people (owners and non-owners of rFactor 2) write about - the poor performance of rF2 in systems.

 

You'll notice we don't argue in FAVOR of not moving, we simply state the reason we haven't yet. Those who do argue, are simply restating our reasons. Disagreements aren't always an argument, sometimes it literally is the sharing of information. Most of what I see in this thread so far is debating the benefits, and discussion of the reasons for doing it or not doing it.

 

FPS is good for me always has been how much do you need.

No matter how good it was people will still buy the same cards they did before.

Then they will just have more framerate then they need.

DX11 was not supposed to be about fps it was about smoke and fog and light and quality

lol


Anyway saying you are happy with DX9 is not arguing against DX11

ISI will do what they want anyways so all this talk is just hot air.

 

If having DX11 support in rF2 means that the gMaterial would have DX9 and DX11 modes like in rF1 (DX7, DX8, DX9 respectively) then no, thanks!
If, on the other hand, DX11 support would have no or minimal impacts on modding processes, then it might be a nice thing to have. Supposedly DX11 has better performance in some aspects, I don't really know.

 

+1

 

Just thinking aloud, Microsoft drop support for XP in 2014, and we still have a lot of people using XP also. That's a reason seldom mentioned.

 

That pCars video is nearly 400 builds out of date and probably isn't that relevant to rF anyway .

 

Thad vid shows that DX11 doesn't mean better graphics than DX9 automatically.

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Only 7% of XP user left... however 62% of non XP-OS have a dx11 card.

Seems pretty obvious where we're heading towards...

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for DX11 only.

 

Our product usage is a little bit higher than that. People on Steam would be more likely to stay up with technology than someone who might be sticking with rF1 for as long as they can, or trying to use the same XP system with rF2.

 

What I mean is that pCars and rF2 have different agendas . And we have no way to know what settings were used in that video or how it affected performance .

 

Microsoft - being a community based service-organisation - are well known for investing millions of dollars in things that they have no intention of pitching sales for, and of course have no interest in profit.

In other news, moving to Dx11 may provide some optimisation, but this is not necessarily the only place optimisation can be achieved. Therefore ISI have made the decision on balance that they are better off working on other code optimisation and content, until a better option than Dx11 comes along.

 

Yes, graphics quality is in game engine and artwork. It always have been.
DirectX and OpenGL are just interfaces that expose functionality of graphics card to game engine. They do not provide visual quality, only means to achieve it.
It's all in the hands of programmers and artists.

Haha, I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning

Very true.
Best optimization you can do is being smart about your content. If you can create something that looks good but is not complex and costly - you win.

 

Well thanks for all the reply's.

For me its a bit clear, but still its unbelieveble why ISI not looking to convert (or something) to DX10 or DX11. Alot guys have FPS or stuttering problems.
For me i have a i2700K, 8GB RAM, HD7950 and still FPS drops like hell. On Silverstone i have in pitlane 50FPS and when i almost exit it gives me 36 FPS.
Even when i drive its not stable and goes from 45 to 65/70. And when im on the old s/f straight it peaks at 140 fps.
All other sims, like AC it runs smooth over 100FPS and also that game is still in progress with similar game settings.
With RF2 u need to put some details higher because u can't see enough like racingline in dry or rain.
But still, i dont have a bad system but 45-65 FPS, stuttering, loosing frames and that huge fps drops in area's with almost no graphic stuff i feel its way off optimized. I feel they need to do more with it.

 

AMD cards aren't good in rF2

 

If it's still not believable (although nobody has said it isn't being looked at, those are 100% your words), read the replies again.

 

They refined their graphics engine at a higher priority in their development schedule. We're refining them later. I also hate to break it to you, but rF2 is rF2, AC is AC. They're different products with many differences overall and unless they have the same features when all said and done, programmed in the same way, they're not going to perform the same. You may as well come here and talk about how great Battlefield 3 runs, there's just no comparison possible when each product is different and at different stages of their own particular development. And no, this doesn't mean rF2 will always run worse, or that rF2 will run better than AC, or any other product it might be compared against.